The Company You Keep
I think that I have reached somewhat of a milestone on my faith journey. Last week, Rev. Anita Cadonau-Huseby, a very nice lesbian lady ordained in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) , publicly included me among some bloggers who were “able to navigate beyond the hot topic (homosexuality) and onto the essentials ” because we “shared sense of respect for the other, recognition of the other’s faith in Christ, and appreciation for the person they were without judgment”. What prompted her remarks was a moving series of articles by John Shore
She also recommended folks visit the sites on her blog roll (many of whom are also on my list of friends) saying:
These are blogging communities where you can contribute your wisdom and insights as a Christian and they’ll be received with respect by the blogger and by the majority, though not all, of their readership. While I hope SisterFriends will be your home base, I encourage you to visit these other blogs and get involved, but not only in conversations involving homosexuality. When we’re on the journey to reconcile our faith and sexuality, our focus can understandably become somewhat myopic but it’s good to occasionally lay that all aside and get engaged in other faith questions you feel passionate about or are interested in. Please check out the BlogRoll on the right column for additional blogs and websites.
Ditto.
If you had asked me five years ago if this recognition would not only please me but humble me as well, I would have said you were nuts. Thanks for counting me as a friend, Anita. I am honored.
April 21, 2008 at 12:26 am
I have to confess - i struggle with the concept of homosexuality.
I am all for a man loving His Brother - i just think having sex with him crosses a ‘line’ i am not prepared to follow - or ‘condone’.
If Scriptue is divinely inspired (and if it is not then how can it be so important to us today?) it leaves little room for doubt about what God thinks of it. - that it is of our own ‘corrupted’ self and not of Him.
I fuly understand the torment this can result in amongst ‘Christian’ Homosexuals who do not desire to think what is fundamental to them can not also be of God. - as i said, i struggle with the concept.
It would be akin to me wanting to retain my ‘desire’ for slothfulness, being as it has so long been a part of who i am - as ‘comfortable’ as i am with it and as good as i feel in not having to constantly be ‘working’ - way down deep i know it is not really doing me all that much ‘good’ in following my desire over His.
And yet i am not wiling enough to change it - to do the work on myself necessary to do His WIll in ALL areas of my life.
i do just enough to ’salve’ my conscience. ( mostly!)
<B
April 21, 2008 at 3:05 am
Christian,
My beloved and I are away on vacation for a couple days so I’m pounding this out on my little iPod Touch…a great invention except for those of us with middle-age vision and chubby fingers. I really do appreciate so much your mention of my blog so back at you on that one, and I in turn feel blessed to be in YOUR company as well as with others. The church seems to do”just fine” on focusing on the differences (and divisions) among this big band of Jesus followers and so it means all the more when places can be found where people are centered on the heart of the Gospel rather than the myriad of other things that pull us away from Christs message and one another. Thanks Christian for your words and stories that bring challenge and hope for ALL.
April 21, 2008 at 8:41 am
Love - I understand and sympathize with your point of view. But…to look at homosexuality in the same way that you would look at ’slothfulness’ , I think, is mistaken.
First - slothfulness is considered by all as a deficiency in character (even though many take this to the opposite extreme and leave themselves no time for quiet and solitude or even play - another symptom of a legalistic mindset)/ Not all would agree that homosexuality is a character issue. I certainly don’t.
Second - we are all (except for the aforementioned workaholic) prone to slothfulness. Not all of us are prone to homosexuality. I certainly am not.
Third - What’s with all these ‘deadly sins’? You convert to Catholicism?
And if so, homosexuality is not on the list of seven.
Fourth - The OT injunctions against homosexuality are listed with a whole slew of ’sins’ that are no longer considered sinful. If scripture is divinely inspired in the way you suggest then perhaps you should check your wardrobe (or your mirror - the picture of your lone eye tells us nothing about your facial hair.
) And when Paul speaks about sexual aberrations he includes those of heterosexuality as well. Some of the Hellenistic audiences listening had developed cultish homo and heterosexual practices which also included pedophilia.
Fifth - I don’t think there is much that is ‘comfortable’ about being a homosexual in a predominantly heterosexual world.
Wow! We I don’t often disagree with you but when I do….look out!
April 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I see the whole homosexuality issue as an ‘Achilles heel’ of the a literalistic and unbending view of Christian doctrine.
Christians view is rather in-line with my own…
The OT has prohibitions against shell-fish that most people see as archaic, nonsensical and to my mind cruel given my love of sea-scallops!
How is it some people can turn a blind eye to my enjoying a plate full of sea scallops….but those same people will dredge up Leviticus when they see a happy homo-sexual couple applying for a marriage license in my home state?
Who has the magic decoder ring that can determine the prohibitions that are important and those that aren’t?
R.
April 21, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You must be careful agreeing with me, Robert. Seeing as how I am a false teacher?
Then again, perhaps it is yourdangerous atheist point of view that is leading me astray? Even though I used to be an atheist…..argh!
That’s what was troubling the disciples. In John they repeatedly ask what form this new way of faith will take. Jesus stresses that it is not about concentrating on externals but instead on the internal relationship between us and God as found through him. Concentrate on Christ and the rest will fall into place;
His commands? The magic decoder; You cannot love God without loving others, including -no- especially those you do not like and those who are different from you.
April 21, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Wow! The love! Feelin’ the love Christian! Love your blog, your post and you already know that I love your story!
And lovewillbringustogether…………………love the name!
Peace
April 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Christian said:
…I am a false teacher
Robert says:
Perhaps you refer to our esteemed fellow traveler’s assessment of your worth on another blog? I wouldn’t lose sleep over that, sometimes I can’t help but feel that SOME would try to bury simple truths in heaping loads of… Let’s just call it…shall we say organic fertilizer?
I find your reasonings much simpler and compelling…even if i don’t necessarily agree with their epistemological basis!
R.
April 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Here’s a magic decoder ring:
http://rev22.org/index.php/archives/93
The whole “shelfish” argument is really a load of crap, as is the “love the sinner hate the sin” line.
Bottom line is that we are to love each other. That DOES NOT mean that we have condone nor condemn others behavior. I think of our community food pantry. Aside from providing food, the biggest service it provides is a place where people can come and talk and be heard… and loved. It doesn’t matter if they are addicted to heroin, disabled in some way, a homeless prostitue, or just plain too lazy to hold a job the come and and recieve unconditional love. Now would the folks that run the pantry like to see the single mother with two small children kick her herion habit? Of course. Would they like to see the lazy sloth pick himself up and get a job? yeah.
My point. Just because someone feels that a persons lifestyle or behavior is outside of what God has planned does not equate to hate. Too often this becomes a black and white question. If you are not “on board” with someones lifestyle then you must be a hater.
April 21, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Last line should be
“If you are not “on board” with someones lifestyle then you must be a hater…. That’s just not true.”
April 21, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Thank for the clarification….
Though I figured that’s what you were trying to convey
R.
April 21, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Bravo buddy! Bravo.
April 21, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Agreed. But the problem often lies in thinking what lies outside of what God has planned for us. No matter how faithful we think we are (or aren’t), when it comes to living the way God would have us live, we all fall short and often it’s in ways we don’t even realize. It’s that damn plank again.
One person’s sin is often someone else’s harmless way of living. There are plenty of Christian folk who think that listening to or playing rock music, dancing, drinking wine, playing cards and allowing women to wear pants are outside the realm of God’s intentions for us. Other Christians think that owning property or being wealthy is out of line, some think everyone should tithe 10% and even others take vows of poverty. Some believe that we must all be pacifists, some think that we must keep the Sabbath on a Saturday and eat only healthy foods. Many faith communities have women pastors, many more only men and even more only celibate men. And so on and so on.
For many of these issues there is no room for discussion. It’s the same with homosexuality - some insist the you accept the lifestyle with no reservations whatsoever, others insist that you not tolerate it under any circumstances. Like Buddy said, few issues are that black and white anyway.
