 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/1/2001 1:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | Here goes nothin’:
Doc said, and I agree:
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.
Semeia responded:
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?
Modes suggests:
Yes, that is what doc was suggesting and what must be recognized unless we are to say that remarriage is "enduring sin" as Meph put it.
Doc said: As I read it, Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of the those who were trying to establish "justified grounds" for divorce.
Semeia said:
No. Throughout this whole passage Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of those who would point to someone else’s sin as worse than their own. He goes through various commandments and raises the standard, demands perfection, not because people are capable of perfection, but in order to get people to focus on their OWN sinfulness, not that of others.
Modes says:
I’d say doc got it right. Semeia brings too much in to this from the outside at this point. More later….
Both Doc and Trosie said: Didn't Jesus himself tell the woman caught in the act of adultery to "go and sin no more" (Jn 8).
Semeia says:
Yes, he certainly did. And Jesus, being perfect, is the only one who can say that. My question to you is: do you think she went and sinned no more? Do you think we are in a position to judge another’s sin? Do you think we are told that story so that we can more effectively judge and admonish the adulterers of the world, or do you think we are being asked to look inside our own hearts, so that we may "go and sin no more"? What is the ratio? Should someone with a log in their eye be telling people with a speck in theirs to "go and sin no more"? Or is that the definition of the word "hypocrite". Can any of us escape that?
And Semeia continues:
What I have been trying to express throughout this whole thread is this:
Many, and perhaps most, of our sins are not separable from ourselves. Once your Dad was divorced it was not possible for him to be "undivorced". Same with my parents: once divorced, always divorced. It's not something you can be rid of. Same with remarriage. Take the commandment: Honor your mother and father. In real life, how much do we live up to that? In the case of my relationship with my parents, and my children's relationship with me, we'd be much more consistent if the commandment was Torture your mother and father! It's not something I ever lived up to when my parents were alive, and I don't see a lot of evidence for it in my own children. Life is messy. I've never met anyone who even came close to measuring up to the ten commandments as Jesus speaks of them.
Modes wonders:
What DID Christ’s death accomplish in terms of empowering my toward freedom IN THIS LIFE? What good IS the Spirit if it cannot truly defeat my sin? As far is the east is from the west are my sins from me. If this is not true, than I am of all most to be pitied. I DID go through a radial transformation, and no, I am not know perfect, but I am redeemed and learning how to resort to that fact for my sake and those around me. My sense is that, Semeia, you concede far to much to sin for those who have been set free. This is based on some problems with defining sin inconsistently. Sometimes you say sin happens to us, other times it seems you grant that it is a matter of the will. Almost always, you act as though if sin is discussed publicly, it is automatically a threat to someone’s salvation or eternal security. Sometimes this seems to be a concern about others perceptions of a person who wrestles with sin and their ideas about the sinner’s salvation. Let’s nail some things down. See below….
Semeia said:
So my question all along has been this: if we cannot rid ourselves of the sin, how do we "speak against sin" without "judging the sinner"? How do we speak against the sin of divorce without judging the divorced person? How do we speak against the sin of homosexuality without judging the homosexual? How do we speak out against the sin of adultery in remarriage without judging the remarried person? How are any of these people ever separated from the sin so that you can speak of the sin without judging THEM?
Jesus suggests a way, and Bonhoeffer explains it: the only way to speak against sin without judgment is to live the law ourselves. There is no other way.
That does not mean that we don't intervene when someone is self-destructing or harming others, but we only do so in a situation of accountability like Mephi described earlier. And it's certainly O.K. to give people feedback when they are having a negative affect on you. But when you "judge" their behavior by calling it "sin" (instead of just giving feedback about its negative affect on you) then you are adding your sin on top of theirs.
Modes says:
Almost. I still affirm that God can and does speak through us to each other. God reveals sin to us so that we can recognize the problem. But here again, I am not talking about self-righteous hypocrites, but speakng in fear and trembling, understanding that it is God that requires this of us, and with the admission and humility necessary as another who falls short of God’s intention. Semeia, do you agree that God can and sometimes does do this? Especially in relatively healthy communities of faith?
doc had:
Questions Questions Questions
1) Even if you say that the list is about behaviors that dominate people, are you not still stuck with Paul giving a pronounced judgement on certain behaviors (viz. bondage behaviors) as sin? And do you then agree that a person who is in bondage to stealing, or gossiping, or adultery, or homosexuality, etc... will not enter the kingdom of heaven? And if so, how can someone help a person in this bondage without pointing out that, whether they know it or not (and some do not), their lifestyle (bondage behavior) is destroying them and will ultimate eternally destroy them?
Icon said in response to #1:
Paul is indeed judging these behaviors. He is both judging them in the negative (condemnation) sense and in the positive (take action to help sense). He is human. In my estimation his primary intent is to take action to help: "you are to hand this man over to the accuser (ha-satan) for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." One might go so far as to interpret this as: "Do not enable this person and become codependent on him – allow him the full due of the consequences of his behavior so that he may "hit bottom" and freely choose to be helped back to a life-affirming path." The birth of AA…
Modes asks:
Icon, when you say Paul is human here, are suggesting that he is sinning by condemning? Just wondering.
Icon continues:
There are two types of people in bondage behavior: Addicts (primarily self-destructive) and Predators (primarily other-destructive). People caught in this behavior are in a death-pattern. They need help and they need it now – both for their own sake and for the sake of those around them. They are disrupting the living patterns, which invites others into a death-pattern as well. These folks are headed for very negative life-consequences – right now and potentially for eternity.
The only way to point this out to these folks is through consequences clearly tied to their behavior. Accusation and condemnation just won’t cut it.
Modes asks:
Is it possible that a person like this might be saved? Or must they be freed from the death-pattern for salvation? Are we not more complex than some of our death-patterns? Tell me about the difference between a person who is walking in the Spirit (Romans 8) and one who is not, with regard to their relation to death patterns. I think you will have to acknowledge that both persons could potentially have them (death patterns, that is).
Icon continues:
In my view the core issue here in any case is us not judging good and evil or in any way condemning our brother. There is only the one goal: Love the lord God and Love each other. Part of our charter is to help create a society – a living pattern of interactions, social rules and so on that encourages this. Allowing behavior that destroys the living patterns is not loving and must be addressed. "A little leaven …" However we must be very careful in how we address this so that we don’t ourselves destroy the living patterns by resorting to our own knowledge of good and evil. We do this by always keeping at the forefront of our attention what our goal is and by continuing to allow ourselves to be transformed into His image.
Make no mistake – this bondage behavior has natural and logical consequences. The Pharisees behavior however does not – and can actually lead to the unforgivable sin – seeing good and calling it evil.
Modes wonders:
I hear this, but I see here the rejection of the words "good" and "evil" as you and Meph mused about. You two seem happy enough to use the language of good and evil at times and at others it seems to be the root of all error. I am confused. Either use it or reject it, but doing both is confusing. Your last paragraph above is clearly too simple. We are more complex than this and God’s grace is more thorough than to leave us with no opportunities for repentence. Notice, I said God’s grace. Our responsibility is to respond in humility to God’s grace and God’s leading. That is what Semeia’s signature indicates, I believe. That seems to me to be the essential and underemphasized point. We repent, and the Church, corporately, is CALLED to preach repentence to all. We are to proclaim the good news and give opportuity for repentence. What do you two make of doc’s alter calls?
Doc said:
2) It seems to me that there must be a distinction you're making between (say) a remarried person who is in adultery, yet going to heaven, and an adulterer who is in bondage to their behavior and, according to I Cor. 6, not going to heaven. Can you flesh this out? What, for example, would a non-bondage practicing homosexual person look and act like, as opposed to the bondage homosexual person of I Cor. 6:9.
Semeia responds:
A non-bondage practicing homosexual would look a lot like a non-bondage practicing heterosexual, except that homosexuals in most states are not allowed to marry, so long-term committed relationships would stand in the place of marriage. And sex outside of those relationships would be considered adulterous.
Modes asks:
So it is not enough to say that the lifestyle is sin, but that it lacks a sign of the covenant and additionally retains the possibility of adultery? Let’s not complicate things this much. Semeia do you believe that homosexual activity is sin or not? That is enough isn’t it? It is for my purposes see below.
Semeia said:
Bondage behavior in homosexuals looks a lot like bondage behavior in heterosexuals: promiscuity, sex-addiction, prostitution, dangerous activities, criminal behavior, etc. Bondage behavior shows up over time in the person’s life: they lose their job, their relationships, their freedoms—life starts to fall apart after a while.
Incidentally, that is exactly why Jesus focused far more of his energy on Phariseeism than on bondage behavior. Bondage behavior has natural negative consequences that eventually lead to a person "hitting bottom". Most people know they need help when they reach that point, and suddenly they are more open to a different view. But there are no natural consequences to Phariseeism—in fact there are many earthly rewards for that behavior. The damage is far more insidious and far-reaching. Jesus knew the nut he had to crack—and an amazing proportion of his message was devoted to that. Jesus did not have to heal on the Sabbath; he easily could have waited until the next day. It was a totally IN YOUR FACE move against the Pharisees. You gotta love it. But Jesus also knew that people have to be tricked into knowledge, and I think we can take our cue from the parables, to use them and also come up with our own stories that deal with the irreducible paradoxes of life. There is simply no rulebook that covers all of life, and any attempt to come up with one eventually ends in Phariseeism.
Modes suggests:
Is there a biblical distinction that supports your distinction between "bondage behavior" and "Phariseeism" as qualitatively different sorts of sin? Is there a difference in terms of salvation? I thought the point of the sermon on the mount was to level the playing field on all sin. That’s what you’ve been saying I think. Be clear about what is gained now from this distinction above.
