Ummm ... I don't think so.
What does the church need? According to David F. Wells, we need to recover a sense of antithesis, of being at odds with the world rather than friends. And we need to keep in mind what that antithesis would look like.
If it is for God, for His truth, for His people, for the alienated and trampled in life, then it must give up what the post-modern world holds most dear: it must give up the freedom to do anything it happens to desire. It must give up self-cultivation for self-surrender, entertainment for worship, intuition for truth, slick marketing for authentic witness, success for faithfulness, power for humility, a God bought on cheap terms for a God who calls us to a costly obedience. It must, in short, be willing to do God's business on God's terms. (David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, pg 223, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)Now that is something to think about.
36 comments:
Rather than being at odds with the world, don't you think it would be better stated to suggest we ought to be at odds with the evil and oppressive in the world, but in love (as God is) with the people and creation of the world?
And that this Love is what defines us, not our opposition to this sin or that?
By "the world" I mean exactly what John meant when he wrote, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions -- is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:15-16). I mean what James meant when he wrote "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4).
And it is a mistake to love what God hates. If God hates sin, it would be arrogant of me to suggest that we ought not.
Of course. My point is that too often the Christian church is seen as a bunch of preening moral busybodies and hypocrites who stay busy griping about the specks of dust in other's eyes but fail to note the beam in their own eyes.
We are too often seen as ugly and judgmental, rather than people of Love, which is how we are to identify ourselves.
If we are merely the moral cops of the world, sneering at all the sinners, that does us no good.
That's all I'm saying. We need to work on the love side of the equation, it seems to me.
As much a mistake as it would be to hate the things that God hates (oppression, materialism, hypocrisy, etc) it would be even more a mistake to fail to Love those things and people that God loves.
Oddly, nothing in the post suggests "moral cops". Indeed, what I suggested was that we are called to give up personal desires to do what's right, to have authentic witness, to be faithful and humble and obedient. Further, I explained what I meant by "at odds with the world rather than friends" -- the concept put forth by Jesus, John, James, and so on.
With which of these would you disagree? (And -- I have to ask -- does loving God's creation demand also that we do not recognize sin?)
Hey, I recognize sin all the time. I'm sure you've noticed I've come out opposed to torture, for instance, as I think it is a sinful practice. So, I'm not sure why loving God's creation would demand not recognizing sin.
It is sinful to pollute, for instance (or it can be, probably usually is), seems to me. It's sinful to treat God's Creation as if it were our own to destroy or use up at our whim.
I'm not sure why you asked that last question.
As to your first question, ("With which of these would I disagree?") I don't think I was disagreeing. I agreed that we ought to be "at odds with the evil in the world." I was just clarifying that I think our main distinguishing characteristic ought to be love, not "being at odds with."
You said, "Love is what defines us, not our opposition to this sin." You said, "We are too often seen as ugly and judgmental, rather than people of Love, which is how we are to identify ourselves." I asked because it appeared that you were suggesting that we cannot oppose sin or judge sin and be "people of Love".
Fascinating that the "sins" you call up are torture and pollution. I'm not finding them in my list of God-given commands. ;)
I defined "world" in the biblical sense of "the world of sin", the "world" that is comprised of a culture informed and shaped by sinful human beings. I explained it and even gave the references from which I got the idea. You think our distinguishing characteristic ought to be "love". Jesus, James, and John all told us that there would be conflict between genuine believers and "the world" (that world to which I'm referring). We are not to be friends with the world (that world to which I'm referring). We are not to love the world.
I can only conclude one of two things. Either you disagree with the passages that have Jesus, James, and John saying what they say, or (and I think this is most likely) you are speaking of a different world than I am. In this second case, you are speaking of "the world" in something like the sense of "the Earth, humans, the physical realm" as opposed to the biblical concept I'm talking about of "the world" of sin. In other words, you're talking about "the world" found in John 3:16 and I'm talking about "the world" found in those other passages. Different worlds.
At least, that's what I'd like to think.
I'm sorry if I have not been clear. I think the Bible is clear that when it's talking about "not being lovers of the world," that which they are talking about by using the term, "the world," is the world of sin. Those things which separate us from God. We are not to be part of that world.
