By Tim Reed via Joe Carter:
There was a time, not all that long ago, where expressing racist sentiments in a church would be politely ignored (if not agreed with) while expressing the idea that homosexuality can be compatible with Biblical principles would get you brained with a shovel. Now the circumstances have almost completely flipped (depending on the church). Even churches which strongly disagree with the compatiblity of homosexuality with Christianity the expression of such is likely to result in a tense discussion, while the expression of racist attitudes is likely to receive a strong, visceral, emotional reaction.
So why the differences here? Both homosexuality and racism are sins. Neither can be excused Biblically, and neither should be tolerated within our churches. So why is there a difference in the way they are treated? Why is one seen as acceptable to meet with vitriol and perhaps even violence, while the other is simply cause for concern? The answer is, of course, that we take our cues from our society at large when it comes to how we treat each sin.
Homosexuality is pretty much accepted. Laws have been struck down, sit-coms depict the delights of homosexuality, and courts are slowly forcing homosexual marriage onto voting populaces. On the other hand racism is explicitly outlawed, and there hasn’t been a positive racist sit-com character since Archie Bunker. Not coincidently the church has followed suit.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I find it despicable for people to say that homosexuals "should [not] be tolerated within our churches." What gives anyone the right to cut off anyone else from the body?
I'm not going to get into the arguments of biblical interpretation differences, but just how does any of this fall under the whole "love your neighbor" thing? (And not just in the "I'm loving them by trying to bring them safely out of sin" or the "I love them but not the sin" kind of way.)
Certainly in the church, at a denominational level, homosexuality is far from accepted. Homosexuals are practically punished for being who they are in the UMC. Who's to say who God chooses to call into ordained ministry, for example, even if it's someone who is gay? Do you know more than God? If not, why are you going to stand in the way of God when God calls someone?
Accepting gays into the church is not the problem in fact we should because all sin is rejection of God and we all sin. The problem is ordaining or marrying them which is an open condoning of sin. Paul told Timothy when looking for spiritual leaders to choose those who are above reproach. Someone who is openly and actively homosexual can hardly be described as above reproach.
I find it despicable when people post anonymously just so they can misquote somebody. The post said that neither racism nor homosexuality should be tolerated in the Church. The post never says that we should not tolerate practitioners of either homosexuality or racism.
You may not like it when people say that homosexuality is a sin. Fine. But there is a difference between intolerance toward a behavior, trait, or lifestyle and intolerance toward the people who engage in it. I can love and accept people who drink and drive, but I don't tolerate drinking and driving.
If you want to argue about what is and isn't a sin, the go one and do so. But don't ascribe to someone an idea they clearly didn't express.
To your other points, you quickly dismiss very valid forms of love. If I saw my neighbor's toddler running around with a pair of scissors, would I be loving to just sit back and say nothing? Or should I keep my neighbor's kid from potentially impaling herself? Which is love?
So the Biblical interpretation is very much an issue. If homosexuality isn't a sin, then we should be quiet. But if it is, and if we love homosexuals, we have to say something. You cannot separate the Biblical argument from the practical one. They are wholly bound up together.
And to your last paragraph, I didn't hear anyone say that God doesn't call gays to ministry. Heck, I was still struggling with my sexuality when God called me. And ever after God called, I struggled with some other big lifestyle sins. God is in the business of calling sinners to serve every day.
But God also calls us to repent. And there are some sins which cut right to the heart of who we are that we must repent of and be healed from those before we are ready to pursue the order of Elder or Deacon.
That in no way denies the call of God on anyone's life. It is to say that the call of God is a great gift- and to whom much is given, much is required
Well, that was rather reactive! Posting anonymously is a valid option and it shouldn't matter where comments come from, it's the discussion that is important, right? In any case, I will respectfully continue to be anonymous.
My main point is, because there are many different interpretations of biblical truth, and subsequently the definition of sin, I don't think it is right to try to impose a single human interpretation as the standard without considering the possibility that the other side might not only be valid, but also contains truth as well.
I certainly concede the validity of your position and recognize the levels of divine truth in it. I would hope that we could all realize that no one here on earth can even come close to knowing difinitively how God currently views homosexuality.
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm totally right and you are totally wrong. I'm simply trying to express that maybe those who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin also carry some of that divine truth.
In general - and not specifically about you, John - I can't believe the arrogance that comes with so many on the side of traditional biblical interpretation who feel that they have a monopoly on truth and that everything is either an absolute right or an absolute wrong. That line of thinking is extremely volitile and lies at the heart of almost every religious conflict. Yes, we are called to be radical and what God presents us with isn't alway easy. I just think that compromise and discussion work towards allowing God's will to be revealed because no one view shows the entire picture.
Through the prophets of old, God revealed more and more of God's self even after what was concidered to be the final collections of scripture were written and well-established. Jesus was such a figure as well, turning long-held norms and ways of thinking on end.
What makes more sense: that God continues to reveal more and more of "His" will even to this day in ways we would never expect and that abbrogation, which happens even in the Bible, is an ongoing process; or that God is through revealing "Him"self beacause the traditional biblical canon is complete? I prefer to leave an opening for the possibility that God isn't done yet.