Doc asked:
3) Practical question: At WHC covenant partners covenant to live a biblical lifestyle, by God's grace. Let's say there is a person in this group who is living with and having relations with their girlfriend, to whom he is not married. It is pointed out to this person by those who know him, and know of the situation, but the person blows it off. They thus call on the leadership of the church (include ME) to intervene. The relationship isn't damaging anybody, at least not in any observable way (though arguably, all sin damages us). But it is sinful behavior (fornication, frequently spoken against in Scripture).
My question is, how would a pastor who endorsed your position confront this? Or WOULD a pastor who endorsed your position confront this?
Semeia responds:
And Doc, in response to your third question, I’m against taking covenant vows to lead a "biblical lifestyle" because a person like Lonny would never pass muster. The church would reject, or at the very least shame, the person who brought me to Christ. For that matter, for much of my life I myself would not have passed the test. It’s one reason I was not saved by a church—because I knew I didn’t measure up. The idea that a church group would judge or pressure people who are living together is all wrong to me. Would Bridget have been better off with her stepbrother, or in the strip club, or with Lonny? These are not great options, to be sure. If only it were different. But life is messy. Unless you are very deeply in relationship with someone, I submit that you do not know what their choices are, and you may actually bring about more evil, rather than the good that you intend. Even the people who look "normal" have their secret wounds, their pain. You don’t know why the people are living together rather than being married. Perhaps the boyfriend’s father was married three times, and he was one of the families left behind, and he doesn’t want to repeat that, so he is afraid. Maybe the girlfriend saw her mother trapped in her marriage, unhappy, and she doesn’t want to be like that, and she is afraid. Maybe they both know a lot of unhappy married people, and don’t want to spoil their current happiness. Maybe you don’t have a clue what their reasons are because they themselves don’t know what their reasons are. But I assure you that deep down there are reasons, and until they become known you could easily do more damage than good.
Modes says:
So recognizing a communal lifestyle is out because we don’t know where people are coming from? I thought that that was precisely why it was needed. We need to point to the ideal so that we all know what goal we are striving toward. And who "we" are. God is a God of promise and faithfulness, we must reflect that in our communities. We can and must, out of obedience to God in faith, belong to the body of Christ and honor God’s desire that the body be one. This is a movement toward the center, regardless of how far out you are.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/1/2001 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon liked:
1. Both divorced and remarried partners and homosexual partners are seeking to fulfil a fundamental, God-implanted human need for a shared life of intimate, committed and exclusive love with one other human being.
Modes says:
Granted. The question is whether either or both are sinful. And the answer Smedes gives is yes.
2. Both are fulfilling their God-given human need in the only way available to them, not what the Creator originally intended for his children, but the only way they have.
Modes says:
This first phrase goes significantly beyond the biblical evidence if not directly contrary to it. That needs to be dealt with more adequately. And what it does say that is spportable biblically, is that homosexual acts are sinful. We are never at liberty to set limits that God has not set. Only God knows what ways of fulfilling a need are truly available. We must be more careful here. We are not God and cannot judge what is good or evil for them. At least, this is what I think you would say.
3. Both are striving to do the one thing the Lord considered supremely important about all sexual relationships: they are living their sexual lives within their covenants with each other.
Modes says:
This skips all the tough stuff and goes for the slam dunk. Problem is, we’re still standing at center court. Simply can’t jump that far. Besides, there is nothing "supremely important" about any sexual relations if we are speaking strictly in the Christian sense. God is the Absolute and the only "supremely important" thing. Furthermore, there is no sense in which we have access to what God thinks of these "covenants" if you will. My notes above stand here as well regarding this as more probably a non-covenant.
4. Both are trying to create the best lives they can within the limits of personal conditions they cannot change.
Modes says:
Good thing we are not stuck with the best we can do. God lives in us and moves through us. God can and does empower us to do things we cannot do, especially when we are weak. A theology of the cross would correct #4 easily enough. They might not be able to change it, but are we prepared to say God cannot? Does not? Why not? Please understand all, I have not yet ruled out the possibility of there being a legitimate monogomous homosexual relationship. I am just saying that we cannot say this AND call it sin, in principle. We put God at odds with Godself, or at least fail to take God’s intentions seriously when we do so.
5. Both want to live as followers of Christ within the supportive embrace of the Church.
Modes says:
Amen, and so be it. But this means that doc’s question would get answered negatively. Semeia or Icon, as a pastor, would not confront homosexual unions within the church even though she regards them as sin. Now, what is particularly pastoral about that? Is this the correct answer in principle? What if God lead you to confront them? Even though your intuitions were opposed?
Icon said:
God in his infinite outrageous mercy allows and encourages us to always go forward on the most life-affirming path we can find. Even in our total brokenness he finds a path for us that leads to life.
Modes says:
Agreed. Now, how did you find out that that means that God is now, for this reason, okay with homosexual unions, even though they are sinful? What if there was one between two who for whatever reason, were both very close to being freed from that sin? Do you see the problem I have yet?
Icon said:
Reminds me of the saying: I prayed to God that he would give me all things so that I may enjoy life. But he responded that I gave you life so that you may enjoy all things.
The analogy is: I prayed to God that he would fix my brokenness so that I would be OK and able to seek life. But he responded that I made you OK so that in your brokenness you would still be able to seek life.
Modes says:
I think that God gives us life (as per the top one) and that that life works transformations in our lives. But this gift is not singular, it is ongoing. God is continually offering resources OF life FOR healing, not as the second one says. Yes, God made us okay (justified and spirit-filled), but we are not ultimately stuck with our brokenness. We don’t stay "in" our "brokenness." You need some more already to go with your not yet.
I believe an important flaw in the debate is that sin is not staying unacceptable, and your insistence that sin be accepted as okay (because the person is not seperable) in certain circumstances eventually plays out as a broader acceptance of the way things are mor generally. You will actually end up endorsing the way things are by implication because we can do so little about it. This could actually lead to a sort of pessimistic conservativism, as bizzare as tha might sound. [J] The deeper problem is that if sin is not seperable from the person, then neither can our sin be taken from us as far as the east is from the west. This is my whole point: we forget, it seems that we are talking about GOD here, God is able make a way out of no way. And no one was promised that there would be no suffering. Please here me out, I still have not said that homosexual activity is in principle sin, just that if it is, we have to treat is as such. Period. Likewise with remarriage. As per Greg’s statement back at the beginning.
From Smedes:
There it was, the Lord's Word, simple, uncompromising, absolute, with no casuist's accommodation to special cases or extenuating circumstances. People who divorced one person and then married another are really, in the Lord's sight, not married at all, but are only having an adulterous affair. And that was that. True, Jesus did not expressly say that, once wed, they went on living in sin every day of their married lives. But the church had long inferred , and with a certain logical necessity, that if divorcees commit adultery by marrying another person, they must be recommitting adultery every time they have carnal knowledge.
Modes says:
How he can come so close and then walk away is wild to me. "Jesus did NOT expressly say that, once wed, they (remarried folks) went on living in sin every day of their married lives." My emphasis. The move here is the same, since we accept this sin, lets accept another one like it. But wait, do we really accept this "sin" as sin? The logical inferrence is not conclusive nor does the Bible make it so. Often we must refrain from conclusions drawn to avoid problems, this could be one place. The cost of this move is quite high. The Catholic Church recognizes the problem by annulling the marriage, it actually says that it is as though it never happened. Now, that is both an act of condemnation and an act of grace, for a remarriage can occur as a result. Food for thought.
Smedes:
….The church could keep the matter this clear and this simple, however, only as long it leaped directly from the Lord's blunt statement about divorce and remarriage to its own banishment of divorced and remarried people. No pausing to consider any special circumstances that might have made their divorce necessary. No pausing to discern the love and devotion that the remarried people had for each other in their second marriage. No stopping to consider how bitter and cruel the consequences of its policy were for all the people it affected. As long as it read Jesus' words with no regard for the devastation that its policy inflicted on the human families involved, especially their children, the church could go on believing that it was only following Jesus' own instructions.
Modes says:
This sort of rhetoric is now familiar to us all. If we stopped to think about the third use of the law which I spoke of in a different thread, it might help. The law reveals sin in the first use, it facilitates death. The law provides social structure and order in the second use, that encourages life. The third use recognizes that the same law that killed was not banished but fulfilled by Christ and now with the Spirit of God with in us, we see that that law is offered as a gift and guide that empowers life. The Spirit of God is critical to this point, God does and will lead us, and our obedience is in our hands. But God makes it possible for us to obey. Grace does more than save, it transforms, empowers, and calls us on. It does not leave us in our sin. If the third use of the law were in place in this church, the Spirit would be the arbitor of what changes need to take place when. Prayer is needed to hear God’s word in many of these things. God does have an opinion, and I believe God is speaking. Are we listening or figuring it out for ourselves (deciding good and evil, tha is)?
Smedes:
…How did the church come to such an amazing reversal of its age old exclusionary practice? Was it because the champions of embrace argued more persuasively? Was it because the party of embrace just happened to have the majority at a given Synod? Was it because the Spirit moved the hearts and minds of delegates in a new direction? All of these factors, human and divine, were doubtlessly at work. But congregations paved the way for the reversal by a change in their personal experiences with divorced and remarried people.
Modes:
The right solution for the wrong reasons. God must be an agent that we trust to transform situations, not simply reflect the facts back to us.
