Good Intentions
First off, let me say that I find the format of Crossleft to be a little disorienting. Having typed on a few forums in my life, I can't say that any of them were organized quite the same way that your forum here is. However, I will give my best try at making use of it as it is.
Second off, let me introduce myself. My name is Garrett. I'm twenty-two years old, married for two years and have two children. If that seems like a lot of two's, I suppose that it is. Being a Christian, I am often alarmed by what seems to me an anti-intellectual bend to many Christians in this culture. To be sure, no intellectual requirement should be leveled on a would-be believer in order for them to be a Christian, save the requirement that their intellect make all ideas subject to the person of Jesus Christ. Yet despite this, perhaps you could say, liberality on my part, I do think it a responsibility for Christians (including myself) to make as good a use of all gifts that have been given to us from God, including our intellectual gifts. So if your group here, Crossleft, is such a group that feels likewise, I will be happy to know it.
Thirdly, being so young, I will not take kindly to any disparaging remarks regarding my age. Making reference to my age if you dislike a point made by me will not make that same point go away. If you wish to disagree, do so on philosophical grounds please. And, no doubt, you will all disagree at times with me. More times with me than with each other, I reckon. Which brings me to my next point.
I am not what you would call a liberal, in general. I have no problem with being liberal with regards to matters of money. The size of government, big or small, matters less to me also than whether that same government is doing right by those it governs. This, no doubt, will mean that government is doing right by honoring the Creator of those who govern, if it is doing right by those it governs. Likewise, if government is honoring the Creator of humanity, it will also do right by the segment of humanity it governs.
Still, let me make the point directly. I am not a liberal with regards to moral issues. If by 'Progressive,' as your site strives to be, you mean to pursue progress in a vague sense, I am with you. But be careful about what you call progress in my company, since there are many things morally which being changed would not be called by me 'progress.' Nor will I let anyone else call them such without debating the point.
Though I am a vigorous debater, I in no ways think that such makes me inherently disrespectful. It is possible, and entirely good, to debate issues in a vigorous way without resorting to personal attacks. For an example of what I mean, I refer you to my paragraph above which starts with the word Thirdly.
What attracted me to your forum, I confess, was the conversation of my dad who has recently joined your discussions also. Honorcode, or Byron as you may know him, is my father. While him and I disagree on many things, on a regular basis, I am intrigued by the fallacy of some of your positions which he has encountered on this forum. For instance, there is the accusation of 'judging' which has been leveled against him by some of you. While I am not a fan of judgment, I think that we must have a narrow enough definition of the term in order to do two things: 1) to make it meaningful and 2) to guard against the possibility of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater,' as it were. Sadly, though, my impression so far has been that the definition used by some of you is not narrow enough. Referring to passages like Matthew 7:1, no doubt, you seem hooked on this notion that despite all of the rebuking and calling for repentance which is done throughout the Bible, there is some nebulous undercurrent throughout which is firmly anti-judgment. On this point we will disagree, I hope you understand that sooner than later.
So, all said, rather than making any particular point about a specific issue, I'll stay zoomed out and make a few general assertions.
I. God has communicated his intentions to humanity through three sources of revelation: 1) Creation, 2) His Word (the Bible), 3) His Son (Jesus Christ). None of these three sources contradict the other. The general revelation we have from Creation will not contradict Scripture, nor did Jesus Christ, nor will he ever. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves, either. God neither lies nor changes, so to cite a contradiction in the Scriptures means either that we are calling God a liar or else saying that he changes (which is also calling him a liar, seeing as how he has declared about himself that he does not change), or else we are simply confused and mistaken about either one or the other of our interpretations of revelation. In other words, God is infallible, which means also that His Scriptures are also. Mankind including you and me, however, is fallible. This means that we can be mistaken about what His Scriptures mean. Sometimes this state of being mistaken is accidental and brief. Sometimes, sadly, it is stubborn and chronic. However, no matter what it is we are mistaken about, or what we might be mistaken about, we must not allow ourselves to take seriously any other treatment of the Bible besides those which are exegetical. Or, in other words, our analysis must be objective rather than subjective regarding God's word.
II. God desires for human beings to declare his intentions to one another so that all can learn to fear God, become wise to salvation and to live in godliness. If such were not the case, we would be surprised to see the prophets and judges and apostles and missionaries that have been sent by God down through the ages. Yet we cannot be surprised by these messengers of righteousness, unless we disregard the Bible.
III. Though the church is going to be judged first, Christians will not be the limit of God's judgment. The unbelievers will be judged as well. So, for the sake of not being declared by God to be accomplices to their sins, we have an obligation and a mandate of love, if we truly do love them, to call them to repentance and salvation in the person of Jesus Christ. If we not only neglect to tell them of their need for repentance but also tell them that the wrong things they do are actually acceptable in God's sight, then we are doubly damned.
IV. Though God's intention is for Christians to feel secure in Jesus Christ, it is not His intention for people to be self-deceived regarding who they belong to. In other words, God does not want people to mistakenly believe that they belong to God when they really do not. So we have the passage in 2 Cor 13:5, and also the verses surrounding it.
So yes, now I have introduced myself. Now I want to hear thoughts in response.
- Garrett Mullet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Progressive
Garrett, you see to be struggling with the term "Progressive" Here is the definition from dictionary.com:
pro.gres.sive
adj.
Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
n.
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
www.dictionary.com
Progressive first got used in a political sense with Teddy Roosevelt. The Robber Barons were destroying the fabric of the country at the turn of the century, much the same as the multi-nationals are doing currently, and Roosevelt was a reformer. He ran on the Progressive Party ticket and lost but later ran as a Republican and won and brought many progressive reforms that brought the Robber Barons under control.
I prefer the term "Progressive" to "Liberal" because it infers less ideological loyalty. My loyalty is to what is fair and right and works. "Free trade" and little or no government regulation would be a very classical Liberal position. However "the race to the bottom' doesn't work, and no government regulation is what got us into the situation economically that we are in. Multi-national corporations continually seeking the cheapest labor and the least environmental restrictions are destroying the earth and creating misery throughout the earth. We must have fair trade that respects the workers of the world and the environment; trade that is very "progressive" and will work.
All that being said, there are people who call themselves "Liberals" who don't hold the classical "Liberal" position, and indeed are very "progressive" in their political outlook. Glenn Beck, in analyzing the terms on one of his shows, came to the conclusion that he was a "classical liberal". What we call the "neo-con" philosophy is called the "neo-liberal" philosophy in other parts of the world, especially Latin America. The terms "Liberal" and "Progressive are definitely in an evolutionary stage and i am certain the term of the future is going to be "Progressive", especially as we come to grips with new political and economic realities. The name of the game is going to be "Do what works", to heck with outdated ideologies.
Welcome Garrett
IMO, you and your Father are welcome additions to this forum. If you are anything like your Dad (and you seem, on first blush, to be) you will add a welcomed counter to some of the thinking here.
