How Does Progessive Christianity Avoid Becoming Secular Humanism?
I have been writing politically and Christian-based articles for several years now on opednews. I have called myself a Christian Progessive before it was mainstream. I walked to the steps of the Capital with Jim Wallis to pray for this country and sincerely believe that Mr. Wallis is a desperately needed voice in America. I was invited over here by Eileen and have enjoyed some of the exchange here, although I have not had the time i would have liked to dive in.
I have perused some of the proposed topics and am growing concerned about what some people might think is progressive Christianity. Perhaps that alone can be a topic. For me, when i started using the tag years ago, progressive Christianity did not embrace the far right vision which is neither progressive, nor Christian. It believed that you do not have to compromise your beliefs to feel that elected officials could be held to account for lies and excess. Progressive Christianity dismissed the wedge issues as the primary motivation for voting. It believed as Wallis does, that a budget is a moral document.
Christianity itself however cannot change. The definition has to remain that Jesus Christ is the son of God, came to die for our sins, and rose on the third day. If you remove that, then i fail to see how you remain "Christian." It starts with the Bible. Not as an historical document or a collection of poetry, but as the inerrant Word of the living God. Once you strip the Bible of it's inerrancy, you have decided as man, what is and is not God. You have essentially left Christianity and embraced humanism, where humans decide what is and is not God. You cannot have a salad bar theology where you pick and choose what you like in the Bible, but ignore portions that you think are not politically correct or make you feel bad.
I know the atheist argument that man wrote the Bible but if you believe in God, you believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible and spoke through them. I also understand the argument that the Bible as constituted today was not decided upon until hundreds of years after Christ walked the earth at the Council of Nicea. However, if you believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, then you can easily believe that God decided what Gospels and letters would comprise His book. That is probably the basis for faith.
I feel i have lived the past several years as proof that you can speak against the corruption that infests all sides of this society and still hold on to what you believe. The voices that have claimed the mantle of modern Christianity do not actually care about the cause of Christ and as Christians, that is what we are supposed to be concerned with. The goal should not be to fit our Christianity into the world but rather to bring our Christianity to the world. But you do not do it with hate. You do not do it with division. You do not do it with war. You do it with the love of Christ.
That said, perhaps we should have a discussion about how we keep Christ in Christianity? And i don't mean some dressed down version of Christ. I do not mean some human version of Christ. When we start referring to the Bible is historical and not literal, we cross a dangerous line. Man has been trying to re-write God since the beginning of time. But in the end, God is God. That is the fundamental belief of a Christian. A secular humanist believes that man is God, or at the least, man can use his "knowledge" and "science" to decide what God is and is not. We must have a basis for our faith and belief and that must be the Bible. Without it, you are not a progressive Christian, you are but another figure trying to say to Eve, "surely you will not die." Doubting the Word of God started in the garden and continues today. There is nothing progressive about it.
Be well.
A main idea of (spiritual) Progressive Christianity articulates that belief, dogma, creed (known in Jesus’ time as the law) has been way overemphasized and the born again spirit of a fresh new person in Christ or EXPERIENCE
has been way underemphasized. This is divinely articulated by Marcus Borg. ~ Adiego from buy hcg
Can Christianity embrace science and a high degree of morality in social matters? if so I think it'll convert many, but what is damaging the effort is the attachment to the irrational, verifably incorrect sections of the Bible.
Renalt HCG diet
I'm distressed to hear that I don't seem to be welcome here. I gave my life to Christ at the age of 14. God saved me and filled me with His Spirit. When I turned 18, I fell in love, with a woman, the same gender as I. She was not a Christian but through much prayer she came to give her life to Christ as well. We have been together for the past 15 years in a monogamous relationship and were legally married in Washington D.C. We serve together in ministry at www.pottershousechurchny.com. NEVER during any of these experiences did I come to feel that God removed from me the precious salvation He gave to me freely at age 14. Never did He stop talking to me, directing me, or loving me. He has never left me, and He has not forsaken me. I can give you every theological argument in the book that explains that the Bible NOWHERE addresses same gender relationships based on love (and not idol worship) as being an abomination, but generally I try to let my life and my love speak for itself. Perhaps that's not "Progressive Christianity," but it's who I am. Write YOUR faith @ www.nuwinepress.com/mystory
Progressive Christianity is not about straight, gay, or any other kind of political mind set. I think it is about the mind of Christ in the individual. Each individual I feel will manifest that spiritual experience perfectly in their own way. Peace
Anthony, it sounds like you want something akin to a theocracy. Applying one highly subjective version of Christian morality is not our government's job. Instead, it applies morality via a the general consensus of the majority without stepping on the rights of any minority. The last time that was tried folks got burned at the stake.
James Madison, who was a spiritual man, did not want government entangled in Christianity nor the other way around. Madison was on to something. After all, he observed that for the first 300 years of Christianity there was no state-sanctioned Christianity. If anything, there was state hostility exhibited by the Roman Empire. Yet, in spite of this situation, Christianity spread like wildfire.
With regard to your desire to bring Christianity to everyone, let everyone find Christ as he or she sees fit--that is the essence of free will. And please avoid usig a loaded term like "secular humanism." First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with a secular government acting morally; in fact it is a goal worth pursuing. Secondly, the term comes from an obscure footnote in a Supreme Court case cited by Justice Hugo Black. Self-appointed culture warriors such as Bill O'Reilly have taken this footnote regarding a rather minute organization and blew it up into an imaginary conspiracy.
You obviously have not read my body of work at opednews. If you had, you would know that I would never advocate for a theocracy. Not even close.
Secular means non-religious and humanism refers to man at the center not God. That was all I meant.
Well, I'm sorry that Anthony felt his views have been mocked by a few people. And it has been tough for him to have to answer 5 or 6 different people, which meant he often had to give shorter answers than he wanted to to answer all their questions. But quite a few posts weren't being mocking of him, and had legitimate questions of the position he was taking. I really don't buy a lot of what he wrote in his last post.
If you read all the posts, and not just Anthony's, you'll find a wide variety of opinions that do not fit into Anthony's description of a monolithic humanist crowd. RC Gould, for instance, wrote a post reminding people to ask what Jesus would do. Grannie Annie talked about her experiences with birth control. Rungavagairun articulated a vision that tried to reconcile those who believed homosexuality is wrong with those with those who believe homophobia is wrong. I tried in earlier posts to bring back the subject the original post topic, which was whether an inerrant reading of the Bible was the way to put Christ in the center of Progressive Chrisian thought. Anthony's description of humanism may describe me but it doesn't describe the others.
Wpeltz made an effort to pin Anthony down on how he defined his terms, and I think that was a wise thing. Anthony believes that to put Christ back into a Progressive Christian, one needed to have an inerrant reading of the Bible. In my opinion, such a view would exclude not only individual Christians, but entire congregations. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, gives equal weight to tradition and to the Pope as to the Bible in Church authority, and they support the theory of evolution. Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians are all grappling with the homosexuality issue. They're still Christian.
I personally didn't mean to say that Anthony is not empathetic. I was trying to describe empathy in a way that was different from how Anthony was describing it. Richard Mouw, the author I was quoting, holds pretty much the same positions that Anthony holds: he thinks homosexuality is a sin; he believes in a strict reading of the Bible. But he acknowledges the pain and suffering of his gay friends, and defends them from audiences who would look down upon them. It just seems that Mouw is more effective in giving his message because he is couching his opinions in personal experiences and not just a biblical argument.
I tried to have a debate about the dangers of leaving Christ out of progressive Christianity. I have in return been branded as having no empathy, no humility, uncaring, as well as having my beliefs semi-mocked because I do not bow down at the altar of man-made science.
No this is not a woe-is-me diatribe. The point is that the point, is getting lost amongst the agendas on the board. As such, it is no longer beneficial, nor serving Christ.
For the record, you have to decide what you believe in. I choose the Bible and believe it is God breathed, as the Bible says it is. I understand that you all may feel that is silly. I believe that when you attempt to recast portions of the Bible using human reason, you run a specific danger. That being that you have become humanistic by definition. Humans deciding how to craft their God. What makes it more wrong, is that you choose specific verses you like, and then dismiss the ones you do not like with science, or historical context, or whatever else.
Does that mean we do not have common ground, of course not. Does that mean we are enemies, of course not. Perhaps this was a mistake, I don't know. I think it is important though to know what you believe in and where you got those beliefs from.
If anyone took offense, I sincerely apologize as that was not my intent. I believe if you re-read the posts, you will see the majority of my posting is in direct response to 5-6 different people.
May God show us all, His divine will.
God is a God of diversity and LOVES all his creation.
We are all on a spiritual journey back to the One Creator that we call God for lack of a better word.
God is BEYOND our concepts, our thoughts and our POV's are colored by our world view and personal history.
Please consider how happy the spirit of divisiveness is when sisters and brothers in Christ argue over MYSTERIES and LOVE and sexual attraction is most mysterious, don't you think?
Please consider how happy the spirit of the anti-Christ [against Jesus' teachings] is when sisters and brothers get mired in trying to remove the splinters in another's eye; when we all have a life time of interior work to do!
Please remember that as he died on the cross, Jesus prayed we would be ONE, and how can we be one with him and the father, when we argue over what we cannot change and is not our business to judge?
Please consider the pain that gays and lesbians have endured for millennial because they have been considered 'outcasts' and remember that Jesus preferred the company of outcasts to the rigidly religious who thought they had God all figured out.
Please consider the opportunity before us all to be the voice of Christianity that speaks in unity of God's unmerited love for all his creation and let us leave the judgment of sin up to the Divine Judge.
What we are called to today, is not so much speak of Jesus; but BE Jesus to a hurting dysfunctional world.
e
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
Angelo, in "Too Tempting Not to Add My Piece", points out how some of us "feel constantly drawn to answer some of Anthony's posts."
I think there's an important reason for that. The issue is where the line gets drawn between people coming together as progressive Christians or just as plain progressives.
Your first post in this topic, Anthony, has these words: "Once you strip the Bible of it's inerrancy, you have decided as man, what is and is not God. You have essentially left Christianity and embraced humanism, where humans decide what is and is not God."
The plain sense of that statement is that, since I think the Bible is indeed a human document, a record of spiritual experience and reflection, I have left Christianity. If so, how can you as a progressive Christian be in union with me, a progressive non-Christian? Not only with me, but with every commentator, ordained and unordained, who makes "the atheist argument that man wrote the Bible".
You go on to say that "if you believe in God, you believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible and spoke through them." The conclusion can only be that those who don't believe as you do, do not believe in God and all are truly atheist humanists.
You have said elsewhere that you're not judgmental, but in addition to the words above, you went on to say "The voices that have claimed the mantle of modern Christianity do not actually care about the cause of Christ". That sounds very judgmental to me. With those words, you have classified many others, such as, say, Marcus Borg, as not caring about the cause of Christ. This leads to a logical conclusion that they do not really belong in the church, since advancing the cause of Christ is the only good reason to be there.
So the overarching issue that you raise for me (among many others issues we've already been discussing) is whether we can act in concert as fellow Christians or are we just progressives who share many, many views about issues and who can come together in ad hoc coalitions to support various causes.
I am sorry but when i respond to the homosexuality issue and say that i have not been judgmental, it is then disengenuous to say i have stated i am not judgmental and relate it to a completely different contextual conversation where I am speaking about today's Christian leaders.
As it relates to homosexuality i have not been judgmental, i have said we need to love everyone. As it relates to modern Christian leaders such as Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, etal, i have been CRITICAL, not judgmental. Their selfish ambition and politicization of Christ has not been for Christ. I stand by that criticism and would welcome anyone to debate it with me.
"Disingenuous" carries with it the meaning of intentional distortion, falseness, insincerity. In this case, I remembered your use of the words "not judgmental" out of context. I apologize for that. In other contexts, however, I would still venture to make the case that you are often judgmental.
I think you, in turn, have missed my context. Since you had been discussing how those who don't believe the Bible is God's inerrant word have "left Christianity", I had assumed your next paragraph about modern Christian leaders was still on that subject and referred to people like Marcus Borg. I didn't pick up any clue that you were referring to the Christian Right.
I agree with your criticism of Robertson, Falwell, et al. No debate is necessary.
Now as to the "overarching question" I was asking, I will ask it more directly. Do you think that you and I can be fellow Christians in a movement or organization of Progressive Christians? Or, since I'm not an inerrantist, do I not qualify?
If you read through these posts, i have had my words taken out of context before and been flat out accused fo things i never said, so if i was over-sensitive, i apologize.
I think we can agree on things that do not have to do with the Bible and could possibly work together for common goals, sure. The purpose of the thread was to make sure we know what we are talking about. If the goal is to advance the cause of christ and undo certain political or social wrongs, yes. If the goals is to moderate sin and weaken the Bible, then I again do not believe that it serves the cause of christ, to rewrite Him, recast Him, or put Him into some humanized context.
Sorry WPeltz if I misrepresented your posts. In writing that some people are constantly commenting on Anthony's posts, I was referring to Stephen and Jim's posts about the book they recommended and trying to get Anthony to see a Christian gay person's perspective. I'm interpreting their posts as an attempt to elicit some empathy on Anthony's part for the struggles a gay person goes through, because some of Anthony's posts seem kind of dismissive of that.
One of the problems of these posts is that so many people are making so many comments and good points that, to be fair to Anthony, it would be hard to comment on all of them. It took me a while to read all of them, and if there's no picture to go with the post, it's easy to mix up who is writing what.
I agree with your post. I actually don't see why it's so bad that progressive christians agree with secular humanists on some issues. I don't think any group or person has a monopoly on what's right or just. That sort of diversity is good. Because none of us has all the answers, it keeps us humble.
No problem, Angelo. I wasn't taking that as criticism or misrepresentation. I agree that the number of posts make it difficult for Anthony to comment on all of them.
The issue I'm raising is not about progressive Christians agreeing with secular humanists. Rather, it's about whether those who use the label "progressive Christian" will split over doctrinal differences, as Christians have done from the beginning. Do we have a litmus test, in this case inerrancy, for a prescribed range of orthodox thought?
I've been refraining from adding my say to these latest posts because it seems like the participants are pretty set in their views and nothing that they say will change the others minds. And since Anthony seems to be answering 4 or 5 different people, I didn't want to be yet another person for him to have to address. But when a post starts dealing with hermaphrodites, gay conspiracies, and Yoder, it sounds too fun not to join in. But I'll try a different tact.
Instead of trying to think of some point that others in this post are doing a better job of articulating, I'll just quote from two authors: St. Paul, and Richard J. Mouw, from his article "Hanging In There: Why Conservatives Need Liberals" in the January 13, 2004 issue of the Christian Century. I think because I'm acutely aware of my own flaws, I always feel ackward quoting from the Bible, but I think what Paul wrote in Romans has some pertinance to this conversation. And though I disagree with Richard Mouw's position on homosexuality, he makes a larger point that I agree with and it complements the passage from Romans. So here we go:
"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgement, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." (Romans 1:24-2:1)
"I have spoken often to evangelical audiences about sexuality issues. And I have always made it very clear to them- as I must to you- that my views on same-sex relations are very traditional. I am convinced that genital intimacy between person of the same gender is not compatible with God's creating or redeeming purposes. But that kind of clarification of my understanding of biblical teaching for evangelical groups has usually been a preface to a plea for sexual humility.
I often tell of listening to a conservative spokesman express his views in this way: 'We normal people should tell these homosexuals that what they are doing is simply an abomination in the eyes of God.' When I heard that, I tell my audiences, I wanted to cry out, 'Normal? Your are normal? Let's all applaud for the one sexually normal person in the room!'
The fact is that none of us- or at least very few of us- can honestly claim to be normal sexual beings in the eyes of God. The labels we typically use in describing sexual orientation are blatant examples of false advertising. My homosexual friends are not very 'gay'. They have experienced much pain and loss in their lives. And the rest of us are not very 'straight'. We are crooked people, often bruised and confused in our sexuality.
...We are all sinners who have been deeply wounded by the stain of our depravity, and we are nowhere more vulnerable and given to temptation than in the sexual dimensions of our being. In our sexual lives, as in all other areas, we know that while we may be on a journey toward wholeness, we are a long way from our destination...
This is an important time for each of us to be honest about our sexual condition. Evangelicals have nothing to brag about in this area. It is not enough for us to tell those of you with whom we disagree how wrong we think you are. Nor is it very helpful for you folks to keep insisting that we can solve most of our theological problems in this area by focusing on a Jesus who cares deeply about a generic, unnuanced 'inclusivity'. If that is all we have to say to each other, there is no hope for continuing unity of our denomination." Richard J. Mouw, Christain Century, January 13, 2004.
Even though I disagree with Mouw about whether homosexuality is a sin, I'm much more inclined to listen to Mouw because he shows a genuine compassion that I just don't see in Anthony's posts. I think some of the others are picking up on this too, which is why they feel constantly drawn to answer some of Anthony's posts. This is unfair to Anthony, because I'm sure he has a lot of empathy for gays. It's just in focusing so much of his posts on defining terms, Anthony's empathy gets lost. Maybe I'm partly to blame for constantly asking him to define "inerrancy" and "cherrypicking". Anthony has stated that, even if a person believes homosexuality is a sin, we all have an obligation to love homosexuals as we do any other people. That's a bigger point we can all agree upon.
I added this Romans section, because Paul isn't condemning homosexuals; he's condemning all of us. If we're not guilty of one particular sin, we're guilty of something else. So we don't have a right to judge.
It bothers me that people think there is no empathy in my position. Let me try and break it down:
1) I believe in heaven and hell, literally.
2) I believe sin seperates us from God.
3) I believe if you die seperate from God you end up in hell.
4) I believe hell is not a fun place.
5) I believe that ANY sin that seperates you from God, means you will end up in hell, which is not a fun place.
6) I believe that homosexuality is a sin.
7) Putting all of this together, if i believe the above, what kind of person would i be if i did not try and tell the homosexual that his/her lifestyle seprates him/her from God? I may as well tell him/her to go to hell.
As far as empathy, i have said i truly believe that they believe they are born that way, i truly do. I believe they are sincere. I also believe they are sincerely wrong. You can be heartfelt, true, sincere, a good person, and be wrong. It seems that because I do not accept their feelings as fact, that I am branded as not being empathetic. I think that is a flawed opinion and grossly unfair.
But hey, take your shots. God knows my heart. He knows that I operate for His will and to try and postively impact as many people as i can. Be well all.
I ask these questions in all seriousness, as a Catholic who strongly believes in keeping church and state seperate:
1) Do you believe that people who get tatoos go to hell?; and
2) Do men who shave their faces also go to hell?
No to both
Well I'm not trying to take shots at you. Just trying to express my disagreement. Since I don't agree with an inerrant reading of the Bible, an argument with you would be a frustrating exercise for me: you'd base your arguments on an inerrant reading of the Bible, and I'd always try to bring the argument back to life experiences and I'd cite those parts of the bible I agree with (so I guess I'm one of those people who cherry picks).
I guess what I meant by empathetic is different than what you're talking about. Richard J. Mouw holds pretty much the same position as you do, but he acknowledges the suffering and loss of his gay friends, and defends them from people who sees his friends as only an "abomination to God". When you talk about loving gays in spite of their sin, in my ears, it sounds very much like a theoretical love divorced from any experience. This may be unfair to you and I apologize. Your posts are so preoccuppied with articulating a Biblical argument for your position, you haven't really told us of your personal experiences. But when I read Richard Mouw's article, his beliefs are grounded in experience. He's had gay friends with whom he's been with their down time, and he makes it a point to disabuse audiences of the notion that they could look down on them. He may think homosexuality is a sin, but he's also showing through his experiences that his empathy is more than just a theological argument. I have a feeling that, because of his views, his gay friendships are probably fraught with tension. But at least he's making a go at something that other conservatives would probably frown upon.
I'm not trying to put you down or misrepresent you, but do you see what I mean by empathy? I have gay friends and acquiantances whom I've seen get picked on and harassed and I think it's wrong. I don't know if you have gay friends, but if you do, don't you get mad to see a friend get harassed for no reason other than prejudice? I think this is what Stephen and Jim are trying to elicit from you: the sort of empathy that acknowledges the pain and anger of victims of homophobia.