Smedes:
….Second, ministers and congregations were revising their sense of the sacrament. Reformed congregations had always had double vision when they looked at the Lord's Supper. At one level, they saw it as the prime occasion for the faithful to signal that all was well between them, their God and their brothers and sisters. At another level, they saw it as a gift of strength to help unworthy sinners fight the good fight. Earlier, people focused on the first vision; you could tell it by the buzz that bounced through congregations when anyone stayed away from the Supper more than once. After the War, they focused on the second vision; they came to the Supper, not to witness that all was well with them, but just as they were, "torn about with many a conflict, many a doubt, [with] fightings within and fears without" and so they came "without one plea but that thy blood was shed for me."
Modes:
Perhaps this distinction regarding the sacraments is instructive. The second use is my understanding.
Smedes:
Third, the church came to see that it had to factor the consequences of its policy into its discernment of what the Lord required. When it had seen the cruel consequences of its practice of exclusion, it also came to see that Jesus simply could not have meant to lay down a hard fisted rule for excluding remarried people from the family of faith. Instead, it concluded, the Lord must have been witnessing to God's original intention for married people, an intention that included keeping our covenants to each other as long as we lived. But if, in our broken life, people did get divorces and did marry again, surely God would want them to keep their covenants the second time around.
Modes:
This must be rejected. What if God wanted to radically change a community? Are we truly at liberty to say, "Hey, that hurts, I don’t like that." We need a better phrase than "the Lord must have been" based upon what I think about the consequences. How can the Bible confront us if we don’t allow it to confront and deeply challenge our experience?
Smedes:
….Some homosexuals feel devalued when people like me say that their orientation and their way of life is not how the Creator originally intended his sexual children to live out their sexuality. They say that their homosexuality is as at home in and native to God's creation as heterosexuality is. Some say that it is God's special gift for them to celebrate and thank him for just as their sexuality is gift for heterosexuals to celebrate. I cannot believe it is. I have not found quite the right word for it, but it seems to me that homosexuality is a burden that some of God's children are called on to bear, an anomaly, nature gone awry. But I do believe that homosexuality is the only raw material they have for living as good a life of sexual love as they can within our broken world where so much of life is bent out of shape.
Modes:
Here Smedes is as wrong as can be. He would have been much better off from the beginning to simply say what the offended gay person said: homosexuality is as at home in and native to God's creation as heterosexuality is. Some say that it is God's special gift for them to celebrate and thank him for just as their sexuality is gift for heterosexuals to celebrate. THIS is more exceptable because, if true, then the problem is solved. Either way, though, sin is sin and I bet you that this gay person would say that sin is not okay and that we just have to get used to it! He/She wouldn’t have to! Unless God convicted him/her of homosexuality being sin. At that point , that would become a pat of whatever God happens to be working on in that person.
Smedes:
"There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea." I wished that my friends could believe that mercy so wide must embrace their daughter even if she is no longer a fundamentalist believer.
Modes:
SO NOT THE POINT!!!! Here we run into the same problem we have been facing all along. Are we talking about salvation (justification) or transformation (sanctification)???? It does matter.
Okay. Here are some serious problems:
Definition of sin:
You say miss the mark.
I say, other than God’s intent.
Yours lacks the proper criterion, sin is always against and before God. Though its impact is obviously more extensive.
I say sin is an issue of the will.
You say sometimes seem to agree, but often you say it is constituitive of the person. That is, you claim that we cannot separate the sin from the person.
I say God does just this.
You say, since sin is inevitable, we should tolerate it unless it impacts upon us negatively.
I say this is purely individualistic. What does not proceed from faith is sin. If God so leads, we are to challenge and do whatever God calls us to, even with regard to other’s sin. This is included in the biblical understanding of covenant faith and faithfulness.
You say that sin is no different before or after salvation.
I say, true, it is always against God’s intentions. But whether it will be visited upon us eternally, or whether we are freed from its captivity is different depending upon the salvation question. Regardless, we are responsible for what God requires of us. We don’t have that relationship intact prior to conversion, but we do after. This is decisive.
About marriage and adultery:
You say marriage and adultery are really about sex, and so remarriage is also about sex and remains adultery so long as the couple stays remarried.
I say, no. Marriage is a covenant. When it is violated, there are opportunities for repentance both before each other and before God. If it fails, the covenant is broken. This does not in principle negate the possibility of a new covenant with a new covenant partner. This becomes self-evident when we consider the remarried person actively committing adultery with another person.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/1/2001 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | The whole point is basically an excluded middle argument that I think is sound:
Doc said, and I agree:
The proposed parallel between remarried people....and a practicing gay person....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.
The function of this is qualified by having to have a public a decisive opinion on this in the first place, and then if that is necessary, regarding this to only apply to gay Christians because they are also under the third use of the law with the rest of us.
Say that does happen, one might well conclude (rightly or wrongly) that remarried people are previous covenant breakers that are now in a new covenant which is, in principle, in accordance with the will of God. One might also conclude (rightly or wrongly) that this is equally possible for gays because the Bible is ambiguous (rightly or wrongly) on monogamous homosexual consensual adults covenanting in this way.
But one must not say that one of these is sin and yet we are supposed to--in principle--tolerate it.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/1/2001 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Modes....is the Smedes you read/quote Lewis Smedes? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/1/2001 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes....is the Smedes you read/quote Lewis Smedes?
yup.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 12/1/2001 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes:
SO NOT THE POINT!!!! Here we run into the same problem we have been facing all along. Are we talking about salvation (justification) or transformation (sanctification)???? It does matter.
Okay. Here are some serious problems:
Definition of sin:
You say miss the mark.
I say, other than God’s intent.
Yours lacks the proper criterion, sin is always against and before God. Though its impact is obviously more extensive.
I say sin is an issue of the will.
You say sometimes seem to agree, but often you say it is constituitive of the person. That is, you claim that we cannot separate the sin from the person.
I say God does just this.
You say, since sin is inevitable, we should tolerate it unless it impacts upon us negatively.
I say this is purely individualistic. What does not proceed from faith is sin. If God so leads, we are to challenge and do whatever God calls us to, even with regard to other’s sin. This is included in the biblical understanding of covenant faith and faithfulness.
You say that sin is no different before or after salvation.
I say, true, it is always against God’s intentions. But whether it will be visited upon us eternally, or whether we are freed from its captivity is different depending upon the salvation question. Regardless, we are responsible for what God requires of us. We don’t have that relationship intact prior to conversion, but we do after. This is decisive.
About marriage and adultery:
You say marriage and adultery are really about sex, and so remarriage is also about sex and remains adultery so long as the couple stays remarried.
I say, no. Marriage is a covenant. When it is violated, there are opportunities for repentance both before each other and before God. If it fails, the covenant is broken. This does not in principle negate the possibility of a new covenant with a new covenant partner. This becomes self-evident when we consider the remarried person actively committing adultery with another person.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Amen. I.O.U. 
selah
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 12/1/2001 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes:
Doc said, and I agree:
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.
Semeia responded:
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?
Modes suggests:
Yes, that is what doc was suggesting and what must be recognized unless we are to say that remarriage is "enduring sin" as Meph put it.
Iconoclast
Remarriage is “enduring” sin. Seems to me that Jesus is unequivocal on that point. Why do you say he isn’t? Christianity has been in consensus on this point for many, many years. In fact it use to be that re-married people were required to get a divorce. How do you counter Semeia’s point? What is your logic and your evidence? Or do you think this point is inconsequential?
Modes
Doc said: As I read it, Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of the those who were trying to establish "justified grounds" for divorce.
Semeia said:
No. Throughout this whole passage Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of those who would point to someone else’s sin as worse than their own. He goes through various commandments and raises the standard, demands perfection, not because people are capable of perfection, but in order to get people to focus on their OWN sinfulness, not that of others.
Modes says:
I’d say doc got it right. Semeia brings too much in to this from the outside at this point. More later….
Iconoclast:
I’m confused. These last two are pivotal arguments and you are just making an assertion with no evidence and going on. I guess the “More later…” means you will come back to these points.
Modes: Icon, when you say Paul is human here, are suggesting that he is sinning by condemning? Just wondering.
Iconoclast: I am suggesting that to the extent that you hear Paul as condemning is the extent to which you can attribute human shortcoming to his behavior.
Modes:
Is it possible that a person like this might be saved? Or must they be freed from the death-pattern for salvation? Are we not more complex than some of our death-patterns? Tell me about the difference between a person who is walking in the Spirit (Romans 8) and one who is not, with regard to their relation to death patterns. I think you will have to acknowledge that both persons could potentially have them (death patterns, that is).
Iconoclast:
Good catch! I agree that it is more complex than I am making it out to be. I really like what C.S. Lewis had to say – and I totally paraphrase here: At the end of our life we will either end up in Hell and realize that everything we did led to our being there or we will end up in Heaven and realize that everything we did led to our being there.
Modes:
Icon continues:
In my view the core issue here in any case is us not judging good and evil or in any way condemning our brother. There is only the one goal: Love the lord God and Love each other. Part of our charter is to help create a society – a living pattern of interactions, social rules and so on that encourages this. Allowing behavior that destroys the living patterns is not loving and must be addressed. "A little leaven …" However we must be very careful in how we address this so that we don’t ourselves destroy the living patterns by resorting to our own knowledge of good and evil. We do this by always keeping at the forefront of our attention what our goal is and by continuing to allow ourselves to be transformed into His image.
Make no mistake – this bondage behavior has natural and logical consequences. The Pharisees behavior however does not – and can actually lead to the unforgivable sin – seeing good and calling it evil.