So I think it’s best not to be concerned with the ’sins’ of others but instead take that time to think about how we can improve our own relationships with Christ.
April 21, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sure that works in the blog world where everything is theoretical.
Now, in the real world, there’s issues like what do I teach my children about what is right and wrong… as well as what the public schools are teaching them. Often times they may conflict.
So person A feels a certian way about issue X and person B feels the opposite. So what? That’s cool. I think it’s problematic that if a person feels that people should be free to live whatever lifestyle they want they are considered open minded, progressive and tolerant. However if a person feels that a particular lifestyle is wrong or sinful, they are labeled hateful, judgmental and intolorant.
I believe it’s possible to feel a lifestyle is wrong or sinful (and teach one’s children that it’s wrong) while still loving the person. That’s truly living in the way Jesus taught… read the episode with the ‘Adulterous Woman’.
April 21, 2008 at 4:50 pm
The teaching of your children is a little bit different, I think.
I can teach my children that they should avoid alcohol or tobacco or drugs because of the dangers involved. I can even teach them that it is sinful if they do so. And of course most parents do this. And most kids (and adults) who drink, smoke and use drugs have been taught this. In fact, I’ll bet most addicts and alcoholics understand this. Like you said, no blacks and whites.
So what happens when your child, for whatever reason, becomes an addict? The last thing you do is condemn her for being a ’sinner’, unless you want to drive her away from what little protection you can give her. True, the sponsors at AAA use a similar tactic to convincing someone of their depravity and need for assistance - but this insistance comes from other alcoholics who have been where they are.
So you telll your kids that sexual promiscuity is a sin and even that homosexuality of any kind is a sin. I don’t know how successful this tactic has been in preventing promiscuity but I doubt if it ever kept someone from thinking about sex, and I think if one of your kids is homosexual then chances are he or she will still be thinking about sex. And struggling with it.
So the straight kid can one day look forward to a (hopefully) loving and respectful relationship with another that does not make sex the focus of their union. The other child, has been told that there is no hope for a future like this - that no matter what characterizes the relationship, that if homosexual it is an abomination in the eyes of God. The problems occur when your son or daughter or brother or sister or niece and nephew come out of the closet.
The adulterous women wasn’t a lesbian, she was supposedly sexually immoral, perhaps being promiscuous etc. (Or not, there is some scholarship to suggest that we have much maligned this lady: http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/apologizing-to-the-woman-at-the-well/ )
April 21, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Amen Christian!
April 21, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The problem with your theory is that it supposes that one believes that one does not have a choice about whether to be homosexual. Many people do not buy into that idea.
You miss my point about the adulterous woman. I was refering to John 8 not the woman at the well. It didn’t really matter what her sin was, in this case it was definitely adultery. My point is Jesus loved her as she was AND told her to ‘go and sin no more’… clearly not condoning her sin.
April 21, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Christian
I have to say bravo for standing for your beliefs and following your understanding of Christ’s teachings. If you are a false teacher then you are among the best company for He was too to the leaders of His day. We may have to crucify you if you get too loving and much more Christ-like though!
April 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Since Christian’s reference to my website initiated this conversation I’d like to ask a couple very sincere questions pertaining to some things I’ve read among the comments. There’s no reason to go into biblical interpretation since I understand the Scriptures as I do based on a thoughtful and prayerful understanding that can be argued well theologically and contextually just as anyone with a different interpretation. I believe what I believe and I absolutely honor and respect what you believe.
In the comments what interests me the most is again the reference to not condoning a “lifestyle” in the context of homosexuality and since gay or lesbian people have lifestyles just as diverse as the lifestyles of heterosexuals, then does the “homosexual lifestyle” strictly involve sexual activity in your mind(s) with someone of the same gender? Is sexual activity all that informs a homosexual lifestyle? If there’s more that constitutes the homosexual lifestyle, could you help me specifically understand what the other factors are?
Finally, if someone were to define your lifestyle, what would you like them to consider as they define it? Would you be content to be identified as having a heterosexual lifestyle if that meant your lifestyle was valued to be the very same as that of every other heterosexual?
These are questions I’m genuinely asking because honestly, after 12 years of hearing about my homosexual lifestyle, especially from people I’ve never met, I’ve yet to have anyone be specific in explaining what that means to them apart from the act of sex. The frustration, if you can understand this, is that my “lifestyle” is informed by the teachings of Jesus as a Christian and the positive models of Christ-centered faithful, loving marriages and living I was blessed to observe in my grandparents and parents marriages, each of 60 years, and the hundreds of truly wonderful straight people, married and single, that filled my childhood church and the churches where I’ve pastored over the years.
Thanks so much
April 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Yeah, and I used to be one of them. Though I do think that there are cases of confused people who are unsure of their sexuality (and that goes in both directions) I’ve come to the conclusion that most of us are hardwired for either hetero or homo sexuality. There’s been too many studies, too much evidence that can’t be ignored and now too many gays that I have met over the years for me to be able to maintain that view.
There is a lot of evidence that the conversion or reparative therapy that has been touted as helping gays go straight has not had anywhere near the success rate that we have been told. A lot of the initial success stories apparent did not ‘take’. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm
April 21, 2008 at 10:31 pm
That’s a great point Anita. In my old church there was a couple, two fellows that also happened to be good customers at my old restaurant (merely coincidental). Many of us knew that they were gay but the lifestyle that they displayed would most likely be called ‘conservative’.
We hear a lot of stuff on the radio and the boob tube about the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ endangering family values. But the the greatest threat to family values (according to hard statistics) is poverty. (Although extreme affluence takes its toll as well.)
April 21, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Buddy,
By the way, I appreciate your blog very much. I’ve been following it for about as long as I’ve been reading Christian’s
As to “The problem with your theory is that it supposes that one believes that one does not have a choice about whether to be homosexual. Many people do not buy into that idea.” I’m sure many people don’t buy into that Buddy. I didn’t for the first 38 years of my life either, but when I realized I was gay it wasn’t a question or a choice, but it was nothing more or less than just the way it was. My only choice was whether I would spend the rest of my life denying, fighting against, or ignoring that part of my identity, or accept and keep moving forward in my life and faith. I chose the later and have never for a moment regretted it.
Christian, there are a mess of gay people who I’d never want to be considered as sharing in the same “lifestyle” whether because they’re so incredibly conservative or out on the fringe in the other direction…sexually, politically, religiously. At the same time, having just returned from a weekend in Las Vegas where heterosexual sex is in your face everywhere and in every fashion which I personally found disturbing and offensive, never for a second would I consider the “heterosexual lifestyle” promoted there as being representative of anyone here, so really, that’s what raised my question along with the comments. What is a lifestyle? Do we each have an individual lifestyle or are our lifestyles defined by the group(s) to which we belong? If the later, who is the person(s) who determine the common traits that apply to everyone of that group(s) lifestyle?
Again Christian, thank you. I’m so grateful we’re part of the same family of God…and so are we all.
April 21, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Chris - make no doubt here - i am your brother in Christ and i love you as myself (for i know that much of your thoughts are my thoughts and that you sin every bit as much (or as little - a realtive thing really) as me - if not exactly as me.
Buddy O’s comments concerning John 8 are most enlightened.
I was trying to use the slothful analogy to show that i am NOT without sin and so am not ‘judging’ unrighteously those who adopt a homosexual lifetyle any more than i would wish those to judge me for my inherent lazyness. I did not try to equate the two in any other way.
I think there is a problem here about scripture - Do you believe it to be divinely inspired? or not? - Which bits do you wish to pick and choose to believe? should we all do the same? or the same as you?