Regarding employing your intellectual powers here, great! I believe Our Creator has given us the power of both an intellect/reason, our head, and intuition/faith, our heart. I deeply believe in the wisdom of the heart as well as the head. Used together, one leading at one time and the other at others, we achieve personal greatness.
This is why I use the term Our Creator, it is fully inclusive, avoids the useless gender trap (it is neither male or female, is both) and expresses our true nature as human beings; direct creations of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, loving beneficient Creator, who created an intimately interconnected, interactive, and interdependent universe. We have inside our Yang the seed of the Yin and vice-versa. It takes the power of the positive pushing pole in tandem with the negative pulling pole of an electric motor to make it work. Similiarly such is the nature of man, as I understand it.
Regarding your age, I'll ask the same of you, being two generations your senior. One thing this society has lost is it's respect for elders. We lost it due to atrophy. While you may be more advanced technologically, there's no real substitute for experience. It takes time to move thru the cycles of life and gain the learning involved. I will add that elders often know what they don't know, how many times they have been presented with a learning situtation and still can't seem to learn the lesson being presented. Yes, sometimes, as they say, "there is no fool, like an old fool." I'll forgive the foolishness of your youth if you'll do the same for my elder nonsense. Deal? (I suspect your father would welcome that, too.)
I do not believe in a fearful Creator. In the Bible, the word "fear" has been too often been a mistranslation of the word "respect". I respect my Creator because my Creator's being and actions command it. My Creator is a loving, beneficient being, the ground of all being, the All That Is. I need not fear such a being, rather respectfully listen, be a good student and learn, follow the teachings of the wise counselors sent, such as Jesus. The Jesus I seek is the historic Rabbi, the Jewish teacher who was sent here to teach us to love one another.
Regarding judgement, I often remind myself "--with what measure you measure it will be measured to you again and will increase, especially to those the hear." Mark 4:24 I understand that "those that hear" means those who understand and still judge anyway (my most common "sin" i.e error in judgment) will see the measure they use increased. Doing so they add more bricks to the walls that stand in our path to the entryway to the Kingdom of Our Creator.
Jesus was born the lowest of the low, and thus learned early on not to judge. (Now if I could only emulate His example---) :-)
Welcome here!
Rich
Different Biblical Views Re-run
I posted this a long while back. I think it is time for a re-run.
So much of the discussion here is determined on how you view the Bible. if you believe that God wrote the Bible, you will have one view, if you believe that men writing about God, wrote the Bible, you will have another. The Bible says it is men writing about God, so I will go with that.
Each book in the Bible was written as a separate book, gospel or letter. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, studied in Hebrew at the temple, and decades later his words were written down in Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek. This linguistic significance is often lost on monolingual Americans. My father was an immigrant who could speak a few different languages. I used to be able to struggle by in Spanish but I am rusty now, having lived in the North woods for twenty years.I spent most of the 1980 in Israel and learned a little Hebrew. Please let me tell when you go from one language to another , as in Aramaic to Greek, a lot of cultural nuances and true meanings of words can be lost.For instance,"Good Morning, how are you" in Hebrew is something like "Boker tov, mesh lem ha", a rough literal translation would be "Morning Good, it goes what". Please don't condemn an entire group of people to eternal damnation based on what might be a loose or incorrect translation.
Remember each book is a separate book, with a targeted audience. If some of those ancient writers would have known that centuries later Europeans were going to think they were God writing for the ages, they might have written differently. Four centuries after the death of Jesus, Europeans , with an empire to hold together, decided what was going to constitute our modern day Bible.
Logically, if the entire Bible were written by
God, or totally inspired by the Holy Spirit, then all should be in agreement, for indeed the same spirit would have guided all writers. In fact though, we find many contradictions. Here are just a few and it is easy to dig up many more.
The Law is superseded by Christian dispensation: Luke 16:16, Eph 2:15, Rom 7:6
The Law is not superseded by Christian dispensation. Math 5: 17-19
Christ comes in peace: John 14:27
Christ comes with a sword Matt 10:35
Children are punished for the sins of the parents Ex 20:15
Children are not punished for the sins of the parents Ezek 18 20
Man is justifies by faith alone Gal 2:16, Gal 3:11
Man is not justified by faith alone James 2:17 &24
God lives in light, I Timothy 6:16
God lives in darkness: 1 Kings 8:12,Psalms 97 2
What do you want to justify? You can find a passage in the Bible to do so. Slavery, you can do an exegesis and make a strong case for slavery. Paul said women should be quiet and keep their heads covered in church. That is a cultural nuance, written for a particular people in a particular time. Those mountain people that handle snakes aren't crazy, it is in the Bible. Mark 16: 17"And these signs will accompany those who believe in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up deadly snakes with their hands...." . A neighbor in Detroit,where I grew up,took me to a service when I was a kid, where this was actually done. My mom went out of her mind when she found out. (There was a time when the Detroit area was flooded with Appalachians going to work in the auto companies).So come on, literalists, when are you going to start picking up rattlesnakes, it is in the Bible.
John 3:16 -21 is a much abused passage. all scholars agree that John was written years after the synoptic gospels and is very different in its content and approach. John wrote for his audience in his time. Not one word is said, by the way, in those passages about Jesus being a blood sacrifice. Those who are like the idea of blood sacrifice point to the God "gave" his only Son as justification for their opinion. Actually 'gave" can mean many things. I just "gave" you my opinion. Some of you are going to "give" me yours in reply. I am volunteering to "give" my time to Crossleft and the IPC. God gave us a way to salvation in his son, Jesus Christ.
So what is a honest feller to do? He needs to have faith , and that means he must be born again in the spirit. he must discard the earthly nature and take on spirit. The Kingdom of God is within. Along with that comes works. Personally I think once a true “born again” experience is had, the works will come in one form or another. Jesus gave us a prescription for what our behaviors should be. He gave us the two great commandments. Who is going to burn in eternity, if anybody, is up to Jesus, not us. If thinking of Jesus as a blood sacrifice for sin helps liberate you and helps you accept the resurrection and helps you overcome the flesh and the world, go for it. There are several passages that justify that view and it is certainly bedrock Christianity. Personally, I just think it is more of the world, and just feeds the old way of an “eye for an eye” and a “tooth for a tooth”. However, I understand that some fellow Christians would judge me and say that I am not a Christian because I don’t hold to their dogma.
I think the idea of Jesus as a blood sacrifice for sin is good literary metaphor on the part of the Jewish writers of the gospels and epistles who are trying to connect with a Jewish audience . Some where along the line, we Europeans got obsessed with the ideas of creeds, dogmas, and literalism. We forgot about that kingdom of God within and we forgot about Jesus’ formula for our behavior, "believing' in those creeds and dogmas, some of them man made became more important that the basics that He gave us.
Garrett, whats your choice?
