My lovely wife pointed out a mistake that I made the other day (something she just hates to do). In the post Love Check for Evangelicals, I quoted her as saying that the expression “love the sinner, hate the sin” is not only un-biblical but really nothing more than a Christian cop-out.
I had forgotten to share the most important part of what she said; whereas Jesus does not compel us to hate, he does compel us to forgive, no matter what the sin and as often as necessary.
“Love the sinner and forgive the sin.” Now, that’s more like it.
that is very very good!
By: fireball3316 on November 16, 2008
at 10:41 pm
Well said . . . . . . . .I think.
Can we love the sinner and forgive the sinner, but hate the sin? Does forgiving the sinner mean we ignore the sin? I hope that’s not what you mean. I think as we reach out in love we also confront evil and call it for what it is. Jesus forgave, but he also said, “go, and sin no more”. I find Scripture to show Jesus very tolerant of sinners but pretty intolerant of sin.
Peace,
By: papasteve on November 16, 2008
at 10:55 pm
Oh. Here we go again–can’t you make up your @#$%^&*
mind?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 16, 2008
at 11:39 pm
Welcome, Fireball.
Steve, I think we are called to confront sin (is that really the same as evil? I don’t know about that….) but let’s work on the sin in our own hearts first. Or the sin that causes direct harm to others (evil). There’s enough of that to take care of most of our spare time.
I agree that Jesus was intolerant of sin. But then he could afford to be, couldn’t he? He said let ‘he that is without sin cast the first stone’. The way I figure it, just about all stones should be grounded.
I’ve got a little stone on my desk that is hand painted with those words, just in case I ever forget (like 10 or 20 times a day).
Bruce, whatsamatta? You nuts? I ain’t changed my position here. You takin’ your vitamin pills? And watch your language, please!
By: Christian Beyer on November 17, 2008
at 12:12 am
Christian, I love the spirit of this post, however Paul tells us to hate what is evil ie sin. Can we not hate sin and forgive the sinner?
By: rogueminister on November 17, 2008
at 12:22 am
Hi Rogue. In my opinion, not very easily. It’s too tempting to hate the sinner as well.
First, semantically speaking, I don’t know if I agree with you that all sin is evil, at least not what evil has come to mean in the modern day. I think sin is separation from God and we all experience it to varying degrees. Unchecked sin can certainly lead to evil actions.
Is confronting sin the same as ‘hating’ sin? When I think of people ‘hating’ sin it reminds me of people who can not tolerate tardiness of any sort and are correspondingly very proud of their punctuality. “Those who’s virtues are singular tend to make the most of them”
I can see us hating sin in our own lives or hating the effects of sin in the lives of others. But more commonly I think we find ourselves hating those sins of others that we are least likely to be tempted by, or conversely those sins we are most tempted by but unwilling to face (ala Ted Haggard). Was his great sin being homosexual? Or was it taking out his anxiety and fears on others and misleading people who trusted in him in the process? A little less hate and a little more forgiveness couldn’t have hurt.
By: Christian Beyer on November 17, 2008
at 12:28 am
Maybe if we love people and sacrifice for them as we forgive them it does cause us to hate sin because we realize that sin is killing them. So in that way I would still claim hate the sin because if I really love that person and I see that their sin is destroying them. If we truly love them, and I mean really love them, not in a from a distance “love”, then I think we will grown to hate sin more and more.
For instance, one of my best friends and accountability partners had an addiction, one sin he kept going to over and over again, because I loved him so much I really began to hate the sin because it was hurting him and those around him. My love for him caused me to hate his sin.
Maybe we are sort of saying the same thing, I guess I hated the effects, but I think I also hated the sin itself because I know that sin leads to death.
Again though, I appreciate this post because I think you are absolutely right when we make statements like this it often gives us excuse to distance ourselves from people and judge them.
By: rogueminister on November 17, 2008
at 1:06 am
I think that what you are touching upon is that in order to really love people we need to understand a bit more about them. Love is such a difficult word – it runs all over the emotional field.