Moses is reported as feeling the unnatural use of a man, by a man as an Abomination to the Lord - i don’t think he defines many other sins as ‘Abominations’ ( there are a few but not all by any means)
Let me be clear once more - it is not I who am declaring MY ‘belief’ of what constitutes sins or Abominations to God or to my fellow man.
I merely read what the Bible tells me and am required, through the reported words of Jesus, to believe it all - jot and tittle.
At the same time i am required to love my fellow man as myself - and above all to Love God.
I am perfectly aware of my continued and ongoing sin against God - they are due to my development upon (of) this Earth - I have not accepted FULLY as did Jesus the Will of my Father - Our Father and cast off the old man to put on the New One Born of Him in Spirit.
My ‘issue’ with the Deadly Sins? (No - Catholicism has no place in my heart) is to make us more aware of our own within us. For without this awareness we are condemned to repeat them infinitely.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. Ro 2:1-2
Loving your children does not mean you let them do the things that can cause them come to mortal harm - Good parents guide their Children, lovingly - but with harshness where love fails (and it so often fails fallible humanity).
I am required to work on my own sins and to remove the Beam in my own eye before i attempt to judge or remove the spec from my brother’s eye.
I also feel compelled to point the way to the word of God to all others that they might find righteous guidance therein - even as i sin against them myself - does that make me a hypocrite? or one who loves the word of God and is doing what he can to live as Jesus did?
I believe we are required to do all in our power to both Accept Jesus and remove from within us those things of the earth (clay) that cause us to stray from His Word written within us - our own selfish desires/wants/earthly ‘needs’ of the Flesh.
Stephanie - Thank you - i kinda like the name myself
<B
April 22, 2008 at 12:11 am
Love, being divinely inspired (or not) does not mean that the scripture is a rigid, unchanging and lifeless set of rules. There are dozens of ‘laws’ that some of us choose to ‘ignore’ today, often because these laws were written for an ancient Jewish people. Jesus spoke out against divorce (but not homosexuality, btw) - why are we not so strident against divorcees? We all pick and choose - you, me, Buddy, Anita, the Pope, Billy Graham - all of us read and interpret scripture and then decide whether it applies to them or not. Even the most conservative fundamentalist does this every day.
Jesus did not come to remove one tittle of the law - he came to show us what a person who naturally, unconsciously obeyed the law looked like. He is the fulfillment of the law and we could be to if too we stopped worrying about all our ’sins’ and started concentrating on a life of love with Christ. A life of love for others and for God. You and I cannot remove those little things from our nature that get in the way. We’d go nuts trying. But Jesus can do it.
The judgment of God is the only judgment that matters and Jesus says over and over again that most (many? all?) will be very surprised at the outcome of his judgment. The first shall be last…not everyone who cries “Lord, lord” will he recognize…the banquet will be set for those we least expect.
Who is it that you are expecting least?
April 22, 2008 at 12:32 am
Christian, I agree. The idea that anyone has an unbiased literal reading of scripture is impossible because we’re human and we all bring our own stuff to the Bible as we do to any book or any situation in life for that matter. I don’t have to even look to anyone else to understand that. I once read the Bible and saw nothing but condemnation for homosexuality (though it was less what I encountered personally in Scripture than what I’d been taught), but when I realized I was gay and came back to the Scriptures and went into them like I hadn’t before I saw something very different. That two such variant understandings of Scripture concerning homosexuality can exist within one person in one life time, speaks clearly to me that I can never read the Bible separate from my life, my location, and all that’s gone into shaping me and informing me.
I think our best hope is to be able to acknowledge we see what we (want or are only able to see) and always seek to remain open to listening and hearing that there might be something we’re missing even where we’re most convinced what we hold as true is true.
April 22, 2008 at 12:44 am
Anyone with a single shred of personal ego intact!
Jesus ‘Can’ do it - Nice! - you know of a single human in history He ‘did’ it FOR???
i disagree (on this sentence) - you and i CAN do it - remove those little things from our own earthly nature’s ( since WE are responsible for placing them IN us!!!) - if we DECIDE to and dedicate our ENTIRE live’s to Him and accept His Help in the way it is intended - not the way we ‘want’ to accept him - on OUR terms - not His (or those of His Father as detailed in Scripture for those who choose not to follow jesus Wholly and fully - ‘naturally’).
I am not saying this from a pouint of do as i say, not as i do - as so many religious leaders do - but from a point of i know what I have to do and it would be a LOT easier if those around me chose the same ‘plan’ for them.
(this does not mean doing everything i do since my sins are not all the same as theirs, but there IS a Plan we can all follow that has identical ‘features/basics’ and it is this (WAY) that i would have all understand).
I do not pick and choose however - i accept all Scripture - not only the parts that i can follow ‘happily’ i have things i still need to work on to please God - so do we all.
I do not do all that Scripture tells me, and because of that understand that i am not yet ‘perfect’ - i could be in Him, but if i think i am and yet find Scripture that instructs me to do things differently to the way i choose to do them then i understand that i still am not living as He wants me to.
Christ is the Perfect Example for us all - yet not a single one of us lives up to His example - myself included.
or do you believe that he has Saved any one of us yet? - all on His own? if it’s ALL up to Him then why do we still live in sin (error)?
I’m not saying it is easy for us - quite the reverse - but neither do i think for one second that if we ever got ’serious’ about working with Him on our sinful selves it would ‘drive us nuts’ - that’s just loser talk imo. Defeat before the battle is even engaged
Still love you, Frere Bear
<B
April 22, 2008 at 12:47 am
Not long ago I believed (at least I think I did) that everyone who was not a professed follower of Christ - a Christian- was going to hell. Again, it was more what I had been told than what I found in Scriptures. Going back to the book and attempting to read it without these preconceptions (which was at first very difficult to do - kind of scary, actually) brought me to a very different understanding, one that I believe is truly biblical.
Now I argue with people who use these same scriptures to ‘prove’ this idea of the damned and I can’t imagine how I read them in that way myself. Amazed at my change, regretting my earlier position, yet sympathetic to those who still hold this position, I am hesitant to say that they are wrong and I am right because I have learned that if I know anything at all it is that I am rarely ‘right’. Or at least not for long.
April 22, 2008 at 12:59 am
Depends upon what you mean by ’saved’, Love. That’s a loaded word. But I (think) I agree with you that there is a ‘way’ to salvation and it has one characteristic, and that is ‘imitation of Christ’. No one comes close to doing this (well maybe St.Francis and a few others we don’t know about) but I don’t think anyone can do it by attempting to remove their flaws, our weakness, what you call our sins, one by one from our natures.
I actually think that the closer we walk with Jesus the ‘easier’ this gets. It’s not a hard, self-sacrificing life full of spiritual ‘disciplines’. It’s a joyful, peaceful and exciting walk in which the things that we once felt were so hard to find the motivation to do we now find ourselves doing without thinking. This is not loser talk, Love. It’s winner talk. Phillipians 4:13
You are right - it does require the will to attempt this. But the focus should be on Christ and not on ourselves.
April 22, 2008 at 6:04 am
I must say that this is my favorite blog because of its open and intelligent discussions. This is particularly a good one because the topic is one that needs to be discussed by those wishing to follow in Christ’s way. Jesus wept for Jerusalem because His people were being slaughtered all the day long because of ignorance. He was telling us to seek the truth and not except man’s knowledge over God’s wisdom. I also am one who believes that people are free to choose any life style they believe is right for them. But Chris, when you spoke of Jesus saying that we will be surprised at who we might find at the banquet table I don’t believe he was speaking of sinners. He said only those that do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If we truly accept Jesus and follow his way we must be aware of our sins and follow the Spirits guidance in turning away from those sins. If you are saying that there is no evidence in the Word that homosexual behavior is a sin and displeasing to God, then we must be reading a different Bible. If you are also saying that people are sometimes born being homosexual, and have no choice in the matter, I find that hard to believe, but I will admit, that it might be possible, in the same way that it might be possible that those with epilepsy are actually born with a demonic possession. It is possible and not unscriptural. However, let’s not be ignorant in our compassion for others and go so far as to say that sin might not really be sin. I try not to judge anyone for their choices and I am not saying their choices are right or wrong in God’s eyes. I do not want to treat anyone differently no matter what they believe or what sins they’ve committed, because I know that God gave us all free will and we are all sinners, but in the matter of who I worship my God with, I feel it is important that they are of like mind. Will I pray with a murderer or a thief or a prostitute? Only if they know they are a sinner. What I am saying is that I will pray for them but not with them. Can there be fellowship between light and dark? Truth will always be truth no matter what choices we make and it is by those choices that Christ will judge us. I pray that all of God’s children will continually seek the truth and no longer ignorantly buy into things that are based only on human knowledge or human opinion, however we must never ignore the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Life can be joyful, peaceful and exciting but please!!! Keep thinking about who it is we are living for not what it is we are aiming for.