Hello Garrett. Welcome to Crossleft. I hope you stay around awhile and give us some good debate. Just as a bit of information, most of the regulars identify themselves as “liberals” or “progressives” politically. Not everyone on the site is “liberal” or “progressive” in their theology. Some of the regulars are orthodox in their spiritual beliefs as they relate to their particular religion. I identify as a progressive both in matters of politics and religion. Gary and I have had some lively debate over Biblical interpretation.
I think the Bible is a collection of many books, written at different times, by different authors. They are men writing about God, religiosity, and spirituality. The Good Book is both historical and metaphorical. Some of it is a historical accounting, as interpreted by the author, and other parts are very spiritual and metaphorical in nature. For some strange reason, many literalists get angry when it is suggested that the Bible may be metaphorical. I say it is a strange because Jesus taught with parables and metaphor, as was the custom of the day. My belief in God isn’t contingent on some obscure passage being literally true, but on faith in a Higher Being that requires an inner transformation to fully realize myself as a child of God and the reality of God. Some would call this inner transformation being“re-born”. Does it matter if there was really and literally a “prodigal son” or is it the point of the story? I think it is the point of the story. The Bible points the way to salvation and explains through Jesus how to get there I don’t worship a book anymore than I worship the flesh, they are both of this world I worship a spirit and I am a spirit too. The Pharisees loved their rules and regulations and books more than they loved God. They were obsessed with the dogmas and creeds and literalism and lost their perspective. When the angry mob surrounded the adulteress, they believed every word of the Bible. The Bible says to stone an adulteress to death. We see Jesus dealing with the literalists of his day when he tells them to let the one without sin cast the first stone.
You are pretty heavy with that ‘liar” word Garrett. Let me give the first verse of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:1: The words of Jeremiah son OF Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Then we have the book of Jeremiah.
Paul wrote much of the New Testament with his “letters” or Epistles. Most of them start as does Philippians 1:1” Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus. To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons.” The Pauline epistles are then usually written in the first person, and it is obviously Paul talking. Paul’s letters often address a problem in a church or a group.
So tell me Garrett, if God wrote the Bible why do these books start as they do? If God wrote the Bible why do these two great men of the Bible say their words are their own? Are you calling Jeremiah and Paul liars? Did they not write their books as they say they do? If you say they are liars and did not write their books and letters then you do not believe every word of the Bible, and you too are not a literalist. If you call one of the greatest prophets in the Old Testament a liar, and the most prolific writer in the New Testament a liar, then you certainly call the authenticity of the entire Bible into question. However if you say they tell the truth,and they wrote their own books and letters, as they say , then you admit that God did not write the Bible but men. Which option do you choose?
To Mr. Jim Ramelis
Thank you for your welcome.
I completely agree where you say, “So much of the discussion here is determined on how you view the Bible.” But I think you have some gaps in your thinking which would explain how you come to this false dichotomy of ‘either God wrote the Bible or men did.’ Why can we not believe that both God and man wrote the Bible?
Think of the human element as being the voice of the pen, no less in the writings of the Bible than in the declarations of any of the prophets written about in the Bible. When they spoke audibly to their intended audiences by the Holy Spirit, Jonah to the city of Nineveh, Moses to the Pharaoh of Egypt, Jesus to the cities of Israel, these were human bodies, human beings, carried along in their utterances to say the exact things which God wanted to have said. To say that it was either Moses or Yahweh who was speaking to Pharaoh is a misunderstanding. Yahweh told Moses what to say, then he spoke it. In the same way, Yahweh told Moses what to write for Pentateuch, then it was written exactly as Yahweh had commanded.
In asking me to tell you whether the books of the Bible were written by God or man, you show yourself to be lacking a crucial understanding. Rather than asking me to answer this, I think we should allow the Bible to make it’s own claims about itself. Thereafter you should ask me whether I believe the Bible in it’s claims about itself. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 attests very credibly for God’s role in the writing of the Bible.
Your follow up question to the assertion of this passage, specifically the “All Scripture is breathed out by God…” portion of it, will likely be ‘What is meant by “All Scripture?”’ To answer this, I encourage you to read the many portions of the New Testament which are quotes to the Old Testament made by Jesus and the Apostles. Also to be considered are the places in the New Testament in which one book quotes another book as Scripture, thereby validating the New Testament books as Scripture as well. I would reference all of these verses for you now, but they are too numerous for me to practically do such a thing here. So you will have to content yourself to reading through the Bible again on your own. Don’t worry though, you will find them easily because they are very plentiful. Suffice to say, however, that the claims of the Bible itself by the human authors (on behalf of the God they were writing for and about) are that the Bible itself is the Word of God, both as a whole and in it’s individual books by themselves, since there is no other way the Old Testament could have been called ‘Scripture’ before the New Testament if it were not to be considered Scripture in it’s own right.
Again, let me sum up that I think we should ask of the text itself what claims it makes about itself. If we find that the Bible claims that it was only written by human authors about God, in some journalistic and non-authoritative manner, then I would be a great fool to make claims about it that it is something else. However, if the Bible is allowed to make its claims about itself, and thereafter allowed to be judged for trustworthiness as a whole (rather than in parts, with you or I picking and choosing the truths that please us like the text were some divine buffet), then I think we will each of us find more consistency and respectability.
Regarding the perceived inconsistencies in those passages you mentioned, I am willing to go through each one of them if you like. Only not right now will I do this, and hopefully I will not have to do it later. I am certain that if you read them with the presupposition of inerrancy, you will find that the inconsistencies are imagined. Taking two verses into your heart would help you along nicely: First, the passage from 2 Timothy which I mentioned above will cement in your mind the notion that God is the author of Scripture, chosen members of mankind his transcriptionists, and that the Bible is the Word of God; Secondly, in case you are unsure on the matter, Numbers 23:19 is good to remember. With the Bible being the Word of God, knowing that God neither lies nor changes his mind about matters will lead you to the conclusion that the Bible is completely trustworthy. What’s more, such an understanding will lead us to the further conclusion that those who disagree with the Bible, God’s Word, are disagreeing with God himself in doing so.
When you say, “For some strange reason, many literalists get angry when it is suggested that the Bible may be metaphorical,” I do not feel as though you are talking about me, partly because I don’t think that the idea of the Bible being metaphorical makes enough sense to be infuriating. For one thing, you’re not being specific enough when you say “the Bible may be metaphorical.” Do you mean by such a statement to say that the entire Bible is metaphorical? Jesus was not a literal figure, nor were any of the prophets, kings, apostles, etc.? None of the stories are true, all of them are parables? Be more sensible is my plea, if such is your conviction that the entire Bible is metaphorical. If you think that some parts of it are metaphorical, then I will agree at least until you get into which particular passages you are referring to as being non-literal. Song of Solomon, for one obvious instance, contains a great deal of figurative language. As do many other passages of the Bible. However, I will politely decline to agree with you if you try to say, for instance, that the account of earliest history that we get from Genesis is figurative. The tone of the entire book is decidedly historical. Also, if you will say that the miracles in the ministry of Jesus Christ were non-literal, I will challenge you to tell me where such a view of things sees an end in the ministry of Jesus. Was the death and resurrection of Christ, in your view, figurative rather than literal? Is the coming return of Christ also figurative?