But we ARE to be people of love. Loving the people of the world who, like us, are too often trapped in the world of sin. Those worldly things (materialism, spitefulness, hatred, greed, oppression) which are not good for us and not part of God's will.
As to my naming torture and pollution, surely you agree with me that these are sinful, unhealthy, ungodly actions? A deed need not be named in the Bible for us to be able to identify it as wrong or as good, right? That's all part of using our God-given reasoning to seek God's will, seems to me.
Am I not making myself clear?
I name homosexual actions as sin because they're so named in the Bible and you protest. You name pollution as sin even though it's not in there. "A deed need not be named in the Bible for us to be able to identify it as wrong..." I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing. I was amused.
Stan, I still haven't gotten your recent mention of a "Ronco Erasable Bible" out of my mind. Ha! Funny.
I pretty much agree with Dan's statement, "A deed need not be named in the Bible for us to be able to identify it as wrong or as good." I recycle and try to do other "environmentally friendly" things because it just seems the right thing to do ~ not to be wasteful and irresponsible with the things we've been given. I've not needed The Bible to come to the conclusion that it is good to do that. This is a beautiful planet God put us on, so why not try to keep it that way?
I've never thought of not recycling as a "sin" per se, however. I guess if an individual had the means to do some "big time" destruction via pollution, like wrecklessly be the cause of an oil spill, or a radiation leak that wreaked major destruction, sickening or killing people, THEN I would certainly think of it as sin! But I guess I think that the INTENT to pollute our planet is in a very small percentage of individuals. If there is available someplace considered "good" to dispose of waste materials, don't you think most people will gladly utilize those places? (Stay with me here. It gets better. Soon I will be talking about.... SEX.)
Personally, I want to try to help keep this planet clean and beautiful, but I believe God is eventually going to destroy this place and create a new earth anyway, so I feel there are plenty of ALREADY-NAMED SINS we probably ought to be more concerned about and addressing.... sins of the heart.
I want to think of hearts on par with flowers and birdies and all manner of "love things"! I do, but unfortunately human hearts are also described as "deceitfully wicked above all things" Jer. 27:9 (Ouch!), if we do not safeguard them and actively seek God. The human heart's default mode is wicked bad news without God rebooting us daily and running a virus scan. (Or something like that. Not a computer whiz here.)
So.... we've got major INTERNAL pollution going on, making this planet a really crappy place on which to try to raise happy, well-balanced children who know,
love, and serve God and others. And a lot of us big grown-ups aren't doing so well maturing here either. A whole big bunch of us are on anti-depressants because we're.... uh... depressed, about things. Can you think of even ONE person or institution on the entire planet that is NOT having problems right now, that is running beautifully and smoothly? Even one? We are living in a sin-cursed world. Yeh, torture and pollution are bad, but are most people on antidepressants or drinking to numb themselves or dysfunctional in numerous ways because of them?
(Dan, I do know that you also spoke of materialism, spitefulness, hatred, greed, and oppression. And of us Christians too often not being known by our love. But right now, I want to focus on "knowing" things that are not in The Bible. You said it seems to you, "That's all part of using our God-given reasoning to seek God's will." Do you think people who don't even personally know our God are endowed with any "God-given reasoning"? Ah, that's a whole different topic.)
Just glance over at the covers of the country's major magazines next time you're standing in line at the grocery store check-out and see what nice, civilized people we have become. Cosmopolitan Magazine (whose target audience is mostly young women) is all about what people look like on the outside and regularly advertises in bold print on its covers the "how tos" of sexual gratification and of getting "into a man's pants", and other such blantantly crass things. And it is not even considered written pornography. It's right out there for anyone over the age of 5 to read! Our countries little first graders are reading those headlines while they stand in line with their moms and dads.
As parents of girls, when it becomes difficult to find up-to-date clothes and shoes for our daughters that don't look quite a lot like prostitutes' work clothes, things have gotten kind of askew, wouldn't you say? And our girls are getting the constant message that their chests may not be big enough, their bodies aren't skinny enough, so probably the majority of them want whatever fashions might help them along to look the way they're hoping to look...... sexy. Because the media tells them sexy equals pretty; sexy is the best. I read that breast implants are a popular high school graduation gift to daughters from their parents some places in Europe. "Here, Honey. Now you can go get your inadequate body sliced open and improved! By the way, we sure do love you and are proud of you." What a gift for a girl to get from her father!