I think you are right. When we see people we love being hurt by sin, their own or others, we start to hate that which hurts them. It’s tough not to hate the people that might be hurting them or enabling them, though.
Addiction is a great example. I’ve had someone I love very dearly be caught up in addiction. I made it known right up front how I felt about the drug use but then I just focused on trying to love him and let him know that I also had ’sins’ (I don’t think this is always a helpful word – it carries a lot of the wrong baggage) that plague me. I didn’t think it would help to constantly remind him how much I hated his ’sin’ when it was all too apparent that he hated it much more than I did.
How does this idea apply those who address sins of society or groups that they are removed from?
By: Christian Beyer on November 17, 2008
at 7:15 am
It seems to me that you’re attempting to lay aside a large portion of biblical teaching because it’s hard to do. Loving the sinner and forgiving the sinner but hating the sin is hard work . .it takes resurrection power working in the life of the Christian to be truely realized. (they’ll know we are Christians by our love).
The wages of sin are eternal seperation from God. Make no doubt about it . ..sin is evil.
Confronting it in love is no easy task. It’s our primary role as parents. We are to balance communicating to our children the ideas that “there is nothing on this earth you can do that will make me stop loving you” with the idea of “I will never let you get away with sin, I will call it what it is and deal with it every time”
I wonder what the world would be like if we didn’t discipline our children because we felt we weren’t worthy to throw the first stone?
Ignoring sin because we’re afraid of being judgmental in the process (or giving the appearance as such) is a very unloving thing to do.
By: papasteve on November 17, 2008
at 8:09 am
Your wife is wise. I often wondered of the source of the wisdom I read here.
(I do believe we will be having this discussion for the remainder of our time here.)
By: ric booth on November 17, 2008
at 9:22 am
Steve, I see your point. I don’t think that evil should be ignored or rationalized, but I seriously doubt that the relational responsibility of parenthood is analogous to that of an enlightened Christian confronting someone over the sin that they claim to hate. Few people will respond positively to being treated as if they are misguided children.
If we are good parents then disciplining our children should not take up that much of our time. With children, as with anyone, it is better to look for and point out that which is good in them, that which is ‘lovable’, rather than identifying them with their sin.
When we focus on our own sin, attempting to willfully remove it from our lives, we often fail miserably. But by continuing to focus on Christ and his commandments to love and serve others we may find that there is less and less room for the sins that plague us. Why would this not work when we encounter other’s sin? (BTW -where do we draw the line? I haven’t encountered any sinless folk yet, and that includes all Christians)
Ric – you are going to make her mad, confusing her true wisdom with what I am peddling over here.
By: Christian Beyer on November 17, 2008
at 10:49 am
Ric, I thought I’d borrow some of that Chaucer you shared with us over on your site. Thought it was pertinent.
“Torment thee not all crooked to redress,
Nor put thy trust in fortune’s turning ball;
Great peace is found in little busy-ness,
And war but kicks against a sharpened awl;
Strive not, thou earthen pot, to break the wall;
Subdue thyself, and others thee shall hear;
And Truth shall make thee free, there is no
By: Christian Beyer on November 17, 2008
at 1:04 pm
Iz it Luv or is ir 4-Give?
By: logiopsychopathivorytowerdweller on November 17, 2008
at 1:14 pm
I believe one of the best examples in Scripture relating to hating sin and loving the sinner can be found in 1 Cor 5. I’m sure you have read the story. Paul goes from total hatred of the sin, righteous indignation, a judgmental attitude, a command to remove the sinner from the congregation, and back to “What love and reconciliation really mean.” in 2 Cor 2.
I think this shows both the love and dangers of “hate the sin but love the sinner.” We as followers should let the true leaders of the Body (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) handle the condemnation stuff and spend our efforts on working out our own salvation and loving our Brothers and Sisters through their reconciliation process… only if they ask for our help!