April 22, 2008 at 6:22 am
Lots to chew on there, Net, and I have to get going for work. Just one point. I guess this is an area in which many misunderstand me. I never think that sin is trivial or unimportant. I just do not see the things that we do as being ’sins’ - these things that we commonly call sin are symptoms of the bigger disease, the bigger or only sin, and that is choosing ourselves over God. As we allow ourselves to be drawn closer to God we cease, bit by bit, to commit these ’sins’. To focus on the individual actions, to try and treat those actions alone without coming into communion with God usually results in an ongoing cycle of sin-repentance-repentance-sin-repentance etc. etc. There are times when will slide, but rather than lament this slide we can trust in the fact that God is still with us when we turn back to him.
I am not really defending ‘homosexuality’. I am really just suggesting that it is a mistake to focus on it, The Bible may speak out about homosexuality, and this may have become a cliche’, but it also speaks out against blended fabrics, certain types of shaving, tattoos, eating pork and shellfish etc. etc.
I think it is best that the church stop drawing lines in the sand over the behavior of others and spend more time determining how well we are feeding the poor, clothing the naked and visiting the sick and imprisoned. Jesus had a great heart for the marginalized as well as the sinner.
April 22, 2008 at 8:20 am
Anita, (thanks for the support of my blog, you are always welcome!)
You’re right, “Lifestyle” was merely a lazy choice of words and doesn’t realy describe what I am talking about. I am talking about Love. God has made several variations of Love for us. First and formost there’s the Love we have for God. This is different than the love we have for our neighbor. Jesus made clear this distinction. There is the love we have for our children which is very special indeed. Then there is the love a man and woman have for each other as husband and wife, when they leave thier parents and cleave to one another. This is also evidenced frequently in scripture. The problem (what I call outside of God’s plan) is when these “loves” are confused. Obvious ones are when a parent feels the spousal love for thier children, this is often called incest. Similarly, Scripture talks plainly about not having any other targets for the Love intended for God. In the same way, we are outside of God’s plan when we misdirect the love intended for a husband or wife to our ‘borthers and sisters’… this is commonly referred to as homosexuality. Are any of these ‘misdirections’ a sin? Probably not, I don’t know… In all cases when you introduce sex, that is where sin comes in. (I’ll stop there, as this could turn into a book)
April 22, 2008 at 8:39 am
Yeah, not so much a cliche’ but more of a crutch used by those folks who want to justify an agenda which the Bible doesn’t support. You really ought to stop using it Chris (several times already in this thread) as it really screams of a lack of effort in reading and understanding Scripture. By your own admission, you don’t read the Old Testament and don’t really give it any real creedence. Quoting it in this silly way doesn’t do your credibility any good. (but you already knew that…
)
You talk about divorce… certianly the Bible (Jesus specifically) speaks out against it. I just had a conversation recently about this with someone very close to me who has been divorced and remarried. Too much time and effort is spent trying to find loopholes or justifications for why Jesus didn’t really mean what He said. This is a futile and dangerous effort. Why not just admit that what you did was contrary to Jesus teaching (even sinful) and ask for forgiveness. It doesn’t have to be admitted to me, or a pastor or congregation or anyone, only privately to God. The great news is that He is overflowing with Grace Compassion Love and Forgiveness… You were forgiven at the Cross!
We are commanded to live in the light. That doesn’t mean we have to fly our dirty laundry for everyone to see, it’s none of thier business. But it does mean we should stop trying to twist scripture, throw out sections or ‘reinterpret’ them to convince ourselves that we are not sinning. Just admit what the Bible says is good, bad, Holy or sinful in our lives, humbly bring it to God and live in the Joy of his bottomless compassion and forgiveness. It’s really quite liberating….
(PS this also applies to homosexuality…
April 22, 2008 at 10:28 am
“In all cases when you introduce sex, that is where sin comes in. “ Sounds like Augustine talking here. I don’t know if it is that simple.
What? You don’t like the example? - that doesn’t make it silly, it’s still a fact. There are many things in scripture that were once considered laws that are no more. I remember when a friend gave you grief about the injunction against tattoos and you took it quite serious. You didn’t think it was silly at all, yet you figured out that this did not apply to you in today’s age. I agree.
You can’t get around the fundamental elephant in the room. If you are going to use the OT (which I read quite often but there is more to that book than Leviticus and Deuteronomy) to mandate behavior than you really should use all of it. To do otherwise is quite silly.
Sometimes I don’t think it so much people flying their ‘dirty’ laundry as well intentioned people peeking into other’s laundry baskets.
April 22, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sorry, sorry. I got a little testy there. I just don’t like being called ’silly’ so early in the morning. After I’ve had my coffee and stewed prunes I can handle things better.
April 22, 2008 at 11:18 am
testy? You didn’t seem any different than normal…
See… After all this time off, I still know what buttons to push. You’re easy.
April 22, 2008 at 11:34 am
Buddy,
Thank you for taking the time to address my question. While I’m still no closer to understanding what all others mean with “lifestyle” I believe I understand that for you you’re talking about “confused love” where sex is involved. “Confused love” not being a sin so much as a deviation from God’s plan but leading to sin when sex is present. I appreciate your summarization of all human relationships possible within the plan of God, though I obviously don’t agree with it for many reasons.
And okay, I actually consider the language of “confused love” to be nearly as confusing as “lifestyle” or maybe it would be more honest to say offensive. While it’s frustrating to have my entire life summed up by strangers with a one-word sound byte of “lifestyle” it seems an offense to have my loving labeled as “confused love” as though what I have for the person to whom I have committed my life isn’t as qualitative as heterosexual love; that this abiding love I’ve held for my spouse for the past eight years, will continue to hold until the day death parts us, and that I give thanks to God every day for bringing into my life, is merely a “confused” version of what heterosexuals are privileged to experience by simple virtue of being heterosexual. At the same time Buddy, I remind myself that you’re making a blanket statement of all same-sex relationships and so I choose not to take it personally since in the end, you don’t know me nor the quality of the relationships in my life. This is the present reality of engaging in conversations on the internet and occasionally it does me well to be reminded of that so that I give more attention to what those who have witnessed and experienced first-hand my life and our relationship would see both in strength and weakness.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I’m assuming from your response that you’re using the Bible as the exclusive source that outlines the possibilities and prohibitions for all human relationships within God’s plan? If that’s the case, could I ask you to address several specifics that would seem confusing to me given a sola scriptura argument.
In Leviticus 18 where incestuous relationships are prohibited (as well as men laying with men as with women) why is there no mention of a father having sex with his daughter while a myriad of other relations are specifically mentioned?
How do you find a prohibition for polygamy in the Scriptures given it was a normal practice in the Old Testament and even when Jesus refers to marriage (Mark 10:6-
he’s quoting Genesis 2:24 contained within a culture that believed a man could become “one flesh” with more than one wife.