Well said Angelo and wpeltz. Both your posts make valid points.
If we are going to be anything like an effective movement, we're going to have to accept broad and varied interpretations of the Bible. It is ok for us to express our worries about the pitfalls related to one stance over another, but as wpeltz points out, to say in one breath 'I'm not judging' and in the next in essence 'if you adhere to these beliefs then you aren't a Christian' is disingenuous and harmful. Instead, we need to express our differences in respectful and humble ways.
david
By the way, for a very human story about the ramifications of teenagers who come into their sexual identity, I would commend the October book of the month: The God Box by Alex Sanchez:
http://www.crossleft.org/?q=books
We can debate all we want about whether its a sin, but this gives the very human story about those folks who grow up Christian and gay.
I understand that people who are gay feel they were born that way. I disagree. Agreement throws the Word of God out the window and is by definition, humanism. And I am sorry but sometimes life is often a choice between God or being against God and wanting to give in to the flesh. God decides your sexual indentity.
We have NO words attributed to Jesus on the mystery of gay and lesbian love.
Do we or do we not agree that God is LOVE?
How two people give and share LOVE is their business,
Not ours.
Jesus was very clear to not judge others and since we have no evidence of his speaking about homosexuality why not follow his lead?
e
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
I am tired of people using the word judge, when it is not judgment. My saying that the Bible says homoseuxality is against the will of God, is not being judgmental. I have never said that being gay means you belong in hell. I have not judged them.
As for Jesus, He is the Father as well as the Son. Thus what God said, Jesus said, thus Jesus most certainly has spoken on the subject. Unless of course you do not believe in the triune God.
Lastly, you can love people and still tell them they may be doing something wrong in the eyes of God. This notion that love means not being critical is deeply flawed.
aw
On the one hand, there is this: "My saying that the Bible says homoseuxality is against the will of God, is not being judgmental. I have never said that being gay means you belong in hell. I have not judged them."
On the other hand, in your post "I'll try again", there's this:
"5) I believe that ANY sin that seperates you from God, means you will end up in hell, which is not a fun place. 6) I believe that homosexuality is a sin."
Since "2) I believe sin seperates us from God" it's hard for me not to conclude that you believe being gay means you belong in hell.
Did I miss something again?
and your posts indicate you are smarter than that. I am stating what i believe God says. You are then attributing that to my judging someone. It is not only unseemly, it should be beneath you. It appears you want to fight, well I do not.
Be well.
I'm not trying to pick a fight -- I'm looking for clarity since I'm frequently confused by your posts.
My post was about an apparent inconsistency, not on attributing judgmentalism on your part. The only mention of judgement was in the sentences of yours that I quoted. The point of the full quote was to set in context your statement that you had never said gays belong in hell. I then quoted your statement that you believe that homosexuality is a sin and that sinners go to hell.
So what did I miss? Isn't it a logical conclusion that the two statements contradict each other?
Or does "belong in hell" imply for you something more judgmental than simply being judged and sent to hell? However, if God's judgment is by definition just, then don't these sinners, like all sinners, "belong" in hell?
I really don't get it.
I think you do get it, I honestly do. I think you get it, but would rather have me try to say more, so more hairs can be split and the truth gets muddied.
Do you believe in heaven and hell? If so, do you believe it as the Bible says. If so, who goes to hell?
aw
...I still really don't get it. Attribute to me what you will, I continue to be puzzled by what I see as that same inconsistency.
Your question doesn't clarify it for me.
You have asked me questions and i have tried to answer them, no matter how much they digressed from the topic. So, my turn.
Do you believe in heaven and hell, if yes, who goes to hell?
With all due respect, my perception is that you've not clearly answered most of my questions -- and I don't see that any of my questions were off-topic. They've all been prompted by things you've written that aren't clear to me.
Your question: From your frame of reference, my answer is no. I see heaven and hell as terms in a parable. Purgatory makes for a good parable, too.
Anthony, consider this. You have acknowledged that, assuming that you and I are correct in our belief that homosexual acts are outside of the will of God, it is not wrong to be tempted by this sin.
I don't think that we lose ground nor respect for the Bible as inerrant by conceding to the possibility that homosexual tendencies might be inborn through some naturalistic mechanism.
I would also point out that if it is true that homosexual tendencies are inborn, this does not mean that it is therefore permissible in God's eyes. Alcoholism, and kleptomania may also be caused by either genetic or psychological/mental states that were clearly not something chosen by the individuals who struggle with them. However, no one would argue that because there are people who have natural tendencies toward addiction to alcohol or stealing that it is not a sin.
We can both concede to the possibility that homosexuality is natural and inborn in some or many cases, and still believe that the behavior is sinful because the Bible speaks clearly on the matter.
david
I would have a real problem with a God that gives people an in-born predispostion toward the same sex and then sends them to hell for acting on it. I think that once you accept that God made people gay, you have left the Bible far far behind, and made God into a liar.
I would welcome further explanation, but there seem to be fatal flaws in this theory.
Well, you have said earlier that "God decides your sexual identity."
That does bring one to a choice point: there are a few options.
1. There is no in-born predisposition for homosexuality, regardless of whatever findings biological-genetic-hormonal-fetal developmental research might produce. God's decisions are binary only -- male or female. (But what about hermaphroditism, as brought up by run-gavagai-run?)
2. There is an in-born predisposition for at least some of the people who engage in homosexual acts.
2a. thus, God made a mistake and forgives all acts that result from it.
2b: thus, God made a mistake but still condemns all acts that result from it. Gays are expected to follow the rules like everyone else. In this case, they must be celibate.
2c. thus, God didn't make a mistake and it's okay. The Biblical rules that condemn homosexual acts are culture-bound and time-bound, not universal. Homosexuals have, perhaps, some distinct qualities that allow them to make distinctive contributions to the household of God.
2d. thus, God didn't make a mistake but still condemns all acts that result from it. Gays must recognize that they have a God-given call to celibacy or they are damned.
2e. None of the above: it's a sin caused by 3rd parties, such as chemical companies that discharge hormone-altering chemicals that alter fetal sexual development or cause genetic mutations that lead to homosexuality. And to hermaphroditism, a question which was brought up earlier but never answered.
2e1 - the punishment is wreaked on the 3rd parties only -- who may be multiple and include huge numbers of people, from executives to legislators to regulators and all others who worship Mammon and who should have known better but disregarded relevant research findings.
2e2 - the punishment is still on the gay person and only on that person, who should have remained celibate despite everything.
2e3 - they're all damned to hell one way or another.
Choices #1 and #2c are the ones an inerrantist could make, I believe. Well, #2e could have some appeal, too. There's considerable research on chemical pollutants that are hormone disrupters in wildlife. The effects include the feminisation of male fetuses.
Your statement that "once you accept that God made people gay, you have left the Bible far far behind, and made God into a liar" precludes #2c -- but should it? And God as "liar" would not apply at all if one isn't an inerrantist.
Anthony, if Gay after Gay, say over and over again, "I had no choice in the matter, I am just Gay", how did they all come to say the same thing? Many Gays and Lesbians also say: "I didn't want to be Gay, it is much more convienient to be straight, but I was just born that way". Are they all lying, Anthony? Are hundreds of thousands of Gays and Lesbians, maybe millions, all able to get on the same page and say the same thing? I don't think so. It would be one heck of a conspiracy.
I have said over and over again, i believe their sincerity. I do however believe they are mistaken.
I think we like for things to be more clear-cut than they often are. What do you make of hermaphrodites?
It seems to me that if God could allow physiologically sexual ambiguity such as this condition, psychological, chemical genetic or other conditions that are in no way an arbitrary choice of the individual involved may exist in a substantive way.
there's actually a lot of scientific evidence that documents differences in homosexuality, so its not a matter of what we feel but what's documented as evidence.
my comment and the book are not geared towards one's theological or political dispositions, but rather address the human element of this. young people who realize they are gay have a difficult time with that fact and once they do come out are treated as outcasts and sometimes much worse, most of the time from judgmental Christians who are hating their sin and the person in the process.
Again, I would encourage folks to read the book as it gives a fictional account of what many of our brothers and sisters actually go through.
Unfortunately, it is all fiction Stephen. If the purpose of the book is to portray Christians as people of hate then it will nto advance the cause of Christ. I agree that Christians, like the world can be too judgmental. I have said all along that Christians trump homosexuality into a super sin so they can feel better about their own sin issues.
None of that removes the fact that your premise remains flawed. I have studied statistics and I can tell you that if i wanted to, i can fashion a study to tell me whatever i wanted to hear. Doesn't make it right. Don't you see the inherent hypocrisy by claiming you believe in Christ but not the Bible? That you like the verses where He speaks about loving thy neighbor but discard the ones that grate against a sin you do not want to let go of? In order for your position to be accurate, God is a liar or he does not transcend time and is not omniscient. What kind of God is that? Powerless and not in control. I do not believe that. And for what? Because people "feel" they know better than God.
I don't know man. I wish you well.
Anthony,
I was talking about the personal element of homosexuality...that people struggle with real feelings and being outcasts. The book is actually written by a Christian about Christians and their various reactions...before making judgments about the book, perhaps you should read it.
This discourse is particularly frustrating since you seem to think you have the truth on all matters theological, scientific, or otherwise.
In reference to theology, other issues such as gender roles and slavery that Paul addresses can be explained away with understanding the cultural norms at the time, but not homosexuality. And you aren't willing to say that you interpret the Bible, just like any of us. We are all entitled to our interepretations of the Bible and it doesn't make us any less Christian or less following God if we see things differently.
In reference to science, you point out your disagreements as being having a different opinion on theory. You think the earth is 6,000-20,000 years old because the Bible says so and things like evolution and the big bang are "theory" to be disagreed with by Christians. Given your background as a science teacher you will know that theories are actually are not random assertions by scientists, but testable models which have been verified with facts, observations and tests. Your use of terms is substituting "theory" for what actually is a "hypothesis". We can all propose our hypotheses about the age of the earth or whether homosexuality is biological, but in science such hypotheses must be tested and measured against observable facts.
The role of facts should be noted here as well. The geological record and our astronomical observations fairly accurately can predict both the age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years) and the universe (some 17 Billion years). The fossil record demonstrates life on earth going back some 500 million years for complex life organisms. If science and religion are to be compatible we must accept facts as they stand rather than standing behind hypotheses as proposed by any one faith. Where science runs up against what the Bible states we inevitably need to do some interpretation for ourselves. For example, without "inerrantly" believing the universe was created in seven days, I can still believe that God created the universe that he was there at the big bang, that the conditions of life were slowly created and that we evolved into self-aware and God-aware beings who could recognize him and praise God for the glories of creation.
What does science say about homosexuality? Here's the American Psychological Association's definition and answer to questions: http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
and you can check out the biological evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
There's a long list of scientific studies at the end of the page for your reference that document what we know about the biology of homosexuality.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree and have not wanted to get back involved with this. I respect your opinions, I don't think they make you any less of Christian or less closer to God...and hopefully at some point you can respect my point of view with all the throwing around of "hypocracy", "its all fiction" etc.
Steve makes a compelling point here that I don't think people are addressing:
"In reference to theology, other issues such as gender roles and slavery that Paul addresses can be explained away with understanding the cultural norms at the time, but not homosexuality."
Is there not a certain parallel in these three?
I had a reply all set to go and then clicked your link and it was gone. Quickly:
1) 4.5 billion years old today. 50 years ago it was 65 million years old. 50 years from now, who knows? Science is never sure, no matter how many tests man creates to disprove God. It all remains theory.
2) I have made no judgments, stop trying to pick a fight that is not there.
3) This quote from you defines the problem and why you are more of a humanist than you are willing to admit:
"If science and religion are to be compatible we must accept facts as they stand rather than hypotheses as proposed by any one faith. Where science runs up against what the Bible states we inevitably need to do some interpretation for ourselves."
You decline faith for human reason. That is humanism.
4) Your allowance of God to be at the big bang is sweet of you, but of course it is entirely made up by you. Once again, humans deciding God.
5) Wikpedia is not a reliable source for anything. It allows itself to be manipulated. Just FYI.
Thank you for saying that my belief in God and the Bible doesnt make me less of a Christian. I also never said you were, but you keep trying to pick that fight. I said "fiction" in relation to the notion that people are born gay. There was no attack on you or your Christianity (unless you are gay, and even then, i do not say it to be judgmental but just to state God's word).
We can agree to disagree though. I am sure politically we line up closer than you think.
Anthony and Stephen
I think you are both heading toward a bad and unnecessary place. Consider Paul's council regarding circumcision or eating pagan meat. We can have different understandings of what is right and what is wrong and still be a part of the larger faith community that is united for the purpose of changing our culture through humility and love.
Stephen, though I disagree with Anthony's interpretation of the creation account, he and I are in agreement concerning our belief that homosexual practice is sinful (Anthony, I take it that you don't believe that it is sinful to be tempted in this way, correct?).
I also believe that whether it is inborn or genetic or psychological or a free choice or chemical or a combination of two or more of these things, it can still be a sin in the same way that stealing can be a sin in spite of that. We are all born into sin and God has limitations on our behavior and our thoughts that we may not care for but it is in our best interest.
Anthony. You and I could both be wrong about homosexuality. As you have said, we believe our understanding of those passages to which you have made reference is the best one and that is why we prescribe to those beliefs. However, in the end, neither of us truly knows God's mind nor do we have the final say on the matter. As wpeltz said, it is for God to judge(thankfully I might add).
The question remains for you Anthony. Assuming that you and I are not going to change our minds about the spiritual implications of homosexual practices, is there some common ground that can be reached with our fellow progressives on this issue?
Let's assume it is a sin for the sake of discussion. In your opinion Anthony, what does that mean for social policy and our laws? What types of policies and laws should Christians support?
This post was a great repsonse to mine about progressive Christians being almost identical to secular humanism. What happened it seems, is that it boiled down to the two issues that seem to define all of social and political sides these days, abortion and homosexuality. And humanism is absolute on both.
We should move on past the homosexual positions. If some Churches agree with it and others do not, than let it go. If it pasted by secular politicians, then they will have to answer to God one way or the other. If as some fear that Gay Rights will attack and silence Churches that oppose homosexuality based on Biblical truth, than that day will not go quietly by. I think that the Apsotles were more than clear on the issue. And Jesus and His definition on marriage is immutable. I side with them.
There are other disturbing beliefs of secular humanism that should dominate the discussions between Christians. The most important being relativism and the definition of the family. Both of those things seem to be championed by Progressive Christians in the same way as Humanists. That is disturbing.
Donny,
Your calling out of secular and faith progressives is truly ironic given the last 30 years of history when the Christian right dug in and focused almost exclusively on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.
Progressives no matter what their ilk have addressed a full range of issues as you can see from the various topics covered in posts on this site. Therefore progressives are anything but 2-trick ponies.
And thankfully, many conservative Christians are waking up to the fact that the Bible teaches a lot more on taking care of the poor and the sick and about peacemaking than it does about homosexuality and abortion. A number of these Christians are starting to expand their concerns to deal with issues of global poverty, the environment and Darfur among others.
The tides are changing...praise the Lord!
First of all i would agree that temptation is certainly not sin. Jesus was tempted.
Secondly, i agree that we certainly could be wrong about our beliefs. I do not like using the word interpretation when in fact there is no interpreting going on. We simply read what God has written and accept it.
I agree that we do not know the mind of God, but we can follow what He says. I might add that words are being thrown around too casually here. I have NEVER judged anyone. Judgment is for God. I have stated my belief that the Bible is the word of God and you either accept it or you don't. It is when you cherry pick here and there that it becomes useless. I can say that i believe God when He said the homosexuality is a sin, and still leave the judgment of that sin to Him. I speak the truth in Christ.
I would always listen to whatever common ground you speak of. I do not believe in legislating my theology. I do not believe in fighting against gay marriage because there are simply bigger issues at stake. I personally believe that marriage is a Biblical term and as such it is odd to me that you would dismiss the Bible and then fight to use it's language but in the end, i believe in equal protection under the law. I also then do not believe or support the hate crimes protection for homosexuals. I think creating seperate classes of protection is not constitutional and i believe that it leads to a slippery slope where eventually speech could be restricted. Saying homosexuality is a sin is not hate speech. This is one of the few areas i have agreed with Bush on.
Thanks Rungavagairun in pointing to us the larger picture. Good article Anthony. I read this and your previous post on discernment and you have a unique progressive voice that adds to the mix of all the other progressive voices in Crossleft.
Changing the subject into something maybe we all good agree on...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071107_pat_robertson_2c...
Blessings.
Yes, that's something we can agree on.
But there are still a couple of unanswered questions I've asked you.
by all means, ask me what you feel i have ignored. It was not by design i assure you. There were just too many people responding and the formatting kept throwing me off.
Anthony, here's what I sent late Tuesday night. I can understand the formatting throwing you off. It's hard to keep subthreads straight. And if there have been enough posts, an older one can get pushed off the recent posts list and never be noticed. We need a longer list, either on the front page or clickable like the list of recent blog entries.
----
Inerrant and literal -- again
Submitted by wpeltz on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 02:48.
Anthony -- The reason I asked about the Garden of Eden and the age of the earth is that you had said your belief in the Bible isn't literal but rather you believe it's inerrant. It wasn't meant to mock anything; it was to clarify.
Now you have clarified it. And it seems to me that your belief is literal and that you were wrong when you apologized for using "literal" instead of "inerrant" in a particular sentence. So I'm still with Angelo in not understanding just how it is that you distinguish between inerrancy and literal accuracy in all things.
I do understand the superseding of old laws by the new covenant, and also the distinction between legal niceties and the superseding claims of being Christ-like. Those are areas where we apply our analyses differently and where different cultural lenses are involved. That's what leads to charges of cherry-picking on both sides. Rather than use that term, we should all be as specific as possible about why we think as we do about these things.
That's why I asked about Exodus 21:22-23 and Numbers 5:11-21. The Exodus passage tells of a pregnant woman being injured as a bystander in a fight between two men. The Jewish and the standard Christian rendering and understanding of the passage is that if she miscarries and the fetus dies, a fine is owed to her husband. But if she is injured or dies, the "lex talionis" applies (although in Jewish practice that was evidently dealt with fines that increased with the severity of the damage). In the first case, it was a civil matter. The fetus was not considered a person. In the second case, it was a criminal matter since the woman is a person. So the issue for us isn't that the criminal law of an eye for an eye, etc, is supplanted by Jesus' raising the bar to a love-your-enemies height (which is still not a common Christian standard). The relevant question is the status of the fetus. What's your take on that?
The Numbers passage is perhaps more startling. A jealous husband's test of his wife's possible infidelity is to take her to a priest and have him give her what appears to be an abortifacient. If it has no effect, she's chaste and she will be able to conceive in the future. If she has been unfaithful, the drink "will cause bitter pain, and her womb will discharge, her uterus drop..." and she evidently will be barren thereafter, under a curse and execrated by the people. If she happened to be pregnant by her lover (or by her husband), she would abort. So here it seems that abortion is part of God's law for that time and place.
Translation is always a problem. The Hebrew is often terse and idiomatic and difficult. There is room for disagreement. But these passages certainly raise questions.
Back to science, which you have mocked. I want to take it another step farther: is science wrong about the earth and the planets being heliocentric? Or that the earth is round? Isn't science just the using of God-given gifts of reason through disciplined observation and testing? How is that supplanting God?
I responded already but will try again.
Inerrant = nothing is inaccurate. It means when God says we should do ABC, he wasn't mistaken, or couldn't see the historical context.
Literal = taking things word for word and applying them without logic and analysis.
So, when Paul speaks about women in church not speaking out, we can logically conclude he was speaking about a problem the church was facing at that time. It does not mean that women today should shut up in church.
However, when God says that it is an abomination for man to lie with man as he would with woman, we see that this is an instruction that is supported by various other scriptures, throughout the Bible, and is in agreement logically with the role of man and woman since the garden of eden.