In other words, keep our nose out, our eye clear, our mouth full of prayer and our heart full of forgiveness.
By: netprophet on November 17, 2008
at 2:29 pm
I think I’ll have to take Chaucer to an open mic sometime.
By: ric booth on November 17, 2008
at 6:15 pm
Here is the problem that I see being discussed above (re: love the sinner, hate the sin, forgive the sinner). It has been said that the primary reason the city of Sodom was destroyed was homosexuality. In Ezekiel, God himself describes why he destroyed Sodom as follows:
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Certainly homosexuality was an outcome – or symptom – of a sever sin problem in this community. So try to imagine this scenario: You are a Christian and you stumble into a town and see a whole lot a rampant sin going on – the evidence is everywhere. Let’s say you’ve stumbled into the town of Sodom.
As a Christian you are taught to confront the sin; will you tackle the arrogance, gluttony, lack of caring, lack of treatment of the poor and needy, or the haughtiness? Or will you walk around telling the people that they shouldn’t be doing detestable things?
Forget what you would call out in confronting the sin – would you even see (discern, recognize) the sin that was being committed, or would you only see the external outcome of the sin that was clearly rampant; the symptom or the consequence?
I believe this is the difficulty that is being expressed in the statement, “Hate the sin, love (or forgive) the sinner.”
The easy part is to see the symptoms; the difficult part is to get relational with a person; love them; and find out what’s really eating at them on the inside.
By: b4dguy on November 18, 2008
at 11:58 am
Well put, Bad.
“would you even see (discern, recognize) the sin that was being committed”
Good question. Not likely, if those sins are ones that you also own but have rationalized.
For example, we are an enlightened country because we made slavery illegal almost 150 years ago. Yet we still buy products made by ’slaves’ in other countries – unless you believe that the Brazilian coffee farmer or the Chinese prison worker is truly free. And we do this because it saves us money.
I know a fellow, happens to be gay and calls himself a Christian. All the clothing he wears is made by a fair trade company called ‘No Sweats’ ( it’s not clothing marketed towards the gay community – I know a few other folks who happen to b straight that wear these as well). He also buys only fair trade coffee and other products. It’s expensive to to do t but he can afford it because he can’t spend too much money on electronics because so much is made in China. He doesn’t have a TV or a computer. Lives in the city and rides a bike to get around, so he buys no gas, pays no insurance and has no car payment. He works in a couple of different social programs – one for children and another for battered women. Active in his church.
The funny thing is, although he knows of my sins (because I am an excessively wasteful American consumer who has little time for charity work) he never calls me on the carpet for it. And I should bust him for being homosexual?
By: Christian Beyer on November 18, 2008
at 1:22 pm
Hmm.
By: logiopsychopathivorytowerdweller on November 18, 2008
at 3:30 pm
Actually, under what I’ve been reading on this blog, what is left to call sin?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 18, 2008
at 10:51 pm
I don’t think anyone has suggested, as you seem to be implying, Bruce, that there is no such thing as sin. Perhaps the answer is found in the wording of your question. Is that supposed to be the major focus of the Christian life? Calling out sin?
Seems like that would take up most of our time, if we were even handed about it.
By: Christian Beyer on November 18, 2008
at 11:32 pm
I don’t think anyone should make it a “focus”, so to speak. We love people into the kingdom but we also don’t enable sinful behavior by ignoring it. We can speak the truth in love when it’s called for.
I know this is a very poor forum to have such a discussion as its hard for each person to be able to be understood in context . .but I get the feeling that you’re more concerned about being “liked” than being like Christ. Again, we speak the truth in love . .we love people into the kingdom. The gospel is the “good news”. But, most people have to see the bad news before they can appreciate the good news.
By: papasteve on November 19, 2008
at 12:16 am
You wrote,
“I . . . seem to be implying . . . there is no such thing as sin.”
Come on Chris. What are you doing here?
You’ve redefined everything, have you not?
Touche.