And Buddy, with all due respect, the response you gave to Christian on divorce is a soft answer by simply saying Jesus spoke against it. What Jesus said in Mark 10:12 is that that if a man divorces his wife and remarries and if the wife he divorced remarries both of them are committing adultery, committing being an active verb. Your friend didn’t sin. Your friend is sinning daily by daily practicing adultery, this according to Jesus’ words.
Clearly I’m not saying father-daughter incest and polygamy are acceptable. Neither am I saying that the tens of thousands of remarried people in the church be instructed to end their second marriage so they might return to their first spouse and thus quit sinning.
What I’m suggesting is that if God’s plan is exclusively evidenced in the Scripture in regards to human relationships, that can be rather problematic when holding gay and lesbian people to account while allowing or prohibiting numerous other acts/relationships that are “evidenced” in Scripture. That people disapprove of homosexuality, fine, however I’d argue that one is being less than even-handed with the Scriptures when using it to condemn love relationships between two same gender people while ignoring other Scriptural mandates or prohibitions.
Again Buddy, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question, and I appreciate the intentional reflection you’ve clearly given to this discussion. Thank you
April 22, 2008 at 11:37 am
How funny! Okay, so the little glasses-wearing smiley above is actually suppose to read Mark 10:6-eight)
April 22, 2008 at 11:47 am
That is funny! And Buddy, believe me, I have not forgotten where your buttons are. I just am not going to stoop to that level.
April 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Christian and everyone else, I have really enjoyed this post and everyone’s comments and input. It is pretty refreshing to see people having a civil conversation about this topic without hostility.
Buddy, I want to make sure I completely understand your comment. You said…….
The problem (what I call outside of God’s plan) is when these “loves” are confused. Obvious ones are when a parent feels the spousal love for thier children, this is often called incest.
If I understood this correctly, you believe that when folks of the same sex have spousal love for one another, you call it “confused love” and believe it to be something outside of God’s will?
Are you suggesting that incest and homosexuality are on the same level?
Are you suggesting that when an adult feels spousal love toward a child it is somewhat the same as when two women feel spousal love for one another?
April 22, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Wow, I didn’t think this was so radical…
Stephanie,
Do I think Incest and Homosexuality are the same thing..? Now a question doesn’t get much more loaded than that. OK, first let it be understood that I have completely taken sex and physical intimacy completely out of the equation. I’m strictly talking about love. In that case my honest anser would be yes. It’s that same as a brother/sister, mother/son, man/man, woman/woman for that matter its the same as directing the love that should be reserved for God somewhere else.
Anita,
Sorry you were offended. I certianly never intended that. That’s the funny thing about free speech… you can almost gurantee that someone will be offended.
Just writing my opinion in response to your request, definitely don’t take it personally. Certianly not trying to impose it on you. And just to be clear, no, I don’t think you will burn in hell for being gay.
OK, I’ll address your questions the best I can with the limited time I have.
In a previous comment in this thread, I posted a link to a brief exegesis I did on Leviticus, that will go a long way to answer your question.
Funny this is an interesting one, actually one I anticipated earlier today but to be honest I never have done a prayerful study of scripture on it. Off the top of my head, here’s an attempt… The first spousal relationship we see in scripture is Adam and Eve. Noah only had one wife (female). Many Biblical scholars put Abraham at the halfway point of Biblical history so there’s a long part of history where the only documented relationships were monogamous. Abram had only one wife Sarai whom he cheated on with a servant. You can look through many of the historical biblical characters and see that many were in monogomous marriages. OK… this is already getting too long…. the bottom line? The Bible is full of imperfect people living imperfect lives.. adulterers, murderers, incest, and yes, polygamists… The cool thing is that God looked past all that and saw the people for who they were, not what they did and used them in mighty and powerful ways. That gives me hope. [I know that's not a complete answer but I'm short on time.]
No argument from me… Good thing that His forgiveness extends even to those of US (me included) that sin daily. Wow there’s joy in that!!
No doubt… it’s hypocritical… Amen and Amen. Everyone needs to read and understand what God says and stop fooling themselves into thinking they are somehow better off than someone else, or justifying the way they live and choices they make by pretending Scripture says something it doesn’t. Just suck it up, be real and honest and authentic about how you fail (and succeed) and bask in the Glory and Forgiveness of the Risen Lord! Then… stop dwelling on it and go out and live in the Kingdom.
April 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Buddy, Thanks once again for responding which is something I don’t take for granted after years of attempting to engage with people to understand them better only to get a follow up that continues where they left off with no attempt at addressing my questions or recognition that I said anything at all. So again, thank you for reading, listening, and responding thoughtfully.
I’m not sitting here all hurt or upset. Actually, I’m having quite the lovely day. My intention was only to say “confused love” doesn’t sit any better than “lifestyle” but then, you really do get to believe what you believe and I what I believe and we move on from there yes?
Buddy, I’ve read your article on Leviticus several times and again there’s no reference to the exception of father-daughter incestuous relationships but rather than going on about it, I’ll let it go. I’ve written my own bits and pieces about this as well and what the world doesn’t need are dueling interpretations.
Polygamy. Yes, Adam had one wife and Eve had one husband but how do you reach the conclusion that there’s a long history of monogamous relationships until the time of Abram? It would seem far more likely that because Abram’s marriage to Hagar isn’t met with disapprove or surprise on the part of the biblical writers that it wasn’t all so odd or uncommon. Were you referring to Hagar as the woman Abram cheated with? Sarai gave Hagar to her husband “as his wife” and when the Lord speaks to Abram in the next chapter God gives great blessing to Abram with no mention. Again there’s no inference in the biblical writers commentary or in the words attributed to God that Abram’s relationship was either disapproved or even tolerated by God. By the way, Abraham took another woman, Keturah, as his wife, again no negative notice is made by the Biblical writers but instead the names of their children are given, children being a sign of God’s blessing.
Then of course there’s Jacob and his four wives; Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. Once again, there’s no negative word on God’s part regarding all these wives but instead God lifts up Jacob as Israel, from whom the 12 tribes of Israel would be established. If you follow the life of David there are as many as 16-18 wives attributed to him and when David gets called on the carpet it’s not because of polygamy but because of taking the wife of another Uriah before killing him as well. Even more than this Buddy, in 2 Samuel 12:7-8 offers some very clear words that have God through Nathan reminding David that it was he, God, who gave him his home and his wives.
And then there’s Moses….and nearly 35 other recorded instances of multiple wives and none include a negative connotation. Do I personally “condone” polygamy? No. I believe wholeheartedly in monogamous lifetime relationships and that’s certainly what I’m committed to living out in my own life but my objections to polygamy are weak if they’re based on the biblical witness. Yes, the bible is filled with the stories of imperfect people but not because they were polygamists.
Buddy, I think you and I understand the application of Christ’s atonement on the cross a little differently. I agree that Christ saved us from all sin, that which we’ve done and that which we will do, however to know one is actively committing adultery everyday by being remarried and saying “forgiveness covers it” doesn’t fly. When we sin, we repent and are forgiven but in an act of repentance we turn another direction, turning away from the sin and walking in a new way. Try to understand from my perspective. You’re suggesting, please correct me if I’m wrong, that your remarried friend, choosing sin each day by remaining married to his second wife, is forgiven daily and therefore not only lives freely in God’s grace, but can be a member of the church, serve perhaps in areas of ministry and leadership and not be reminded regularly that he is falling short by remaining in sin?
Yes Buddy, it is hypocritical and wrong and because of it there’s deep wounding going on in the hearts and lives of some of God’s people. It’s wrong for the church to turn their eyes away from the sins of some because their sins are more what? Understandable? Identifiable? Socially acceptable? while at the same time vilifying gays and lesbians, rejecting or negating their relationships, and if not prohibiting them from church membership, prohibiting them from serving in ministry and leadership because of their supposed sin. Hypocrisy is a sin, and if a sin, wouldn’t the proper course of action be for the church to repent of that sin, receive God’s forgiveness, and then begin to change it’s direction? That would leave the church to either treat all remarried people in the church as they do gay people or treat all gay and lesbian people like they do those who are remarried.