I have to believe you can see the stark differences between the two. Using a social matter to excuse sin, is not going to work with me.
On the Exodus verse, i will be honest and say i have not heard this argument and i would be curious what staunch pro-lifers would say in response to it. I am assuming they would counter with the "I have known you since you were formed in your mother's womb verse" and remind you that the series of laws you refer to was meant for the Israelites, specifically durng that time. Once again for the record though, while I believe in life at conception, I do not believe in rammming my theology down anyone's throat. Save the mother, she will save the child.
Same on the numbers verse, although again, excellent point. What are the usual responses for these?
On science, i would prefer that you do not characterize what I have said to try and disparage me when you insist on being inaccurate. I have not "mocked" science. I have said science can go hand in hand with God. It is when science thinks it knows better than God that it again falls prey to secular humanism. The examples i gave involved the "theories" science uses to replace or mock God. They remain "theories." You cannot disagree with that honestly. No one was around at the time of the big bang, just like no one was around when God created the universe. Thus you have two theories, both requiring faith to believe them. I choose God and you choose man. I have no problem with that. Free will is free will. But do not think that you can pretend that your faith is somehow "fact" and mine is "religious". That is a nonsensical argument. If you believe that all the matter in the universe once was condensed on the head of a pin and then exploded causing the formation of everything we know and see and that rocks eventually formed a primordial soup out of which your anscestors came, i would say that requires one heck of a leap of faith. I prefer that faith that says God spoke into existence what He said he did, when He said He did.
be well.
I agree that arguing doctrine will not get us anywhere. For the record, if you peruse my posts, nowhere did I bash homosexuals. I have advocated love for the homosexual. They are not beneath me and I am no better than they are. We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
Mr. Rockwell - i have no intention of listing for you the many and varied passages in the Bible that clearly state homosexuality is indeed a sin. You know them and so do I. You say that somehow the burden of proof is on me, but that is erroneous. I am supported by scripture and you are supported by your opinion. If I am wrong, please for the third time, point to me the scripture that supports homosexuality. That would mean a scripture that directly mentions it and allows it or declassifies it as sin. You fail to answer because you cannot. You can talk about slavery in an attempt to change the subject or muddy the waters but in the end, what you have is sin disguised as tolerance. To be honest i am perfectly ok with your opinion. I have said over and over again that i believe that people who feel this way are sincere. The word i object to you using i guess would be "interpret" because you are not "interpreting" any scripture to reach your conclusion. The only scripture anyone has used is the greatest commandment and i have debunked that already because it ignores the loving God first portion and it does not specifically address homosexuality.
I apologize if anyone was offended. This post was designed to be careful in leaving God behind in the pursuit of progressiveism and i guess my concerns were valid.
Be well.
I'm not changing the discourse at all by asking you to put Paul's comments on slavery in some sort of context that we can understand in today's world. I'd actually really appreciate it if you could respond to those questions because it might give us all a better understanding as to what you mean by inerrant.
Paul was advocating for something that was wrong and indeed Paul was human and therefore quiet able to be wrong at certain points just like the rest of us. Perhaps Paul might have also made a mistake in his views on homosexuality. That's not walking away from God but in fact embracing the radical love of Jesus Christ.
I am arguing that the passages in the Bible that we both know around homosexuality must be placed and understood within their historical context. You take those few verses quite literally and I put them in context with what we know from science today and the history of their day. You set up this false dichotomy that your are interpretation is somehow the right one at the expense of those who use history and science in their views of the Bible.
My argument extends though because even you yourself don't take them completely literally or inerrantly. You place your own interpretation on the Bible. If Leviticus says that we should stone homosexuals do you really believe that homosexuals should have been stoned in Israel before Christ came? This question is similar with my questions around the slavery issue which warrant more discourse.
God gave us minds to reason and we all view the text through various cultural and historical lenses. Your interpretation may be fine for you, but it must understood as one interpretation. You don't have the one unfailing reading of the Bible, and neither do I. And that's the really point isn't it? You and I can look at the same thing and actually draw different conclusions. Don't say I'm not really a Christian or not really following Jesus by my interpretation and I won't of yours.
Stephen -- in your interchange with Anthony, you brought up the issue of Paul affirming slavery. You treated this as an example of Paul -- and the church and the Bible -- being in error. This was by way of making the point that the Bible can also be wrong in other matters such as homosexuality.
While I agree with you on the second point, I think Paul wasn't a proponent of slavery. The argument that I learned from reading John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" was that Paul advocated a willing "subordination" by slaves towards their masters. This was not an abject "submission"; it was an evangelistic strategy and also a longer-term social change strategy. The revolutionary part of it was that Paul addressed the slave as a free moral agent. This was not done in either Roman or Jewish writings of the time.
After talking to the slave, he then addressed the master about the master's reciprocal obligations to the slave. What was being proposed was a relationship of "mutual subordination" between slave and master which Yoder labeled "revolutionary subordination".
Paul's admonition to wives and husbands and to children and parents took the same form: addressing the subordinate before the dominator, and treating the subordinate as a free moral agent (liberated by Christ), and then setting out the terms of their mutual subordination to each other.
I think of this as parallel to the teaching about walking the extra mile. Roman soldiers had a legal right to demand a mile of free porter's work from a Jewish man. Jesus said "go two miles (and amaze them)". And again, when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" he wasn't talking about passivity or masochism -- he was saying "demand that your oppressor recognize your essential equality with him". This is because, as many of us here probably know, the pattern of the time was to strike an inferior with the back of one's hand. To slap the turned cheek would force the hitter to use the open palm -- which is what one would use to strike an equal.
So all of this is a declaration of moral independence.
Paul's Letter to Philemon, which I wrote about in my blog, is an example of the way Paul went about liberation: get free if you can, but do it in a way that elevates and then liberates the conscience of your former master. This is one model for deep and long-lasting change within a society built on principles that are hostile to a law of love.
Bill,
This is really interesting take. I would definitely see in Jesus's teachings the spirit of resistance to oppression with both the examples you provided. Indeed, I have often thought that Jesus's provide the moral foundation for nonviolent civil disobedience mastered by King and Gandhi in the 20th century.
I'm not 100% convinced about Paul however. His affirmation of gender roles, subordination in slave relations and his views on homosexuality seem to not necessarily have the moral agency that you alluded. I'll give some more thought and prayer on this though as I am not in Paul's Epistle's in my Bible reading.
To his credit on the issue of homosexuality, its not clear that the concept of homosexual as a state existed in his time. Homosexual acts were often associated with pagan worship. Thereby, Paul doesn't refer to homosexuality conceptually but rather specific acts, which could very well be seen in the pagan worship context.
Thanks for pushing me on this a bit.
About not being 100% convinced about Paul: do find a copy of Yoder's "Politics of Jesus", preferably the 2nd edition which comments on responses to the 1st edition. For me, his discussion of the "House Tablets" in which Paul gave moral instruction to the subordinates in a relationship and then to their dominators was a breakthrough in understanding the cultural context of Paul's time. These House Tablets were a standard genre of the times -- but in all other cases the instructions were directed only to the dominant members of these relationships. They were the only ones who were considered to have moral agency.
Granted, some of Paul's writing aboout women, is muddled. Even so, I've known a few liberal and feminist (and scholarly) clergy who consider Paul either a feminist or "a reluctant feminist". It helps to remember what kind of culture he was up against.
I know you desperately want to turn this into something and i am sorry if my decision to not allow you to is frustrating.
On interpretation, my point stands, you need a VERSE to be interpreting and you have yet to offer a single verse up. You compare apples to oranges and then declare victory. That is not an honest debate.
You want an example of God not blessing a "loving committed relationship?" Look no further than Annais and Sapphira. When they lied to the Holy Spirit, did not give God glory and SINNED agaisnt God, not only did he not "honor" them, He struck them dead. The issue is not whether two people feel a particlaur way toward each other, it is whether they are obeying God.
You still dont get it do you? It is YOU that has decided that God honors all loving and committed relationships, not God. YOU have decided that sin needs to be put into historical context so that it can be tolerated. These are not of God. Do you want to know what God honors Steven? OBEDIENCE. Plain and simple. He does not want your sacrifice. He does not want your political correctness. He does not want your "interpretation of historical context." He wants your obedience.
Be well.
Not sure why you need the personal attacks. I work to obey God's word on a daily basis and usually fail every single day. Where I don't think I fail is my interpretation of scripture on homosexuality. You imply that because I have a different point of view on my interpretation of scripture I'm somehow not following God.
I'm saying 2 things:
1. You interpret the Bible just like everyone else. You are picking and choosing how seriously you take scripture in reference to homosexuality itself. I'm guessing that:
- You don't believe homosexuals should be stoned.
- You don't believe slaves should be subservient to their masters.
- You don't believe that people should kill in the name of God even though we see justification for it throughout the Old Testament.
- You don't believe the earth was created in 6 24-hour days or 6-20,000 years ago as the Bible would have us believe.
This means you are interpreting text based on some other information other than the text itself. So we're both guilty of what you accuse me of solely doing! But I think its okay for folks to have different interpretations.
2. I do not believe that God shuns committed homosexual relationships that honor God's love. My belief is rooted in the greatest 2 commandments of loving God and loving our neighbor. Its rooted because Jesus embraced the outcast and oppressed and homosexuals are oppressed class of folk in this country. Its rooted in the fact that its not clear that in the historical period in which the Bible was written that any concept of homosexuality as a natural condition existed. Its rooted in the fact that its there was no knowledge that homosexuality was documented scientifically as something folks are born with.
In Jesus's time the Pharisees called out for OBEDIENCE and judged those as sinful who did not obey the law as written in the Torah. In today's age, we find many who are willing to hold onto the few verses in the Bible and condemn homosexuality as sin even though we have garnered so much new scientific and historical information in the last 2000 years that flies in the face of such concepts of obedience to doctrine.
God is immutable, but people's views of the word do change. Most Americans thought that slavery was justified in the Bible and used it to oppress Africans in America. The same is true for those who uses passages against homosexuals today. Our interpretations of the Bible evolve, and dare i say "progress" over time as new information and new ideas are created.
You twice incorrectly stated that i do not care and then try and say i am personally attacking you? If you took anything i said as an attack, i apologize.
1) I do not pick and choose, you are again misrepresenting my positions. Your first two points are not relevant, we live under the new covenant. On your third point, in the OT God did instruct Israel to go to war. Every time they went to war without God's direction, they lost. That said, if God today told a leader to go to war, i would suggest that would be fine, of course that is not what we see every day. We see leaders using God to justify their own wars. Either way, there are ZERO NT verses supporting war (revelation is prophetic). As for creation, i do believe it occured as the Bible says, just like i believe everything the Bible says.
Either way, you are bringing up other issues to justify sin, that is the larger point.
2) God said that homosexuality is a sin. Thus any homosexual relationship by definition does not honor God, let alone His love. Your entire premise is false (according to the Bible). Your belief cannot be rooted in the verse you claim because you do not love God with all your heart, soul and mind by being disobedient.
Yes Jesus reached out to the outcast and the oppressed, but he did not grant them a waiver on sin. They still had to come to Him, as the only way to the Father. They still had to repent.
Your other point about homosexuality being a "natural condition" is also just your opinion. You need to state it as fact to distract from the debate but at the end of the day, it is just an opinion generated to excuse sin. You further insult God (my opinion) by stating that no one knew that homosexuality was something people were born with. Are you suggesting that God was not aware when He specifically said it was an abomination? Is God not omniscient? If so, why would God clearly state it was a sin if He knew it was innate, as you believe? The only other alternative you have is to claim that God lied or the Bible is not only inerrant but is useless. That is the definition of cherry picking. You choose the greatest commandment verse but ignore the clear portions that speak against homosexuality and use a psuedo-intellectual reasoning but in the end you paint God into a corner.
Your comparison of the Pharisees does not hold water. They demanded obedience to the rituals of man while i am speaking about the Word of God. Jesus did not rebuke them because they were obedient to God but because they were hypocrites.
Your next statement is very troublesome. You have now advocated to choose science and historical data over obedience to God and His doctrine. THAT is exactly what my point was in this thread and you have expressed perfectly why i was concerned. I choose obedience to God and His Word over anything science or history tries to convince me of. Why? Because one is of God and the other is of man.
Be well.
than there probably isn't much hope that we're ever going to see eye to eye on how to read the Bible. If you believe the creation story and Biblical chronology literally in terms of when it dates the age of the Earth and universe such an understanding flies in the face of every shred of geological, astronomical, biological evidence that we have. If you don't accept science even when the evidence is overwhelming saying that Bible is not literally true, than i don't think we're going to make much progress in the conversation about homosexuality.
Science and history are not enemies of God, but rather build our understanding of his creation and give us new ways to look at the word. Your literalism doesn't allow you to look at facts that contradict your interpretation of the Bible. That's where you are and I get that.
its been a good conversation, but I think its best to move on. thanks.
have you?
I agree that the Bible and science do not have to be enemies. There are however factions in science that are essentially faith anyway. Theory is not fact. The "big bang" is not fact, it is theory. All matter being contained on the pin of a head and then exploding is more silly to me than an all-powerful God simple speaking into creation all that we behold. Trace even the word universe and what do you get?
Uni (single) verse (spoken word). Amen.
Am i right in assuming you believe in evolution then as well? Another theory that even darwin himself said would have no value without transitional forms? Is there any part of the Bible that is sacred? Or is it all historical data to be put in context?
I agree that it may be time to move one but please do not do so after stating that somehow all facts are on your side and I am a moron. It should be beneath you. I understand there were cogent points in my last post that you cannot answer but do not pretend that somehow because i beleive in the word of God that i am some dumb hick. I have two degrees and taught science, history, and English. I have both persepctives, man's and Gods. I choose Gods.
We need to be sensitive to each others' perspectives. I fear that debating doctrine among a diverse group as we have here on CrossLeft (this is a really positive thing) would be both divisive and counterproductive.
I think that in part we will have to recognize, if we want to become anything like a cohesive movement, that we are likely going to have diverse interpretations of scripture and understanding of what is and what is not orthodox religion. Our goal here should not be to argue out all of our doctrinal differences, but instead to find ways of meeting each other on some political common ground on as many issues as we can in spite of our different takes.
On the spiritual side of homosexuality we may have very different understandings of what is sanctioned by God and what is not. Those who take a looser interpretation of the Bible are likely to fall in line (at least more readily) with secular liberals on this particular issue. Fundamentalists who take a narrower interpretation of scripture (like myself and ostensibly Anthony) will either have to agree to disagree on this issue, or find some biblically founded mechanism for tolerance in spite of our belief that the practice is outside of God's will.
I believe that we can both believe it is a sin and willingly advocate for rights and freedoms for homosexuals without making doctrinal compromises.
ps
it's run gavagai run and not rung avagairun or something.
like "run lola run" or "run luke run"
The tough part in reconciling is when one set of Progressive Christians are for reproductive rights and Gay rights and another set of Progressive Christians, who are from a faith or have a Biblical interpretation that says abortion and Gay marriage are sins. Both groups of Progressives are usually on the same page on economic issues, social justice issues, the war, etc.
It is these two hot button social issues that more orthodox Christians , who are politically Progressive , and Christians who are progressive in both faith and politics, sometime can't get on the same page.
Maybe a hashing out of differences will help in the debate.
Anthony the Gay issue is a tough one for people of faith. I am Progressive in my outlook on most of the contemporary issues of politics and religion but only in the last few years did I come around to Progressive stance on Gay issues.
To give you some back ground, I am a large strong looking and somewhat typical beefy Michigan man. I grew up in rough and tumble Detroit in a neighbor of African Americans, Appalachian migrants, foreign immigrants, and other working class people. Fights were routine at school and on Friday and Saturday night among the adults. I was in many fights as a youngster and even a couple of "rumbles" as a teen (My enemies were “the greasers”, it wasn’t racial). My school was one of those city schools that kids smoked dope and drank wine in the bathrooms and the teachers didn't come in and stop it because they were afraid the kids would beat them up. Weak kids got mugged in the bathrooms. I played sports in my teens and twenties and am a Vietnam veteran. I was a Detroit Fireman in the seventies. I did a lot of other Firefighting in various situations. I am straight and always liked girls. Homosexuality was a total mystery to me and I usually said something like "There is somebody out there for everybody; they (gays, Lesbians) just need to look harder.” I was never hateful, just mystified that with all the great looking girls in the world, that a guy would want to have sex with another guy .I thought Gays and Lesbians were mixed up.
The point of this very brief autobiography,in which I emphasized the macho , is that I grew up a rough and tumble American male; but because of tremendous spiritual growth in the last several years have come to support Gay rights. It is a quantum leap in consciousness. You are going to hate me for saying this, but it is just starting to touch what I feel is the consciousness of Christ. It really isn’t about a book or rules or social norms, it is about a spiritual rebirth. With that rebirth, comes a change in attitude. Believe me; the change in attitude towards Gays was long in coming and hard to do. I still struggle a bit and I am still learning.
It is because I am starting to do unto my brothers and sisters as I would like them to do unto me that I began to understand.. They are entitled to the same rights and privileges as I am. I will not deny them the rights of American citizenship anymore than I would like the rights of American citizenship denied to me.
I will let God decide if homosexuality a sin.. Jesus leads me to treat all as equal children of God. The sexual preference of consenting adults is no business of mine.
We all have our verses we like to dig up to support out positions. Jesus reaching out to "the other" over and over again is enough to convince me that if Jesus were here today he would reach out to the Gay and the Lesbian, and I do to.
I just got on and checked out the latest posts. Anthony, you seem to be always answering 5 or 6 people. I hope you don't feel ganged up on. I just think issues that are being raised in these posts are issues that many of these people feel passionately about. I honestly was unclear about what you meant about "inerrancy" and "cherry picking". Those terms may be familiar with you and may seem clear to you, but I don't have as much experience with these terms and when you and the others were using them, it was a bit baffling to me.
I don't agree with your position on homosexuality, but I respect the fact that you differentiate between hating the sin (which you believe homosexuality is) and loving the sinner. I have a feeling that nothing that I write will change your mind and nothing that you write will change mine on this, so I think it's a waste of time for me to try. Your position on homosexuality is a bit more nuanced than the stereotypical "Let's hate all gays!" rhetoric that is usuually heard, and I'm glad that you make the point to love the homosexual as another creation of God. On that we can both agree.
In my last post, I was trying to focus on the original intent of your post. How do you put Christ in Progressive Christianity? It seems like other issues distracted from this original intent. From my understanding in the stream of arguments that I've read from your posts, it seems like you would put an inerrant view of the Bible as the foundation of a Progressive Christian movement. I don't think that would work. The reason that I don't think that would work as a foundation is that I'm not sure if other Progressive Christians look upon the Bible in the same way. I don't know enough about other denominations to say with certainty, but just the fact that there exists so many different denominations which such wide variances in belief on hot button issues makes me suspect that different denominations look upon the Bible differently.
I gave my own personal example as an example of how I see the Bible differently. My own experiences makes me more questioning of the Bible and other things. But I'm not subscribing to anyone that my way is the one right way. Other people may have very different experiences. I have a feeling that you deeply disagree with the way I read the Bible and my various views. That's o.k. I don't claim to be wise. I'm a bit of a bookworm, so I've accumulated a lot of facts and someday may be a contestant in Jeopardy. But I've lived enough life experiences to know that life can be a bit messier than the books that I love, that I often fail to live up to my values. I disagree with some of the prejudice and hatred from many people who have justified their hatred by reading the Bible in an inerrant way. But I would be wrong to say that these people are representative of all the people who read the Bible in that way. That is as much of a stereotype and a prejudice and I've been guilty of that I'm sure.