Logiopsychopathetc.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 19, 2008
at 7:05 am
But seriously, folks. Either call sin sin (whatever that means) or don’t.
“Worship the Lord! Pay attention or leave.”
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 19, 2008
at 7:07 am
No Steve, being liked is not important. I think that is a common, yet off base, accusation that confrontational Christians make of those who object to hard handed rhetoric. Being like Christ – that’s a good prescription. As I said before, Christ could confront the sinner with their sin because he had no sin. Unless we are without sin ourselves we should be very careful about confronting the sins of others, and in those cases it would be best to know their hearts first (like Christ did). If we reach the point where where our self-examination has caused us to think that we are now righteousness enough to confront their sin without hesitation, then woe be it for us.
Besides, Christ didn’t march, form picket lines, wear slogans on tee-shirts or carry inflammatory placards.
Bruce -why are teasing us with little Zen-like koans?
Spit it out, man! I (and others) have made it plain that we are not attempting to re-define sin (although that is worthy of some discussion) but evaluating how we should confront it.
As Dallas Willard puts it in “The Divine Conspiracy”, being blinded by the planks in our own eyes, we cast out our scriptural pearls of wisdom and the recipients of our efforts recognize that we are hypocrites and turn and tear us to pieces, often using those same ‘pearls’.
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 7:38 am
Great thoughtful post, as always.
Besides, Christ didn’t march, form picket lines, wear slogans on tee-shirts or carry inflammatory placards.
But I thought he was a community organizer…
Logio said, “Actually, under what I’ve been reading on this blog, what is left to call sin?”
I’m probably taking him out of context, but I have to agree that the trend seems to be to minimize the importance or even existence of sin. ‘Focus on your own life, don’t worry about others who continue in sin.’ True, the focus in much of 20th century evangelicalism and fundamentalism was too often other peoples’ sin rather than Christlikeness, but it’s bad theology and bad practice to pretend sin is irrelevant.
By: Steve on November 19, 2008
at 11:14 am
I’m not sure about others’ perspective, but for me it is not diminishing “sin” it is actually expanding our understanding of sin beyond the visible or surface sin to the depths of our soul (and who really wants to go there).
I sin every day – in big ways. I’m also very practiced at not letting my sin show; which is where I think most peoples’ efforts are expended. This, to me, is little more than behavior modification.
The person that “looks” like they are not sinning may be committing more heinous sins than anyone can imagine; in contrast, the person that has some visible sin problem may just be acting out in some way that we may or may not discern is symptomatic of a much deeper issue.
Look at the Ezekiel passage again. The sin of the people was not always readily apparent; their actions based on their sin (which is also sin) was what most people cite.
We talk about what we can see – but clearly God is more concerned with the heart – with what is going on inside of us. In this sense, it is not readily apparent what a “good” Christian looks like, or whether the behavioral sin/moral code violation is really the sin or not.
If we are relating to an unbeliever the ONLY sin with which we should be concerned is that they have turned from God. They need salvation – not behavior modification that leads to salvation. Not to minimize the impact of sin, but I believe that the first order of business is to save the person’s soul; then God will begin to deal with them on their specific sin issues, according to His perfect timing and His economy, and God’s agenda may not even come close to the “natural” agenda that we generally place on people – in effect, a set of moral codes/behaviors that a particular church places upon its people. The codes are slightly different, the emphasis of what is most important varies, the distinctive doctrines bubble to the top – but we tend to gravitate to the code with which we mostly agree and/or the one that we think we can best accomplish (and thus making us more consecrated, holy, and/or sanctified).
Sin is absolute and severe as are its consequences. God hates sin – but not because of the sin itself; he hates that his people hurt themselves and each other. Hopefully all can agree that sin is hurtful; and that all of us are walking wounded because of the consequences of our own and others’ sin.
By: b4dguy on November 19, 2008
at 12:15 pm
Thanks for this continued discussion. I like the explanations provided by badguy and Christian. As a real world example, I remember talking to my counselor back in the mid 90’s when my teenage daughter was doing drugs.