In short, I will not dispute that some portions of the Bible are figurative. However, when deciding which passages to see as figurative, we must be careful about our criteria. What is your criteria, Jim?
Resonse to Garrett
Okay, Garrett, so you agree with the idea that men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the Bible. We have found some area of mutual agreement. I think that some of the writers were definitely inspired by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. That same Holy Spirit is present in all of us and we can choose to listen to Holy Spirit's voice or we can choose to listen to our egoic voice, the voice of the world. Do I think that all of the authors of all of the books of the Bible were listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit? No I don’t. Obviously when Jesus stopped the literalists from stoning the adulteress, as in my previous example, he didn't think the Old Testament verse encouraging stoning adulteresses was divinely inspired, and he ought to know. He also frequently ignored Mosaic prohibitions against working on the Sabbath. Obviously Jesus didn't think every word of the Bible should be taken literally.
Do you take the 4th Commandment literally, Garrett? We are not talking about just any passage or story in the Bible, we talking about the 4th of the 10 Commandments. The Fourth Commandment says the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. That is a reoccurring Biblical theme starting with the Genesis account of creation when God created the world in 6 days and rested the 7th. The seventh day of the week is the Sabbath that Jesus and his apostles observed. The first day of the week is the Roman Sabbath, Sunday; it is the feast day of the Roman Sun God. Do you take the Bible literally, as God breathed and worthy of instruction, Garrett, or do you ignore the 4th commandment and go to church on the feast day of the Roman Sabbath, as opposed to the day that God commanded you to observe the Sabbath on? There is not one word in the Bible, Old Testament or New, that rescinds the 4th commandment, or that says God was wrong and changed his mind about what day he wanted his Sabbath on.
Sure, if you have the time, go through my seeming contradictions and explain them if you want, Garrett. However you will have to come to the conclusion that they were different authors, writing at different times, to different audiences. And that is as liberal or progressive a conclusion as any Unitarian would come to. Much the same as when hard pressed, you had to admit that it was men that wrote the Bible, qualifying with the idea that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
As to Genesis and the creation story, which one do you believe, Garrett? There are two different accounts and it is impossible to take both of them as literal and true. Genesis 1:25-27 says humans were created after the animals. Genesis 2:18-19 says humans were created before the animals. Genesis 1:27 says the first man and woman were created simultaneously but Genesis 2: 18-22 says man was created first, then the animals, the woman from man's ribs. Most Biblical scholars refer to this as the two Genesis creation stories, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Which one do you believe and take literally and which one do you reject as a lie? Fortunately, I am not a literalist and do not have to choose. They are both beautiful metaphorical stories told by an ancient people explaining in mystical terms how the world was created. I appreciate both of them and their stories transcend literalism.
As for criteria in determining metaphor from historical accounting in the Good Book, one would have to understand the definition of a metaphor and parable, as opposed to what a historical accounting is. Being an intelligent man you can look up these terms and definitions yourself. When Matthew and Luke give Jesus’ genealogy, that is an attempt at historical accounting, and when Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal son, they are metaphors and stories meant to make a point. Some scholars call the entire Old Testament a "metaphysical history" of ancient Israel.
Please do address some of my questions, otherwise we are just two people of opposing points of view pontificating our way of seeing things, as Angelo suggested.
re:Good Intentions
Welcome Garrett to Crossleft. I've been reading your father's ongoing debates with Gary, Bill, Stephen and others with interest. I've refrained from joining in though, because Gary, Bill, Stephen and Byron are more knowleadgable in the areas in which they are debating and I can just read and weigh the merits of the arguments. Although, my progressive outlook makes me a bit biased.
From reading your post, I have the exact oppposite point of view from you. I'm a liberal Democrat, and my views on social issues are very progressive. I wrote two posts that summarize my experience and viewpoint (http://www.crossleft.org/node/6559 and http://www.crossleft.org/node/6605). I hold progressive social views because of my experiences, friendships, and the things that I've learned in history have lead me to holding that point of view. Though I respect the Bible and hold it in high esteem, I don't take it as literally as you. Though I think the Bible is inspired by God, I believe it was written by fallible humans and the insights of each biblical writer is mixed with their own human limitations. If there are inconsistencies in the Bible, it only proves the fallibility of the Biblical writers and doesn't disprove the infallibility of God. This is my own personal view, and it may not be shared by others in Crossleft.
I've been reading Crossleft for a year now and really enjoy reading and contributing to this site. I wrote a post on that here http://www.crossleft.org/node/6632. What I most enjoy about this site are the diverse viewpoints and theological positions that make up a progressive point of view. Progressive Christianity is not a monolithic viewpoint. My knowledge and opinions are limited by my own experiences and I've had my perspective on certain subjects greatly expanded by reading from Crossleft bloggers who have had very different life experiences than my own. As befits a religion that is an offshoot of Judaism and its rich heritage of debate, this site has had a lot of debates on church history and how Christian values affect such issues as war, torture, racism, homophobia, poverty, immigration, economic justice and such.
I personally think that our personal experiences validate or invalidate our religious ideas or what we believe in the Bible. If a religious dogma says one thing, but my life experiences contradicts that dogma, then I think it's important to rethink that dogma. For instance, if a dogma says that a particular race is inferior, but my own experience with members of that race shows them to be equal to me, then I think it's o.k. to reexamine what I believe of that dogma. I hold progressive social views on abortion, homosexuality, and race because I have friends who are gay, friends who have had to face decisions on abortion, and friends who are minorities, and I've listened to their experiences. I'm a big history buff, and I've read about the abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the women's suffragist and equal rights movement, and the gay rights movement. I've learned about the consequences of prejudice, the discrimination, harassment, and hatred that comes from religious dogma that stigmatizes certain people, how it can even lead to murder, as in the case of Emmett Til or Matthew Shepard. This is what I think of when I read "Judgement" and I think many Crossleft writers are thinking the same thing. When I read "Judgement" I see in that word the cause of much discrimination, prejudice and hatred. When you or your father Byron write about judgement, you both may be referring to something very different. So maybe a clarification on what you mean by judgement is in order.
I respect the honor you give to the Bible, but I think we read the Bible very differently. I have to preface this by saying that I'm only really knowleadgable about certain sections of the bible. I took a Bible study many years ago that studied Romans, Ephesians, Mark and Genesis. On my own I've read the poetry books, Jonah and Habakuk. When I read the Bible I see the book as a collection of writers who are sharing their own experiences with God: Abraham sharing his experiences with God, Moses sharing his experiences with God, Paul sharing his experiences with God. And in reading of their experiences, it helps me to gain some insight into my own experiences.