Modes wonders:
I hear this, but I see here the rejection of the words "good" and "evil" as you and Meph mused about. You two seem happy enough to use the language of good and evil at times and at others it seems to be the root of all error. I am confused. Either use it or reject it, but doing both is confusing. Your last paragraph above is clearly too simple. We are more complex than this and God’s grace is more thorough than to leave us with no opportunities for repentence. Notice, I said God’s grace. Our responsibility is to respond in humility to God’s grace and God’s leading. That is what Semeia’s signature indicates, I believe. That seems to me to be the essential and underemphasized point. We repent, and the Church, corporately, is CALLED to preach repentence to all. We are to proclaim the good news and give opportuity for repentence. What do you two make of doc’s alter calls?
Iconoclast:
Two kinds of Judgement – I posted this on the “Can you remove offensive thread?” thread:
“Bad Judgement”: Judging Good and Evil – the thing that made us fall and that separates us from God (because we judge him evil because we suffer pain) and that separates us from each other – the opposite of Love I think. It is the core thing that is wrong with us – and it is buried deep in our unconscious – it is in fact our fallen essence. Other words for this are Accusation, Condemnation and Attacking.
“Good Judgement”: Loving Action – the irreconcilable opposite of Judging is Action. Yes – we use our brains to process logic to determine what a loving, helpful action might be in this or that particular instance – and yes – sometimes that action is pretty serious – confronting an alcoholic ultimatum sort of stuff. But notice how very different this is than what we all do all of the time in our thoughts – we fundamentally accuse, condemn and attack almost all of the time.
This is clearly laid out in the Bonhoeffer essay on Women, Homosexuality and Slavery thread. I highly recommend reading that one.
I also suggested in the other post that perhaps we could use Judging vs Loving Action to distinguish these.
Repentence is really, really important. In fact – daily or hourly or more. Actually should just be a total mind set. Assume our Impact is not what we Intend – look for the mismatch constantly – find where you miss the mark – fix it – no big deal – no condemnation. My leadership coach would constantly tell me: “Iconoclast, you must always, always listen.” Only by the most careful listening do we become aware of the real Impact we are having on people – whether it is helpful or hurtful.
Is this what you are you getting at with the question about the altar calls?
Modes:
So it is not enough to say that the lifestyle is sin, but that it lacks a sign of the covenant and additionally retains the possibility of adultery? Let’s not complicate things this much. Semeia do you believe that homosexual activity is sin or not? That is enough isn’t it? It is for my purposes see below.
Modes suggests:
Is there a biblical distinction that supports your distinction between "bondage behavior" and "Phariseeism" as qualitatively different sorts of sin? Is there a difference in terms of salvation? I thought the point of the sermon on the mount was to level the playing field on all sin. That’s what you’ve been saying I think. Be clear about what is gained now from this distinction above.
Modes says:
So recognizing a communal lifestyle is out because we don’t know where people are coming from? I thought that that was precisely why it was needed. We need to point to the ideal so that we all know what goal we are striving toward. And who "we" are. God is a God of promise and faithfulness, we must reflect that in our communities. We can and must, out of obedience to God in faith, belong to the body of Christ and honor God’s desire that the body be one. This is a movement toward the center, regardless of how far out you are.
4. Both are trying to create the best lives they can within the limits of personal conditions they cannot change.
Modes says:
Good thing we are not stuck with the best we can do. God lives in us and moves through us. God can and does empower us to do things we cannot do, especially when we are weak. A theology of the cross would correct #4 easily enough. They might not be able to change it, but are we prepared to say God cannot? Does not? Why not? Please understand all, I have not yet ruled out the possibility of there being a legitimate monogomous homosexual relationship. I am just saying that we cannot say this AND call it sin, in principle. We put God at odds with Godself, or at least fail to take God’s intentions seriously when we do so.
Iconoclast: I don’t see any problem with saying this AND calling it sin. As evidence I offer up the fact that God allowed a simple writ of divorce even though Jesus clearly said that divorce was never God’s intent – it was and is sin. As is Lust. Why did God allow this writ of divorce? Why didn’t he just fix them?
Modes:
5. Both want to live as followers of Christ within the supportive embrace of the Church.
Modes says:
Amen, and so be it. But this means that doc’s question would get answered negatively. Semeia or Icon, as a pastor, would not confront homosexual unions within the church even though she regards them as sin. Now, what is particularly pastoral about that? Is this the correct answer in principle? What if God lead you to confront them? Even though your intuitions were opposed?
Iconoclast: Totally pastoral – Kierkegaard said that Love hides a multiplicity of sins. Hiding action is absolutely what is called for in this case. I see absolutely no reasons for a Stopping action. Do you? If so – what are they? I would do whatever God leads me to do. (OK I get fearful sometimes and wimp out – he always gives me more opportunities and a lot of encouragement though – thank you Lord! – “even the merit I reckon part of the receiving”).
Modes:
Icon said:
God in his infinite outrageous mercy allows and encourages us to always go forward on the most life-affirming path we can find. Even in our total brokenness he finds a path for us that leads to life.
Modes says:
Agreed. Now, how did you find out that that means that God is now, for this reason, okay with homosexual unions, even though they are sinful? What if there was one between two who for whatever reason, were both very close to being freed from that sin? Do you see the problem I have yet?
Iconoclast:
I don’t understand your concern here. Does God need my judgement of someone to free them of their sin? Now I can certainly help out someone with a blind spot here and there. If someone has a little ketchup on their chin it certainly seems helpful to point that out – even when I sometimes get shot as the messenger. I really can’t for a moment believe that there is a single homosexual out there where it would be helpful for me to point out that they would be a lot happier if they would just change their orientation to being heterosexual. I would guess that most homosexuals have tortured themselves quite a bit with that one. They don’t need a good swift poke in the eye from me.
Now on the other hand if a friend wanted me to help them quit smoking I would be delighted to participate. Ya know – the AA buddy system – the person you can call when you are about to “go over the edge.”
Modes:
Icon said:
Reminds me of the saying: I prayed to God that he would give me all things so that I may enjoy life. But he responded that I gave you life so that you may enjoy all things.
The analogy is: I prayed to God that he would fix my brokenness so that I would be OK and able to seek life. But he responded that I made you OK so that in your brokenness you would still be able to seek life.
Modes says:
I think that God gives us life (as per the top one) and that that life works transformations in our lives. But this gift is not singular, it is ongoing. God is continually offering resources OF life FOR healing, not as the second one says. Yes, God made us okay (justified and spirit-filled), but we are not ultimately stuck with our brokenness. We don’t stay "in" our "brokenness." You need some more already to go with your not yet.
I believe an important flaw in the debate is that sin is not staying unacceptable, and your insistence that sin be accepted as okay (because the person is not seperable) in certain circumstances eventually plays out as a broader acceptance of the way things are mor generally. You will actually end up endorsing the way things are by implication because we can do so little about it. This could actually lead to a sort of pessimistic conservativism, as bizzare as tha might sound. [J] The deeper problem is that if sin is not seperable from the person, then neither can our sin be taken from us as far as the east is from the west. This is my whole point: we forget, it seems that we are talking about GOD here, God is able make a way out of no way. And no one was promised that there would be no suffering. Please here me out, I still have not said that homosexual activity is in principle sin, just that if it is, we have to treat is as such. Period. Likewise with remarriage. As per Greg’s statement back at the beginning
Iconoclast:
Totally agree – we are not ultimately stuck with our brokenness. But until we go to heaven aren’t we still really broken? You seem to suggest that yes – once we are saved we sort of sin here and there a little – (is this what you mean by “residual” sin?) – but we are mostly 99% sin free. I would like to suggest that even after we are saved we sin pretty much all the time – Ok we do a lot of sleeping – of course we probably do too much (sluggard) or too little (workaholic). Now maybe I shouldn’t say this – cause maybe it is just me – but when I look at myself I am sinning all the time. And I think this is true of everyone.
Modes
This sort of rhetoric is now familiar to us all. If we stopped to think about the third use of the law which I spoke of in a different thread, it might help. The law reveals sin in the first use, it facilitates death. The law provides social structure and order in the second use, that encourages life. The third use recognizes that the same law that killed was not banished but fulfilled by Christ and now with the Spirit of God with in us, we see that that law is offered as a gift and guide that empowers life. The Spirit of God is critical to this point, God does and will lead us, and our obedience is in our hands. But God makes it possible for us to obey. Grace does more than save, it transforms, empowers, and calls us on. It does not leave us in our sin. If the third use of the law were in place in this church, the Spirit would be the arbitor of what changes need to take place when. Prayer is needed to hear God’s word in many of these things. God does have an opinion, and I believe God is speaking. Are we listening or figuring it out for ourselves (deciding good and evil, tha is)?
Iconoclast: Agree. I like this third use of the Law. I think that to the extent we are able to follow God’s law is the extent to which our lives are more fulfilling. God created the law for us not us for the law. I think Jesus made this point beautifully with the Sabbath law.
Modes:
Smedes:
Third, the church came to see that it had to factor the consequences of its policy into its discernment of what the Lord required. When it had seen the cruel consequences of its practice of exclusion, it also came to see that Jesus simply could not have meant to lay down a hard fisted rule for excluding remarried people from the family of faith. Instead, it concluded, the Lord must have been witnessing to God's original intention for married people, an intention that included keeping our covenants to each other as long as we lived. But if, in our broken life, people did get divorces and did marry again, surely God would want them to keep their covenants the second time around.
Modes:
This must be rejected. What if God wanted to radically change a community? Are we truly at liberty to say, "Hey, that hurts, I don’t like that." We need a better phrase than "the Lord must have been" based upon what I think about the consequences. How can the Bible confront us if we don’t allow it to confront and deeply challenge our experience?