The counselor asked me in one of my turning point sessions, “What is your goal?”
To which I responded, without hesitation, “I want my daughter to get off of drugs and to stay off.”
“No, no… that’s what you want your daughter’s goal to be.”
“Ooookay… well my goal that’s my goal too!” (it seemed so simple from a daddy point of view at the time.)
“Alright… that’s not your personal goal for yourself. That’s one of your desires for someone else. What is your personal goal for yourself? Something you can control.”
“…” [I did not actually have one at the time... which was his point... which was my problem]
—————–
Too often, we desperately want to see change in other peoples lives much more than we want to see change in our own.
By: ric booth on November 19, 2008
at 1:37 pm
Steve, I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that sin be considered irrelevant but I think Bad has addressed that better than I have.
“I’m also very practiced at not letting my sin show; which is where I think most peoples’ efforts are expended”
I like this point Bad makes. Does honesty somehow enter into what we are talking about here.
“Hopefully all can agree that sin is hurtful”
I don’t think we all can agree on this. Look at the folks who have been dismayed that some of us would not only enjoy drinking beer but dare to “flaunt” it. Sort of like two sins in one. Yet who is being hurt here?
As a new Methodist I remember hiding the wine glasses and corkscrews in my house whenever church friends would come over. Was I sinning by drinking wine? Of course not. Was I sinning by being dishonest about it? Probably.
Some say that it need only offend God for it to be sin. Hence the wine bibber or the gay couple – they may not be hurting anyone at all but it is said that their crime is one of disobedience. But what severe consequences will they suffer on this earth? Or will the consequences come later?
Better to be safe than sorry, eh?
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 1:43 pm
Who says drinking beer is a sin? There is no place in Scripture that says thou shalt not drink. We were actually advised by a pastor one time not to “do not drink” but to “hide the evidence.” I think there is a sin there – but it wasn’t mine.
Scripture again is pretty clear on what is a sin and what is not a sin (on things not already clearly addressed as sins in the Bible). However the clarity is provided in terms of guidelines like – follow your conscience, and err on the side of others, and put their needs ahead of yours.
I think the consequences are here and now; and I marvel that I haven’t suffered more than I have as a consequence, or that I just don’t see the damage that has been done. I am sometimes reminded of Mel Gibson’s quote at the beginning of the movie, “The Patriot”: “I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost would be more than I could bear. “
By: b4dguy on November 19, 2008
at 5:45 pm
Bad Karma, huh?
You don’t think for a moment that I associate any sin with beer, do you?
“Scripture again is pretty clear on what is a sin and what is not a sin (on things not already clearly addressed as sins in the Bible)”
Then why the debate over homosexuality? Or divorce? Or beer?
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 7:16 pm
Jesus didn’t have to teach us about hating sin, God had already taken care of given us example of that. Actually, in Psalm 5 the psalmist actually states that God indeed hates the sinner as well as the sin.
By: BuddyO on November 19, 2008
at 7:21 pm
Ric, sorry. Your comment just slid right on by, you are sooo smooooth.
Been there a few times myself. At times I’ve found myself, when dealing with people I love who are struggling with their sin, trying so hard to work with them, encouraging them, chastising them, praying for some sort of change in them. And all the while worrying so much.
Finally I just give up, and say to God; ‘OK, I quit. It’s all yours. Just help me to deal with it, whatever it is you decide to do.” Amazing how things suddenly begin to get better, with them, and with me, when that happens.
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 7:26 pm
Hey, Buddy, the psalmist could be wrong. (Gasp!) He certainly is wrong (by Jesus’ standards) when he calls for destruction upon his enemies.
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 7:28 pm
We (naturally, considering the forum) keep talking about ‘hating sin’ from a theological perspective. But does anyone here think that ‘hate’, in any form, is a very healthy emotion to entertain?