I know my view of the bible differs from yours. I respect those people who read the Bible differently because I think Biblical values are at heart progressive values. Gary wrote an interesting post (http://www.crossleft.org/node/6666) where he derives his progressive politics from a more traditional way of reading the Bible. Dorothy Day and William Jennings Bryan were theologically conservative, but they both held very progressive political stances on economic and war and peace issues based on their understanding of the Bible. I think the point of Crossleft is to allow a diversity of Progressive Christian viewpoints to be heard, not to force people to a monolithic point of view.
If you and Bryon have some progressive Christian ideas on war, on helping the poor, on any of a number of subjects, and if you respect people who disagree with you, then you both will be welcome on this site. But if you're both here in a progressive Christian site to try to convert us to a conservative Christian viewpoint, I don't know if either of you are going to get very far. I will respect your right to express your views though, and I thank you for wanting a civil discourse.
Angelo
To Mr. Angelo Lopez
To Mr. Angelo Lopez:
Thank you for your welcome.
I also thank you for disclosing your progressive bias upfront. To be honest, I am a little uneducated on exactly what ‘Progressive’ means. A big fan of progress myself, I’m not certain what sort of person would be anything but a Progressive, in the loose sense of the term. But for whatever you mean by it, I’ll just keep in mind that you admit to being biased.
You wrote, “Though I respect the Bible and hold it in high esteem, I don’t take it as literally as you. Thou I think the Bible is inspired by God, I believe it was written by fallible humans and the insights of each biblical writer is mixed with their own human limitations.”
I will reply. I am glad that you respect the Bible, but I would encourage you to respect God through the Bible. Anything can become an idol that commands a worship from us which is meant for our Creator. So you can know me as being something other than a worshipper of the Bible as a book itself. However, like you I hold the Word of God in high esteem, not on it’s own merit, but rather because (and only because) I hold the God of the Word in highest esteem.
Regarding this notion of the fallibility of the human authors, I agree with you with hesitation. Without a doubt, the prophets and apostles and kings, etc. were imperfect men in their own rights. However, I don’t think for an instant that their imperfections were imparted through them to the text, thereby making the text imperfect. Holding to the estimation which I have already made clear that I do, the one which states that God’s Word is perfect, inerrant and completely trustworthy, I can’t believe that the Bible would have been tainted by untruth. However! It must be assumed to be self-evident that the stories themselves, often times autobiographical in nature, in which the authors themselves are confessing to having behaved poorly (take Paul, for instance, in his admission of persecuting the church before he was a Christian), or Jonah when he admitted to his having rebelled against God’s command to preach repentance to the people of Nineveh. But in neither of these cases do the Biblical authors gloss over their wrong-doings. Instead, as if to confound the notion that they would change the truth to suit themselves, they openly confessed their wrongdoings and declared them as such.
Another thing you said, Mr. Lopez, was that “I personally think that our personal experiences validate or invalidate our religious ideas or what we believe in the Bible.” On this issue, you and I differ a great deal. But I hope we will not always. Perhaps you will convert to a better way of thinking?
My parents were divorced when I was in my early teens. It was very hard to live with, perhaps especially later in life when I began having to explain to people with some degree of embarrassment that my parents were separated. Experience could have encouraged me to normalize divorce, to downplay the necessity of marital fidelity. However, in light of the notion that truth is not dependant on our perspective of it, I could not modify my personal notions of morality to suit my circumstance. To do so would have meant dishonesty and a downplaying of the importance which God (by his very placement over all Creation, including you and I) demands.
Back to the issue of how reliable the Biblical authors were, let me ask you whether you would take them very seriously or see them as very reliable if they were the sorts of men to have written one thing today, then the opposite tomorrow? They would be untrustworthy. And perhaps this is your issue. Do you project onto these persons an expectation that they were of the same attitude as you are?
You refer to history as being part of what has caused you to re-examine ‘dogma’ as you call it. I am a fan of history myself, actually. I have some things to tell you.
Firstly, I am not a racist, nor do I think that the Bible provides grounds for racism. I do not have a problem with slavery, though I do take issue with much of the baggage which has been attached to the term by the American story. While I do not think that slavery itself is an evil, I do believe that prejudice against persons because of the color of their skin is folly, and that it is in no ways a justification for evils that have been committed for the sake of racial prejudice.
Secondly, I am decidedly anti-homosexuality. Read what I am writing in this regard very carefully since I find it very irritating to be quickly judged (misjudged, that is) about my views, no matter how politically incorrect. I have not said that I am anti-homosexual. Rather, I am anti-homosexuality. I have acquired this sentiment not through fishing in my own imagination. No, it is from our Maker that I have got this idea that homosexuality is wicked. It being His stance, it seems very unbecoming for those who belong to Him to normalize the behavior. On the other hand, however, it’s worth note that while I openly declare that homosexuality is wicked, I in no ways advocate Christians being unkind or unloving to these people.
Regarding war, I am decidedly against war. However, there are some circumstances which justify and require war. We can disagree about what qualifies and why, but that is my position in a very brief and general encapsulation of it.
Finally, about the word Judgment, I thank you for requesting clarification on what I mean by it. By judgment, I mean that we should refer to the judgments of God in all matters which are relevant to them. So, for instance, when a church is deciding on who to choose as a pastor, the judgment of God concerning the qualifications for overseers, as written by the Apostle Paul in Titus 1:7 and 1 Timothy 3, should be referred to and adhered to.
Judgment should not be seen as the only aspect of God’s personality, especially because the presence of mercy and God’s desire to distribute it freely and widely is such an inescapable theme of the gospels and of the prophets. But without a proper understanding of God’s judgment we can not have an appreciation or comprehension of what his mercy means. If you and I, Angelo, are not sinners deserving death and damnation except for the person of Jesus Christ, then the sacrifice on Calvary is a hollow and gratuitous empty gesture. If there is no judgment which awaits sin, indeed no sin, then there is no salvation either since there is nothing to be saved from. And, if such is the case, God could have just as well sent Jesus Christ to humanity with a dozen roses as his gesture of affection. However, in light of the many laws and statutes (statements and elusions to God’s original design and intention as was present in the Garden of Eden Pre-Fall) are not the sort of ‘do or die’ kinds of rules which they present themselves to be, then the perfection of Christ Jesus, his ‘blamelessness,’ is really a redundancy. Under such a system, after all, every human being would be equally perfect. Correct?
Thank you Mr. Garrett Mullett for reply
Thank you Garrett for your thoughtful reply. I don't really agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I respect the thought you put behind the positions you take. I want to apologize to you though, if my previous post seemed to infer that you are racist. That wasn't the intent of the post at all. When I wrote my post, I was just trying to think of a ramdom example that would illustrate a point I was making. In the past in the American South, biblical passages have been used to justify racism, but that has nothing to do with you. I do think slavery is an evil, and Quakers, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals in the 16th through 19th Centuries have found justification from their readings of the Bible to fight for the abolition of slavery. Perhaps, though, I should ask you to explain yourself on this issue? From your point of view, how is slavery not an evil?