Today's disagreements on abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research and such are no different, in my eyes, than the arguments previous Christians had on Transubstantiation, on the centrality of sacraments, and such. Often these Christians are so passionately in favor of something that they brook no disagreements from others and divisions and wars erupt. I remember going to a church and being surprised that people were fighting over issues like child baptism as opposed to adult baptism, or talking in tongues, or having a worship that was too Catholic. Even though I don't agree with prolife people, I see the same passion that they have to save the unborn that abolitionists had to free the slaves. Both sides equally sure of the righteousness their position and equally sure that the other side is well intentioned but wrong. I feel as strongly that I'm right in my opinions as you feel you are right about yours. But I've read your past post on discernment and know that there are issues we do agree on.
I think your just way off here on the homosexuality issue. I know you said you don't care about this,
THAT IS TWICE YOU HAVE SAID THAT. I CARE DEEPLY FOR ALL OF GOD'S CREATION AND I WOULD PLEASE HAVE YOU NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.
but homosexuality is something that one is born with. You aren't attracted to the oppposite sex, you are attracted to your own sex. Gay folks know they are gay from an early stage in their sexual development.
I WILL TRY AGAIN TO MAKE THE POINT. I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE FEEL THEY ARE BORN GAY. I BELIEVE THEY SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT. I BELIEVE THEY ARE SINCERELY WRONG. YOU CAN SAY ALL YOU LIKE THAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE FACT BUT YOU CANNOT PROVE IT.
Furthermore, I think its insulting to compare a committed gay relationship of two people who love and care for each other and are COMMITTTED to each other for life to someone who has an affair. An affair is conscious abridgement of your the committment you made to another and to God. The comparison is just plain wrong.
AND A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, NO MATTER HOW COMMITTED, IS A CONSCIOUS ABRDIGEMENT OF GOD'S WORD. IT IS SIN.
God blesses loving and committed relationships.
THAT ARE WITHIN HIS DESIGN AND RULES, ABSOLUTELY. GOD DOES NOT BLESS SIN. HE CANNOT EVEN BE WITH SIN. SIN IS WHAT SEPARATES US FROM GOD.
And while I believe your position is more loving than those who lash out against homosexuals, I still think you miss the boat on Jesus command to love others and to leave the judging up to him.
YOU KEEP FORGETTING THE FIRST PART OF THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT AND THAT IS TO LOVE GOD. YOU DO NOT LOVE GOD BY SINNING AGAINST HIM. I MIGHT ADD THAT I AM NOT JUDGING THE HOMOSEXUAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS INTO A TOLERANCE ISSUE BUT IT REMAINS A SIN ISSUE. I DO NOT SHUN THE HOMOSEXUAL. I DO NOT RAIL AGAINST THEM. IF THEY ASK I WOULD SHARE GOD'S WORD AND STANCE ON IT.
Indeed, Leviticus says we ought to stone homosexuals, so I guess your interpretation of the Bible is that it was not so inerrant in that case (pardon the double negative).
I CANT TELL IF THIS IS A PURPOSEFUL ATTEMPT TO MUDDY THE DEBATE. THERE IS NOTHING INERRANT ABOUT THE LEVITICUS VERSE. IT OCCURED DURING THE OT, WE ARE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT.
I think the burden is on you to explain how God does not bless loving, committed relationships.
LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS RIGHT. YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT GOD BLESSES ALL LOVING COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON ME TO DISCREDIT YOUR STATEMENT??? IS THAT REALLY HOW YOU DEBATE? LOOK, I DO NOT WANT THIS DISINTEGRATING ANY FURTHER. THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE. I KNOW THAT MY BIBLE TELLS ME THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. YOU CANNOT BIBLICALLY PROVE OTHERWISE. THUS GOD WILL NOT BLESS A RELATIONSHIP THAT IS SIN-BASED. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT HINGES UPON THE BELIEF YOU HAVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ANY BIBLICAL ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THAT.
How do you deal with the fact that Paul affirms slavery?
I DONT, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING SLAVERY, WHICH WAS LEGAL THEN.
Was Paul's condemnation of homosexuality absolute or was he talking about pagan practices? Was homosexuality even an understood concept in his day? If he had the scientific evidence would he have made the same point?
SINCE NEITHER YOU NOR I KNOW, I WILL DEFER TO GOD, NOT MAN.
Why do you place slavery, polygamy and even killing for land in historical context, but not homosexuality? What old testament scripture do you use? To what degree do you use it? If it was so important, how come Jesus had nothing to say about it?
YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT. YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WAS SOMEHOW WRONG WHEN HE SAID TO LIE WITH MAN AS HE WOULD WITH WOMAN, IS AN ABMOINATION. OR YOU BELIEVE HE CHANGED HIS MIND. OR YOU BELEIVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A FRAUD. THAT IS THE SIDE YOU HAVE LINED UP WITH. THAT IS FINE, JUST DO NOT CALL IT PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY. IT IS NEITHER PROGRESSIVE NOR CHRISTIAN. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SPEAKING OF WHEN THIS THREAD STARTED. I BELIEVE THAT SIN IS SIN BUT YOU WISH TO REDEFINE IT TO MAKE IT FEEL BETTER. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT BUT I SUGGEST YOU SERIOUSLY PRAY ABOUT IT, AS WILL I.
Progressive Christians have largely come around on the issue of homosexuality by loving and affirming their gay brothers and sisters and their relationships.
THEN THEY HAVE CHOSEN MAN OVER GOD. I WILL NOT DO THAT. I MIGHT ADD THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE TITLE OF PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN (NOR DO I). I HAVE USED THIS TITLE FOR YEARS AND BEFORE IT WAS IN VOGUE. THE VERY SECOND THAT PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY CHOOSES TO IGNORE GOD, IT WILL CEASE TO BE CHRISTIAN.
We have done so because Jesus's example of living and working with the oppressed and outcast (as homosexuals are).
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO COMPARE LEPERS, WHO HAVE AN AFFLICTION, WITH HOMOSEXUALS? CMON, BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AT LEAST.
We have done so by placing text in the Bible within its historical context. And we have done so by prioritizing Jesus's commandment to love believing that it takes precedent over any legalistic view of scripture.
BUT YOU IGNORE THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT!!! LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD! WITHOUT THAT, YOU HAVE NOTHING.
PLEASE REMEMBER, NOTHING WAS BEING SHOUTED, THE CAPS WERE JUST TO SEPERATE MY COMMENTS.
to prove from a Biblical perspective that God does not love committed homosexual relationships. Homosexuals are making commitments before God to love and commit to each other. They love God. They love each other. Where is the sin?
You keep falling back that the Bible is inerrant, yet when I asked, "How do you deal with the fact that Paul affirms slavery?" You said: I DONT, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING SLAVERY, WHICH WAS LEGAL THEN.
So because its legal does that make it right? Slavery was legal in this country and people used Paul's scripture to justify slavery. Are you saying Paul was right because it was legal? Are you saying that slavery was ever right? Under what circumstances has it ever been right for one human to own another human? Was it ever right for Americans to own African slaves? 200 years ago, a lot of slave holders were holding up Paul's arcane comments to continue to oppress the slaves. Thank God the slaves took more from Moses and ignored Paul's guidance and resisted their enslavement as any of us would and should.
Conversely, by allowing for Paul to support what was legal and perhaps viewed as moral at the time, you are contextualizing his advice historically which runs contrary to your claim that his words are inerrant and timeless. Couldn't the same historical change in what we view to be moral have happened with homosexuality, or is it solely rest within the slavery issue.
I don't have a hold on progressive Christianity, but fact is most progressive Christians have moved beyond your thinking on this issue and for good reason. You insinuated that those of us who do support homosexual brothers are somehow atheistic or not upholding Christianity. That's wrong, we just have a different interpretation than you. You and I read the same thing and see it very differently...doesn't mean i'm not Christrian and its not really for you to say anyway.
I believe the legalistic view of the Pharisees relying on Old Testament law at the expense of loving each other is exactly the type of sin that Jesus yelled and screamed out to us to leave behind. We're not to judge and "love the sinner, hate the sin" is judgment.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said the arc of history bends towards justice...we see this arc slowly bending for justice for our homosexual brethern as their rights are slowly being affirmed across our land. Its a long process, but we are on a trajectory in which homosexuals will one day no longer be the outcast and the judged, but rather embraced by our full community. There are so many wonderful churches who are already living this and its only a matter of time before that arc bends a bit more.
Angelo - inerrant means nothing is "wrong". Nothing is a "mistake." Cherry picking i used to mean someone who says they believe this part of the Bible, but not that part.
I agree that the greatest commandement is what Jesus stated. It is man that incorrectly turns what God means for our good, into hate. That is why i said that while God is against homosexuality, that does not mean we should hate the homosexual and treat them poorly. Instead we are to love them with the love of Christ.
Rung - the prodigal son is a great example to use. The part you omit though is that the Father unconditionally accepted the son back AFTER he turned from his sinful lifestyle. The great irony is that the other son was really the "lost" son because he obeyed the Father with the wrong heart.
I agree that Christianity is not a forced prospect. You cannot force someone to accept Christ. They must be allowed to make their own mistakes and come to Christ on their own. We should show them God's love, be available to respond to any who ask why we hope, and pray for them. The legislation of morality will not work.
Peltz - yes, the Garden of Eden was a real place and yes the earth is 6,000 years old. You bring up excellent examples of how the "scientific" community likes to mock the Bible. Yesterday's science is today's old wives tales. It is nothing more than man stating he knows more than God. I prefer to have faith in God. I do not pretend to have every answer, but faith does not require complete knowledge.
I disagree with you about homosexuality somehow being irrelavant today. Man has always tried to minimize their sin issues. Marriage becomes a business relationship, homosexuality becomes normalized. Once again, if that is how you feel i just think you are not in line with scripture. I also do not see how you cannot see the obvious difference between a core sin issue and Paul admonishing proper behavior in church.
The example of people being in a long-term homosexual relationship does not change that they have lived a sin lifestyle for a long time. It would not blow Paul's mind. He understood, sin is sin, regardless of how sincere the sin is. I am sure that there are people who married the wrong person and years into the marriage "felt" that their marriage was over. I am sure they genuinely "felt" that they loved the person they had an affair with. I am sure they sincerely felt "love" for the mistress. That does not change that they have sinned, broken your vows that you made to God and committed adultery. You can be sincere and sincerely wrong.
Re: Exodus 21:22-23 - i read this for what it is, Old testament scriptures that Jesus raised the bar on when he said "you have heard it said, an eye for an eye, but i tell you to love your enemies..." Again, Jesus raised the bar. We are under the new covenant.
Steven - i welcome any "interpretation" of the Bible that allows homosexuality. It simply does not exist. It is man excusing his own sin issues. Once you do that you are recreating God in your image.
Are you saying i am heartless? You were not clear. I never said i do not care, i said what people "feel" is irrelevant. I understand that people believe that they are born gay. I also believe they are wrong. I believe that because in order for that to be true, God would have to have contradicted Himself, which is something He does not do. I understand that for years the gay community has tried very hard to turn a choice into a pre-disposition, and now into a hereditary issue. Why? because if you remove choice, than you have removed blame. That is the only way to turn sin into non-sin. I have great friends who are gay. One once told me that God made her gay. If you can point that scripture out to me, i might agree, but you can't.
Now keep in mind Mr. Rockwell that this does not mean that i "love" my homosexual brothers or sisters any more or less than you. To insinuate such is extremely unfair. I do not rail against homosexuality. I abhor people who use Christ to defend their cause du jour. We are to love the homosexual and hate the sin. You are advocating love the homosexual and ignore the sin, or placate it, or "accept" it. That I would argue is loving them less and here is why. Do you beleive in heaven and hell? I do. I believe that people who are separated from God go to hell (which is to be seperated from God for eternity). Thus it is incumbant upon me as a Christian to do everything in my power to prevent people i love from spending eternity in hell. I further believe that it is sin that separates us from God. Why in the world would i ignore that a friend of mine is going to hell? So they can feel better about their sin now? So i can appear more "tolerant"? No thank you. If i decided to have an affair (assuming i was married) i would hope that my friends would correct me and get me to see my sin as opposed to placating me. We all keep referring to loving our neighbors, which was the SECOND part of the greatest commandment. The FIRST part was loving God with all your heart, soul and mind. How do we love God? By obeying Him.
Nothing is said with attitude or ANY superiority. I am not only a sinner but like Paul, of these, I am the least.
Anthony -- The reason I asked about the Garden of Eden and the age of the earth is that you had said your belief in the Bible isn't literal but rather you believe it's inerrant. It wasn't meant to mock anything; it was to clarify.
Now you have clarified it. And it seems to me that your belief is literal and that you were wrong when you apologized for using "literal" instead of "inerrant" in a particular sentence. So I'm still with Angelo in not understanding just how it is that you distinguish between inerrancy and literal accuracy in all things.
I do understand the superseding of old laws by the new covenant, and also the distinction between legal niceties and the superseding claims of being Christ-like. Those are areas where we apply our analyses differently and where different cultural lenses are involved. That's what leads to charges of cherry-picking on both sides. Rather than use that term, we should all be as specific as possible about why we think as we do about these things.
That's why I asked about Exodus 21:22-23 and Numbers 5:11-21. The Exodus passage tells of a pregnant woman being injured as a bystander in a fight between two men. The Jewish and the standard Christian rendering and understanding of the passage is that if she miscarries and the fetus dies, a fine is owed to her husband. But if she is injured or dies, the "lex talionis" applies (although in Jewish practice that was evidently dealt with fines that increased with the severity of the damage). In the first case, it was a civil matter. The fetus was not considered a person. In the second case, it was a criminal matter since the woman is a person. So the issue for us isn't that the criminal law of an eye for an eye, etc, is supplanted by Jesus' raising the bar to a love-your-enemies height (which is still not a common Christian standard). The relevant question is the status of the fetus. What's your take on that?
The Numbers passage is perhaps more startling. A jealous husband's test of his wife's possible infidelity is to take her to a priest and have him give her what appears to be an abortifacient. If it has no effect, she's chaste and she will be able to conceive in the future. If she has been unfaithful, the drink "will cause bitter pain, and her womb will discharge, her uterus drop..." and she evidently will be barren thereafter, under a curse and execrated by the people. If she happened to be pregnant by her lover (or by her husband), she would abort. So here it seems that abortion is part of God's law for that time and place.
Translation is always a problem. The Hebrew is often terse and idiomatic and difficult. There is room for disagreement. But these passages certainly raise questions.
Back to science, which you have mocked. I want to take it another step farther: is science wrong about the earth and the planets being heliocentric? Or that the earth is round? Isn't science just the using of God-given gifts of reason through disciplined observation and testing? How is that supplanting God?
Anthony,
I think your just way off here on the homosexuality issue. I know you said you don't care about this, but homosexuality is something that one is born with. You aren't attracted to the oppposite sex, you are attracted to your own sex. Gay folks know they are gay from an early stage in their sexual development.
Furthermore, I think its insulting to compare a committed gay relationship of two people who love and care for each other and are COMMITTTED to each other for life to someone who has an affair. An affair is conscious abridgement of your the committment you made to another and to God. The comparison is just plain wrong. God blesses loving and committed relationships.
And while I believe your position is more loving than those who lash out against homosexuals, I still think you miss the boat on Jesus command to love others and to leave the judging up to him. Indeed, Leviticus says we ought to stone homosexuals, so I guess your interpretation of the Bible is that it was not so inerrant in that case (pardon the double negative).
I think the burden is on you to explain how God does not bless loving, committed relationships. How do you deal with the fact that Paul affirms slavery? Was Paul's condemnation of homosexuality absolute or was he talking about pagan practices? Was homosexuality even an understood concept in his day? If he had the scientific evidence would he have made the same point? Why do you place slavery, polygamy and even killing for land in historical context, but not homosexuality? What old testament scripture do you use? To what degree do you use it? If it was so important, how come Jesus had nothing to say about it?
Progressive Christians have largely come around on the issue of homosexuality by loving and affirming their gay brothers and sisters and their relationships. We have done so because Jesus's example of living and working with the oppressed and outcast (as homosexuals are). We have done so by placing text in the Bible within its historical context. And we have done so by prioritizing Jesus's commandment to love believing that it takes precedent over any legalistic view of scripture.
To weigh in on this a bit, Jesus made it clear that "marriage" is a man and a woman, and the institution of it was created by God. In the logic of a "committed" relationship of love, then children, dogs and cats are open to becoming "committed" partners to another.
Peter, James, John and Jude, talk about doing the right thing morally (for Christians), and like Anthony is pointing out, there is not one shred of support for a sexual relationship to include "commited" same-gender partners, inside or outside of marriage.
In fact, "the marriage bed should not be defiled" is as strong a condemnation to same-gender sexual behavior as what Paul writes on in Romans. In fact Paul goes on from the first Chapter of Romans, condemning pagans, and then condemning Christians who engage in same-gender sex acts as well. BUT, I don't like to use Paul on homosexuality often. The Apsoltles were much more clear on Christian conduct. The Earth may or may not be billions of years old, but the opinions of the Apsotles and the preaching of Jesus are clear that "committed" relationships that we "Christians" call marriage, has an immutable form to it.
"Progressives" (of any stripe) have "come around on the issue of homosexuality" because of the times we live in, and for no Biblically supported reason. Secular Hmanism taught from pre-school to graduate school, has clouded the minds of otherwise well-reasoned Christians.
If we are to take affirming gays and lesbians within the confines of the historic Christian Community and Culture referred to as "The Church Body," then, nice Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Voodoo Priests etc., etc., etc., are also welcomed members of the "progressive" Christian club. The Aposltles clearly have written about that. Their message, isn't one of support though.
"I was born . . ." this way or that . . ., has no bearing, no weight, on doing the right thing. "I was born with a promiscuity sexual orientation." That too, harms no one. Jesus and the Apostles have immutable positions on that.
"Lesbian" and "Gay," these neologisms hide sin in plain sight. "Player" does the same thing.
"Lesbian" comes to us not from Christian history, but of Greek pederasty of thr female kind. Sappho, a woman living in ancient Greek times on an Island called Lesbos, was a teacher that had sexual desires towards her pupils. Yet, Sappho, as it appears, never acted on these "feeelings" and, in fact married a man and had a child. "As the story goes," in later years sappho was so in love with another man, that when he spurned her, she threw herself from a rocky cliff into the sea. I never could figure out why female homosexuals call themselves "Lesbians." It carries with it a very inappropriate definition.
"Gay," is a word coming down to us from the more wild and outgoing homosexual male of the city variety. Complete with party-going, bar hopping and promiscuous, tied up in the connotation.
And, same-gender sexuality is not supported, condoned or promoted within the pages of the New Testament. It is actually more than often condemned. And c'mon now, Roman life and culture differs little from our modern day behaviors. In fact it's quite odd that in the name of "Progressive" values, we are choosing to go backwards in time to what we are licensing. The Apsotles wrote for the history of the Church, past, present and future.
People that claim a same-gendered sexual orientation, should at the least, respect Christians for not being able to support them in their quest to force society to embarce their sexual proclivities. A Christian can no more support homosexuals then they could support Venus worshippers.
What Progressives should be very concerned about is this oppressive and malevolent political movment called "hate crimes legislation" that is taking root among "The Left." It looks more like the rise of Nero-ism than it does the supporting of civil rights. Recent developements in San Francisco and Massachusetts by the LGBT political movements bear out the intense drive that this particular community has to force its beliefs on every single person regardless of "others'" rights to be free of homosexual influence and indeed indoctrination. This thimg called The Gay Agenda, seems very accurate. A study of the word "orientation" should make any Christian that knows the history of the Christian faith to shudder. There is more at stake than simple tolerance. It is clear that those that shout "tolerance" the loudest, have no desire to follow their own advice.
Donny, which side the gay marriage discussion is forcing their beliefs on the other side? Let's say we accept what you say is true, that Christianity doesn't support loving, committed homosexual relationships (I disagree, but for sake of argument...). Those are your religious beliefs which you are entitled to hold in this country, but not entitled to force on others under law.
The pro-civil rights side is saying that if two people want to get married from the same gender, they should have equal rights under law. If they want to get married so that they can share benefits and commitment of marriage, that not imposing their values on you. They are just living their lives without a religiously inspired law telling them who they can and cannot commit. The government isn't forcing your church to marry the couple. Your church can decide not to marry gays and lesbians.