Iconoclast:
I don’t get where you are coming from on this one. It seems to me that we act and then then see what impact our actions have. When it is clear that our actions result in cruel and unloving consequences we re-examine the logic and thought behind our behavior. The goal is to Love God and Love our Neighbor. When a caring Intent leads to an uncaring Impact there is something wrong (harmartia – sin) and it is our job to fix it.
Modes:
Smedes:
"There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea." I wished that my friends could believe that mercy so wide must embrace their daughter even if she is no longer a fundamentalist believer.
Modes:
SO NOT THE POINT!!!! Here we run into the same problem we have been facing all along. Are we talking about salvation (justification) or transformation (sanctification)???? It does matter
Iconoclast: Can you help me here – this seems like a key issue and I don’t get it.
Modes:
Okay. Here are some serious problems:
Definition of sin:
You say miss the mark.
I say, other than God’s intent.
Yours lacks the proper criterion, sin is always against and before God. Though its impact is obviously more extensive.
I say sin is an issue of the will.
You say sometimes seem to agree, but often you say it is constituitive of the person. That is, you claim that we cannot separate the sin from the person.
I say God does just this.
You say, since sin is inevitable, we should tolerate it unless it impacts upon us negatively.
I say this is purely individualistic. What does not proceed from faith is sin. If God so leads, we are to challenge and do whatever God calls us to, even with regard to other’s sin. This is included in the biblical understanding of covenant faith and faithfulness.
You say that sin is no different before or after salvation.
I say, true, it is always against God’s intentions. But whether it will be visited upon us eternally, or whether we are freed from its captivity is different depending upon the salvation question. Regardless, we are responsible for what God requires of us. We don’t have that relationship intact prior to conversion, but we do after. This is decisive.
Iconoclast:
From my understanding the Hebrew word for sin is “chet” which means error and the Greek word for sin is “harmartia” which literally means shooting an arrow at a target and missing the mark.
Are you saying that sin is only an issue of the will? If so - how do you deal with Paul saying that he does what he doesn’t want to do and doesn’t do what he wants to do. I hear him saying that his Intent is one thing but he ends up having the opposite Impact. And don’t we all experience this? Isn’t our day filled with this – loving and caring Intent suddenly gone awry into a negative Impact?
I agree that God takes away the burden of my sin – it no longer leads to my death – I am OK. My sin is totally separate from me as the East is from the West. What a deal! Thank you Lord! But I still sin all the time. I got this big old Log stuck in my eye and I have to constantly confess and be open to understand exactly how I am sinning – what leads up to it – how I can counter – how I can meet my needs more proactively – in short – how to be more disciplined in taking care of myself – so that maybe I have a little left to give to others. Should I tolerate sin in myself – absolutely NOT! OK maybe if I am honest I am going to tolerate some things – I mean I just can’t fix everything at once – and it just makes it worse to endlessly beat myself up. No question God is working with me everyday and I am improving – OK sometimes I slip up and go backwards for a bit. Hmmmm…..Ya know it seems like I used to be better at this being good thing. But I think that the older I get the more I realize how much sin is in me. And ya know what – the more I work on it – the more I realize there is. I think its kind of like knowledge. The more we learn about physics the more we realize there is to learn. And why the heck is it even about me being good. I am not good – now God – God is good – I think it is much more about God being good. I am just really glad he loves me.
Modes:
But one must not say that one of these is sin and yet we are supposed to--in principle--tolerate it.
Iconoclast:
You and I must really have a different definition of sin because I just don’t get this. How do you square this with Kierkegaard’s “Love hides a multiplicity of sins”?
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 12/2/2001 1:43 AM (GMT -6) | | "Love hides a multiplicity of sins"
I thought that was God's not Kierkegaards?
I also thought that the "hiding" was not covering up, dismissing of, or putting a stamp of approval on sin. Instead, I thought that when love "hides" sin, it is just an assertion that love is BIGGER and able to handle sin through forgiveness which naturally pours out of love. (ie. If my friend sins against me many times, through the covering of love, I am able and want to forgive. If love was not present in that relationship, the motivation for forgiveness wouldn't be there.
Am I missing something?
What do these verses hold about love?
Proverbs 27:5
Better is open rebuke than hidden love.
Proverbs 27:6
Well meant are the wounds a friend inflicts, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
Proverbs 3:12
for the Lord reproves the one He loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 9:8
A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you;
the wise, when rebuked will love you.
Proverbs 10:12
Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses (read more of this in the context, it seems to be speaking AGAINST concealing sin in any way)
Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but those who hate to be rebuked are stupid
(well that's blunt as blunt can be  NRSV)
still wondering,
selah
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1
Edited by - selah on 12/02/2001 4:20:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 12/2/2001 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah:
“Love covers a multiplicity of sins”
I also thought that “covering” was not a hiding, dismissing of sins, putting a stamp of approval on sin, in order to SHOW love. Instead, I thought that when love “covers” sin, it is just an assertion that love is BIGGER and able to handle sin. That because there is love and it is so great, forgiveness is possible.
Am I missing something?
Iconoclast:
Kierkegaard wrote a book called “Works Of Love” that contains a chapter called: “Love Hides the Multiplicity of Sins”. This is where the idea came from that there are basically two categories of action that one can take toward another person’s sin: A “hiding” action and a “stopping” action. But before getting into that I should say that I have been coming from the perspective of the appropriate attitude and action to take toward another persons sin and not from the perspective of the appropriate attitude and action we should take toward our own sin. I think these two are quite different: as different as a Log and a Speck. I guess I need to be more careful about clarifying my context.
Kierkegaard said that “Love hides the multiplicity of sins, for what it cannot avoid seeing or hearing, it hides in silence, in a mitigating explanation, in forgiveness.”
I think your point that love “covering” sin is an assertion that love is BIGGER and able to handle sin is right on the mark. I read Kierkegaard as articulating the mechanisms / actions that Love takes to actually accomplish this – to actually “handle” sin and take away its impact.
Forgiveness is the most obvious way of “handling” sin. Once I forgive I not only prevent sin from taking hold in me (unforgiveness and anger) but I allow it to dissipate in the other (they no longer need to defend their sin – they are now more free to become fully aware of its impact if they so choose). Jesus seemed to do this quite a bit – which really bugged the Pharisees – because he forgave all their sins – not just the ones that they did against him. Now we might argue that Jesus could do that because all sins are committed against God and Jesus was God. But is this the reason he did this or was he making a powerful point? What about confessing our sins to a priest and having the priest forgive you? What about forgiving yourself? Isn’t this the same as “dismissing of sins”. Isn’t this the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross – to dismiss our sins – isn’t that the real power we now have to start being doers of the law instead of judgers – taking Action instead of Judging – because our sins have been dismissed?
Now putting a “stamp” of approval on sin is not at all what is being suggested here. A stamp of approval is not a hiding action at all – it is a “lifting up” action – and I totally agree that this would not be effective at all – this is positive reinforcement. Whereas a “hiding” action is actually the most powerful negative reinforcement one can give. All behavior is “designed” or goal-driven behavior. The must fundamental precept of psychology is that if a person can’t get a need met positively they will get it met negatively. The kid who keeps bugging the parent for attention is going to get some attention – if they can’t get positive attention they will take negative attention – no attention means death. So if a person has a need and they are seeking to meet it through a sinful behavior then the most powerful way to prevent any reinforcement is to ignore that behavior. Zero reinforcement – zero reward – positive or negative – will change behavior more powerfully than anything. This is not always possible of course.
When sinful behavior is not possible to ignore then finding a mitigating explanation can be a powerful intervention. The NLP / TNT terminology for this would be “re-framing”. A very powerful way to change behavior is to understand the underlying “mental model” and logic a person has that is leading them to meet a need in an unhealthy way and “re-frame” their picture so they can now “see” a healthy way to meet their need. A much simpler way to say this is to find the good Intent behind the negative behavior and call that out publicly. When we focus on the sin – when we label it and blame – we typically (not always) exacerbate it.
Kierkegaard says all of this a lot better than I do – it is really a powerful book.
Selah – I realize that I am probably preaching to the choir here. I am just trying to be clear about where I am coming from. I am using different language and concepts to express this stuff because I think it is ultimately helpful. Or at least – it was very helpful for me. It is hard to express how absolutely freeing it was for me to come to the realization that God is not asking me to Judge or fix anyone. My only responsibility is to Love others.
Selah:
Proverbs 27:5
Better is open rebuke than hidden love.
Iconoclast:
This is a powerful “re-frame” that Solomon is doing. Rather than see a rebuke as an attack we would be better off to see it as feedback that may or may not be helpful. But why does he even need to re-frame this? It is because most of us experience feedback from others as an attack – this is because most of the time feedback comes packaged in the form of an attack (Judging).
This proverb also shows that negative attention is better than no attention at all. Is hidden love really love at all? Or is it indifference: the true opposite of love.
Selah:
Proverbs 27:6
Well meant are the wounds a friend inflicts, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
Iconoclast:
Well meant (Good Intent) but not necessarily helpful (Negative Impact – big gaping wound) – but this is still better than what your enemy does to you! I put out a chart out on this (Intent vs Impact) on the Women, Homosexuality and Slavery thread.
Am I in any way advocating that we should not give feedback to our friends? NO. You cannot Love someone without giving feedback. The question is – how do we give feedback in the most helpful way possible? And should most of our feedback be positive or negative. What happens to a child that gets mostly negative feedback? Is it ever possible to give helpful feedback from the psychological state of a “judgement” against that person?
Selah:
Proverbs 10:12
Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses (read more of this in the context, it seems to be speaking against concealing sin in any way)
Iconoclast:
Proverbs 10:11
The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.