I think the term "progressive" means different things to different people. But my definition is that Progressives are a group of people who wish for a more economic justice through a more humane economic system , to fight for equal rights for oppressed or marginalized groups of people, to fight the concentration of power within corporate hands, and are generally to the left of the political spectrum. Within this general progressive group, there is great diversity on how they arrive at this. I wrote a blog on this http://www.crossleft.org/node/5662. Some are progressive due to their take on the bible, as Dorothy Day and William Jennings Bryan were. They took a traditional reading of the Bible and had conservative positions on social issues like homosexuality and creationism, but they were very progressive on issues of poverty, on war and peace issues, and on the rights of minorities due to their understanding of their Christian faith. Others are progressive due to social issues like women's rights or minority rights or gay rights due to their experiences or the experiences of friends and family who have been harassed or discriminated against. And some are progressives because they've witnessed the injustices of an economic system that benefits a few, but leaves many behind. The different writers in Crossleft will have different answers on how they became Progressives. I wrote a blog on the influences on how I became a progressive (http://www.crossleft.org/node/5586).
I don't read the bible the way you do, but I don't wish to argue about how you read the bible. I thank you for sharing your experience about your parent's divorce and respect the conclusions you draw from that. That though is not the point I'm trying to get at with my thoughts on experience. I just think that the test of a religious dogma truth is how it plays in real life. We should test to see what is true on paper by seeing how true it is in the real world. If the primary function of marriage is procreation, what do we make of married couples who can't conceive?
I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I understand how you would think so since you take a literal interpretation of the Bible. From past experiences, I've learned that arguing on this issue ultimately becomes two monologues talking past each other. I can only argue that even if you think homosexuality is a sin, that homophobia is an even greater sin. Homophobia is like racism and sexism in that they have the effect of dehumanizing and marginalizing a group of people, making gay people vulnerable to a whole range of cruel treatment. Jesus went out of his way to reach out to marginalized people, to make people see the humanity in prostitutes, demon possessed people, taxcollectors and outcasts. Here is the full context of a passage in Romans that is often used to justify the idea that homosexuality is a sin:
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towar parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die- yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”
I would say to you that even if you think homosexuality is a sin, people who hold your position especially have the burden to insure that it doesn't become something that could be used to discriminate and harass people. The Christian church has been a major cause of homophobia and I really don't blame gay people for having a bad impression of Christians because of a history of harassment and worse.
Thank you for your explanation on your idea of judgement. It sounds like a traditional Christian understanding of judgement based on the original sin idea that St. Paul talks about in Romans. All of us falls short of God's standards and only by grace are we saved. Though I don't fully agree with everything Paul writes about, Romans is actually one of my favorite sections of the bible, due to a bible study group I had many years ago. I used to have a bad opinion of Saint Paul until the bible study, but I gained a new sympathy for him. Before I reply to you hastily, I'll have to reread Romans again all the way through to better encapsulate my opinions.
Though we come from two very different points of view, I appreciate your time in crafting a thoughtful reply.
Angelo
The Wise Man Built on the Rock
To Mr. Angelo Lopez:
I am glad that you received my thoughtful reply in a gracious way. You are welcome for it. It is good that you respect the thought I put into my positions.
Also, just to get it out of the way, I did not think that you were calling me a racist. Your apology was unnecessary, assuredly.
To the issue of slavery, whether it is not an evil or not. The trend throughout both Testaments is that slavery is a normalized feature of societies. In the Old Testament, we see that there are laws given regarding the treatment of male and female slaves. Let me tell you about a few of them.
Exodus 21:2 - When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
Exodus 21:5 - If the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
Exodus 21:20 - When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:26 - When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.
Leviticus 25:44 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.
And there are many other Scriptures regarding slaves. The sentiment running throughout them is that the slaves are still human beings, but that they are also a form of wealth or asset. Slaves in the Bible are not such as they are based on the color of their skin, as was the case in most all of American slavery. So the notion of slavery was, in a way, not racist as American slavery was. However, my understanding of one racist aspect of slavery in biblical Israel was that the Hebrews themselves were not allowed to be bought and sold as slaves in quite the same way as all other peoples were.
I think that when we examine the morality of slavery it is best to leave off the baggage which many people immediately attach to slavery. So, for instance, the American notion that an inseparable part of slavery is the constant whipping of slaves, raping of slave women, treatment of slaves as inferior on the basis of their ethnicity, etc. is not a fair thing to do. Those specific issues of corporal punishment or sexual rights are best examined on their own, I think. We need not attach them to slavery as an indelible mark upon the concept.
Slavery, then, as considered by me to be a morally neutral and gray issue, is simply an economic arrangement which is a more concrete form of employment.
You spoke, Angelo, of the various human rights which you are a proponent of. It is probably knowledge common to you that the American Civil Rights movement has seen one group of people look to the one before it for inspiration in seeking ‘equal rights‘ in society. So women first sought suffrage, then people of African decent and former slaves, and now homosexuals are seeking to be ’emancipated’ as it were from a place in society which they perceive does not hold them in as high a regard as non-homosexuals. It’s interesting to me how many Animal Rights people will use arguments for the humane treatment of animals which assume for those animals some kind of equality with humanity. In other words, many Animal Rights activists say that we should treat our animals in a nice way because they are our fellows, our fellow animals. In such a view, we members of humanity, men and women, are animals ourselves. So logically, in such a climate as these Animal Rights groups would seek to bestow to this society, if we can establish that it is an legitimate practice to use animals for labor (as the Amish do for their buggys and plows), then we can also establish that human beings are fit to be bought and sold in some manner.
Read that carefully, though, since I’m not saying that human beings are animals. I am not saying that human beings should be treated as such either, or that they are equal to animals. However, the logic in our present society does seem to me, especially with quasi-Darwinian evolution being the dominant theory used to explain the origins of the species (including humanity), it does seem to me to lend itself to a view of humanity as being animal.
Regarding the rights of humans, though, since you did bring them up, let’s talk about what our rights actually are and where they are derived from. Rather than me plunging into monologue about the issue, I’ll ask you some questions.
1) What are the basic human rights principles?
2) How do you know?
3) From whom or where do we get our best idea of what they are?
I’ll wait for you to answer those before I say any more about human rights.
Regarding the persons of Dorothy Day and William Jennings Bryan, I cannot claim to be familiar with their stories. However, I do share with them a ‘conservative’ stance toward issues like homosexuality and Origins.
Poverty, for one thing, is an area where I have a somewhat malleable conscience. Knowing a few things about God’s economic precepts, I don’t feel bound to any major economic philosophy besides. Capitalism, socialism, etc. None of these concepts hold sway over me as my mind’s ruler. None of these concepts either scare me away or scare me toward a conclusion regarding economic problems.