Our TV shows and movies are full of torture (Here's some torture, Dan. Horror flicks, anyone? They must be making good money because Hollywood keeps making them!), profanity, and smut. Would you set up lawn chairs outside your neighbors' bedroom windows at night and watch them have sex while you eat popcorn? Probably not. So why is is okay to watch people having sex on a massive screen, while with a bunch of other people out in public? When you think about it, how perverse is that? Yet, it's commonplace in today's world! We are entertained in large part by viewing other people getting hurt, getting revenge, and doing very private, intimate things with people to whom they are not married or whom they don't even love or know very well much of the time. We pay big money for theater tickets and for huge TV sets and monthly cable bills. (We watch American Idol on our American idols.) PG13 movies routinely have lots of talk of people having sex or sex scenes and profanity and are marketed to and then seen by many, many kids 12and under.
Uh oh, it probably sounds like I'm ranting away here, huh? Sorry. And I'm likely not saying a thing anyone doesn't already well know. As you expressed some concern about, Stan, I may be coming across differently than intended, as I'm just calmly sitting here "talking". This is long. And I've been tired the whole time writing it, so I hope it makes some sense. I'm going to do like Dan and break it up into parts.
The whole "polluting is sin" thing just baffles me. If generic "polluting" is generic "sin", then anyone who drives a car, has a gas stove, or uses anything that produces pollution needs to 1) repent, 2) rid themselves of all things "polluting", and 3) "get thee to a nunnery" ... so to speak. I'm in favor of taking care of our world, but generic "polluting" doesn't show up on my "sin radar".
It's like that whole "Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" thing ... so "you must not smoke." Take that to its logical conclusion. If your body is that kind of a temple and doing things to your body are, therefore, evil, then the conclusions are similar. Stop eating Twinkies, MacDonalds, anything with preservatives or transfat. Stop driving cars, living in cities, or doing anything stressful (like working in the normal world today). You see, science tells us that all of these things are harmful to the body, so any of these, along with smoking, would qualify as sin to the believer. Are we sure we want to go there?
No, I think there is enough in the clearly offered content of the Word of God with which to concern ourselves. Here, let's try this one. Before we worry about "smoking" or "polluting", let's think, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, your mind, your strength" and let's see how we're doing from there. ;)
Re: Polluting as sin, that's when I wrote it initially, I tempered it by saying "Or it can be - probably usually is."
Is driving a car sinful? I don't know. It's less than healthy so I'd say that it's at least as sinful as cigarette-smoking (which at least in my Baptist background, was frequently condemned as sinful).
Sin, according to the Bible, is that which misses the mark (literally in the Greek, I believe), that does not accomplish the purpose for which it was created. Of course, it can be defined multiple ways.
I believe also in the Bible, it is sometimes literally translated as "transgression," that which crosses a line that ought not be crossed.
It also might be defined as that which does harm. It's that which breaks relationships (between people, between us and God).
So in all of that, there is room for us to consider polluting, smoking, dropping a nuclear bomb, torture and all manner of things which aren't listed in the Bible as sinful, or at the least, not ideal.
I don't think we ought to at all limit ourselves to just sins mentioned in the Bible (and apparently you don't either, since it seems you think that gay marriage is sinful and that isn't mentioned in the Bible).
But you are absolutely right, Stan, that we ought begin with "Love the Lord," and add to that, "Love your neighbor," out of these, all the rest of the commands flow, Jesus noted. And rightly so.
It seems to me that our concern ought to be primarily, "Is this action demonstrating love to my neighbor? Is this action demonstrating love to my God?"
From that, we might make all manner of further considerations and it would be entirely appropriate to do so, seems to me.
To answer Sherry's question:
Do you think people who don't even personally know our God are endowed with any "God-given reasoning"?
Yes.
We all have God's Law written upon our hearts. We all have the Spirit reaching out to us. We all have all of creation as a testimony to God.
Thus saith the Bible and I agree.