Proverbs 10:13, 14
On the lips of one who has understanding wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of one who lacks sense.
The wise lay up knowledge but the babbling of fool brings ruin near.
What do you mean by “concealing sin in any way”? What are the examples of sin that you apply this to? If you mean the sin within myself then I agree – the last thing I want to do is lie to myself about how I am missing the mark – I need a really clear understanding of my sin in order to fix it.
And perhaps this is what you are getting at: There is an old joke about how Hell is a huge banquet table but every one has a 3 foot spoon tied to their hands in such a way as to not be able to feed themselves and they are of course all angry, swearing and starving because they just can’t get that spoon in their mouth. Heaven oddly enough is just the same: a huge banquet table and every one there also has a 3 foot spoon tied to their hands in the same way. However in Heaven the scene is much different – everyone is feeding each other.
We all have needs and we all have blind spots. In a Christian community it would be good to be helping each other with meeting needs and giving helpful insight on each other’s blind spots. If I have a blind spot – I can’t see it – I need someone else to point it out to me. Of course – it would be a lot easier to hear if it was an “oh by the way…I felt hurt but no big deal” rather than a “I really mean this in the best possible way…you are a sinner and therefore bad”. Loving Action vs Judging.
Selah:
Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but those who hate to be rebuked are stupid.
Iconoclast:
Why would someone hate to be rebuked? Could it be that all the rebuking they have received in their life came in the form of brutal attacks on who they are (Judging) rather than natural and logical consequences to their behavior and clear and concise feedback on their Impact (Action)? If so – will any form of “rebuke” be effective at this point? What actions can we come up with to help them? What will be effective?
I would put my money that you would answer this:
Previous post Selah:
How about loving 'them' with the love that overflows from your fullness of Christ's love just as you would love anyone else? Pour out to 'them' and lavish 'them' in whatever is true, pure, lovely. How about totalling loving them.
Iconoclast:
Now you are preaching to the quoir.
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/2/2001 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I've got small group tonight and I am teaching again tomorrow so I won't be back here til at least tomorrow night. Preliminarily, yes, Icon, I think we are getting much clearer about where we disagree. I will be back. Thanks for your continued discussion and patience....
I too look forward to discussing this stuff face to face some time.
blessings,
Modes
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 12/2/2001 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon:
When sinful behavior is not possible to ignore then finding a mitigating explanation can be a powerful intervention. The NLP / TNT terminology for this would be “re-framing”. A very powerful way to change behavior is to understand the underlying “mental model” and logic a person has that is leading them to meet a need in an unhealthy way and “re-frame” their picture so they can now “see” a healthy way to meet their need. A much simpler way to say this is to find the good Intent behind the negative behavior and call that out publicly. When we focus on the sin – when we label it and blame – we typically (not always) exacerbate it.
selah:
Is "mental model" the same as deep structure?
Ok, this is interesting because I have wanted to "future pace" and "re-frame" this situation of your 2 sisters-in-law.
Let's try. OK, NOW, It's 5 years from now and one of the sisters knows Christ and is living in relationship with Him. One day during her devotion time she's reading the Bible and feels a conviction about her ongoing homosexual relations. She is moved to tears and repentance and is blessed with a deliverance from all sexual temptation. (outside of the marital context, of course) Now, she feels closer to God then ever and is overwhelmingly thankful to Him for the years of grace and the freedom from bondage. Her guilt is also erased. In her joy she decides to share with the other sister the freedom that comes from submission to God's Ultimate Sexual plan. The sister doesn't buy it, because she has ALREADY learned from YOU and her other sister the TRUTH that we all live in sin so why bother.
How's that?
Icon:
Kierkegaard says all of this a lot better than I do – it is really a powerful book.
selah:
It's now on my list
Icon:
Selah – I realize that I am probably preaching to the choir here. I am just trying to be clear about where I am coming from. I am using different language and concepts to express this stuff because I think it is ultimately helpful. Or at least – it was very helpful for me. It is hard to express how absolutely freeing it was for me to come to the realization that God is not asking me to Judge or fix anyone. My only responsibility is to love others.
Am I in any way advocating that we should not give feedback to our friends? NO. You cannot Love someone without giving feedback.
selah:
I agree
The question is – how do we give feedback in the most helpful way possible?
selah:
In love?
Icon:
And should most of our feedback be positive or negative.
selah:
Spirit lead. In love. No scorecard.
Icon:
What happens to a child that gets mostly negative feedback?
selah:
shame.
Icon:
Is it ever possible to give helpful feedback from the psychological state of a “judgement” against that person?
selah:
Who would want to do that? If it is AGAINST the person is it in love?
(I do believe that negative feedback can be FOR a person ie. me)
Icon:
We all have needs and we all have blind spots. In a Christian community it would be good to be helping each other with meeting needs and giving helpful insight on each other’s blind spots. If I have a blind spot – I can’t see it – I need someone else to point it out to me. Of course – it would be a lot easier to hear if it was an “oh by the way…I felt hurt but no big deal” rather than a “I really mean this in the best possible way…you are a sinner and therefore bad”. Loving Action vs Judging.
selah:
ewwwww, I don't like either of them! First one sounds patronizing and half-truth ish. Second one...legalistic, pharisee-like and um stupid?
How about "Hey, ya know, that really hurt me! Can we talk about it, I would like to clear the air because I love you. The relationship is more important than the hurt, let's hear each other out."
Selah:
Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but those who hate to be rebuked are stupid.
Icon:
Why would someone hate to be rebuked?
selah:
Because being rebuked sucks?
Icon:
Could it be that all the rebuking they have received in their life came in the form of brutal attacks on who they are (Judging) rather than natural and logical consequences to their behavior and clear and concise feedback on their Impact (Action)?
selah:
Could be. This happens to many people in many contexts.
Icon:
If so – will any form of “rebuke” be effective at this point?
selah:
Yes, if it is God's timing and in love. Yes.
Icon:
What actions can we come up with to help them?
selah:
I like the power in the testimony of believers. That's pretty powerfilled stuff.
Also, God seems to give the prescription at the time, so giving a blanket statement here wouldn't be effective. He is incredibly creative when He is our Help.
Icon:
What will be effective?
I would put my money that you would answer this:
Previous post Selah:
How about loving 'them' with the love that overflows from your fullness of Christ's love just as you would love anyone else? Pour out to 'them' and lavish 'them' in whatever is true, pure, lovely. How about totally loving them?
selah:
You win the bet.
Iconoclast:
Now you are preaching to the quoir.
selah:
Good! Trust me Icon, my heartscry is that we can BOTH do that to all men/women. I fall short. Good thing God is faithful. And, good thing truth is "absolute".
blessings,
selah
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1
Edited by - selah on 12/03/2001 06:33:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/3/2001 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd like to make one comment on Smedes' article.
I have one of his books, and enjoyed it. I have a friend who's family knows his. (I go to a CRC church.) But there is, it seems to me, a tendency for the Christian Reformed to mix together the kind of emphasis on fallenness they have with Creation-Fall-Redemption-Office-Restoration with a forgetfulness of sin in trying to be Caretakers-of-the-Garden (the Cultural Mandate.). Smedes can maintain that homosexuality is: "a burden that some of God's children are called on to bear, an anomaly, nature gone awry, nature's lapses." At the same time he offers (or seemed to read this late) that humanistic fulfillment is a good thing in itself. (the emphasis is important)
Reformed sometimes take a Restorationalist bent. (Don't ask; its weird. But it tries to bring the Kingdom now by human actions.) There seems to be a bit of restorationalism in Smedes here.
His emphasis seems to be, somehow, that fulfilled living is an end in itself; almost as if "nature" is not not-natural. (Created nature=good; "nature" now is anything but that original, essential nature--which still remains in the gnosis...if I'm getting that word correct...alla Maximus.)
I'm not "pro."
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 12/3/2001 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | So...is a gay person who accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior saved?
What if they truly believe that continuing in their monogamous loving gay relationship is OK with Jesus and so continue unrepentant in that behavior. Are they still saved?
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/3/2001 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast: So...is a gay person who accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior saved?
No answer...Just a question on top of your question.
Where does salvation come? Is it through relationship with God or is it in having the correct theology of exactly what sin is? Also, it is pretty obvious to me that sex outside of the context of a monogomous relationship, rape, murder, etc. is bad, just be looking at the pain that is being inflicted, but it is not quite as clean cut with homosexuality. Socially it hangs out in the socially questionable status, which is understandable since the world is generally a heterosexual world. Biblically, it can be argued both ways pretty effectively.
Personally, I don't believe that homosexuallity is quite what God wanted, but I believe that God has been known to take something that is not idealistic and change it into something that can actually glorify Him. I am starting to believe that a monogomous homosexual relationship can, in the right context, glorify God as much as a heterosexual relationship.
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 12/4/2001 12:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So...is a gay person who accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior saved?
What if they truly believe that continuing in their monogamous loving gay relationship is OK with Jesus and so continue unrepentant in that behavior. Are they still saved?
thanks,
Iconoclast
Iconoclast, I don't know if you're asking me but I'll answer. My opinion is just that, an opinion. This is what I tell heterosexual/homosexual people WHEN THEY ASK
that question:
1. Yes
2. Yup, however, I have to wonder why it's important to be monogamous?
(I think I get why you didn't answer me, correct me if I'm wrong: Just as you believe that homosexuality is the same as being born blind, so also you believe that homosexual people should be allowed to marry, or be considered 'married' if they are monogamous. Therefore, there is no sin in having one partner as long as they remain faithful, because, after all they were born that way. right?