In actuality, it is Christian conservatives and fundamentalists that are trying to push their religious worldview into law upon those who simply wish to be in a committed, loving relationship. As much as you might try to twist language around, its folks like you who are attempting to impose your values on others, but claiming the opposite is occurring.
Do you also believe divorce should be illegal? Unlike homosexuality, Jesus actually said something about divorce and yet its still very much legal in our country to do so. Legislating personal morality is something that conservatives and fundamentalists seem to want to do, but if we live in a pluralistic, free society we ought to allow people to make decisions about their personal behavor to the degree that it does not harm others. Homosexual relationships do no harm to you.
At the end of the day, we're supposed to be living in a free country where the full multitude of religious beliefs and those with no religious beliefs at all live under the Constitution and the laws of the land and not under any particular religous beliefs. The founding fathers understood what happens when the church is melded with the government and thus steered us away through the Constitution from such arrangements.
I wish that the whole GLBT thing would evaporate. Their proclivitiies are nothing that should be talked about too often.
But to answer your points:
It is not legal "now" and never has been for same-gendered couples to get married in America, a secular nation. THAT is the law. It is the GLBT's that are forcing their ways on American society. They are forcing their views religious or not, on all. That is a fact. And you will never be able to find Biblical support for homosexual activities, married or not, within the Bible. Until of course some "liberal" theologian writes their own copy. It has been demonstarted that Christian views ARE being outlawed from this country. You cannot have the proliferation of gay rights and Christians being Christians. There's going to be a clash. Always has been always will. Blame Jesus and His Apostles. But that is a religious issue to be dealt with later. The First Amendment gives rights exclusively to the religious.
The civil rights issue on same-gender sex is a red herring. People should not be defined by their favorite sex acts. Don't ask, don't tell. That is common decency.
Gays and Lesbians have proven that they demand to impose their values on everyone. Ever heard of the ENDA Bill? Hate Crimes Legislation? It's forced acceptance of other's sexual behavior everywhere.
"Fundamentalist" is a word that is used wrongly these days. If anyone is a "fundamentalist" it is the garden variety Secular Humanist/Leftist/Progressive. The fundamentals of Progressive ideology is absolute. It is going to be thier way or a Lawsuit. No tolerance need apply.
If you are going to go kindergartener on me: "They do it too!!!" about marriage and divorce, then you have proven that marriage IS a man and a woman exclusively and immutably. Also, Jesus forgave adultery, exclusively and immutably. Repentance is not a hate crime. Any man or woman can get married, "EVEN" if they have had a divorce. It does seem that the too far to the left side of Progressive theology ignores repentance and forgiveness. Not the "right wingers." Jesus never mentioned homosexuality? Gay websites are quick to show that Jesus healed the child sex slave of the Roman Commander, that recognized the authority IN Jesus and ask that this servant be healed. Not my theology mind you, but theirs. I would rather my Christian gay friends not be shown in the light of Pederasty. And I won't even get into the GLBT position on Ruth and Naomi . . .. Whoa. Bad theology.
And easy "no-fault" Divorce fell to the "progressives" not the the conservatives. Jesus opposed "no-fault" divorce as well.
It is not the Legislating of morality that is the logic behind curbing sexual licentiousness, it is the decay of society brought on by the Anything Goes mentality of certain kinds of people groups. Christian morality and reason opposes the violence and suffering always attached to "Anything Goes." Cause and effect. It's very scientific.
I applaud your stance on the founders of the American Consitution. I don't hold as much stock in traitors and murderers as you obviously do (it was afterall, treason, violence and war, that overthrew British rule that established the U.S. as its own country), but it shows that your position on same-gender marriage is not supported Biblically. But then again, American law doesn't have a history of supporting same-sex marriage either. It dwells well within the secular humanism-to-progressive ideology birthed by the so-called enlightenment. But, with all due respect, these founders of the United States, didn't legalize same-gender marriage either. It is "still" NOT legal. And as your position dictates, Christians had nothing to do with American law.
See, it is the common authentic Christian position that is just following the established law on proper marriage. Do I need to reiterate that it was NOT Christians that supported no-fault divorce? Blame that on "Liberals." Sorry, but "at the end of the day," that makes the same-sex marriage camp as being intolerant of "the law" of both secular society and of course in complete opposition of Biblical truth. I have no problem with both existing apart, since it is by secular "law," through the court system, that same-gender marriage is to be forced on an unwilling majority of the populace.
Let us pray, that, like so many social ills that have affected society so badly in our brief American history (easy divoce as example), the quest to redefine marriage and family goes by without validation, and certainly does not find a voice in the society at large through political legislation or activist ideological judges. Nor those calling themselves members of the Christian Community. (Sodom, Greece and Rome were not as nice as some would protray.) It is not a progressive stance that we choose to go back to darker times in the history of civilization.
Hello Donny,
I totally agree with your assessment of the American revolution. I too cringe when I hear people lauding the wonderful Christian founding of our country in which men were willing to kill in order to secure the rights that they felt they were being denied by the governing authority.
I also believe that you and I share similar views on scripture related to homosexuality. However, I disagree with many conclusions that you are drawing regarding the application of scriptural truths to civil law. Allow me to try to draw out the problem that I see.
Let's pretend that this is the United States of Donny. You hold the legislative pen. What limits would you place on liberty? I take it that you would not write laws that recognize homosexual unions. If you could formulate the most ideal set of laws, would you outlaw homosexual activity all together? Would you permit the practice of other religions? Do you consider Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or other non-Christian religions idolatry? If so, it must be a sin to hold those beliefs. Should they be outlawed in an ideal society?
Couldn't a person make a parallel argument to the one you make about practicing homosexuals (as sinners) forcing their views on others by pursuing equal rights. Have the idolaters in our country done the same thing to us? It seem like a person could argue that Christians have become complacent and accepting of idolatry because of our willingness to extend civil tolerance to those among us who reject Christ. The question is how to determine which sins ought to be extended to civil law. If we tried to make all sin illegal, we would all be in violation, wouldn't we?
david
Sorry for the late reply. I've been incredibly busy.
Just think William Wilberforce when thinking about the founders of the U.S.. If war is wrong, than America is wrong to begin with. So to speak. I have little regard for Jefferson. Similar as I do for the garden-variety atheist position. He just looks like another supreme egotist to me. He proved it with his Bible. Now THERE is a guy that wrote his own "law of the land." It's time to flush he and his pervasive influence down the historical drain.
My view of scripture comes from the Gospels and the Apostles. Simply put. I don't believe they are hard to understand. I have lots of translations. There is not one place a Christian can find to support same-gender sexual behavior in or out of marriage, anywhere in scripture. Gays and their progressive allies should invent a new religion and have at it in the realm of Constitutional rights. Christian culture and community is well-defined by scriptue.
The country of Donny? Good question. Fair question. My "law pen" says that marriage is a man and a woman. It agrees with common sense, science and history when connected to "family." That is why I have such disdain for Humanism. Chaos is not logical. Liberty has always had limits to it. Ever heard of species becoming extinct? The Passenger Pigeon was wiped out for the liberty to hunt them. Genocide of humans is someone else's view of liberty for them.
We can't have everyone "doing what they wilt." Same-gender sex acts are such a thing. They are a private taste. A proclivity, that has nothing to do with the public. The path that the current USA is on is one of civil strife regarding sexual perversion coming into vogue. Europe will fall again to it. I would curtail same-gender sex with the pen of legislation "if" I could. Same-gender sex acts have been undertaken by people for millenia. Outlawing that hasn't worked well to stamp it out. So, let's just deal with it logically. Practice your sex life in an adult-oriented and exclusively private place. No mention of same-gender sex acts in public schools at all, OTHER THAN, in a scientific avenue. That is where same-gender sex acts find the most opposition. Body parts are "designed" to show proper sexuality. We should not let those that violete the anatome, physiology and their biology for sexual pleasure, to hold equality with normality.
Multi-Religions? Have at it. NO VIOLENCE though. Any violent war-like acts will be dealt with by the military. All religions, including the religions of Humanism and Atheism, will be dealt with in the arena of debate and beliefs only. Idolatry is the right of the believer if non-violence is practiced. Jesus forgives sin and sinners. If the market place of ideas is kept free of oppression, then Jesus will do just fine. Violence is to be fought against. That goes for the KKK or Islam.
Christians (before they were called that) were told by Jesus to preach the Gospel and forget about those that refused it. Just go on and that "He" would judge them in the end. If Christians are allowed to speak and preach, they will be just fine. And, so will the sinners coming to repentance and salvation.
Engaging in and the practcing of sexual perversion, sexually aberrant behaviors and sexual tastes have to exist within the realm of personal activities and in a world of personal privacy.
Normality does not have to.
Thanks.
I guess its nice to have a conservative voice on the site, but conservative voices attacking Thomas Jefferson? The writer of the Declaration, the President who doubled the size of our nation through a bold stroke of diplomacy, the great champion of the agrarian farmer? Interesting indeed.
Its actually nice to have Religious Right folks like Donny realize that our Founding Fathers did not intend to set up a Christian nation in any of the founding documents explicity or through intent. Jefferson and Franklin were deists and Jefferson offered a rewrite of the Bible taking out all references to Jesus's divinity. The religious right of our day would have never voted for Jefferson, yet he was simply exploring and prodding his religion seeking truth. Washington had little time for church as well, preferring to follow British law in going to church, but in fact rarely went into church preferring to wait in his carriage outside. The law said you had to go to church, but didn't say you had to go in.
No doubt there were religious founding fathers, but the Revolution was ideologically a product of the Enlightenment. Englightenment thinking sought truth over fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity paving the way for great scientific discovery and philosophical development. Its interesting in our times that we have so many folks that prefer to ignore scientific fact on evolution, homosexuality and the universe/Earth's creation, preferring their pre-Enlightenment fundamentalist reading of scripture. I'm glad our Founding Fathers and Enlightenmet thinkers knew better and pursued truth no matter if it broke existing convention and narrow literal readings of the Bible.
On the other points...
I've already argued the gay civil rights issue enough, so I won't go there. I'd prefer to live in equal rights land than Donny land, but unfortunately our country is not there yet.
Your comparison of the KKK with Islam is offensive. You need a modifier like "radical Islam". Most of the faith is not radical. Most KKK members and white supremicists call themselve Christian and I wouldn't want to be lumped together with them. Likewise you need not paint the whole religion with such a broad brush.
I am a Progressive. Religious Right? Conservative? I don't fit. I just take the issues analytically as they come. I don't want to return us to past times like Roman, Greek or Sodom. So obviously I am a progressive. I care not for those that reject the Gospel, other than loving them like I should my enemies . . .. Jesus said to leave people alone about the Gospel once they've rejected it. That is a "fundamental" teaching in the Gospel. Fundamentalists as you are trying to use the epithet, violate scripture by continually preaching to those that reject the Gospel. Very un-Jesus. Like gay marrige there is no support in scripture to preach to those that verbally reject the Gospel. Remember (or just read about it in Acts) the Church grew by by example. People in The Church were drawing non-believers into the Church by their love for one another. You can't draw people into a Church that is exactly the same as the world.
Jefferson (BTW) had no right other than an anti-Christian bend to edit out the miracles of Jesus. Jesus is no more a good guy than an honest used-car salesman otherwise. God, can do miracles. Jesus is God. Jefferson was only one man in a sea of great wealth grabbing and land acquiring rich ones. I look more towards John Locke than I do Jefferson. My heroes usually didn't own slaves. Washington and the other British traitors that took America by war, were interesting none the same though. Makes you wonder why secularists, humanists and progressives have a problem with the Iraq invasion huh? War is obviously a means to set up free societies. Ask Jefferson and his boys.
Enlightenment thinkers ALSO brought us the Nazi death camps and Soviet Russia and Communist China. Let's not lump too many things together unless the fit. OK? My views are soundly in line with Apostolic truth. Not liberal or conservative. They seek progressive goals in the good of the Gospel light. The poor need respite, but don't need to be debauched once they become fit and healthy. Too many Progressives live to comfortably in the world of MTV, HBO and vanity Fair. Ceratinly not Christian places.
You're trying to label me. Please don't. Save that for some other site. I don't desire to deny adults whatever sexual deviance floats their boat. I just reject it when they say perversion, it's OK from a Christian perspective . . . OR, they want to teach it to children in schools. Keep porn and sexual deviance where it belongs. I have the civil right to oppose perversion being taught as decency. Our society is crumbling because of lascivious licentiousness. Not because of fundamentalism.
Once Christian truth is brought to the issue, than I can weigh in on that as a Christian. Like say, "science and the Bible." Both agree for example, that same-gender sex acts are wrong behavior. The anatomy, physiology and biology of the human being speak to only one sexual orientation. Ask your urologist or proctologist? Unless of course a person is a hermaphodite. THEN, let them "choose" which way they will go. Biblically, they only get one choice once. But sexual orientation? "Science" eh-hum, proves it's a one-way path. Eh-hum . . .. I'll side with logic, reason and equipment present to decide emprical and scientifically sound answers to easy questions. Deviance and perversions? That's better left to the Dutch secularists. They accept immigrants. Especially freaky ones.
Like I wrote elsewhere, same-gender unions should be an exclusively private and legal matter between drawn up by lawyers for the parties involved. It should have no license, support or promotion in the public/political sphere.
Christians have been some of the greatest sceintists in history, as they are some of the best Doctors today. Please blame the history of the Catholic Church and its power-mongering leadership for the strife between science and the Bible. The Bible shines within science. I fear it not. Nor does any Christian I know. Evolution? Man from muck? Kinda cute little story. Makes me laugh every time I hear it. Even by R. Dawkins. I should buy his books just for the enjoyment they bring. Like this simple thing for instance: I have yet to see a big redwood tree here in Santa Cruz, turn itself into a deck (so ubiquitous here) around one one of these 900-K houses (so ubiquitous here). The need for a designer and a action for things to happen is very scientific and Biblical truth. 0 x 0 only equals atheism and hard-core Darwinism. Not the truth we can see, hear and feel all around us. It's like the silliness of bringing up the Crusades or the Inquisition. Both, ancient history and misrepresented by secular agenda. The Crusades, in fact, were caused by the effect of Muslims taking Jerusalem by war and murdering its innocent Christian inhabitants. The Inquisition? Again, ask the ancient Catholics why they needed to torture and kill people in the name of Christ? Jesus made it clear that they have no right or preaching to support their actions. Hmm, progressives are doing that now with gay marriage! Forcing their political beliefs on an unwilling populace. Interesting. When you oppose the Inquistion, you have fundamental truth in scripture supporting your position.
The KKK desires a country run only one way. I stand on the comparison of it and them, to Islam and Muslims. Every Islamic country (and there are many to use as example in real life) is intolerant of others. That would be fair to all Muslims, since it is provable fact. You do not see any tolerance and inclusiveness offered to anyone but Muslims in Muslim communities and countries. The history of Islam is pure Muslim rule over all. I'll stand on facts to support my analogy. In "fact" Muslims have been far more violent than the Klan. Especially to Africans. Why should facts be offensive? Truth doesn't bother me.
Your arguments on gay civil rights are OK, but, can only exist in the civil/secular humanistic worldview. Why should I, a Christian, care what non-believers desire? "I" would urge you "if" you are a Christian, to represent the Church Body in a more Biblically consistent way. I have Biblical support to do that. "If" you are a Christian brother, that is what I should offer you. You should not encourage people to sin. Jesus said that offenses would come, but He gave a stern warning to those that bring them . . ..
Donny,
There's a word for your comments on this website: trollish. Trolls are folks who go on other sites representing themselves as something they are not. Trolls also are generally attempt to be disruptive to the online communities they enter.
On what issues are you progressive? i'm curious, because if you are representing yourself as a progressive, it would be good to know where we have common ground. Nothing you have written to date on this site has been progressive politically or theologically. From what i've read, you are a conservative member of the Religious Right following the script that the IRD (Instutite for Religion and Democracy) does in attacking progressive mainline churches by putting trolls into churches and causing problems.
Your comments about Islam and the KKK border on hate speech, something not tolerated on CrossLeft. Your comparison demonstrates either a lack of knowledge of history or a willful misrepresentation of Islam. Christian nations have been just as warlike if not more so. The Crusades, a couple of world wars, colonialization are all historical facts that demonstrate that.
Trollish? I am a progressive in every sense of the word. You ad hom me for whatever reason makes you feel good. I have presented historical and scientific references to shore up my position. You sound like the college students that shout down any dissent from the marching orders of secular progressive ideology. I wish you wouldn't call me names but so be it.
Geez Stephen. Too harsh. Too shrill.
Trolls in Churches? That would be those that demand to alter, change and edit New Testament truth. I certainly have shown that I do not do that. I am no more a Troll than Paul was to the Churches he wrote to. I am just a Christian presenting his apologia on the subject at hand. You should be ashamed of labeling me that. That we disagree on the subject of homosexuality shouldn't be so contentious between Christians. I have been more than open to let "them" do what they want to in a structure not belonging to the historic Christian community. Isn't that tolerance and diversity? I certainly am not +pushing my religion" on anyone. Your Troll accusation is not valid.
I used science appropriately. I used analogy on Islam and Aryanism (KKK beliefs) properly. Any research devoid of purely leftist politically correct perspective can prove that I used science and history accurately. This ALWAYS happens when dealing with gay issues. Sooner or later the gay side goes berserk with accusations and slander, labeling and name-calling. Creepy how much like the Sodom story in Genesis the reactions of the gay community these days. Please apologize. Like any Christian out of the pages of the New Testament and history, I cannot support and promote, encourage and condone others to commit sins. That is anything but hatefulness. It can be proven that the stance on Islam is totalitarian, and that same-gender sex is not natural to the human anatomy, are provable by the evidence of facts to support the positions. Behavior is a strong indicator to proof.
I agree wholeheartedly that the poor and the needy and the environment need to be protected and healed by a dose of Christian morality. Morality - by the way - that contradicts Darwinian evolution so dear the progressives. (Evolution would show that murder and the power of war are good things.) Social programs need to be implemented and cemented in our social conscience and our political authority.
You demand that I agree with your positions on everything. Or, you label me ad hom style as a hateful person. You simply are frustrated with a position you cannot break down. So we have the name calling and threats.
You should just present your rebuttal and prove my positions as incorrect by YOUR facts.
I would prefer from this moment on, that you either apologize and move on, or don't apologize and attempt to dismantle my positions with your facts. I have shown a tolerance and willingness towards others to live their lives the way they see fit. But I don't bury the truth for political correctness.
Donny,
The impetus is on you to let us know on what issues you are progressive. Don't represent yourself as a progressive, if you aren't. If you are progressive let us know what issues we have in common so we find common ground. I have not seen one issue theologically or politically where you have represented a progressive point of view.
If you are conservative, that's fine. Let's have a discussion, but don't come onto the site under false pretenses.
Your comments comparing Islam to the KKK is hateful and will not be tolerated on this site.
For others reading, this is very common behavior amongst conservative groups to infiltrate progressive churches and websites under false pretenses. This is why i'm pretty adamant and vigilant in this case. I hope I'm wrong.
Donny,
I understand Stephen's frustration because the positions that you present do not map onto the concept of progressive as the majority of us here would define it. This is one source of irritation.
Another possible source of irritation is the fact that you say that you support your positions with historic and scientific references, but many of the arguments you present are logically problematic where premises may not lead to conclusions or may not relate and you throw out so many arguments, that it is difficult to address problems or objections.
Here is an example of what I'm referring to. In a statement in which you are ostensibly trying to defend your self identification as a progressive, you inject this comment,
"Christian morality. Morality - by the way - that contradicts Darwinian evolution so dear the progressives. (Evolution would show that murder and the power of war are good things.)"
which doesn't directly relate to how you are progressive and which those of us who do accept the evolutionary model for the development of life on Earth will likely find objectionable. You slide this into an unrelated argument and presumptuously conclude, without supporting your claims, that the theory of evolution somehow yields moral standards.