Oops. I got busy and am only now getting back to posting Part 2. I've not looked back at Winging It's blog entries or comments since yesterday morning and am not even going to take the time to run a spell check on this mass of words. Here goes. I just want to get this out and get on with my day.
Like Stan recently wrote about, our culture has become so sex-obsessed. With our chicken being pre-skinned, cut, and neatly wrapped on styrofoam, I think we have too much idle time on our hands or something these days! If we had to spend our time outside chasing, killing, plucking, and quartering the meat for our chicken Caesar salads composed also of lettuce we grew and cheese and croutons we we made, we might not have time to do so much thinking about sex, you think? I mean, it's always been a big, big problem for mankind, but now... wow. Now you can't read a newspaper without reading multiple accounts of sex-related crimes. We are all seeing pornograhic images now, from the time we are just little kids. Simply by having eyes that see, we are exposed to a dose of it every time we go to a mall that has a Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie, or Ruehl store. (I don't shop inside those stores, but innocently went in that last one a year or so ago and was astounded at what I was seeing, as a gaggle of giggling girls who appeared to be about 11 to 14 yrs. old walked past a poster of a male and female model wearing only 1 item of clothing between them! Maybe I just don't "get out" enough. Apparently most people are no longer bothered by such things?) What's publicly displayed in their windows and TV ads may be considered "soft porn" by today's standards, if at all, but it's porn alright. Last year a large poster of 5 models wearing only string bikini bottoms was prominently displayed on their store fronts. (Their slender arms were used to cover only part of a their upper nakedness.) Unbelievable. Kids and families were walking by that pornography for weeks.
In today's popular video games, animated images of girls and women are nearly always suggestively clad and ridiculously top heavy. The new version of "paper dolls" young prepuberal (weird word) girls can dress up on numerous Internet sites always feature sexy babes as the "little girl" dolls, never body types that real little girls have and can relate to.
We get constant comment via the media about things being "sexy". Sexy, white teeth. Sexy shoes. Sexy hair. Cars with sleek, sexy lines. Parents might be especially aware of such things because they often to view things anew, through the eyes and ears of their kids. Will people ever get all they've been lead to believe they should? Will they ever measure up to the world's standards? It sets many people up for disappointment and discontentment.
Being a parent who is trying to protect your kids from all this worldliness is like being a salmon trying to swim upstream. At every turn, we are fighting against a strong current. I feel bad for my husband and young adult sons who, while trying to stay away from it, have pornographic images thrown before their faces almost daily. And not just images, but real live women are so screwed up with their own issues that many are walking around trying to get their worth confirmed by how many men they can get to look at them with lust.
Our planet may have pollution problems but I think right now our every-day lives are much more directly affected by what was the original sin and is still the sin of all ages ~ the deification of man. Men making themselves their own gods. If we aren't seeking to obey our own appetites, many are idolizing other humans, hoping to become more like them or to please them. Our world is pretty screwed up. I'd say men aren't doing a very good job of meeting men's needs.
Yes, I would agree that "a deed need not be named in the Bible for us to be able to identify it as wrong or as good". In regard to homosexuality, I have always found it odd that it is always THE CHRISTIANS (at least here in the U.S.) who get slammed ("some might even say demonized" as you said, Dan, in regard to history's views of homosexuals) for daring to voice that they don't find men holding hands, passionately kissing men, and sodomizing each other just fine and dandy. The world still has quite a ways to go before most in it can see those kinds of things and find them endearing, before a common response would be something like, "Oh, look at that cute couple! They are so much in love." What's with that Bible believers bias anyway? In regard to homosex, many people haven't had to EVER read a Bible "to be able to identify it as wrong". Aren't there are LOTS of people the world over who seem maybe to somehow have known or sensed it was wrong right up until and including now? Or have most all tribes and peoples mostly just followed "popular concensus"? What percentage do you suppose stand primarily on those verses in The Bible alone? Stan just wrote about all of these 'other people' twice.
I know big strides (those are very large pieces of gum) have been made in the worldwide agenda/plans/hopes of gays and gay groups and undoubtedly there will be more. We've become such an "anything goes" culture and many people are downright proud now of how accepting they are of all kinds of things that were always considered sinful in the past. But I wonder why hasn't it been even easier, if deep down people instinctively know homosexuality is a perfectly normal thing some people are just "born with"?