(I'm really trying to understand why/how you believe what you do.)
Fornication is all together different then?
Fornication would be sin because it is not monogamous?
When I equate the two, you don't, right?
totally teachable,
selah
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1
Edited by - selah on 12/07/2001 06:50:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/4/2001 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Mr. I used the phrase "glorify God."
I sometimes notice that we sometimes use phrases that might just be abstractions to us. Familiar, yet still abstractions.
Ussually the "glory" word is heard fromthe Piper camp. (granted, coming fom soli deo gloria). I often want to stop someone and ask what do YOU mean by "glory." (I think that they ussually don't mean God's radiance--as in with Moses.)
But here, to me the word, the phrase "glorify God" seems very much used as an abstraction--and therefore above examination. I think it should be examined.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/4/2001 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Right now, I am not fully seeing why a monogomous homosexual relationship is necessarily sinful and damnable by sin. Like I was saying before, some sins it is pretty obvious, like killing, or rape etc., but it is not as easy to see with homosexuallity. It seems more like a social standard than a biblical principle.
What do I mean by a relationship that glorifies God? 1)God is at the center of the relationship. 2)Mutually lifting each other and those around them up to God. 3)Helping each other grow in Christ. 4)Being a living example of God's love, grace, mercy, etc. for the world to see. 5)Helping to further Gods kingdom. 6)Just being a Christian.
I am just talking about being a Christian and serving God whether it is in the context of a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, celebate, or a unich for Christ. They all come down to relationship. It is all about where the heart is.
If someone were to say that drinking was sinful and damnable by sin (I am talking about social drinking, like having a single glass of wine at a meal), should we automatically stop drinking? Yes, the bible says that drunkenness is sinful, but is there a context where one can drink without being drunk? We would either laugh at them or try to show them the difference. When it comes to homosexuallity, I am starting to see it in the same way. It seems to me that when the Bible references homosexuallity, it is talking about a non-monogomous relationship. I would agree that in that context it is a sin, but is it right to say that since non-monogomous homosexual relationships are sinful, that the all are? For me, that is verging on legalism...
PoW, Does that help at all?
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/4/2001 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Right now, I am not fully seeing why a monogomous homosexual relationship is necessarily sinful and damnable by sin. Like I was saying before, some sins it is pretty obvious, like killing, or rape etc., but it is not as easy to see with homosexuallity. It seems more like a social standard than a biblical principle.
Mr I.
THANK YOU!
Not that I agree with this conclusion (I am still in process) per se, but it is the more consistent position. EITHER homosexuality is sin or it is not (likewise with remarriage). And based on the answer there, we should expect that God's transforming power will be at work, in God's timing, to free people from such bondage. It makes more sense to me to reject the notion of homosexuality as sin than it does to accept sin (in principle) into our lives lived in the Spirit. Selah has done a very nice job of illsutrating this recently. I realize that Icon and Semeia disagree with me and the doc that remarriage is possible in a way that is in principle not sin. If I held their position on the sinfulness of remarriage and homosexuality, I would be saying neither should be considered "in principle" acceptable lifestyles. To say this is to make sin, in principle, acceptable. And that is not what Chist died for. Christ came to defeat sin, not invite it into the community of God. All people are invited, and you don't have to leave your baggage at the door, bring it in, but expect that God will start the process of healing so long as you stay in the relationship. Eventually that healing process will get to everything, remarriage and homosexuality included IF those are to considered ultimately unacceptable by God.
I'll be back....
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/4/2001 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes...
I think what I am trying to say is that I question whether Homosexuallity is the sin or if it is the sex outside of a covenental relationship. I am still trying to figure this out for myself. Right now the evidence, in which I personally have recieved it, seems to point to the later.
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/4/2001 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes...
I think what I am trying to say is that I question whether Homosexuallity is the sin or if it is the sex outside of a covenental relationship. I am still trying to figure this out for myself. Right now the evidence, in which I personally have recieved it, seems to point to the later.
Mr I.
Right, and that is a good question. But you are not saying that sin is now acceptable as a lifestyle (in principle) are you? You are seeking to discern what sin "is" in this situation so that we can gain hope for healing. Right?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/4/2001 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes said: If I held their position on the sinfulness of remarriage and homosexuality, I would be saying neither should be considered "in principle" acceptable lifestyles.
Semeia: I think this is the crux of our disagreement, and I think it is because we have very different perceptions of what "sin" is, what our attitude toward it should be, how best to overcome it, and whether or not there are things which are no more overcome-able than blindness and deafness, which are also not God's ideal, and yet which we do not expect people to struggle over.
Iconoclast and I are thinking about how to best approach this discussion, and we're a little burned out on it. But I think we need to have the discussion on sin to move forward in our conversation with you. It may take us a while to lay that out. I do not believe there is anything at all inconsistent in our position, but I do understand how you could think so since we have been laying this out piecemeal, and we haven't adequately explained what we mean by "sin".
But to go back to your statement above, and the implication that remarriage is not sin: How do you deal with Jesus saying in the Sermon on the Mount, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Adultery is about sex. It happens every time you have sex outside of a sanctioned marriage. If someone has an affair, they do not commit adultery only on the first time they have sex with the person. They commit adultery EVERY TIME they have sex with the person. If you go back and read the thread, Greg conceded that point. It is nonsensical to say that what Jesus means is that the remarried people are only committing adultery the first time they have sex. The first time a remarried person has sex is within the bounds of the new marriage. Why would the first time be different from every other time? If you were going to argue that adultery is not about sex, I would have to say go look it up in the dictionary, or show me how it means something different in the bible than we commonly understand. No one questions this meaning when they read it in the Ten Commandments.
Jesus unequivocally states that remarriage is adultery, in other words--because we can assume people continue to have sex in their marriage--remarriage is enduring sin. And yet he did not forbid it. He did not write a new law that forbade divorce. He did not say DO NOT get remarried--but he was pointing out as he does throughout the Sermon on the Mount that this was not God's ideal--it missed the mark--it was sin.
I just noticed something fascinating about the Sermon on the Mount that is quite relevant to this discussion. In fact, a giant light bulb just went off in my brain. Jesus goes through the different laws "You shall not murder", "You shall not commit adultery", "You shall not swear falsely", etc., and raises the bar on each of them. If you say "Thou fool" to your brother you are in danger of hell fire, lust in your heart is the same as adultery, etc. What he is pointing out are the natural consequences of sinful behavior; he is not writing new law. He is pointing out that divorce should be strenuously avoided because it is not God's ideal, and it is sin. Remarriage is not God's ideal, and it is sin--the specific, ongoing sin of adultery. But there is no new law to forbid these things. This is a very clear case of Jesus "allowing" people to live in sin. Divorce was "allowed" from Old Testament times, and yet here Jesus says if a man divorces his wife he forces her to commit adultery. But he offers no new law forbidding divorce or remarriage. What can this be other than Jesus "allowing" people to live in sin? Angry thoughts can lead you to the hell of fire--and yet there is no new law against angry thoughts. Lust in your heart is the same as adultery--and yet there is no new law against lust.
Why is there no new law, when Jesus clearly shows the terrible consequences of these sins? Why would Jesus allow people to divorce and remarry, even as he shows that they are serious sins? Could it be that he realizes that it is not always possible to unscramble eggs, that human beings are flawed and sometimes you've got to work with what you've got? I hear not the slightest indication from Jesus here that remarried people should spend their remarried lives trying not to be remarried. And yet he does not mince words about the seriousness of the sin. And yet, by not making a new law, he "allows" people to live in sin.
We all have enduring sin. Jesus hammers that home time and time again. But he does not make a new law forbidding divorce and remarriage, or a new law forbidding angry thoughts and lust in our heart. He just wants us to know what the goal is--and he wants us to stop judging our brother.
Modes, Greg conceded our point about Jesus saying remarriage is adultery. If you have a new argument to show how what Jesus said is to be construed differently, let us know. This is a critical issue, and so far you have offered no counter argument for why Jesus should not be taken seriously here.
I look forward to discussing the concept of sin with you, but I can't promise how quickly it will unfold. Looking forward to your response on this.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/4/2001 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Mr. I, I just wanted to say something quickly about the whole issue of sin. I agree with almost everything you say. To me personally, the issue of whether homosexual behavior is sinful is irrelevant. I myself am full to the brim with sin, and if I spend my whole life focusing on the log in my own eye, I can never get it small enough to focus on my brother's speck. As I relate to people in the world, I don't spend much time thinking about whether or not their behavior is sinful. Like I said, I'm pretty occupied with my own struggle with sin--I just can't free up the time.
If someone around me is doing criminal behavior, or massively self-destructive behavior, then of course I am concerned and I am going to try to be a positive influence. But for me to determine what someone else's sin is, and correct it, is just not my business. In fact, as I focus on my own sin I discover that it is only through changes within me, which then change my behavior, which ever have any affect on others anyway. It is all I can do to just give feedback when someone's behavior impacts me badly or is obviously harmful to others. And I usually fail in that regard anyway. Jesus gives me the ratio of concern: my sin is a log, my brother's sin is a speck. I take that statement to heart. That is the ratio.
I've spent a lot of time around gay people who are in monogamous committed relationships, and I've never seen any evidence that they were any more sinful than me. In fact, in many cases I've seen evidence that they were less sinful than me--more giving, more thoughtful, more humble.
The reason I am going after the issue of sin here is because most Christians are very focused on the "sinfulness" of homosexuality, and they will not give that up. Even though the issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is of almost no relevance to me (because again, I am focused on my own sins) I do feel that I have to address that issue in order to unravel the conclusions that Christians have come to about this. I believe that it is easier to prove the hypocricy of judging certain sins worse than others, than it would be to somehow prove that it was not a sin. Do you hear what I'm saying?