In fairness, do you think that you could spend a bit more time articulating your points and try to show how they connect as clearly as possible. I think that we are all willing to hear your viewpoint and more than willing to consider the possibility that we are wrong. We are engaged in a search for truth and I have no doubt that you can have a role in helping us to get there.
Having said that, I agree with you that name calling is not necessary. Show us your true intentions here by presenting your arguments and positions clearly and concisely one at a time. (Some of us [ME] are a bit slow here and need things spelled out.) Thanks for your patience and courage to speak your mind.
david
Donny - I don't want to pile on, but I'd like to add a couple of specific questions to David's general question, just for you to think about.
The one comprehensive definition of your progressivism that I've seen is this statement: "I am a progressive in every Christian sense of the word. I want the Gospel to progress. I want sinners to progress from their sins into repentance and forgiveness." I see no reason to think that's controversial here -- though some of us presumably put more emphasis on the positives of doing things for love rather than out of fear of punishment for sin.
Otherwise, what do you see as your social progressivism?
Are we to assume from your comments against the American Revolution that you are a consistent, principled pacifist? Your comment about the military dealing with violent religions doesn't square with that, though. What are your criteria for the acceptable use of violence?
Aside from the sexual issues that are currently under discussion and which I won't muddy up with my own comments, you've mentioned the poor and needy and the environment in passing, as needing protection and healing 'by a dose of Christian morality". What, then, about the poor, health care, immigration, wealth, taxes, the environment, climate change, energy, 'Peak Oil' and 'Peak Water', Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, the PATRIOT Act, torture, waterboarding, the powers of the presidency, Venezuela? Not that I expect you to rattle off positions on all these issues, but they're the sorts of things that most of us are interested in.
Aside from your views on sexuality, reproduction, and Islam, are there any issues that greatly concern you and that you have 'progressive' views on, so that you can contribute to our broader discussions about defining a progressive Christian agenda?
As David said, dealing with these things one at a time is helpful, so that discussions don't veer off in so many directions that it's impossible to keep up or to clear up misunderstandings of terms and arguments. There's no rush.
Bill
Thanks Bill,
I have been following the progressive movement ever since listening to Jim Wallis. I had great reservations that he was just another "plant" in the Church to try and trick the beautiful souls there into falling for socialism and Humanism.
I agree with with most of the "Christian progressive ideology but I am concerned that I am seen as agreeing to all of it. Gay marriage is not a Christian issue. It is a non, anti and foreign concept in regards to Christian reality, but is part and parcel to Humanism not the faith delivered only once to the Saints. How do I "know" that?
The following from Jude is amazingly relevant to the discussion at hand. Would Jude be considered a Troll here?:
Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people.
I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that God first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful.
And don’t forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God’s judgment.
In the same way, these people—who claim authority from their dreams—live immoral lives, defy authority, and scoff at supernatural beings . . .
////
Isn't it fascinating how incredibly similar the stance Jude takes on "sexual issues" and true Christian life? So much for Jude "interpreting" Sodom as "just" a matter of inhospitality. Though, anyone whose been around lascivious licentious people, know they are very inhospitable.
Same-gender sexuality is off the table to Christian culture, life and community. I have gone out of my way to show my "tolerance" for those that choose same-gendered relationships. Do what thou wilt. BUT, within the confines of the "faith delievered once to the Saints," marriage and family is Christ-centered and man-woman, husband-wife, and their children. It is not ignorant or bigoted or hateful to believe Jesus Christ and His apostles on that. It's actually called "being a Christian." My view on being a progressive is delivering the authenticity of the Gospel's truth without editing it for non and anti-Christian political and social movements and the adherants of such to feel OK. Jesus and His Apostles died, were actually killed, for bucking the secular system.
THIS category is about progressive Christians mirroring the non and anti-Christian counterparts in secular Humanism. Indeed, on same-gendered sex acts and unfettered abortion, progressive Christians show no difference from non-Christians. That is a problem is it not?
Abortion for convenience is also not a Christian life choice. "Life" is the only pro choice. Abortion should be exclusively as a matter of preventing physical death for the mother that tragically facilitates the death of her unborn child. NOT birth control and the erasing of sexual misconduct. How is it not progressive to care for the life of unborn children? Killing the weak is a most secular activity. We should not be a part of that either.
I stand firm on Islam. The proof is overwhelming as to its nature. <---- That's a period. Christians should emphatically evangelize Islamic countries no matter the cost. We can do this with NOT interacting with them on their terms.
So let me hit on these other progressive subjects:
Bill: "What, then, about the poor?
Bring the Gospel to them. Evangelize the lost. Save souls. The Spirit of God and the Christian Church built by the Spirit will show them the way. END the secular laws stopping Christians from teaching Christ to the poor.
Health care?
Have government require any insurance company that does business in America to insure anyone regardless of health risks to buy insurance. "If" people cannot afford insurance, the goverment should pay for the cost of it.
Immigration?
It is ridiculous to portray immigrants that are working a job, as bad people. Allow them a place to live as long as they work as a resident alien within our borders. They are in fact citizens of another country. But, they do not hurt us living and working here.
Wealth?
Historically, many wealthy people that became Christians literally had Churches in their mansions. Philemon is a good example. Stop imposing high taxes just because a person is wealthy or is born into wealth. Everyone should look forward to becoming wealthy without it carrying a stigma. The rich pay almost all of the income taxes running America.
Taxes?
End poperty taxes. Tax people on the things they use and consume. Taxes are to keep roads safe and utilities available. High taxation is evil. It gives power to the corrupt.
The environment?
Managing the environment is loving your neighbor as yourself. Destroying land for developement has been proven to be detrimental to civilization.
Climate change?
Every Christian should listen to scientists, but be very, very, wary of Mother Earth Goddess worshippers that seem to be entrenched in the issues and its solution. Pagan's hardly are ever beneficial for the coomon good. Christians on the other hand have literally built the best countries on Earth.
Energy?
Find alternatives to fossil fuels. Also gluttony is a sin.
'Peak Oil' and 'Peak Water'?
We need to guide developing countries and world leaders like China and the developing south, to not kill off our resources. We need to curtail our greed and consumption first.
Israel?
We must protect Israel from Islamic totalitarianism that has continued to try to wipe out Jews since the turn of the twentith century.
Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties?
We must find a way to encourage Muslims to stop demanding Islamic law rule over every aspect of life in the Middle East. We should reject and sanction every Muslim country that imposes Islam on its inhabitants. We live a seperation of Church and State ideology, and we should expect no less of those we become associated with. We should press to have "our" lifestyles respected.
The PATRIOT Act, torture, waterboarding?
Non and anti-Christians torture people. Like immoral sexual practices, Christians should live according to the teachings of Christ Jesus and the Apostles. Torture is not acceptable. What we should do is to take in these Islsmic terrorists into our homes and show them how we live.
The powers of the presidency?
America is not that bad off now. The congress has power over the president. The errors of the Bush administration will be erased by the following president.
Venezuela?
We must oppose Hugo Chavez and his Leftist-Socialist totalitarianism. He is becoming the despot that many have said he would. Like all power-hungry tyrants he will inflict his people. This is probably why Chavez hates Christians.
"Not that I expect you to rattle off positions on all these issues, but they're the sorts of things that most of us are interested in."
I value your questions. Dialogue is what Christ is all about.
D.
Thanks Bill for the question of clarification. And thanks Donny for taking the time to answer these questions. On health care, immigration, the environment, energy, climate change, "Peak Oil" and "Peak Water", and torture, you're maybe not totally progressive but are certainly left of center.
The issue of Islamic countries not forcing its citizens to adopt Islam is something Pope Benedict is trying to raise. He is in the best position of any world leader to raise it with the Islamic World. The previous pope, John Paul II did a lot to try to open dialogue with Muslims, and his opposition of the two Gulf wars gave him some respect among Muslims. But I worry that some of that good will may have eroded with Benedict's little faux pas in his speech earlier this year.
On wealth and taxes you seem more conservative (are you a "the best government is the least government" type philosphy?).
Considering Torquemada, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the various burnings of religious heretics in the Catholic/Protestat wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries, I think Christians have been just as guilty of torture as nonchristians have been.
I have some of the same objections as Stephen on your positions on Islam, wealth, and the poor. There's a book that just came out by Zachary Karabell called "Peace Be Upon You". It's a book about the times in history when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in peace. It's not Islam, but fundamentalist Islam that is causing all the trouble we hear about today. There are Muslim lawyers right now in Iran fighting for human rights, defending academics who are accused of heresy against fundamentalist orthodoxy, and these Muslim lawyers are risking their livelihood and their life to do so.
Elaine knows more about Israel and Palestinian peace issues than I do, but I don't think anyone here wants Israel to be overwhelmed by Arab countries. We just want Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace together.
I have the same fears of Hugo Chavez that you do. His limiting of the freedom of press, his gradual chipping of checks and balances in the constitution, his attempts to get rid of limits on how long he could be president, remind me too much of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Marcos and other dicatators who slowly consolidated power. I do support some of his reforms to redistribute wealth and land to the poor, but that shouldn't pull the wool over our eyes about his grabbing power. If progressives fall for Chavez uncritically, they'll be making the same mistake as leftists in the 1920s and 1930s who fell for Stalin's Soviet Union and saw it as a worker's paradise, ignoring his suppression of dissent, his totalitarian government and the death of millions of people in his death camps.
You're not a progressive, Anthony, but you're not really a conservative either. You're sort of more of a contrarian, like John Adams. Your positions on health care, immigration, the environment, energy, climate change, "Peak Oil" and "Peak Water", and torture put you to the left of the Republican Party. But your positions on homosexuality, abortion, the rich, taxes, and Islam put you to the right of the Democratic Party. So you're more of a political oddball, which is not such a bad thing. John Adams was a political oddball too. He was an ardent supporter of the war for Independence against England, yet he also defended the 6 British soldiers who took part in the Boston Massacre. Adams was an ardent Federalist, but he went against Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party on the role of a federal bank, and on going to war with France. He was fervently against the British monarchy, but also believed in a strong executive branch that made people mock him as "His Rotundity". He was a believer in a strong central government whose best friend was Thomas Jefferson, a strong states rights person.
While I agree with you the dialogue is needed, there's actually very little in what you said that demonstrates any type of progressive thought politically or theologically.
What you say about the poor: "Bring the Gospel to them. Evangelize the lost. Save souls. The Spirit of God and the Christian Church built by the Spirit will show them the way. END the secular laws stopping Christians from teaching Christ to the poor."
Your articulation of the problem of poverty is completely false. What laws are in place to stop Christians from evangelizing to the poor? There are none. In fact, many Christian groups are helpful in providing services to the poor AND advocating the government and corporate sector to do more. Its been my experisnce that the poor are often some of the most faithful folks that i've come across. Believing in Christ doesn't mean they are no longer not in need. Evangelizing doesn't answer the questions about how we can solve poverty, a lack of economic resources and ability to attain those resources.
You articulate nothing that would indicate support for eradication of poverty, and the role that governments, corporations, and nonprofits in supporting anti-poverty programs.
You also lend your support to the growing income and wealth stratification in this country and globally. High taxes to the rich are evil? Hardly. What's evil is the fact that we live in a country that is richest ever on the face of the earth yet 12% still live in poverty. We also have the highest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation in the world. What's evil is half of the world lives on less than $2 dollars a day. You note Philemon, but you neglect Jesus who reserves his strongest condemnation for the rich.
Your views on homosexuality demonstrate that you are extremely conservative socially.
Your economic views are also extremely conservative.
Your intolerance of Islam as a valid and legitimate religion are extremely conservative theologically.
You may call yourself progressive, but your views fall well outside the progressive mainstream of thought.
Your views on the environment and civil liberties appear a bit more moderate. Perhaps that is where we might find some common ground.
But words?
I don't go for labels. I have a great disdain for neologisms implemented to cover up and decieve desired intent. I thought that "thought," was what being a Progressive was all about. Not lock-step lemming behavior in having to believe everything the Progressive elites present. Is that not what caused progressives to come into being? NOT following the hordes? Thinking for ourselves? I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Christian. It's just that the GOP is not so hostile and denigrating towards Christians and, they don't see family values and morality as bigotry and a hate crime. The connection between the Humanist Manifesto and Liberal Democrat legislation is too eery to ignore while at the ballot box.
"Civil liberties," is the place where Progressives need to do the most outreach. It's the positions they take that are often very noble. I go to a standard non-denominational Church, but I have been referred to as a "Progressive," because I believe that people should be allowed to live as they please (though to a degree), and that Christians should not preach to others as demand for "them" to change. I believe that government should handle global warming more in-depth. If that means raising taxes to curtail gluttony so be it. Not all taxes are bad. Just the ones that pay for murder and licentiousness. I do not seek to ex-communicate people from the Church for engaging in same-gender sex acts, or for questioning things. I seek the higher council in testing all things, and holding firmly onto truth. There is truth no matter what ballot you cast. I believe that Jesus Christ is what he said He was and what the Apostles proved he was.
I embrace "much" of the "progressive" goals and reject what opposes Christ and the Church Community. As a Christian I test all things and hold firmly to what is truthful as a matter of fact and not so much on "faith." There is much value in what is at the core of this self-identified group known as "Progressives." But, wanting to stop our environment from being destroyed by mankind, shouldn't mean I become a Gaia worshipper. Letting others "do their thing" does not mean I join them in it. That is exactly NOT what Christians are to do. Christians today have the blood of the first martyers to uphold when dealing with worldy people. Why is it that beoming an environmentalist is also embracing the kooky side of the movment. I still want a Whopper and an internal conbustion engine in my car, I just don't want them at the cost of our planet dying. (Though I do totally admire and envy vegans. In a way, they are like the original Adam and Eve before the fall. Love 'em.)
Education and thriving economic industry eradicates poverty. The richest ten percent pay almost all of the taxes now anyway. Recognize the good in the wealthy and stop coveting their Lexus, Rolex and Yachts. Being happy really doesn't boil down to "things" anyway. I grew up in a middle class family, I am struggling home owner now. I find happiness in my world. Christ was buried in a nice tomb because of the actions of a rich man. The wealthy Roman converts were a great blessing to the Church Community at the foundation of the Church. Handouts and social programs bordering on communism and thuggery is also not decent. Taking from the rich by force is still robbery, every bit as much as working your labor force unjustly. It is not John Covington III, fault for being born into the Covington family. Why inflict the children of the wealthy by taking what is there's by force or legislation? Tax everyone the same and the rich will still be paying more taxes than anyone else. By the way, do you think Hugo Chavez is still eating maize and beans only? He's drinking Dom Perignon, eating roast beef and loving it. Notice there was no milk (leche) for the Venezuela populace the other day? Good ol' socialism at work.
Making people slaves by social programs is disgusting too. I have worked in the social service field for two-decades. I mean "slavery." Those living in poverty cannot make it out of their station in life without losing their life-sustaining social programs. So, the poor have to stay poor to just survive. Progressive thought should be to educate the populace to have the ability to seek the way out of poverty as a goal to better yourself and others.
Health Insurance is just a part of a decent standard of life for people. Until a society has a national health care system, it cannot be considered civilized. That includes the good ol' US of A. Seeing others as valuable is even better. This is why there are so many Christian founded hospitals and Universities. Though school is becoming an elitist endeavor for ONLY the rich or the slave to acquire. Staring life with a 100,00 dollar debt load is apalling. It's fascinating that so many socialists are Educators, when thew students are enslaved to debt from the moment of graduation. And I mean enslaved. There is no escaping education-derived debt.
The poor communities prey on each other. This needs to be stopped. Valuing the life and civil rights of others are thought of cheaply in poor neighborhoods, and yet, it seems that only the Christians are trying to change that. If school voucers were allowed, then the parents in poor neighborhoods could send their children to good schools. Tax me on that. If parents could send their children to decent private schools, poverty would not spread from one generation to the next. And, since "generations" are now being developed in about fourteen-years as opposed to 25, this "children having children" plague on society if we stopped, would end poverty where it starts. Social handouts have proven detrimental to the overall health of our society. Social programs must be attached to non-violence and morally sound behaviors.
I am not socially a "conservative" I am a Christian like the followers of Jesus. If a label is to be applied "to me," label me a Christian. I will do my best to live like one towards others. And that (as the NT says) includes to non and anti-Christians. The New Testament from Gospels to Jude oppose same-gender eroticism. So to, do I. Christians should get the same tolerance for their opposition to same-gender sexuality as those that promote it do. Neither side is going to fade from society anytime soon. A living arrangement must be found. It is clear that forcing beliefs on each other is not ever going to bring about harmony, but a forcing of beliefs by lnewly invented laws will bring civil strife. Anytime same-gender sexual behavior is equated to what God planned for His people, I'll stay on the path that Jesus and the Apostles blazed. Done deal on that. "Culture wars" need not turn into real ones. It is not progressive to attack Jesus and the Apsotles. It is also not sensible to think that "things change" so dramatically on sexual morality within the Christian community, that same-sex marriage can be forced onto Christians. That is a very large group that does not take well to subjugation by pagans. Otherwise "anything" does go. And in Christianity, it doesn't. Jesus made that clear, and the Apostles gave their lives for that as well. You can't interpret out of the New Testament what you don't like politically. Why isn't it OK to ask Liberals to examine the error of their ways on same-gender sexuality? They certainly are demanding others do that.
Abortion for birth control is heinous behavior. Christians should have nothing to do with but open rebellion to it. It's when politics and legislation demand that we agree with paganism that we have the right in a Democratic country or not, to oppose that. And if anyone thinks that abortion isn't close to entirely used as a birth control method, they are living in Oz. Time to get out to the public schools and interact with our youth, or talk to the women of feminism. Or, just realize the truth since Roe V. Wade became law. Ostrich behavior is not a progressive act.
On Islam, I see history and reality properly. Anytime the silly comparison of the Crusades or Inquistion is brought to bear on Christians, the non-stop violent actions of Islam from Mecca to two-seconds ago, need to be placed in proper order. That is not hate speech. It is actual history. Islam has not been good for diversity and tolerance of others. If it is to be a religion of peace, that means to allow others the peace NOT to be Muslim. This is demanded of Christians by Muslims and Secualarists, so, they should pratice what they literally preach. There is not one Islamic country that is open and tolerant to the free exchange of ideas and the freedom "to" non-Muslims to spread their beliefs. Unlike Christian nations that have become very secular, Islam does not allow for dissent. I cannot understand why any "progressive' would support Islamic aims. That, defies logic. I would like know how and why you can defend it so passionately from your progressive perspective.
Thank you Donny for taking the time to write of all your political positions and why you hold them. When I first started reading your posts, I just assumed you were a typical Conservative Christian and reading these last two posts shows me you hold more varied opinions. I don't agree with a lot of what you write, but when you write that a nation cannot be considered civilized until it has a national health car system, when you write that the government should work on global warming more in depth and we should be willing to pay higher taxes for it, when you write that the Progressive stands on civil liberties are noble, that's something where you have common ground with other progressives.
You wrote that you don't like Jefferson, but maybe you'll like Robert Carter III. He is the one founding father to free his slaves while he was still alive, and he was inspired to do it because of his Christian faith. George Washington put in his will that his slaves would be free after his wife Martha died. Jefferson wanted to free his slaves but doing so would have added to his enormous debt.
ok Donny.
I think I understand the ideal scenario and the premises upon which you would support your legislative aims. But I'm unsure that there is internal consistency in the end product. For example, you say that you would endeavor to align the laws with the New Testament. I agree with your understanding of the Bible in relation to homosexual behavior. As I read scripture I am convinced that homosexual behavior is outside of God's will for us, i.e. sin. However, I don't understand the principle that you apply to distinguish which sins ought to be penalized and which ought to be tolerated. In the NT Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your being.
Why do you feel that people who violate this highest command need not face some legal consequences (restriction of rights and privileges if not punishment) but you would restrict rights and privileges from those who sin in homosexuality?