I remember in the 60’s and 70’s when the church treated remarried members as outcasts. A man who had divorced and remarried couldn’t pastor or serve in any positions of church leadership. A woman who divorced her husband for any reason other than adultery was known as “the divorced woman” and stigmatized. Thank GOD the church finally pulled itself together and found a way to reformulate their application of this issue with regards not only to Scripture but to increased knowledge gained over the centuries (no longer encouraging abused wives to stay with their husbands so they might lead them to Christ in their suffering…and I kid you not) and found a more compassionate approach and attitude. I do believe that day will eventually come around the issue of homosexuality too however in the meantime, it’s simply not enough to be content with acknowledging the hypocrisy if there is no repentance and no commitment to change.
Do I sin? Yes. Do I repent? Yes. Do I fall on the grace of God? Absolutely. I drowned in it, but tomorrow morning, I’ll seek God, asking help in that I not fall into the same sin that plagued me the day before; to not gossip, or be prideful, to not ignore the one who is oppressed, to not take more than I need, ad infinitum. The one sin for which I will not repent however is loving my partner as I do, for attributing the great joy of a life spent in relationship with her to God, and for celebrating all of my life that’s come from the creative hand of God.
My apologies for going on and on. I promise this will be my last novella or soapbox. Don’t want to eat up all Christian’s bandwidth and hospitality
April 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm
No, no, no. This is great, please go on. I am finding this exchange captivating.
April 22, 2008 at 5:34 pm
You mention David and it reminded me that he was guilty of adultery yet Nathan did not call for David and Bathsehba’s deaths. That was the Levitical punishment for adultery. It was also the punishment for homosexuality. Yet no reasonable person takes those sentences seriously any more. Why not?
Of course I have a hard time believing (and this is where Buddy and some other friends have trouble with me) that God actually ordained these horrific penalties. If you’ve read “The Kite Runner” there is a very detailed description of the public stoning of two adulterers by the Taliban. Inhuman and despicable. But of course the Taliban are primitive people living in modern times whereas the Israelites were primitive people living in primitive times. So the times in which we live do have some bearing on how we take scripture.
April 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm
BuddyO said:
Just because someone feels that a persons lifestyle or behavior is outside of what God has planned does not equate to hate. Too often this becomes a black and white question. If you are not “on board” with someones lifestyle then you must be a hater.
Agree, agree, agree. Christian, you said, ‘One person’s sin is often someone else’s harmless way of living.’ That may be so, but it doesn’t change the nature of sin. I don’t particularly care if the sin is homosexuality or lying or disobedience to one’s parents or carnal knowledge of a shellfish, it’s still a violation of our relationship with God. If I’m comfortable with someone’s ‘lifetstyle’ that violates that God-man relationship, then I’m too damn comfortable to be of use to Him.
internetmonk has a great post on the problems with our approach to evangelism. Among other points, he says that we get fixated on things that Christ never talked about, like “God’s plan for our life” and “where will you go when you die,” and miss the whole point of preparing/creating God’s kingdom on earth. Christ mentioned that over and over again. What’s my point? How does being comfy with sin bring about the kingdom?
Christian, I know you own the sheep and goats parable, and, yes, there will likely be a bunch of goats who thought they were sheep. But we just can’t get away from the Scriptural concept of God’s judgment, no matter how we try. Christ loved sinners, then and now, and ministered to them, and as Buddy points out, He usually finished by saying, “I’m glad you’re happy in your lifestyle.” Oops, wrong translation. That should be, “Go and sin no more.”
April 22, 2008 at 5:56 pm
So, Steve. you never eat crabs?
But seriously, you are right. Let’s get working for the kingdom and stop worrying so much about the sins of others. I’ll take “Go and sin no more” from Christ but there are few others that I would take that from. Not even you, good buddy.
April 22, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Because…..
April 22, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Sure. You can’t beat a table full of blue crabs and a pitcher at Captain Billy’s in Pope’s Creek MD. Meat offered to idols is great, so long as it doesn’t cause someone else to stumble.
I guess I would take exception to “Let’s get working for the kingdom and stop worrying about the sins of others.” I don’t have the answer for the right way to call people on their sin, but ignoring it isn’t the answer either. (That was the point of the Ezekiel 33:6 watchman passage.) A friend is the praise team leader at a fundie church we used to attend. There was a woman on the team that was having an open affair with a guy who was not her husband. My friend took the Scriptural approach and confronted her with another person. I thought he handled it well, but she blew up and got all “how dare you” on him. He ended up taking her off the team and she ended up leaving “to find a more forgiving church.” It was a very painful for all concerned, but it needed to be done. He could have swept it under the rug, but he didn’t. How much cat poop is acceptable in a plate of brownies? Any? Just a bit?
We need to not be afraid to call a spade a spade and not an entrenching tool. How to do it with love and respect and grace? I don’t know.
Now go and don’t sin very much.
April 22, 2008 at 6:33 pm
No. I have a few more good sins left in my quiver, thank you very much.
But the example you make is a good one. And I think it touches upon something I said earlier. In your friend’s case (and I think he very much did the right thing) the woman concerned was party to a betrayal, a deceit that was inevitably leading to the hurt of more than just herself and the other infidel (wow - that word actually works here!). But….that course of action would have been repeated in just about any ‘progressive’ church I am familiar with. It is that ‘fundamental’ of an issue. I don’t think it is analogous to what Anita has described.
I mentioned the two middle aged gay fellows in my old church - a pretty ‘fundie’ church btw. Buddy will remember them. They came to worship every week. Buddy (if you are lurking out there) why did we never confront them on their sin?
April 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Oh- “very much”. I missed that. You made me chuckle twice.
April 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Buddy,
Thank you for your response. My question was not mean to be loaded. I understand that you were not at all talking about sex when you compared homosexuality with incest.
I also understand what you are trying to say about the confused love. I use to think and teach others the same thing.
In comparing love, I would rather think that my love toward my partner is much like the love you have for your wife. Genuine, sincere, deep, respectful, selfless, mutual and consenting, not confusing. The one and only difference is the gender difference.
I think the confused love you speak of in a relationship between a child and their parent is much different than your relationship with your wife and mine with my partner.
April 22, 2008 at 10:56 pm
‘Confused Love’ - love is my ’speciality’ i am learning more every day.
I assume that this phrase is from a more ‘liberal english’ translation of Scripture since i cannot find it in my KJV
Love is NEVER confused. Man is frequently, however.
Homosexuality is NOT a sin - read your bible properly - or get a better translation of yours say it is.
The ’sin’ is the UNnatural use of a man by a man (and presumably also a woman by a woman) to meet our own selfish desires and not truly demonstrating God’s Love and the ‘proper’ use of sexual intercourse.
Making sex a thing of sole pleasure and not procreation is to give ourselves over to our own lusts It is NOT as God so intended.
Showing Love for a man or a woman - true love for them is always acceptable regardless of who is doing the loving. What is NOT acceptable is when we are unable to dissociate that love with our own desire of the flesh - our own selfish pleasure, and not as God intended a caring for unconditionally giving and uplifting of ourselves and the object of our love.
As for polygamy and Incest - i believe there are human laws against such things, as there once used to be against homosexuality, in our country’s.
Christ was quite clear - we are to love our neighbour, male AND female.
A Husband MAY cleave to a wife as ONE flesh (so that a man and wife may make ONE child as Adam and Eve did with Cain and Abel. ( and clearly Cain and Abel’s wives so that must mean brother and sister…. Hmmmm!)
I believe we are to look to Christ as our role model and we are to concern ourselves more with removing our own error than pointing fingers at other’s error…Hmmmmmm (Revelation!)