I too believe that God isn't one yet. The Bible itself tells us so.
But in terms of a major shirft in revelation, I see no reason to expect one until Christ returns.
Consider the history of revelation contained in the Scriptures. God came to Abraham and was revealed to a family. God came to Moses and was revealed to a newly formed culture called out of slavery. God came to David and was revealed to a nation which was coming into its own. God came to the prophets and was revealed to a fallen nation being scattered across the whole world. And then God came in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and became revealed in the perfect union of God and man.
So every shift in revelation, every time God unvieled something new, God did it through an upward shift in the quality of the mediator between us and God.
So until Christ comes I see no reason to expect any new heavy-duty revelation. I do expect the continued unfolding of what God began in Christ until it is fulfilled in His return.
So there probably won't be any major revelation between now and the second-coming? Isn't that limiting? And what about Paul and the others that wrote after Jesus' time? If humanity is consistently presented with higher quality mediators, what is the explanation for those that came after Jesus? If they are of less quality than Jesus as mouthpieces of a divine message, wouldn't it mean that there could be others that are just as likely to carry on the prophetic tradition in these times? I'm not talking about a major shift in revelation necessarily, it wouldn't have to be. I think it's possible that, as you say, God continues to unfold what God began and that may mean a shift in understanding, if not a major revelation.
If we are waiting for the Lord to supply us with some new revelation that will tell us definitively that homosexuality is a viable option, then I think we will have a long wait ahead of us. "Love your neighbor ..." is indeed a command of action and not emotion. If we are convicted of the truth that homosexuality - like ALL sin - has the potential to destroy and we possess the genuine love of God in our hearts, we dare not be silent.
As for these tired arguments that the "old passages" were an ancient text written for an ancient people who no longer exist and, in that regard, noting that Jesus never mentions homosexuality is extremely limiting. To suggest that these Gospels we possess contain each and every syllable ever spoken by Jesus is absurd.
Even if Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, could it possibly be that this was one item He considered to be a "no brainer"? If the Hebrew text is not abundantly clear regarding homosexuality, then I suppose I am free to "love my (female) neighbor" since the prohibition against adultery was written for an ancient people who no longer exist. There is now the new "if it feels good, do it" covenant that tells me love is painless.
Mike,
Well said indeed.
So far as Paul and the New Testament writers, remember that they all wrote from their direct experience of Christ. They themselves are not mediators between us and God. They simply reflect their direct, face-to-face witness to Our Lord.
So I don't look at Paul's words or John's words or Peter's words as a revelation after Christ, but as part of the revelation Christ brought and brings.
I believe that Christ still reveals, but nothing He is revealing is substantively different that what is revealed in Him already. So Paul's instructions on sexuality, among other things, are still very much in play for us. And what ever God is saying to us now who stile live in the Church age begun after the resurrection does not and will not contradict what God said then.
So yes, God is still revealing, but the next "big" step in the process of revelation awaits the return of Christ. In that day, we shall neither be married nor given in marriage- meaning that we shall no longer be sexual beings for the intimacy of the New Heavens and New Earth will transcend the intimacy of sexuality. So God's next move is not to broaden the permissible scope of sexual expression to to replace sexuality in the age to come with a more perfect mode of intimacy.
Until then, I see no warrant to assume that the proper avenue for sexual expression is anything other than the union of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony. In the union of these two distinct and different beings, the male and female, we see a mirror of the union between God and humanity which Christ is and which Christ shall bring in full in the World to Be.
Anyone for whom Christian marriage is not a pleasing notion who yet wishes to pursue Christ should remain celibate.
Mike said: "As for these tired arguments that the "old passages" were an ancient text written for an ancient people who no longer exist and, in that regard, noting that Jesus never mentions homosexuality is extremely limiting. To suggest that these Gospels we possess contain each and every syllable ever spoken by Jesus is absurd."
I never said, nor implied, that the scriptures were in any way essentially null and void because of their age or that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality or that the Gospels were to be taken as a word-for-word account of everything Jesus said. And, as for the last sentence of Mike's first paragraph, that statement calls for a large supposition that everyone believes the same way he does. And I think that it's incorrect to assume that we all are convicted of that same "truth." I'd just like to make that clear.
And, again, I reiterate that I'm not talking about a big step in revelation but rather a shift in understanding and that we can't know what God's next move is or is not. I think it's possible to undergo such a shift in uderstanding to the extent that even the same revelations can be viewed in a different light, leading to a different conclusion. Certainly, we should be able to see how you and I are examples of that.
Obviously we are just going around in circles here and everything I say will warrent a contrary response from you, and vice versa, and the conversation will turn into nothing more than two opposed sides trying to convince the other. It's been a lively conversation and I appreciate your part in it. I recognize the validity of what you have to say, even though I ultimately don't agree with all of it. I don't feel as though either side "won" the debate, necessarily, I just hope you understood where I am coming from as I did you. Thanks!
Understood, nameless person.
Post a Comment