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 7:31 pm
Wow… How do you say someone’s prayer and cry to God is wrong… that’s kind of cold dude… That’s why I don’t write my prayers down, I don’t want them critiqued by people who don’t know me.
Perhaps he misrepresented Gods feelings toward those who do wrong… after all how does anyone really know what God feels about anyone? Possible… what does it mean if he’s correct? Does that mean that perhaps some people might have the wrong ‘Puzzle Box Top’ and just throw away a difficult piece because it doesn’t fit their picture rather than figure out how it might fit a different picture?
By: BuddyO on November 19, 2008
at 7:49 pm
Cold? Well then why did he write his prayer down, if he wasn’t inviting analysis? You should’ve been around to advise him.
You used that Psalm to suggest that God hates the sinner. I think it’s more likely that who ever wrote the psalm hates the sinner and is hoping that God does as well. So I think it’s possible the he is incorrect (wrong).
I guess in times of war there might be good reason for asking for your enemy’s destruction, or if you happen to be at the wrong end of a whip. But I think of those Psalms that are David’s lamentations; so much of his trouble he brought on himself. You might sympathize with him, but do you think God should’ve stricken his enemies, as he asked? Do you think God hated his enemies?
But you’re right. The psalms are prayers. They can’t be used to determine God’s thoughts and feelings, only the thoughts and feelings of men about God.
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 8:02 pm
I’m not so presumptuous to think I know all the ways of God.
There’s plenty of examples of Gods wrath on those who cross Him… oh that’s right, those puzzle pieces aren’t on our box top so we just dismiss them as made up human justifications.
By: BuddyO on November 19, 2008
at 10:03 pm
You’ve really latched on to that metaphor, which is funny since McLaren is so often accused by more ‘conservative’ church spokesmen as being one of those most inclined to toss away certain ‘puzzle’ pieces that he doesn’t like.
No doubt, scripture presents plenty of examples of the ‘wrath’ of God – those who go against his wisdom and ordained plans. But the people that the psalmist (and many righteous Christians) cry out against don’t necessarily fit that bill, at least not in how they might think. Of course all of us cross him, daily. Right?
Good to have you in the debate, btw.
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 10:31 pm
Well, that’s leading down a road which requires much more supposition than I’m willing to commit to.
All I’m saying is that God is bigger than I can fathom. I can see how God might hate… and even how He might advocate us hating as well. Of course that could never contradict other things that He (Father and Son) taught. I find it intriguing to ponder how those seemingly contradictory ideas could coexist with what Jesus taught… Allows God to remain huge… and sans box…
By: BuddyO on November 19, 2008
at 10:40 pm
Can you give me a positive example of ‘hating’, if you don’t mind. Personally, I can’t see myself ‘hating’ something other than a person (aside from pickled beets or stewed kidneys), and that probably is not a good thing to do.
To me, hate implies an almost pathological and ultimately poisonous negative state of mind.
Maybe we are arguing over semantics?
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 10:46 pm
Why does it have to be a positive example? The begins the conversation in a presupposed box.
That’s a valid definition you have, however I wouldn’t try to guess what hate implies to God.
No I don’t think it’s semantics (and I don’t think we’re arguing) I just think it’s my attempt to think outside this tiny little limited perspective we are given.
By: BuddyO on November 19, 2008
at 11:07 pm
I mean arguing in the very positive sense – looking at the case differently and bouncing ideas off of each other to see what sticks and what gets trashed.
The limited perspective thing is important. How do you think these is applicable to how we read and apply scripture?
By: Christian Beyer on November 19, 2008
at 11:27 pm
Well, that’s a topic I’ve been wanting to write about for some time, just haven’t had the time so I’ll summarize here.
I think, when reading Scripture, when we get locked into any kind of preconceived ideas about what we are about to read we can miss what it’s trying to say. Particularly when approaching the Old Testament, say Genesis, if you read it as a historically accurate document, you can learn some awesome things. Similarly, if you re-read it with the idea that it’s thousands of years of oratory passed from person to person and finally written down using metaphorical language, you get a whole different set of treasure. There may be a half dozen other ways to approach that book.