Finally! - He’s speaking to me!
You heard it here first, folks!
<B
April 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Love- So, based on what you just said…….
Making sex a thing of sole pleasure and not procreation is to give ourselves over to our own lusts It is NOT as God so intended.
In your opinion, it would be ok in God’s eyes to have the relationship with my partner that I have, as long as we weren’t sexually intimate?
April 23, 2008 at 2:25 am
Steph - I don’t know what kind of relationship you have so of course i can’t answer that. You might physically abuse or mentally dominate your partner (or vice versa) - As humans we have many perverse desires.
But i am quite certain Scripture says the unnatural sex is the sin - not feelings of love - ‘confused’ or otherwise!
It is our base, earthly lusts that get us into the most trouble with God.
I believe Jesus was able to remove all such personal selfish desire from Him - we are to learn how to do the same so that we may ALWAYS do our Father’s Will. ( Casting off the ‘old man’).
Anita?, Buddy?, Chris? (ABC lol) any thoughts?
<B
April 23, 2008 at 6:08 am
Well, I don’t agree with the RC take on sex. It is for more than just procreation. It can be a supremely celebration of intimacy. In some ways it is symbolic the triune relationship. And of course, it can be just plain fun. And I think God is OK with that as well. Otherwise, should we cease having sex once we are past our child bearing years? Should we never practice birth control?
Believers talk a lot about sex. Many non-believers think we are obsessed with it. Compared to exhortations in the bible - those of the prophets, including Jesus - why do we spend such an inordinate amount of time on it? Jesus spends much much more time talking about money than sex.
The Jews do not seem to be as concerned as Christians. Is it because they do not have Paul and Augustine?
April 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
For the record, I never used the phrase “confused love” please don’t attribute that to me, Anita was the first in this thread to use that phrase.
Anita, Stephanie and Chris,
I believe it is your desire to have a meaningful, considerate, peaceful dialog about this topic. From an outsiders point of view I would recommend that you refrain from using the debating device “I used to feel that way but now…”. This has come up from each of you many times in this thread. To someone whom you are in conversation with it really reads as a condescending passive-aggressive way of saying “Back when I was a naive, unenlightened idiot like yourself, I felt…”. No problems here, just some friendly advice for future conversations if you prefer to keep them civil.
OK, this has to be quick….
Polygamy. From Adam to Abram there are few (none?) examples of non-monogamous marriages. According to Biblical scholars that constitutes half of history. There are few (none?)examples of non-monogamous marriages in the New Testament, and since Jesus it has become the minority. So, mathematically and statistically over the span of history polygamy is in the minority. The fact that the writers of the Old Testament didn’t add commentary makes perfect sense to me, particularly when you understand that during that time (from Abram to Christ) God was forming the morality of the nation of Israel.
No, I’m not saying that just because we are forgiven we can do whatever we want… too long to get into here… Lets just put it this way. If you are successful in never committing the same sin twice than you are a better person than I. I admit that I am in sin everyday. To go even 30 years without returning to a sin I would need almost 11,000 unique and different sins… If I were to make a list, I could probably come up with maybe 30 sins that I am guilty of… OK, I’ll pick one, pride. I know that I revisit that every day of my life. While I may have better days than others, I am pretty sure that I will never be able to fully rid myself of that sin. So what do I do? Beat myself every day about it? Why… do I feel that the beating that Christ took for my sin wasn’t sufficient?? …. I talk with Him about it daily, I work as hard as I can at changing but I also understand that I won’t (can’t) be perfect…
Anita, sounds like you have problems with the modern church machine… well, amen, we have common ground there. Why would a church treat anyone with anything but love? I don’t understand either.
Steve, thanks for agreeing. I was starting to feel out on an island.
Chris, here’s a scripture to add to your list James 5:19-20
Chris, the two gentlemen you mention were not alone at our old church. There were several other couples (and singles) as well. I’m not surprised that you didn’t know who they were because no one needed to know their sexual orientation, they were just family members… not gay family members. Chris, do you really feel that being gay is a sin?? We obviously didn’t that’s why they were never confronted. I’m surprised at you!
Stephanie said:
Yeah, I used to believe that but now I understand how much deeper the love of the opposite gender can be…. Got ya, Just kidding…
LWBUT, I am assuming your initial diatribe is not aimed at me because if you read my comments you see we are saying the exact same thing…
Actually, lust can be pretty fun too… as long as it’s directed toward your monogamous spouse.
April 23, 2008 at 10:42 am
I agree Christian. I may be wrong, but I don’t think many heterosexual folks stop being intimate with their spouses once the kids have been created.
This really has little to do with sex anyway. I think this is where many get tripped up on this topic.
I do believe that motive is everything. If someones motive was to fulfill their own lustful desires, then it’s wrong. (Rape, child molesting, gold diggers as many call them, etc., etc.)
But we are talking about something totally different here. Something that has very little to do with sex or fulfilling lustful desires. My relationship with my partner is no more lustful than a man for is wife.
Just so you know Love, when I say I have genuine, sincere, deep, respectful, selfless, mutual and consenting, not confusing love for my partner, I can’t at the same time physically abuse her or mentally dominate her. It is my belief that the two contradict one another.
April 23, 2008 at 11:22 am
Buddy-
You’re funny.
And so everyone knows, when I say “I use to feel the same way”, I’m stating nothing more than my views or my opinions have change. Nothing more. Although I can be aggressive and condescending at times, I don’t feel I have an ounce of making someone feel like an idiot here and I apologize if I have contributed to making anyone feel that way.
I think this has been awesome! I have really enjoyed this post and everyone’s comments. This is one of the few post I have come aross that has folks who actually can have a conversation about this topic without blowing up and insulting one another.
Buddd
I have really enjoyed this post and everyone you has commented.
April 23, 2008 at 11:26 am
Wow, so, I’m not sure how I just posted that last comment without hitting submit. I wasn’t quite done deleting my error. So, skip that last part that starts with Buddd. I apologize for the strange read.
April 23, 2008 at 11:36 am
Back when I was a young, naïve, unenlightened idiot (I grew up in the 50’s /60’s) the divorce rate was 28% lower, pregnancy out of wedlock was 55% lower, murder was 22% lower, drug addiction was 38% lower, and I could go on and on. Change is not always a good thing and enlightenment is most of the time little more than an overstated point of view. Sometimes I find myself singing, “Give me that old time religion” and not knowing how that song got in my head. Change in the attitudes of mainstream Christianity was, and is, definitely needed but let’s be careful not to through the baby out with the bathwater.
April 23, 2008 at 11:45 am
Buddy, you are right (about the rhetoric some of us have been using) Good point and I wish someone had brought it to my attention earlier. I’ll try to refrain from saying that without some background, which is it that my intent is really to show that I can be empathetic to that particular point of view. But your point is taken.
I am not surprised to hear that there were other gays in our church. Not that I would necessarily have recognized anyone as such - I only knew about those fellows because I knew them outside of church. And it seemed that quite a few members also knew they were gay. But, I thought that was your point, that homosexuality is a sin. I was pretty sure most of our old congregation felt that way as well, even heard a sermon on it once, and yet we never attempted to “turn these sinners from the error of their ways’. Seriously, am I missing something here?
You know, Steph, I think you are right about this not really being about sex. I even wonder if some of those things you mentioned; rape, child molesting, gold digging - how much of what drives these acts is a result of sexual lust. I’ve heard that rapist are acting out a violent expression of their anger and hatred, some pedophiles are attempting, in a twisted way, to relieve the pain left over from their own childhood abuse and gold diggers are just greedy sociopaths. Sex is an avenue, not the goal.
You know? I’ve enjoyed this thread as well.