What does inform my sentiments is that I know some things that the Scriptures say regarding money: “the workman is worthy of his hire,” “unequal weights are an abomination to Yahweh, and false scales are not good,” “A just balance and scales are Yahweh’s; all the weights in the bag are his work.” And I remember what Jesus said to the rich young ruler, that “If you would be perfect, go sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.”
On the one issue, that of equal weights and measures, I think that the government should make enforcement it’s policy. On the other issue, that of rich young rulers selling their possessions to help the poor, I am less sure of what role the government should play.
Regarding the matter of peace and war, I am likeminded with the well-known truth that ‘No one is pro-war, but some people realize that war is sometimes both just and necessary.’ It makes me a little nauseous to see many of my country, America, and of the world at large, condemning The War on Terror on other grounds besides it’s rightness or wrongness. From my perspective, these folks make such absurd criticisms as referring to the number of American lives lost, or the number of terrorists killed. Sometimes they refer to how much money the war has cost, as if the war being cheap would have meant that it was more right or less wrong. I despise such arguments for what they lack: understanding, morality, compassion.
These arguments lack understanding, and I say that because they imply that war can be fought either without much bloodshed or else without much expended in the way of other resources. But this is a fallacy. All war involves death and the loss of life. All war is expensive. So, if the argument is correct that war is wrong when it involves the loss of life or of large sums of money, time and other resources, then we will condemn every war.
These arguments lack morality, and I say that because they fail to address the moral issues involved in every war. In every war there is some conflict between two nations which can no longer be solved in any other way besides militaristically. Sometimes it is only one side that decides that the military must be resorted to,. But once one side has decided, both sides are thereafter committed to a military solution. Committed, that is, until one side can no longer successfully conduct military operations against the other. Then a surrender of some sort has to occur.
While it may not be obvious to all, the War on Terror is not one which was started by America. In actuality, the War on Terror was started by Terrorists. More specifically, the War on Terror was started, though under another name, by Militant Muslims. From their perspective, the title of the conflict should be titled The War on Infidelity to Allah. Viewing the conflict in this way will lead anyone familiar with history, at least as far back as the 7th Century A.D, to the realization that The War on Infidelity has been raging for over thirteen centuries. Referring to The War on Terror is simply calling the American response to this conflict by a name which reflects our perspective, since we obviously do not see the conflict primarily through the eyes of those who are the aggressors.
But enough about war, let’s talk about Peace a little bit. Personally, I am a big fan of peace. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” I am more inclined to enjoy the soft walking, and yet I think it necessary for nations to wield sticks so that they can walk softly. If there were no molesters of the soft walker in the world, there would be no need for the big stick. And yet there are those who disturb the tranquility of others because they are motivated to do so by a desire for ill-gotten gain. So, in short, I think that peace should be ‘Sought and Pursued.’ Yet at the same time, I believe we should not trade military readiness for optimism.
Let me get out of politics for a moment, though. Foreign policy politics are their most relevant for you and I in three circumstances: 1) In the voting booth, 2) When we write to government officials, 3) In the unlikely chance that we actually become government officials who are deciding policy. Since we just finished a voting ordeal, are not writing to government officials but to each other and are neither of us government officials ourselves, let’s get back to the personal issues.
Personal notions of morality are real, but not the determining factors in eternal judgment. You or I can have any preference we like with regards to how morality ought to exist or not, but morality is what it is.
In my senior year of high school, I took Algebra and Trigonometry at my local Community College. This doesn’t mean I was good at math. I definitely was not, am not. Still, I paid attention in both classes and enjoyed the mental exercise a great deal. Let me propose that, no matter how clever some of my equations were in the tests and quizzes for those classes, I was not awarded credit on the final score for my cleverness. I was awarded credit for being right, being given an overall grade of C for both classes not because I had not given creative answers to complex problems. Rather, I was given C’s because my creative answers, a good portion of them, were wrong despite my creativity and imagination.
Math and morality are similar in at least one respect. In both cases, there are real and definite answers for every equation. In the end, God is the judge of how well we did. Anything less than 100% is enough to send us packing for Hell. In other words, the pre-requisite for Heaven is moral perfection.
You asked me the question, “If the primary function of marriage is procreation, what do we make of married couples who can’t conceive?” Well, I answer you by asking: where have you gleaned this primary function of marriage? I remember no Scripture saying that such was the purpose of marriage, the only or highest purpose of marriage. Truly, there is Malachi 2:15 to be considered. “And what was that one seeking? Godly offspring.” But we should keep in mind the examples of marriages in the Bible where no offspring had been produced as of yet, with God providing children in old age as a miraculous sign. This happened in at least two cases which I can think of: Abraham and Sarah’s marriage, and also in the marriage of Zechariah and Elizabeth, parents of John the Baptist. Yet God provided children in their old age.
If homosexuality is a normal relationship, acceptable in the sight of the Lord Almighty, why do we not have any examples of legitimate homosexuality in the Scriptures? What’s more, why do we have prohibitions AGAINST homosexuality from the Scriptures? If homosexuality is acceptable to God, what reason would he have for saying that no one who practices homosexuality will enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
If your answer to those questions is an admission that you have knowledge of God’s disapproval of homosexuality, of his seeing it as wicked, I will ask you another question in light of your statement, “I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin.” Why don’t you care that God is opposed to the practice?
You say to me, “People who hold your position especially have the burden to insure that it doesn’t become something that could be used to discriminate and harass people.” To this I will say that discrimination is a good thing when the discrimination is on a valid basis. For instance, being a married man myself, I could get into my bed at night and expect to lie next to my wife. However, if some other woman climbs into bed with me, it is my duty as the husband of Lauren Mullet to discriminate against that woman and to tell her that she has no place there, neither in my bed nor in my arms. So you see, it is a good thing to discriminate against people who are in places they should not be. But as to what means are appropriate to remove someone from a place in which they do not belong, this is a different issue.
Indeed, in my life I have met and spoken with, though not a lot of homosexuals, a few. As a Christian man, intent on honoring my God and bringing others to a remembrance of their Creator, I have told more than one or two homosexuals that what they were doing was sinful and that it would destroy them ultimately. In no ways did I threaten these wayward neighbors, but in all ways did I warn them out of a sincere concern for their wellbeing.
I gave an example to one of these homosexuals, a teenage lesbian who was frustrated about having been rejected by a love interest of hers. While I debated with her “friends” about whether what she was doing (homosexually speaking) was legitimate, the comparison between me and her approving friends could be likened to a parable of sorts.
Imagine that a woman lived in a house that sat between two other houses. One night, the neighbor on her one side wakes her up to tell her ‘Madame, your house is on fire! Get out now so that you don’t get burned up in it!’ The house really being on fire, the woman is alarmed at first, worrying that it might actually be but hoping that it actually is not. Attuned to this optimism, a second neighbor of the woman hears what is going on and tries to drive off the neighbor who raised the alarm. This second neighbor, trying to tell the woman what she wants to hear, says, “Don’t worry! You’re house is fine and beautiful and you should go back to your business. Don’t let this alarmist concern you about things which aren’t true.”