This is just a little thing, but my husband and I never taught our kids not to regard homosexuality as just another part of life on Planet Earth. We never talked about it at all when they were young. My husband's sister is a lesbian, though they didn't know anything about their aunt's sex life, only that she dresses a lot like a man. We all love her a lot. But, from the time they were just little tykes, they would say things like, "Gross," if ever they heard of men doing things with men that they thought they should be doing with ladies. I was amazed at that. Who taught them that that was somehow wasn't right? We didn't! (I don't think most parents discuss sex with their 4 yr. olds, or however young they each were when they first expressed negative feelings toward same sex "unions".) They hadn't been to weddings to know what's "the norm", and we were very careful about what "adult subject matter" shows they watched on TV (we have no cable and I was a stay at home mom) but we live in a city where our kids would occasionally witness public displays of affection from gay people or occasionally hear about men and women trying to marry someone who was the same as them. We wouldn't react, but they would! Interesting. Each of our 3 kids thought a man marrying a man was very silly and weird. Granted, if they'd been raised by 2 dads or moms or known someone who had, they would have grown up with it and would have different types of confusion with which to deal.) It was as if they just knew. Hmm. Anyway, it's nearly always the Bible believers/those Christians who get called names and described as intolerant and hateful these days if we don't embrace homosexuality. WHY, when the vast majority of the entire WORLD seems "to be able to identify it as wrong"? Even if all the Bible believers (uh, I mean those with the most commonly-held, "traditional" interpretation of the Bible's view of homosexuality) were to suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, there would still be the entire Islamic religion to take on and convince they too have been misunderstanding the Qur'an or not hearing clearly from Allah. Why don't I ever heard of gay folks getting on their case for not wholeheartedly accepting homosexuality? There are a whole LOT of "intolerant" Muslims!
By the way, I am not without compassion and maybe at least a little bit of understanding of what it must be like to be gay. I can only imagine the struggles! I'd want to be loved and accepted and have my "orientation" validated by everyone, too! It would sure make my life easier! If I was repeatedly sexually abused and raped when I was a little girl, I can see the very real possibility I would not want a man ever touching me again, except maybe for hugs from a few select male friends and family members someday! If I were a boy and felt (correctly or incorrectly) that my dad never loved me, rejected me, or didn't love me near as much as I needed, I too might strongly desire the love and approval of men and end up choosing to get too close to one or more of them! Or if it seemed I had "always" been confused about my feelings about sex and grew up hearing about a powerful, life-changing God, I'd be wondering why and beseeching Him for help every day that I struggled, help to change my mindset, help to endure without sinning against my own body and Him, help to break any generational strongholds.
It could be very, very hard. (What an understatement, huh? And yet some people DO change.) Are people today who are dealing with same-sex attraction still being highly encouraged to seek out the stories of those who have been victorious in overcoming it? Or are they mostly just being encouraged to give in to it? I'm sure once you've chosen to have sex with someone of your own gender the first time, it's harder than ever to go back. If there was something about it that you liked, you must be gay, right?
I've heard that pyromania has been diagnosed in children as young as 3years old. (What? A 3 yr. old with access to fire making devices?!) That's about as far back as any of us can remember. If starting fires and watching them burn gives someone a thrill like none other, and he thinks maybe he was born that way, shouldn't we let him do his thing and not stifle his natural impulses, as long as he doesn't kill anyone? This is probably a terrible analogy (because fires just seem so much more "destructive" than things like....uh... the AIDS epidemic), but couldn't people say that about most every very, very strong inclination to do things societies the world over have deemed inappropriate?
I lost a very dear, sweet, talented cousin to AIDS when he was only just 40. He had been living in San Francisco for a decade or more as a gay man but had a partner he'd been with for a while as he was dying. Without provocation, one of his last days, he said from his death bed to the older brother in his loving family, "The wages of sin are death." He felt it was his sin of homosexuality that was causing the death of all his future dreams and his body. but... that was just him. (I hope I get to see him again someday.)