Perhaps you might argue that sexual sin is in some way more detrimental to society. (If so perhaps Jesus misspoke?) I have to reject your suggestion that somehow the future of the human race is in jeopardy by extending equal rights to the 10% (more or less) of the population that wants to engage in homosexual relationships. But lets assume that there is some credibility to the conservative claims that sexual behaviors that deviate from the traditional concept are harmful to families. If that is true, then would you ideally extend legal restrictions of marriage rights and/or adoption to couples with open marriages or engage in other extramarital sexual activities.
To me, even though I believe that God has revealed his will in regard to homosexual behavior in scripture, I don't think that I am justified in supporting coercive legal measures that penalize or restrict the liberty of those who disagree with me anymore than I would be justified in penalizing those who completely reject Christ.
david
Most people do not demand or require others to support their sinning. This is not the case with homosexuality. The adherants and proponents of that behavior demand that everyone support and promote it. That is anti-Christian, and it is just not morally sound behavior. Not loving God is a personal choice that many people hold without having to force it on others. With, of course, the exception of activist Atheists. They too seem to demand their personal behaviors be supported and encouraged by act of legislation.
Jesus taught that sin would happen. But, he declared a dire warning to those that bring them to others. It certainly is not loving your neighbor to force your sinful proclivitiess be supported and promoted by them.
I'm pretty much done with the issue of same-gender sex and its appropraietness within the Christian life. It is denounced 100% in the New Testament. Jesus declared that marriage (and obviously proper sexual behavior) was in a marriage. Marriage is immutably man/woman in the Jesus teaching of that. The Apostles denounced it without a hint of disagreement between them. I, like them, cannot support, nor do I promote, sin and sinfulness. No matter if I am a sinner or not. It is a settled issue.
I am referred to as a "progressive" in my rather common style Church, because I believe in leaving people alone to do what they choose to do. "As long as" (BTW) they do not force it onto and into the Church. If people do not desire a Christian life so be it. If they do not repent while in the Christian Community, let them live outside of the Church Community. Jesus DID mention that. As well as my stance on the environment and some social issues. I do not see Mexican immigrants (legal or otherwise) as anything but good people. The gangs that follow this culture are dealt with by the law no matter the immigration status.
In any event, there are many things I am in complete agreement with in the Progressive movement.
It's around 6 a.m. and I have a cold and am having a hard time sleeping, so I thought I'd reread these series of posts to try to better understand what Anthony means by "inerrancy" and "cherry picking". In rereading this, something occurred to me that I missed in trying to understand "inerrancy".
But first, let's talk about "inerrancy". When someone says they believe the Bible is inerrant, does that mean that there are certain messages that run consistently in both the Old and the New Testament and should be considered inerrant because those consistent themes are inspired messages of God? These consistent themes can differentiate parts of the Bible that are only specific to that time and culture (like Leviticus' various directions on how to sacrifice animals) or are the Biblical writer's own personal opinions (like Paul's admonition for women to keep quiet) from more univeral messages that God wants all people in all ages to follow. Is this what you mean by inerrancy? I'm deriving this from your "formating" post, in a response to the idea of cherry picking.
Speaking of cherry picking, when you say that you are against a person cherry picking the Bible, are you saying that you are against a person who conforms the Bible to their beliefs, ignoring the parts of the Bible that go against that person's preconceived notions? Do you believe that a person should conform their beliefs to the Bible, rather than the other way around?
The original point of your post was to keep Christ in the center of Progressive Christianity. I think the way you hope to do this is by having all Christians agree to values derived from an inerrant reading of the Bible. Is that correct? If I am understanding you correctly, I'm not sure that I agree with that. I guess I disagree because different Christian denominations have different ways of looking at the Bible. Stephen made a good point in one of his posts that each person or group of people interprets the Bible through their own particular lens, influenced by their experiences, culture, and temperment. If you focus on having people see the Bible as inerrant, you may be unintentionally excluding people with more unorthodox notions of God and Jesus.
On a more personal response, I don't see having doubts and questioning the Bible as necessarily being a bad thing. I guess my opinion is derived from my personal experience. I once was in a group where I kept quiet about my opinions because I liked the people and wanted to fit in. After a while I started letting the group think for me, and it took a few conflicts to get me to question things and to think for myself again. I learned a few things from that experience. One lesson is that I learned is to always think for myself and guard my independence of thought. Another lesson I learned is to ask questions, even if some of the questions may be dumb. I think all beliefs should be validated in some way by our personal experiences, and if there is a disconnect between a stated belief and my actual experience, I think it's valid to question that belief. By my logic, if Jesus' greatest commandment is to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves, then any belief that fuels prejudice or hatred of our neighbor should be questioned, even if it is a belief is derived from another part of the Bible. This is my own belief. I don't represent Secular Humanists, other Progressive Christians or any one else. If you see flaws in what I wrote, then they are flaws in my way of thinking and no one else.
I'm starting to breath better, so I'm going back to bed. Before I sign off though, I wanted to say how enjoyable it has been to read these posts and to ponder everyone's various opinions on putting Christ in Christianity and learning about "inerrancy". I looked forward these past few days to reading a new post. Thank you Anthony for your thoughts and for making a post that elicited so much reaction from people. It was thoughtprovoking to read everyone's thoughts on homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, and such, although I'm not sure how "neo-cons" got into this conversation. And I learned a few new words. In these next few days, I'm going to make a concerted effort to put "Latitudinarian" into a conversation.
I think that we Christians have failed to make a distinction that exists in scripture. On one hand, I agree with many of the contributors here that the New Testament is clear in its prohibition of homosexuality. Homosexuality is outside of God's perfect plan for us and therefore sin. However, it is a sin which does not entail a victim unlike theft, murder, or sexual sins that involve unwilling participants. I believe that a strong case can be made for distinguishing (in legal matters) between sins that harm others and sins that do not. Attempting to strip practitioners of these hedonistic sins of rights and liberties is like expecting them to exhibit the fruits of the spirit and penalizing them for failing to do so. We should be so interested in purging sin from our own lives.
It isn't anymore appropriate for us to push our beliefs about what is sinful (moral) outside of the parameters of the "harm principle" than it would be appropriate to try to legislatively coerce non-believers into a relationship with God.
Consider the parable of the prodigal son. I believe that it is a rare Biblical exemplar that demonstrates the right mentality in a situation like ours in which the one who has coercive legal power/authority AND insight into God's will is governing over one who rejects God's will. In the story, the father (metaphorically God) clearly knows what is sinful and what is not and yet allows his son, who rejects his fathers law, to go out and experience for himself the wages of sin. The father could have responded with penalties or denial of rights or incarcerating the son. In stead he allows the boy complete liberty to live the hedonistic life that he thought would bring him greater happiness.
In a democracy where we have influence over the laws, our role is similar to the father in the parable in significant ways. I think that by penalizing hedonistic sins we are harming the natural progression that God intended. We can simultaneously say to our neighbors, "You are sinning and God has something better for you" and "I will support your legal right to pursue these things so long as you do not harm others".
In essence, taking a liberal stance on political issues in this way is a truer to biblical direction. It is neither a compromise nor an abandonment of scriptural principles. It is instead a nuanced interpretation of God's word similar to the way we understand various culturally bound passages.
Abortion becomes a different matter, but what do you all think about this distinction?
From what I understand of your post, it sounds like a good disctinction. I guess you're trying to show the limits of how a person who believes in scriptural principles can influence a democratic society where others may not subscribe to those scriptural principles.
I'm not completely satisfied with the way I've articulated the point here, but I'm not sure exactly how to fix it either. It sounds like you've got the picture more or less though.
Leaders like Falwell and Robertson etc. have promoted the idea that we can some how impact the sin craving nature of our fellow citizens by denying them those things that they believe will give them happiness. Instead, I argue that we ought to follow the model of the God-figure presented to us in the parable of the prodigal son.
1. do our best to follow God's law ourselves and bear the spiritual fruits
2. speak the truth of God's word (the son was not ignorant of God's law)
3. allow non-believers to pursue what they believe will yield happiness.
In a way, the 'moralization through legislation' route is very arrogant. It is paternalistic in that it denies autonomous free individuals their God given liberty on the premise that we know what is best for them. At its roots it is a failure to distinguish between knowledge and faith.
The formatting on this page i am not used to, so i have no idea where this ends up, lol.
On abortion, it is the taking of innocent life, my opinion, biblically supported. That said, too many Christians take the easy way out and want to force their theology down the throats of the unsaved. The fact is if you show the love of Christ to the mother and she makes the choice for Jesus, she will not abort the child. Not to mention that the primary motivation for abortion is financial, meaning if you truly cared, you would not support traditional right wing fiscal policies of tax breaks for the super rich. I believe when Christ returns he will not be concerned with how you fought against abortion but rather how you loved the mother.
On homosexuality, i am sorry but again the Bible is quite clear in stating that it is wrong. The fact that many today believe they were "born" gay, is irrelevant. Where does that end? That said however, Christians have trumped homosexuality up into a super-sin, when all sin is equal. Once again, when Christ returns i do not think he will want to hear how you fought against gay marriage but rather how you loved the homosexual.
On stem cells, i think that if the cells are going to be destroyed anyway, there is nothing wrong with using them to ease human suffering. The right wingers have blown this way out of proportion with the slippery slope argument.
Neo-cons is not a derogotory term. Believing you are correct does not mean you are. Intentions do not necessarily matter. Death is death and war is war.
Inerrant means nothing is wrong. Legalistic means you take ritual over being Christ like. The Pharisees were a good example of legalism. They thought it more important to observe the Sabbath than save a life.
On the sabbath, while Christ did not erase the law, He completed it. Again, He raised the bar. He put human need over the ritual of man. Once again, we are under the new covenant, not the Old testament.
Peltz, you are correct. When i used the word literal, i should have said inerrant again. Apologies.
If you wish to say that i cherry pick, that is your right. I do not feel so. I believe that there are no mistakes in the Bible. I believe it is the inerrant Word of the Living God. You asked what is the criteria, i would say lets be careful what we are looking at. Comparing a passage where Paul provides behavior for women in church to the varied passages against homosexuality is not a fair comparison. One deals with social properness in Paul's day and the other deals with sin. Man has tried to justify his sin since the garden and will use anything that seems "logical" to do so.
So i can look at the verse dealing with woman's hair and realize that while true in Paul's day, it is not a big deal today. Technically, the verse can be taken literally because it was true but when applied to today, it simply is not as relevant. Since it is not a major part of Christian doctrine, lets move on. But when you say "a-ha!" you are cherry picking and then extrapolate that out to justify homosexuality, that is where you are deciding what is and is not of God.
Feel free to stone me.
:^)
Anthony, you wrote: "Peltz, you are correct. When i used the word literal, i should have said inerrant again. Apologies."
It's refreshing when someone says "I said it wrong." Thanks.
Then, the more I thought about it, the less clear I became on the difference between "inerrant" and "literal".
Example: "Inerrant means nothing is wrong."
Question: Does that mean that the Garden of Eden was real and that the earth is a little more than 6,000 years old?
I assume that your answer is "no" because if it isn't, then the distinction between inerrant and literal disappears.
Question: If the answer to that question is "no", what is it that's inerrant? Is it that whatever might be termed "generalizations" or "principles" in the Bible are inerrant, however mythological the stories -- or some of the stories -- are?
Question: How do we distinguish between what's legalistic and what's truly sinful or between what's culturally time-bound, like Paul's admonitions about women keeping silent in church and not teaching men, and what's relevant today?
You introduced this relativistic concept of "relevant" when you wrote:
"So i can look at the verse dealing with woman's hair and realize that while true in Paul's day, it is not a big deal today. Technically, the verse can be taken literally because it was true but when applied to today, it simply is not as relevant. Since it is not a major part of Christian doctrine, lets move on. But when you say "a-ha!" you are cherry picking and then extrapolate that out to justify homosexuality, that is where you are deciding what is and is not of God."
Homosexuality might also fall into that "technically literally true" in its era but not "as relevant" now category. It's an old argument: the homosexual behavior that Paul knew about was either the Greek pattern of young men and married men having very young male as well as female lovers, or the existence of commercial brothels and sex slavery which again focused on boys and very young men, as well as women.
Paul almost certainly had no category of "homosexual person". There were only some heterosexual people who performed homosexual acts and maintained homosexual relationships while also being in heterosexual relationships. Thus, from Paul's point of view, these acts were perversions of people's normal "created" natures.
That doesn't seem to hold up today. In addition to those who may be like the people Paul was talking about, there appear to be people who are "innately" homosexual, whether from genetic or developmental causes (including prenatal development) or from some mixture of both. Either way, that's the way they are "created".
Old dear (male) friends of ours, fellow church musicians with my wife, have been together for more than 40 years. In our present congregation, I know one long-term male couple and one long-term female couple (with a baby daughter). From the church, theater, and music worlds, we know very many devout people who are, to the best of our knowledge, strictly homosexual. I think that would blow Paul's mind -- but I'm convinced that, as you put it, "it simply is not as relevant" now.
A note re formatting your comments: If you're replying to the initial post, then the "post new comment" box at the very bottom of the page is the one to use, and it lands at the top of the replies, blog style. But if you're replying to a different post in that thread, click on "reply" at the bottom of that post. Your comment will appear under it, indented to show that it's part of a sub-thread.
Another note: by making distinctions between "legalistic" and "being Christ-like", and between being historically relevant but currently irrelevant in our culture, you allow many, many questions to be raised along the lines of the Jesus Seminar and other cultural-historical studies that relativize many things that are presented in the Bible as absolutes. I think it opens up "everything" to question. And I have more questions to toss -- but not now.
Final note: re abortion. How do you interpret Exodus 21:22-23 and Numbers 5:11-22? I'd be interested in discussing that.
No stoning here, but I would say that many progressive Christians do disagree with your stances on homosexuality and stem cell research (I think abortion is much more of a mixed bag in terms of what people feel). Because they support gay rights, that doesn't make them secular humanist, it just means folks are using a different interpretation of the Bible than you. And while the Bible may be the inerrant word of God, each of us humans place our own interpretation on the Bible viewing it through whatever lense. Certainly you would not recommend that we stone homosexuals or that slaves should be subservient to their masters, but the Bible does say though those things so you have chosen to put your own interpretation the written word.
I think the point about the sabbath is an excellent one, because the earliest Christians certainly did keep the sabbath as they were Jews. As Christianity expanded, human beings met to determine what of Jewish law was applicable to the gentiles and what was not. You see in the Bible human beings placing their own interpretation on Old Testament law vis a vis their belief in Jesus Christ as savior.
I think its fairly heartless to say that you don't care that someone is born gay. The radical love of Jesus requires much more of us. It requires us to seek to understand the position of our brothers and sisters because we love them. If we understand their homosexuality as just who they are and not as a choice, we come to see that God does indeed bless their loving relationships as he blesses all loving relationships. I don't think i'm falling into secularism by saying so, but rather trying to fully embrace the radical love that Jesus has for each of this and this world.
Don't worry, I don't think anyone will throw stones at you. I still am having some difficulty in understanding what you mean by "inerrancy", but maybe it's just me. Everyone else seems to get what you're saying. When I read your posts, "inerrancy" still seems like "literal". I'll try to reread your post one more time. Maybe there's some nuance that I'm just not getting.
I disagree with you on some smaller issues, but you make a good point about a larger issue that I wholeheartedly agree with. We don't agree on whether homosexuality is a sin, but you made the point that even if a person thinks homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't release that person from the obligation of loving the homosexual. We disagree on the morality of abortion, but I agree with your point that whether one is prolife or prochoice, we all have an obligation to show the pregnant mother the love and support so that she won't have to choose an abortion.
I agree that the stem cell issue will eventually fade as an issue, but I also think Donny made a good point that actually applies more to the issues of genetic science. I don't know if stem cell research could be considered a part of the genetic sciences, but I do think the larger field of genetics is starting to advance into areas that could be potential ethical minefields.
Good luck in your debate with Peltz over "Cherry Picking". I'm still not sure what either of you mean by that term, so I'm withholding comment.
When I try to get people to understand what I consider the historic "Christian" position on social issues, I ask them to read Jude, Peter, James, and John, as if they were reading some Christian writing to other Christians. I also give them several different versions of the Bible i.e. NIV, NASB, NLV etc., etc..
What has happened more than not, is that the individual sees a consistent statement from these writers.
A close relative of mine - who I have always rather avoided on religious matters because he hates all of the interpretations of so many different people calling thmeselves Christian - asked me some questions on homosexuality and the Bible. This had to deal with an issue at his grand-kids' preschool where some Christian parents were concerned about, whatever.
He asked me for a Bible and to leave him alone with his reading.
I asked him to start with Jude. (Paul is so intense, as Peter points out.)
He read it. He asked me how a person calling themself a Christian, can encourage homosexuality? He said that he somewhat understood why "you Christians" think the way you do about homosexual sex.
I again, told him to keep reading the four Apostles.
The Biblical witness is clear about many, many, many issues. After my brother was finished with the four Apostles, we talked about what and why they wrote what they did. I pointed out to him that they were writing to point out error, false teaching and heresy within the Churches of their day.
Secular humanism has been an afront to the Gospels and the New Testament writers from its genesis. It seems that the issue was tackled by the Apostles and Paul. And the four Apostles were taught directly by Jesus, so many things, that, as John puts it, all the books in the world probably couldn't hold them.
I myself, am very concerned that "progressives" have gone way too far in their theology. Things like NOT calling sinners to repent and change their sinful behaviors, abortion as birth control, the making of fetal derived stem-cell medical products, and the altering of marriage are good places to see it.
All are Secular Humansim part and parcel.
-- And the four Apostles were taught directly by Jesus, so many things, that, as John puts it, all the books in the world probably couldn't hold them.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus directly taught the four apostles. There is in fact a significant amount of research that sugggests the apostles, most of Jesus' disciples, and perhaps Jesus himself were illiterate men with little if any education, and little if any money to purchase papyrus to write Jesus' teachings on.
I read Donny's post and I begin to fear that progressive Christianity, as with mainline Christianity, will break apart over the "rule" that progressive Christians must accept the biblical text at face value. I wonder whether or not scriptural hermeneutics (interpretation) is not at the core of what we need to discuss. I do not consider myself, as an ordained Episcopal priest, a secular humanist because I challenge the biblical texts in an effort to best hear how God is speaking to Christians today. I don't consider myself a heretic when I challenge contemporary Christians can best enter in a reconciled and redeemed life with the resurrected Christ by critiquing the anti-semitic rants of the author(s) of the Gospel John and the misogynistic teachings of the deutero-Pauline texts.
There are many faithful Christians, myself included, who believe that a women has a right to choose whether or not she can have an abortion. The biblical text provides no justification for refusing a woman this right other than much of the biblical text privileges men over women. We could indeed have a fascinating and worthwhile theological conversation regarding what the biblical text has to say about such matters as stem-cell research, homosexuality, abortion, and other matters. The ground rules for such a conversation, IMHO, should not be evaluated upon whether or not the biblical text is malleable. The biblical text has been redacted, canonized, revised, and been modified for thousands of years. One of the most beautiful things about God's Word is that people have heard it, recognized it, and responded to its different voices through human history in the midst of secular life. So, let's talk about scriptural interpretation(s) and how those readings best inform our lives to progressively impact the world through our actions of living in Jesus' gospel.
Romans 12:9-18
Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffe
Donny,
Thanks for your thoughtful post here, which I must say is a lot more productive than previous posts which included just calling people Marxists, etc.
My response to you is that I read the Bible on a daily basis and I see things differently. For example, Paul said that slaves should be subservient to their masters and their masters should treat them well. Such Biblical language was used as justification for slavery in our country, yet we know slavery in any sense to be morally abhorrent. If it is morally wrong, why does Paul affirm it? I believe that one has to understand the historical context for Paul's writings.
Similarly, Paul says that homosexuality is wrong and Leviticus says we should stone homosexuals. Similar to the slavery issue, I believe that such statements need to be placed in their historical context. In today's age, we know that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. We see it in the animal kingdom, and we have evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is more often something you are born into and not a choice. If we know that, and we know Jesus's supreme commandments to love God and our neighbors than it leads me to position of accepting and loving our gay brothers and sisters.