In the same way, it is unfair to say to me that I am being hateful to homosexuals when I tell them to repent of their sexual deviance.
I have one last thing to say regarding priorities, then I will be done with writing for now. I think that you and I come to different conclusions because we have different priorities. Maybe we have all the same priorities, but we have them in different places. For you, the priority of agreeing with God is lower than some of your other priorities. Namely, one higher than this one is your priority to agree with your fellow man. Make no mistake, being agreeable with your fellow man is honorable to an extant, the basis of all harmonious living. Yet not all things can be agreed with. Even if you agree with the same person all the time, you will find that the person you try to agree with has changed their mind tomorrow about the thing you agreed with them on today. Once you add more people into the mix, the real chaos ensues.
My policy is to be agreeable with my fellow man in such a way as to not sacrifice a commitment to what I know to be right. In other words, I make a point to not compromise about moral issues. Most anything else is adjustable, but morality must be a steady constant in my life. Morality must be something to which I can anchor my ship in turbulent seas. It must be something like a bedrock on which I can build a sturdy house. The storms of life come, often and heavy sometimes. But take heart to what Jesus taught!
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” Matthew 7:24
And also:
“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit… The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.” Luke 6:43-49
Amen.
Sincerely,
Garrett
re:The Wise Man
Thanks Garrett for the long reply. I appreciate the time you took in answering my inquiries. I don't really agree with a lot of what you wrote, but you have built your views based on well thought out arguments that derive from a literal reading of the Bible.
We have profound disagreements on most issues that you mentioned. Whether it is in the antebellum South or ancient societies, slavery by its very nature is exploitative and demeaning of the enslaved. I stand by my stance that those who believe homosexuality is a sin also have a responsibility to not allow their position to degenerate into hateful homophobia. I guess from the my experience, I've met two types of people who hold such a position: one group believes homosexuality is a sin and just hates gays and lesbians; another group though, while believing homosexuality is a sin, have close friends and family members who are gay or lesbian and sincerely struggle to love them while holding on to their principles. The first group have often used their ideas of sin to harass and ostracize any gay people they know.
Dorothy Day is a Catholic from the early 20th Century who built a movement that served the poor and fought against war. If you're interested, here's a wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day. William Jennings Bryan was a populist politician of the late 19th century and early 20th century who fought for worker rights, against American imperialism, for women's suffrage, and for a fairer economic system. He is most famous as the person who argued for creationism in the Scopes Trial. Here's a wikipedia on him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan. I thought I'd mention them to see if they could be a common frame of reference for us to dialogue.
We just have a fundamental different view of things. Since I don't buy into your premise that the Bible should be taken literally, we can never argue based on a common point of reference. Thank you though for your thoughts.
Angelo
re:re:Wise Man
Just a last minute comment Garrett. Your thoughts on economics and war and peace are not that far off from that of some liberals and progressives. Some Crossleft writers are pacifist, most believe in war only as a last resort. The experiences of Vietnam and Iraq have impressed upon many here on the need to question our government to be sure that we are sending our troops to harms way for the right reason. Jim is a vet and he has written some good posts on veterans http://www.crossleft.org/node/6639 and http://www.crossleft.org/node/2855.
Though I disagree with you on many issues, I respect your faith and knowledge of the Bible.
Angelo
Forgot... hope you and your family had a nice Thanksgiving
Garrett, I forgot to ask if you and your family had a nice Thanksgiving. I hope you all had a nice and relaxing time.
Angelo
More Good Intentions
Hello Garrett,
You are too young to be...just kidding. However, I might be too old (not kidding).
You said, "For instance, there is the accusation of 'judging' which has been leveled against him by some of you. While I am not a fan of judgment, I think that we must have a narrow enough definition of the term in order to do two things: 1) to make it meaningful and 2) to guard against the possibility of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater,' as it were. Sadly, though, my impression so far has been that the definition used by some of you is not narrow enough. Referring to passages like Matthew 7:1, no doubt, you seem hooked on this notion that despite all of the rebuking and calling for repentance which is done throughout the Bible, there is some nebulous undercurrent throughout which is firmly anti-judgment."
Garrett, perhaps you missed my reply to Byron regarding this issue of judgment and unity. http://www.crossleft.org/node/6519#comment-54686 I offered a short list of scriptures that address this matter. Check out the scripture below....
1 Corinthians 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:"
Garrett, this Corinthian text summarizes what I believe to be the full message on the subject of judgment. We can make judgments about all things, but we are not given the authority to judge humans. Jesus denounced judging others with the warning that the one who initiates judgment against someone would likewise be judged by the same measure. This process leads to hurt feelings and it is difficult to repair relations and restore meaningful fellowship.
Byron introduced judgment into the debate when he chose to use the expression "so called Christians" to describe those who disagree with him on the subject of evolution. I called him on it and am still insisting that there is no place for that type of judgmental approach in this forum or any other. I also asked for him to share what his definition of a Christian is and have not heard back.. If he chooses to reply and includes believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis as an essential element in the salvation offered through Jesus....I will oppose him on that point. I will also offer strong rebuttal if he or anyone else makes claims regarding the requirements of salvation that goes beyond what is clearly revealed in the New Testament.
I am a strong proponent of mercy and grace manifested in love through Jesus. I do appreciate the corrective nature of the prophets, apostles and the high standards of righteousness that are established in the Bible. However, I don't believe these texts are intended by God to supersede the admonitions against judging other members of the household of faith simply because we differ on non-essential points.
You said, "In other words, God is infallible, which means also that His Scriptures are also. Mankind including you and me, however, is fallible. This means that we can be mistaken about what His Scriptures mean."
I whole-heartedly agree that God is infallible and that humans are inherently limited in our ability to fully understand the Bible. From my perspective, God alone is to be revered as perfect, inerrant and infallible. He is the Almighty God. I believe the Bible is a book of many books written by humans under the inspiration of God and serves many purposes of benefit for all who read it. The Bible is therefore something created by God that utilizes two flawed mediums of conveying His truth. The humans chosen for the task were flawed and the medium of written words is a flawed method for conveying complicated concepts of understanding. Humans are limited in understanding things that are written by their vocabulary, culture, experience, literacy level, education, historical context, etc.
The claim of inerrancy and infallibility for the Bible while simultaneously expecting everyone reading to arrive at singular conclusions of what it all means is not realistic. Garrett, I believe the basic truths of the Bible are fairly evident and you, your Dad and I probably agree on the essential points. I believe that the simplicity of the Gospel is clear and easy for most to discern. I will steadfastly maintain support for the message of Jesus being good news for sinners and I refuse to add anything to that message. You should too.
Gary