Thanks for your contributions. It's great to hear another voice.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 12/4/2001 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | First of all, thanks so much for everyone who's put a lot of time into this. I appreciate it so much. Thanks Modes for consolidating the other thread--I think I now understand where the main disagreement lies in the comparison of divorce/remarriage and homosexuality, and where you and Semeia/Iconoclast are disagreeing. I'm looking forward to see where that discussion goes.
Mr. I brings up a new point that could turn the conversation in a different direction. Mr. I says, and Modes responds:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now, I am not fully seeing why a monogomous homosexual relationship is necessarily sinful and damnable by sin. Like I was saying before, some sins it is pretty obvious, like killing, or rape etc., but it is not as easy to see with homosexuallity. It seems more like a social standard than a biblical principle.
Mr I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THANK YOU!
Not that I agree with this conclusion (I am still in process) per se, but it is the more consistent position. EITHER homosexuality is sin or it is not (likewise with remarriage). And based on the answer there, we should expect that God's transforming power will be at work, in God's timing, to free people from such bondage. It makes more sense to me to reject the notion of homosexuality as sin than it does to accept sin (in principle) into our lives lived in the Spirit. Selah has done a very nice job of illsutrating this recently.
Also, earlier on the "can you remove offensive thread" Modes said this:
quote:
SO:
1. Let's either deal with the questions surrounding whether homosexual activity between mutually consenting adults is even a sin (which Wink seems to suggest it is) OR,
2. Let's critically analyze why and how we ignore the majority of what the Bible says about sexual relations.
We've been focusing on #1, Mr. I is talking more about #2, and I'd kind of like to move there, too, if that's okay, though it doesn't fit exactly with this thread. It may fit better on the "God loves Gay people" thread, especially as Triskal is also wanting to bring the discussion back to some of the issues raised on the "godhatesfags" website. So.....I guess I'll leave it here for now.
For starters, I'll just say up front that I'm just not sure what to do about "using" Bible verses to describe what kind of sexuality is/is not okay. That's not to say I don't think the Bible has anything to say about God's design for sexuality, but that I just don't think it's as easy as Evangelicals (and others) have made it out to be (in some ways I'm really beginning to see why Catholics rely on church authority to interpret the Bible!). I for one used to be convinced that the Bible was crystal clear on these issues (or perhaps I wasn't "convinced," I just accepted what I thought was commonly accepted among all Christians). Now I'm just not sure.
There are about 5 verses in the whole Bible that speak about homosexuality. Tony Campolo comments on 2 of these verses in his book "20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch." The verses are these (I don't know what translation he used, but I've put alternate NRSV translations in parentheses):
I Cor. 6:9--"Know ye that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceive: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (NRSV=male prostitutes), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (NRSV=sodomites)."
I Tim. 1:10--"For whoremongers (NRSV=fornicators), for them that defile themselves with mankind (NRSV=sodomites), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
Campolo says this about these verses (p. 114-115):
...even here there are words of caution for those who would make too easy an application of Scripture to condemn contemporary homosexual behavior.
Among one of the most respected biblical authors (see Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, there is wide acceptance of the opinion that in these passages, Paul was condemning he ancient Greek practice of pederasty. In ancient Greece, much education took place on an individual basis. A given teacher would take on a particular young boy and personally tutor him. In this close relationship of teacher and pupil, it was not uncommon for the teacher to exploit his position of power over his student and either seduce his student or force him to enter into intimate sexual relations with him.
These young boys were considered to be desirable sexual objects in their early adolescence. With the growth of a beard and the apprearance of other physical changes that go along with maturation, the young student would lose his sexual attractiveness. This was because the Greek culture had established the youthful boy as its most erotic sexual object...When the student was no longer desirable to the teacher, he usually was cast aside for newer and younger sexual partners.
Those who were thus abandoned were usually left psychologically devastated and often suicidal. Many students tried to prolong their boyish attractiveness by concealing their oncoming maturation. Taking on effeminate mannerisms was one such technique employed by these psychologically and physically abused young men.
This practice of pederasty was abhorrent to the apostle Paul. He took great offense at all forms of sexual exploitation, and this hideous form, so common in ancient Greece, was particularly a target of his ire. To compare pederasty to a relationship chosen in love is considered by Scroggs and other biblical ethicists to be a serious mistake.
Campolo still comes out and says he thinks "homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God...But I do not think the Scripture should be made to speak in ways which are not in accord with how it was intended to speak in order to make my case." The reasons he gives for believing this are two-fold: a couple verses taken from Leviticus and the witness of church history.
The 2 verses from Leviticus are these (NRSV):
Lev. 18:22--"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." [as an aside, included in the same passage is this verse--Lev. 18:19--"You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her mestrual uncleanness"]
Lev. 20:13--"If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Considering these verses from Leviticus, here is a section from Walter Wink's essay I posted on the Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery thread:
***********************************
Hebrew Sexual Mores
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.
*********************************
Consider also, a statement made by Wislawa on the thread "a plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church":
quote:
I spent a semester living with a Stone Age tribe on the island of New Guinea that was previously polygamous and wrote six papers (yep count ‘em six) on how EV missionaries encountered and dealt with this cultural phenomenon. It is still up for debate but tolerance of polygamy is a ligament view and is now the majority view within the missionaries in New Guinea, although it didn’t use to be that way. Homosexuality is likewise a cultural phenomenon and one that like polygamy it is hard for most EV Christians to relate to. I believe that the main reason for the clash on this issue is not rooted in a fundamental difference between what scripture teaches and actual sin in practice, rather I see it as two subcultures that have very little in common trying, often unsuccessfully, to interact with one another.
Some questions and comments:
1. Can we say BOTH that homosexuality was not God's original design for humans AND that it is not a sin?
2. Given the varied laws/rules/regulations presented in the Bible about all kinds of sexuality, can we still draw out Biblical principles that should guide us? (personally, I think we NEED to, lest we be left with NO ethic at all). The question is this: How do we wade through all the sexual laws/regulations that were given to the Israelites? I want to still say that beastality is wrong, any kind of sexual abuse is wrong, etc., but I'm not sure if we can use the Levitical code as a basis for this. But I could definitely be wrong on this, I just don't know.
3. The strongest reason, I think (that I mentioned above), that Tony Campolo gives for seeing homosexual behavior as something "unacceptable to Christians" is church history. I think he's got a point here--thousands of years of consistent opinions on homosexuality throughout church history should at least make us cautious (but not closed) in exploring a new option. But this brings up a further questions--Has church history really been consistent in regards to homosexuality, or have their been varied opinions?
4. Any mention of lesbianism is arguably completely absent from the Bible, which is an interesting point for the debate.
5. The Romans 1:26-27 passage is important to the discussion too, I'll try to get back to that one sometime soon.
Looking forward to any comments!
**************************
If we are going to change the world at all we must first be a little crazy.
-Wislawa
Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 12/04/2001 4:02:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/7/2001 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Semeia: I just wanted to say something quickly about the whole issue of sin. I agree with almost everything you say. To me personally, the issue of whether homosexual behavior is sinful is irrelevant.
Actually, I am trying to look at this from an apologetic context. from my experience, when apologizing to G/L/B/T's the question of homosexuality being a sin comes up quite frequently. This tends to be a major issue. I personally am trying to figure this out so I better know how to approach this. Of course I could steer away from the subject and focus on a different aspect, or simply say that I don't know, but there are times when you need to face issues like this.
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/7/2001 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Mr I. said: Actually, I am trying to look at this from an apologetic context. from my experience, when apologizing to G/L/B/T's the question of homosexuality being a sin comes up quite frequently. This tends to be a major issue. I personally am trying to figure this out so I better know how to approach this. Of course I could steer away from the subject and focus on a different aspect, or simply say that I don't know, but there are times when you need to face issues like this.
Semeia: I agree with you, Mr. I. One issue with figuring out whether or not homosexuality is a sin is understanding exactly what "sin" is in the first place. Did you read the whole "Homosexuality, Women, and Slavery" thread? Iconoclast and I have an essay out there called "Sin is Not the Same as Evil" which has some foundational ideas about what sin is. For example, the Hebrew word for sin is Chet which means "error" and the Greek word for sin is "Hamartia" which means "missing the mark". Even those definitions cause one to wonder how "off" we all are on what "sin" is--because we certainly don't think of making errors and missing the mark in the way we think of sin.
Iconoclast and I have been talking about going after this issue about what sin is more thoroughly, because it certainly lies at the heart of this issue, but we haven't had the time to do that, and probably won't until after Christmas. But our argument all along has been "IF" you see homosexuality as a sin, the behavior and attitudes and church discrimination against homosexuals STILL DO NOT MAKE SENSE, because it is an issue that is treated hypocritically compared to how we deal with other sins that we all do every day.
But I am VERY interested in anything you have to say on the topic. My comments in no way were intended to lead you in any other direction, or dismiss the ultimate importance of the nature of sin. I was just trying to explain why I was proceeding in the way I was, and make sure you knew that my goal did not include "proving" homosexuality a sin (which is what I feared you were thinking). I'd be interested in your response to the essay about sin that I mention. (It may be other places, too, but I'd like your reaction to the whole chain of thought on the "Women, Homosexuality and Slavery" thread anyway.)
Thanks Mr. I. Does that make sense? I want you to know that I am not at odds with what you are saying.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 12/07/2001 10:00:49 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:40 AM (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 |
|
|