April 23, 2008 at 11:55 am
Net, those are great points. There is something(s) troubling this society and I think Buddy’s professed problem is everyone’s problem - pride. I think that the problems are more of a result of everyone looking out for number 1, even if that means reneging on commitments or being irresponsibly promiscuous or reaching for immediate psychological gratification or ignoring the ongoing cycle of systemic poverty that has resulted in some of those statistics you cite.
But I don’t know how homosexuality has impacted any of those categories you mentioned. I think I understand your point - we seem to have thrown off all restraints - self discipline is a thing of the past. And we need to return to much of what we used to have in the way of societal values. But to turn around what you said, we needn’t return to ALL of those values.
April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Yes Christian, that is one of the many thing I’m trying to express.
Behind all those things mentioned, there is some selfish/lustful desire.
I have seen both heterosexual and homosexual folks attempt to be in relationships simply for the sex, for self gratification or to fulfill lustful desires. Wrong motive, horrible effects on other people and just a plain bad outcome. Not just for those involved but for others around them.
I don’t believe this is the case behind those who are in loving, committed relationship with the motive of loving their spouse/partner with all of their heart.
Motive.
April 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Chris, you mostly got what I was saying and what you didn’t Steph has shown you. And yes! yes! yes! turn it around. But not the values so much as the laws and rules.
April 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Christian,
Thanks for this thread and frankly everyone: thanks for the great open discussion. I look forward to a day when Christians no longer pick a church based on its homosexual stance.
BTW Chris, I was staring at the picture for a long time trying to figure out the connection you were making… I’m a little naive. You think.
April 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I really wish I could see the simplicity that we talked about briefly Chris.
R
April 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Ric - it’s the rainbow. The rainbow. Jeesh!
Rob, if you are referring to that little mini-discussion that we had on another blog, I think you can find it here on this thread. No one said that becoming a follower of Christ would mean that we would agree on everything. There’s been too many examples of too much religious muddying of God’s message over the past four or five thousand years for that to happen. But even with the different points of view found in this conversation there is evident a level of respect that all the participants have shown for each other that (I think) comes out of their love for Christ.
As Buddy said over on another thread (I can’t remember which one) we just need to ‘deconstruct’ and we will find the truth. That’s what we are trying to do.
April 23, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Chris said:
“just need to ‘deconstruct’ and we will find the truth”
Robert says:
And clearly you are good at that…
But it just seems to me that a supreme being with the resources He is claimed to have…
He could have spoken much clearer and more concisely.
This would have eliminated the need for the dizzying array of apologetics and their authors who, I’m sorry, are as cryptic and clear as lawyers.
I consider my own moral compass much easier to follow and less tedious.
I’m not suggesting I’m perfect…far from it….but I’m much closer than any Pope Clement or Martin Luther when you look at their respective views of morality.
R.
April 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think he was pretty clear. One of the points of his message is stop being so obsessed with yourselves - you’re not animals (sorry
) . Start thinking of things outside of yourselves - like others for a change. Look outwards and upwards towards God.
That doesn’t seem to be enough for us, so we have to go and make ‘religion’ out of it.
I don’t agree that you have your own moral compass - I don’t think a moral compass fits in with Darwinism, but we’ll save that for your site. I think the magnetism that works your compass is provided by God. The problem is that sometimes, in fact just about all the time, our moral compass will fail us. So it helps to know which way is true North. (If you get my drift
)
April 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I should not have said that you do not have your own moral compass. Of course you do. I shoud’ve said that when your compass is pointing in the right direction it is not you alone that it is attracted to. It is God. (IMHO)
I also am not opposed to Darwinism (up to a point) but think that a compass that would be the by product of nothing other than natural selection would have been (naturally) an amoral compass.
April 24, 2008 at 6:17 am
Christian said:
“I shoud’ve said that when your compass is pointing in the right direction it is not you alone that it is attracted to. It is God.”
Robert responds
I know enough about you and your character to know what you meant even though you feel you misspoke.
While I posit that the constructs we call morals are products of societal evolution your contention is that these are written into our consciousness by God.
As long as we arrive at the SAME goal maybe it’s not so important how we’ve gotten there.
Maybe it IS important.
I’m still wrestling over whether these two disparate views can ever co-exist in a modern world.
R.
April 24, 2008 at 11:53 am
Buddy,
I take full responsibility for coining “confused love” which I was using as a more easily manageable phrase than referring to your exact wording each time which was
My apologies if my abbreviated take on what you said implied anything you didn’t intend.
Let me offer this assurance. When I used that phrase there was nothing condescending or passive-aggressive in my intent, so please while I thank you for
cluing me in as to how it might be received, I would ask in return it not be painted with that intent.
The simple fact is, I’ve stood in both places. I was saying nothing but was absolutely true for me. I don’t consider myself enlightened or standing on some higher ground when I say that but neither will I deny that there was a time when I condemned homosexuality based on the scriptural teaching I sat under, and in that being part of my background, I truly understand the strong commitment people have who hold the position that homosexuality is a sin. It’s the reason I even bother to engage in conversations like the one Christian has graciously provided here.
Ultimately, in my opinion, no one can say with absolute 100% certainty they’re beliefs around this are the truth and the whole truth because while we all read the same scriptures we all don’t walk away with the same meaning, but we walk away with the meaning that’s the most true for us and we’d be less than faithful if we chose to live out something different or espouse something different than what we believed to be true. In the end, if I’ve based my life on what isn’t true or shared what isn’t true then I’ll repent humbly and fully for that and will fall on the mercy of God who knows that not for one single moment have I spoken one word more or less than what I truly believe. And I believe the same potential for error and for mercy exists for you Buddy, or for Christian, or for whoever holds any belief in the will of God that has strayed from God’s intent.
Again, I’ve not added one single word to this discussion that hasn’t come from my heart and from a simple desire to engage with others in questions of faith that matter to us all. No set ups. No hidden agenda. No condescending attitude. My words have been spoken only as a sister in Christ to those I hold as equal members of God’s family who take their faith as seriously and as gratefully as do I.
Word out
April 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Anita,
I didn’t take it any other way. It’s been very civil. I was just offering some advice for those conversations that are less than civil.
I certianly wouldn’t condemn anyone for choices that they make. I hope I’ve been clear in that. I am definitely condemnation free…
Amen.. that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. That doesn’t mean that we count on being forgiven so we don’t have to take account of what we do. It means that we have the securtiy of of God’s unending love and forgiveness so we don’t need to beat ourselves up about being imperfect.
coupled with:
Gives the impression that Scripture somehow changed, when in reality you were the one that changed. Isn’t it feasable that someone could re-read scripture after making a descision or realization and with that filter read what they want to hear (Paul call it itchy ears)? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to read Scripture for truth before making a descision or realization? I understand that there is a theology that says that God’s truth is not aboslute, that’s cool, just not an idea that I subscribe to… admitedly, sometimes makes things in Scripture a little hard to swallow… but I find comfort in that, makes it easier to spot my own imperfections.
April 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I understood what Buddy means about the ‘less than civil’ conversations. He has witnessed some difficulties that I have had with some people who have been passionately opposed to my points of view. I can see now how I have been provocative when not meaning to be (not that provocation has never been my intent
)
Anita - beautifully put. Thanks.
Buddy -” Wouldn’t it be more prudent to read Scripture for truth before making a descision or realization?”
I don’t want to answer for Anita, but considering her testimony concerning all her years spent in serious ministry, I would assume that this is precisely what she has done.
God’s truth is absolute. How can it not be? What apparently is far from being absolute is our understanding of his truth. What other reason could there be for those of us who love the Lord not agreeing on what it is the Lord said?
I’ve heard other folks frankly say that those who disagree with their interpretations are obviously denying God’s truth, picking and choosing from scriptures, or so self interested that they cannot accept the ‘hard’ lessons of the Bible. The problem is that this argument can be addressed right back at them by the very people that they accuse. And with just as much scriptural support.
Janice p