As for abortion, birth control and stem cell research, I challenge you to find the Biblical versus that address these issues. Furthermore, I challenge you to give me Jesus's position on these issues. The Bible leaves a lot up to one's personal interpretation on these issues.
The IPC has a paper on stem cell research that I would encourage you to read.
http://www.instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/?q=node/11
There are plenty of folks living with degenerative diseases in which stem cell research holds out great promise. Out of my love for the living, I support stem cell research.
I will only take a stand on the Christian life. And Paul certainly is not the only voice in the New Testament that condemns same-gender sexual behavior. I can't see holding onto the rationalization of extreme sex (gender)discrimiantion by those that claim they cannot live a life of love and committment to the opposite sex in the only marriage declared by Jesus. For Christians marriage and the marriage bed is man and woman and shouldn't be defiled or seperated by man. (Seriously, you need the scripture support for that position? It is ubiquitous.) My dealings with pagan and non-Christian lifestyles and beliefs are not my greatest concern anymore. Opposition of same-gender sex acts within the New Testament witness is a done deal, with the consistent New Testament witness against the practice. A person with homosexual inclinations must denounce them and move on to a life lived as God designed it. If engaged in, repentance and forgiveness is in order. See Pslam 51 for an example of repentance, forgiveness and rising up to live for God and others. I must take issue with comparing humans with unreasoning beasts, and the way the behave sexually. Even the ones that get it right are hardly a good comparison of what humans should do.
(You reference an article that uses derisive terms such as neo-conservatives? Many of "neo-cons" are well intentioned people.)
Stem-cell research and abortion are agrued against in the NT witness by the overwhelming stance on morality of nonviolence and peace, and helping to poor and needy. Jesus threatened those that would harm children. Any Christian not believing that unborn children should be protected has a very skewed perspective of the NT witness. Since stem-cell research will create thye business of human life into medical products (ala Soylent Green). The poor inevtibly will be the targets of that sales approach.
And on slavery being acceptable? Now that is the place to see the comparison of "back in the day" with today. Read Philemon. Paul's punch to the midsection of anyone thinking they should "own" people. Nature took its proper Christian course on slave ownership. Then again, I love being a slave of Christ Jesus. I'm free at last.
"Sick" people need to be prayed for, and medical research "for Christians," needs to be within the scope of Gospel truth. Killing someone to make the sick disease free is not a Christian concept. And neither is laying down someone else's innocent life to make a pregnant woman and her by now gone lover live a burdenless life. Even a woman doesn't have the right to kill another person. If we are to use science for morality, science has proven that the fetus is a completely different person than its mother or father. Otherwise mommies clone would be commonly popped out of mommy. The DNA in a fetus is the exact same as when he or she gets his/her first tooth, walks for the first time or graduate's a Liberal College.
The search for a cure of disease shouldn't entail killing other people and, if death is the result of a disease than that needs to be dealt with within the confines of a Christian witness. Death certainly is not a bad thing to a Christian. Finding a cure for disease by harvesting defenseless human life shouldn't create a boom for big business and the rich. Which it will.
Abortion and birth control are used almost exclusively to continue promiscuity. And abortion itself is 100% violence and murder of an independent person. Again, scientific facts backing up that Biblical truth. That is just the honest facts. Certainly abortion for convenience is NOT a Christian position as laid out in the Gospels and New Testament. You need to prove that indefensible position defenseable.
It is NOT stem cell research, it is the growing of human beings as medical products that is, quite frankly, extremely satanic.
Children sacrificed for the betterment of their parents and other adults. Why is it that "progressive" ideology is taking us backwards in time to Molech worship?
I do not mean to be mean, I am just stating my position, that I gleaned from the New Testament writers, the quotes of Jesus and the way Christians have lived out that witness consistently for two thousand years.
Somethings are immutable.
I wish you well.
In Christ Jesus.
I am new to this website and have a lot of reading to do to "catch up", but I felt I must reply to one observation in Donny's post.
"Abortion and birth control are used almost exclusively to continue promiscuity."
My husband and I will be celebrating 50 years of marriage in a few months. We used birth control in our marriage to limit the number of children to those we could afford to raise. The birth control was not used to "continue promiscuity" unless you consider married sex promiscuity also. In my opinion, sex is a beautiful gift from God and serves to strengthen our marriage and commitment, which I humbly believe is what God intended in the first place.
As to the abortion issue, I have no first hand knowledge of it, and therefore am still wrestling with this issue.
Thank you to all the posters here for keeping the discourse civil. This has certainly made me want to read as much as possible of differing viewpoints.
Bravo for picking up on that line of Donny's on birth control as being "almost exclusively to continue promiscuity". I had let it just blow right by without even thinking about it. But of course you're right. Without birth control, my wife and I would have had a lot more children than we have and we'd be scuppers awash in grandchildren instead of having a modest total of 6. Even most Roman Catholic married couples use contraceptives -- and that's been true since the 1970s, at least. All that consecrated coupling can't be promiscuous...
As for abortion, "almost exclusively" doesn't apply there, either.
I hope you like this site and will keep contributing, Granny Annie -- Papadaddy Bill
Thanks Donny on your post. You had a very good insight on the ethics of stem cell research, but I don't agree with what you wrote on the issue of homosexuality or abortion.
I used to know a person who worked on the human genome project in Stanford and she once told me that the ethics of genetic research lags far behind the science of genetics research. I'm not sure if Protestant or Catholic ethicists have dealt with it in any depth. When you wrote that the growing of human beings as medical products is wrong, I agree with that statement, although that seems more of an argument against cloning. Technology may make this issue a moot point. I've been reading where scientists are starting to find a way to make stem cells to be used for research without the destruction of embryos, so this issue will disappear.
I think the issue of abortion comes down to two questions: Does human life begin at conception? To what extant does a woman have a right to control her own body? I'm prochoice because of a woman's right to control her own body, and I've never been convinced that a human life begins at conception. I don't think the Bible was meant to be used as a scientific text. Whenever the Bible is used in that way, it often leads to embarassing moments like when the Catholic Church was arguing with Galileo over whether the sun revolves around the earth. I've read some good arguments for the prolife side, though, and I know a few secular humanists who are antiabortion. Most people I know support the right of abortion in the first trimester, but in the last trimester, when the baby is fully formed, they tend to be against it. It's a tough issue, and I don't think it's clear cut.
I don't think homosexuality is wrong because I have several friends who are gay and lesbian, and I think they're just like anyone else. I have 3 stories. When I was in high school, there was a student named Francis. He was a nice guy, but when people realized he was gay, he received a lot of unfair abuse. When he'd go to the boys locker, guys would say stuff against him and try to pick fights with him. I didn't have the courage to help him out, and I regret it. When I was a young adult, a close friend of mine went out of the closet. This was during the 1980s, and the first 2 thoughts in my head were: "What if he gets AIDs?" and "What if he gets beaten up?" Today my wife and I know this nice lesbian couple. We'd hang out, and my wife and I hold hands in public, but we noticed how our friends would be circumspect and keep their distance in public. It's wrong for them to always worry about harassment and namecalling like that. I think it's wrong for people to have such hatred for other people that they've never taken the time to know.
On two of these issues, you and I won't ever agree. I do respect your dedication to the Bible though, and I'm glad that you're intentions are good in stating your position. If you see any flaws in my logic, fire away.
Jim - i would venture to say that there is a difference between believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and meaning everything has to be taken literally. I was speaking to the desire to cherry pick which pieces of the Bible you like for your theology and which you do not. Doing that means you recreate God in your image, or the image that makes you most comfortable. As to your reference to stoning, that was the Old testament, we are under the new covenant, so no i would not be in favor of stoning. What the NT actually says about children is to not be overly harsh with them. Christ raised the bar on everything. On the women issue, there are still those who would take things literally, which i usually refer to as legalistic. I do not believe in legalism at all. I believe that what Christ taught is more important then ritual. THAT is what you refer to when you speak about Christ speaking out against the "literalism" of His time.
While i understand that you are trying to stay more to the teachings of Christ, the Word was God and the Word is God. Unless you dismiss the Gospel of John. That does not mean i worship the Bible, but that i undertsand that it is God's Word. It is how He speaks to us to this very day. Dismissing it for whatever reason, no matter how noble, is not of God (my opinion).
Either way, i never meant to imply that I would judge your Christianity just that in our pursuit to be progressive that we do not leave Christ behind.
Angelo - i said inerrant, not inerrant and literal. Inerrant means there is no mistakes, nothing is to be left out. Literal leaves no room for interpretation. I also would not suggest not listening to other voices, just that we ground ourselves in Christ, if we are to be Christian.
Gould - I agree, ones life must line up with their theology otherwise it is worthless and hypocritical. Someone like Ted Haggard does more damage not just because he was engaging in sex with a gay prostitute while doing crystal meth, but because he railed against homosexuality from the pulpit. It is his hypocrisy, like Larry CRaig that does the damage.
The atheist example omits a great truth, which is that even though they dismiss the Bible, they actually base their morals and judgements largely upon it.
I agree the life we lead is of the utmost importance, but only in relation to what God wants. We understand what God wants from the Word. I was just suggesting that we be careful in our "progression" that we do not change what God has decreed.
Thanks to all.
So on the issue of women being quiet and keeping their head covered, you have decided that that issue is legalistic.The majority of Christians who believe "every word of the Bible", have also made this decision or choose to ignore this verse. I agree with you that it was legalistic , it was written in a historical context, for the people Paul was writing for at that time, and it no longer applies to our present day situation. It is not bedrock NT theology, just a more of the time. So welcome to my club! Now you are either cherry picking which verses you choose to believe in or are you using a rational sane approach to a modern day interpretation of the Bible. Which are you doing?
By the way, what day is your Sabbath? Most Christian scholars agree that the "Ten Commandments" are not the law,that they are seperate from the law and should be obeyed. I have issued a challenge at least a hundred times to Christians that believe 'every word of the Bible". The challenge is please find me the verse in the Hebrew Bible or the NT, that God or Jesus, rescinded the commandment that proclaimed the 7th day, Saturday as the Sabbath. I will give $100 to the charity of your choice if you can tell me where God or Jesus decided that God was wrong when the Ten Commandments were dictated to Moses.
My apologies Anthony on mistaking "inerrancy" to mean taking the Bible literally. I guess I never heard of inerrancy before and just assumed you meant taking the Bible literally. Could you explain more what you mean by "inerrancy" because I'm still a little unclear. Also when you say we shouldn't cherry pick the parts of the Bible, could you explain more what you mean. Maybe I'm being a little dense.
When I've read the Bible, I've always assumed that since the different parts of the Bible were written by different writers in different times of the history of the Jewish people, they'll be read in different ways. The Poetry Books (Ecclesiastes, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon), for instance, are written in a more poetic style and are about personal issues and I feel should be read differently than the prophets books, which seems to me written more to the community and is about social justice issues. You get more out of Job if you have suffered, you'll get more out of Song of Solomon if you've gone through love. Is this way of reading the Bible different from what you're talking about, or am I comparing apples to oranges? There are some parts of the Bible, like Leviticus or Deuteronomy, with its instructions on how to sacrifice animals and such, that I've never really been too interested in reading. If I understand you correctly, would those two books then be something I have to read?
I may be criticizing what you've written without fully understanding what you're trying to say. I apologize for that. Maybe if you could explain more, I could understand more what you're getting at.
Angelo, Anthony - these aren't easy things to talk about; we often use contradictory language and consequently communication can get messed up.
My editorial and letter-to-the-editor-writing instincts lead me to point out that Anthony did use both words, first referring to the Bible "Not as an historical document or a collection of poetry, but as the inerrant Word of the living God." Then, later, in the last paragraph, he wrote "When we start referring to the Bible is historical and not literal, we cross a dangerous line", that line being "trying to re-write God."
So, Angelo, I think you have nothing to apologize for in this regard. I'm not clear, either, as to what Anthony meant. "Inerrant" and "literal" seem to be rather intertwined concepts here.
My question to you, Anthony, is that the words you addressed to Jim indicate that your definition of "literal" is equivalent to "not open to interpretation". Thus, the example of stoning: the law in the Hebrew Bible is superseded by the new covenant, or, if I read your nuance correctly, by the implications of the new covenant.
That leaves open the possibility that you believe both that the Bible is open to interpretation and that it's also literally true in every detail.
A wild example: some Christians, like Gary North (Reconstructionist) think that stoning is still called for and is a really good thing since it's cheap, participatory (and thus community building), and symbolizes the head-smashing wrath of God and His coming triumph over Satan. His interpretation seems to be that Jesus' intervention in the stoning of the adulterous woman is not a precedent for us, as it's not specific and explicit enough to meet his standard for repealing the old laws.
Is his position different from yours in its literalness or in its interpretation?
Then you made the distinction, for New Testament writings, between literal and legalistic when it comes to Paul and women. What are the criteria for making that distinction? Couldn't that distinction be seen as an example of "cherry-picking"? (I'm of the mind that we all cherry-pick, one way or another, implicitly or explicitly.)
Sorry if I seem a little harsh -- I can be quite a nit-picker when it comes to language. I started life heading for a career in mathematics; logic-chopping comes naturally to me.
It may be that we need debate about what the Christian part of Progressive Christian means. I'm a Latitudinarian, myself, so some people might rule me out. I think the centrality of Jesus is what counts, not the theology. --- Bill
What the heck is a Latitudinarian?
A common term in the Episcopal/Anglican tradition, meaning allowing a lot of latitude in opinion.
Dictionary definitions"
adjective:
1. allowing or characterized by broad and tolerant in opinion or conduct, esp. in religious views.
–noun
2. a person who is latitudinarian in opinion or conduct.
3. Anglican Church. one of the churchmen in the 17th century who maintained the wisdom of the episcopal form of government and ritual but denied its divine origin and authority.
[Origin: 1655–65; < L lātitūdin- (see latitudinal) + -arian]
4. A member of a group of Anglican Christians active from the 17th through the 19th century who were opposed to dogmatic positions of the Church of England and allowed reason to inform theological interpretation and judgment.
—Related forms
lat·i·tu·di·nar·i·an·ism, noun
Episcopalians like to say that they are based on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason -- the "three-legged stool".
"What is Progressive Christianity" will be added to the topic list. A few years ago I was confused to what "Progressive Christianity" was and did a lot of research. It is actually two things to two different groups of people. People of faith who are orthodox in their faith, as it sounds you are, and are politically progressive, call themselves "Progressive Christians". Other people of faith, who are not orthodox in their faith but exploring non-traditional ideas and different ways of interpreting scripture, also call themselves "Progressive Christians". They are usually 'Progressive" politically but not always. A minority of these latter types of "Progressive Christians" are adamant about not wanting to mix "politics and religion".
I say without hesitation that I am both politically and spiritual Progressive. My God is God, not the Bible. Jesus often showed his disdain for both ritual (the law) and literalism. The men who were going to stone the adulteress believed in the inerrancy of scripture. They were doing what the Bible said to do.Jesus stopped them and went against "scriptural literalism" The Bible says if my children disobey, I should stone them.Do have children, Anthony? Will you do what the Bible says and stone them if they disobey? Paul says women should cover their head and keep quiet in service. Do you believe that it is so Anthony?
The kingdom of God is within Brother. A book can point the way, a book can be divinely inspired, as I believe the Bible is, but it is not God. Let God be your God and Jesus your way shower to God and how your spirit will flourish. That is what is meant by Freedom in Christ. Biblical literalism is bondage. When Paul said he was writing to the Ephesians, and the Philippians, and Timothy, then take that literally, that’s who he was writing to. It doesn't say "This is God writing to the whole human race for the rest of time". It is Paul writing to the Ephesians, divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, in a manner that the Ephesians could understand and with ideas and thoughts they could relate to. Can we learn from them, certainly, and with joy! Do I make Paul's Letters my God? No.
A main idea of (spiritual) Progressive Christianity articulates that belief, dogma, creed (known in Jesus’ time as the law) has been way overemphasized and the born again spirit of a fresh new person in Christ or EXPERIENCE
has been way underemphasized. This is divinely articulated by Marcus Borg.
Lighten your load Brother and let God judge if I am a Christian or not. You mentioned Eve. We rarely examine the "why" of the fall and original sin. Adam and Eve wanted to be God. We still do. Jesus brought it home for us on what it is we need to do. It is not to judge, it is to "Love God and your neighbor as yourself."
A debate between you and Jim Burko would be interesting.
Peace Jim
Thank you Anthony for your post and for your concerns. I admire your experience in being a Progressive Christian before Progressive Christian became mainstream. I don't know who Jim Wallis is, but I'm sure he's an admirable Christian as well.
I think your post is not only asking how we define what a Progressive Christian is, but it is also implicitly asking what a Christian is. By your definition, a Christian is someone who believes in the inerrant literal view of the Bible. I'm not sure if all Christian denominations, especially all Progressive Christian denominations, have that same view. Most will agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. When I read Crossleft, I love the diversity of opinions from different people of different denominations, and I think there would be a great loss if some of those voices are no longer heard.
My biggest concern is maintaining the diversity of Christian voices in the Progressive Christian debate. We don't need to agree with everything of some other Christian denominations to benefit from their insights on vital progressive issues. Catholic voices, Lutheran voices, Evangelical voices, Baptist voices, Quaker voices, Episcopalian voices, Unitarian voices. We benefit from all those voices. Before reading this Crossleft website, I never heard of Yoder or Jim Wallis and I never heard of water boarding or many of the issues that these activists are trying to bring to the public's attention.
We need people like you to ground our activism in Christ and to look upon the Bible for lessons to give our activism intellectual grounding. But we also need Christians who do not necessarily believe in the Bible literally to offer their insights and experiences. Issues like war and peace, helping the poor from the excesses of a market economy, helping illegal immigrants from being exploited, and others have uphill battles that need all the help and supporters that it can get. We need to be able to work with Christians we disagree with to work on issues that will take long struggles to resolve. I really don't care if Progressive Christians get compared with Secular Humanists or Atheists. We can work together on issues where we agree and respect our differences on God and the Bible and such. My worry with this post is that, if we get caught up in these differences, we will make litmus tests on who we could be allied with, and we'll make the same mistake that the Religious Right has made with the Republican Pary.
You made the following comments;
"The goal should not be to fit our Christianity into the world but rather to bring our Christianity to the world. But you do not do it with hate. You do not do it with division. You do not do it with war. You do it with the love of Christ."
I recall the old saying about the difference between human "beings" and human "doings" and here I have to ask a very basic question that isn't new.
What would Jesus DO?
Changing the world doesn't happen because of what people say but rather what they do. The media is overflowing with revelations about those who preached "moral values" only to be exposed as hypocrites. It is totally pointless in my opinion to insist upon the inerrant word of God if it isn't followed by the deeds that God expects of his followers.
It isn't the cross that you wear around your neck or the bumper sticker on your vehicle that tells the world what you are. It is the daily kindness to your fellows and constant questioning of your choices and actions to see if they are truly the same things that Jesus would DO if he were in your place.
Would Jesus shop at Walmart knowing that the goods in those stores were made at the expense of good jobs with benefits for your neighbors?
Would Jesus buy an SUV or a hybrid?
Would Jesus recycle?
Would Jesus examine the track record of layoffs before investing in a corporation for his 401K?
To many Jesus has to stay on a pedestal and not be involved in these mundane aspects of everyday life. However if Jesus isn't involved in these choices then how can you be doing these things with his love?
Atheists don't have the benefit of the inerrant word of God to guide them in these decisions on a daily basis so instead they have to examine all aspects of their lives and then make a decision if what they are doing is good or bad. Statistics indicate that there are less atheists in prisons per capita than their numbers in society would warrant. Does this mean that atheists are immediately converted to other religions as soon as they end up behind bars? Or is it that they are making moral choices on a daily basis about what is good and what is bad and therefore committing fewer crimes per capita?
The point here is that it isn't secular humanism that is the threat but the failure to behave in a manner that embraces the teachings of Christ. Mere belief is not enough. Acting on those beliefs each and every day is what will ensure that you bring to the world the essential message of love.
Thanks for listening.