I'm rambling. Dan, or someone, I hope will address the issue of what to do with the rest of the world's views which are the same or sometimes even more harsh than those who think the anti-"gay lifestyle" Bible verses mean what they say. I sometimes wish The Bible didn't say some of the things it says, too. But then... I'm not an all knowing God and I have to think He's powerful enough to change things if that's what He wishes to do! He could change His word so that it's clear what those scriptures now should mean to us.(Heck, the whole big Mormon church is built on ongoing revelations/changes issued from their god, though it has been called a non-prophet organization because they have modern day prophets most of whom don't prophesy.) He could change the minds of all of us who seek to hear His voice and open our eyes to the new truth. Or He could change the desires of those who want out of homosexuality. Any other options I'm not considering? Oh, He could leave things just as they are and let people try to figure it out and deal with it with what they already have at their access.
Our old pastor said though, never ask God things you already know the answer to. For example, don't ask if it's okay if you're sleeping with your friend's wife because she's just not very happy at all in her marriage anymore, you have so very much in common, and you just love her so much, when you already know what God's word says. Don't expect Him to help you when you are purposely ignoring what He has already said, whether he spoke to you through His word, through someone He used, through the deaths of many of your your friends or your dreams, or directly to you. "The heart is deceitfully wicked. Who can know it?" Does that mean that we don't even know of what kinds of evil we are capable and should be asking for God's help each day in dealing with whatever Satan and his army of demons puts in our paths? I sure don't want to have a heart that is deceitfully wicked! I want to be the kind of person God fills with His supernatural love so that I can then pour it out on others. After all, isn't that what we are all in need of.... to be loved, to feel valued, to have purpose in having somebody to love.
Ironically, my daughter and I were singing along to Queen's song "Somebody to Love" this morning. It chants over and over again "I need somebody to love. I need somebody to love." Let's find somebody to love. Lots of somebodies! Let us be good ambassadors of THE God of love! Let's start with our creator, Who gave us life and breath here and a promise of having prepared for us things beyond our imaginations when these earth bodies wear out and we are finally going to meet Him face to face and be with Him in that far better place.
I'm done, at last.
Well, look, Sherry, if you have nothing to say, then why bother? (LOL)
Thanks for sharing. Lots to consider. Of course, I doubt you'll get agreement from Dan Trabue (as opposed to Danny), but lots to consider.
Sherry said:
But, from the time they were just little tykes, they would say things like, "Gross," if ever they heard of men doing things with men that they thought they should be doing with ladies. I was amazed at that. Who taught them that that was somehow wasn't right? We didn't!
It's actually not at all uncommon to fear and find unlikable things that aren't "like you." It's why it has often been so easy for so many folk of one race to be disgusted by or fear the folk of another race. When someone is not around a "type" of person (gay, redneck, black, Muslim, charismatic, whatever) and then find themselves around them, it's not at all unusual for people to not like them.
We fear and dislike that which we don't know. It's part of that old imperfect human condition, I fear.
Sherry also said:
Bible verses mean what they say.
Oftentimes, yes. But what are they saying?
The topic of homosexuality only seems to come up five(ish) times in all of the Bible. In each of those passages, it does not mention gay marriage or stable, loving committed gay relationships. Not once in all of the Bible is that arrangement mentioned. Instead, these passages appear to have connections to pagan sexual practices or be less than clear as to what they're talking about.
I agree that when the Bible says, "Men shall not lay with men. If they do, they shall be put to death." it means that. But WHAT does that mean? What circumstances is that referencing?
You and Stan appear to think that means any and all instances of any homosexual behavior, including gay marriage. I don't think that it means that at all.
And, if it DOES mean ALL homosexuality, including gay marriage, does that passage also mean that we have to kill them???
I don't believe you think it does.
We don't disagree on the importance of Biblical teachings. We disagree on the meaning of, at least in this case, a specific teaching.
For what it's worth, I don't think you'd find many churches out there where the people take the Bible as seriously as the folk at my church. We take it seriously, just not literally.
Dan Trabue, seriously, it's just really, really hard to read something like "I don't think you'd find many churches out there where the people take the Bible as seriously as the folk at my church" in the same comment with "'Men shall not lay with men. If they do, they shall be put to death.' it means that. But WHAT does that mean?" What possible question could there be about what it means?