What I personally find is that no matter how you read it, there is tons of truth that overlaps… those are the main truths God wants us to understand from that text. The other stuff on the periphery, unfortunately, is where many people dwell and bitterly argue. Those things were deliberately made ambiguous by God.
Could God have made the Earth in 6 consecutive 24 hour periods? sure, why not… Could Adam and Eve be symbolic representations illustrating truths in a fable? why not… Does it matter? I don’t think either of those details are Gods point.
We have been studying Revelation in our Simple Church now for about 4 weeks. After Advent we’ll have another 2 weeks to go to finish up. We basically, without actually saying so, are following this method of ‘clearly reading’ this part of Scripture… because our ’sermons’ are actually done by everyone in the room coming from all different perspectives and backgrounds. Rather than dwell and argue on points that we may differ, we focus on where we see truth…. It’s been awesome. We did the same thing a few moths ago with Job, same result.
By: BuddyO on November 20, 2008
at 8:58 am
Agreed. I also think it it is important to remember that it is impossible to come to scripture (or any text) without our personal world views.
Which helps to explain why, out of all those ‘tons’ of overlapping truths, certain truths will stand out for some while other truths may stand out for others.
I think one of the problems with modern bible study ( modern being the time since the Enlightenment) is that when people see things differently they tend to say that the other’s view point is not valid. I think it’s perfectly acceptable if someone holds to a more literal view of scripture. Or if someone holds to a more metaphorical view. And it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to disagree with either perspective. It is just that when one camp decisively accuses the other camp of being wrong (because who can really know?) then the conversation devolves into bickering. Even having opposing camps is probably detrimental. Some sort of middle ground, that is open to examining differing perspectives would seem to be desirable.
I like what you say about the many ways one can approach scriptures (although I’ll bet it’s more than a half dozen). Even so, many would accuse you of relativism. How do you defend the idea that multiple ‘correct’ interpretations of scripture is not relativistic?
By: Christian Beyer on November 20, 2008
at 10:17 am
I was already thinking of your last statement before you made it.
Relativism is something that creeps in when you accept a disagreeing view. My focus is on those Truths that overlap and we can agree on. Fundamental Absolute Truths. I can refrain from ‘decisively accusing’ another camp of being wrong, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t wrong… I just don’t have to be a jerk about it.
See, it comes down to the mystical view of Scripture. I believe that the same God that created all the beauty of the universe and the intricate complexity of cells was capable of commissioning, overseeing and compiling a group of writings that said exactly what He wanted to say… no human influence can override His will in this matter, be it translation, transcription, etc.
So, there IS absolute Truth contained in the Bible AND one interpretation of the Truth can never contradict another. It may provide additional color, perspective or information, but NEVER contradict.
As a matter of fact I’ve been contemplating those things that people have classified as ‘contradictions’ in Scripture. I’m coming to a pretty mind blowing take on that… not ready to share yet, I might write about it…
By: BuddyO on November 20, 2008
at 10:46 am
** mind blowing for me… maybe not for anyone else… ***
By: BuddyO on November 20, 2008
at 10:52 am
Unfortunately, as I see scriptures presented by various groups, Left and Right, progressive to Evangelical, there is a fair amount of contradiction over each other’s take on the truth.
Although God may be in the details, I don’t think the “Truth” is revealed by overly studying the details of scripture. It is an obsession with the details that seem to obscure the “Truth” – the old ‘not seeing the forest for the trees’ analogy.
By: Christian Beyer on November 20, 2008
at 10:58 am
Do they agree the idea that God loves us is the Truth?
If so, that’s good common ground to start on…
The tough part comes in refraining from confusing ones agenda driven ideology with Truth… de-con-struct… de-con-struct…!
No, Truth isn’t hidden in the trees, but you can find some pretty cool stuff in the underbrush… (the same things that folks primarily disagree on) but they are icing not cake.
By: BuddyO on November 20, 2008
at 11:09 am
“Do they agree the idea that God loves us is the Truth?”
Not in the slightest. Not from what I can tell.
By: b4dguy on November 20, 2008
at 2:06 pm
well…you’d have to agree on definitions of terms like “God”, “love”, “us” and “truth”.
painfully daunting task…
By: b4dguy on November 20, 2008
at 2:06 pm
Man I thought I was cynical….
By: BuddyO on November 20, 2008
at 2:24 pm
Cynical and/or a realist. If there’s a difference.
By: b4dguy on November 20, 2008
at 3:01 pm
Hi everybody, this is Bev, Chris’s wife I think we’ve strayed from the original topic. The compelling and consistent message in the gospels is of love and forgiveness. I don’t believe there is a single scripture verse in Math. Mark, Luke or John ,correct me if I’m wrong where Jesus showed anything but love, total acceptance, forgiveness, compassion and love for the sinners. All he said was “sin no more”. I can’t even say he hated the pharisees although he showed anger. I get pretty angry at my children and yes even Chris sometimes but I love them dearly. As a Christian I take my cues from Christ. Christ loves perfectly and this is what he asks of us. In my opinion a heart that has any room for hate has left a void where the Holy Spirit should be residing. Love to you all. Buddy please say hi to Kathy, Bo and Rachel, I miss you guys!
By: Christian Beyer on November 20, 2008
at 8:04 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, the boss has left just left the room.
By: Christian Beyer on November 21, 2008
at 12:35 am
Hey Bev!
I agree with you 100% regarding Jesus and His message.
My point is that those 4 books, while they may be the easiest to wrap our heads around, are only a fraction of what God (aka Jesus) wants us to know about Him. I also believe that He will never contradict Himself. So the fact that Jesus tells us you cannot hate your brother and love Him has to be in concert with the passages where God hates evil or even evildoers.
The word “sane’ ” in Hebrew which means hate is used over a hundred times in the Old Testament and several times attributed to God hating evil and sin. Jesus Himself DOES tell us to hate. In Luke He tells hating ourselves and our families is a prerequisite to being His disciple. Jesus tells John in his vision that He hates the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolatians.
I think the problem is that the word ‘hate’ has been hijacked in much the same way as the word ‘love’ has been… or ‘tolerate’… Modern society has changed the definition of what those words mean.
The phrase “Love the sinner hate the sin” is not one that I tend to use, however I think the sentiment is that we are not what we do. We all are children of God at heart, we all are endowed by the Creator and this damn sin keeps getting in the way of us reaching the full potential that God has for us… I hate sin for that…
It’s another phrase that I think a a very cool and deep meaning that has been hijacked to connotate condescension and judgment.
By: BuddyO on November 21, 2008
at 10:06 am
BTW: I’ll pass the message. We miss you guys too. (which is pretty weird considering we only live like 3 minutes away…)
By: BuddyO on November 21, 2008
at 10:07 am
The way you and Kathy drive, yes.
By: Christian Beyer on November 21, 2008
at 10:52 am
so Christian…you were going to plan a get-together for the ECB…
I agree with Bev and Buddy’s last comments, but stand by my cynical assertion that not all Believers will agree with you.
I sum it up like this: It’s not about sin yet it’s absolutely about sin.
By: b4dguy on November 21, 2008
at 4:01 pm
Are you excusing the SIN when you forgive the sinner?
By: brenda on December 31, 2008
at 5:03 pm
Welcome, Brenda.
No, of course not. If there were an ‘excuse’ then it would not be sin, right? For example, to be picayune about sin then we might make an issue out of the sinfulness of telling lies. But if I lie to protect someone from harm (such as those who harbored Jews from the Nazis) is that a sin at all? No, there was a good excuse. But if someone lies for personal gain then that is altogether a different matter.
I think that the intentions of someone’s heart is needed to know more about their ’sin’.
By: Christian Beyer on January 1, 2009
at 3:50 pm