Look, the context isn't questionable.
Lev 20:10 If a man commits adultery ...
Lev 20:11 If a man lies with his father's wife ...
Lev 20:12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law ...
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman ...
Lev 20:14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also ...
Lev 20:15 If a man lies with an animal ...
Is there really any doubt? The context is sexual sin, and the list includes everything from adultery to bestiality. Unless you'd like to argue that morality of adultery and bestiality are in question, it seems abundantly apparent that the morality of "a man lies with a male as with a woman" is equivalent and clear.
Am I suggesting we are supposed to kill them? Again, I'm asking you to use your reasoning capacity. All of these things are listed as punishable by death. If you are going to use "no longer punished by death" as the method for determining "moral", then, again, you're going to have to remove adultery and bestiality from the list of immoral sexual behaviors.
Really, Dan, you are going way out of your way here to hold the line you want to hold.
(And if you can find any instance at any time in any society or any religion in all of history where "marriage" was defined anywhere as anything but a union between opposite genders, please let me know. Otherwise, I would recommend against the phrase "gay marriage" because it is an oxymoron.
What possible question could there be about what it means?
Do you agree with me that context matters? In the context of those passages, it is my understanding that there was during those times a problem with the people of other lands around the people of Israel were worshipers of false gods and they had all manner of odd sexual mores that were not wholesome or healthy.
It seems to me that IN THE CONTEXT of the times, the commands were directed towards these ritualistic and unwholesome sexual practices, NOT towards gay marriage, which did not exist.
Stan, you are free to have another opinion on these two passages (although I'd hope you'd be informed as to context because it really does matter), and you can think I'm mistaken about the context or the meaning, but the fact is, the context IS questionable. I question it and others do, too.
We do not do so because we hope to promote unhealthy sexual practices. We don't do so because it's fun to thumb our nose at God. We do so because we have prayerfully and carefully read the scriptures and come to this conclusion (and, speaking for myself, I held YOUR position before studying more closely and I was absolutely sure I would never change my mind because I, too, thought it was "beyond question."
I learned otherwise.
Stan asked:
Am I suggesting we are supposed to kill them?
Well, why wouldn't you? IF it is true that "men laying with men" refers to all gays AND IF the next verse says, "kill 'em," AND IF we must take these passages to be the perfect literal Truth of God, then you don't really have a choice.
I know that you think I don't take the Bible literally and you do, but in truth, none of us do, nor should we. Otherwise, we'd be killing off disrespectful children (ie, all of them) and gay folk (if you hold to your position).
But we DON'T kill gay folk because it is clear (using our God-given reasoning) that a passage that suggests we ought to kill disrespectful children is not a universal truth. A passage that says we ought to kill "men who lay with men" (whatever that means) is not a universal truth. Now, if you will agree with me that we can use our reason to set aside the second half of that passage, then you are with me in agreeing that the Bible is not rightly divided by taking it literally. We have to use our reasoning.
I don't think you disagree with me there.
Now, I know that when you use your reasoning, you don't come to the conclusion that I do about gay marriage. I didn't use to come to that conclusion, either. I do now. And it's not from a lack of love for the Bible or for not holding it seriously, it's just the opposite.
You are free to disagree with me on my conclusion, but you are not able to discern that I don't take the Bible seriously. I do and if you're guessing that I don't, you're simply observably and factually mistaken.
I think the mistake that some "literalists" make is assuming that in disagreeing with their interpretation of the Bible, we are holding the Bible and God in contempt. But we must all be careful not to mistake OUR understanding of God with God. We're not God and to make that mistake would be a form of idolatry, yes?
"ritualistic and unwholesome sexual practices"
I'm assuming that you believe that there were also non-ritualistic, wholesome sexual practices where "men lay with men as with women". These practices wouldn't be sinful sexual practices. So ... while God is busy laying out that adultery, sex within the family, and bestiality are all wrong, He neglects to be particularly clear in His description of "men laying with men as with women". He made a generalized statement when He should have been much clearer. You think it is abundantly clear that this is some aberrant religious ritual (which doesn't appear in the context of the passage) and I can't see it as anything but a clear statement about standard, homosexual relations. You find some historical context not particularly clear where I see an attempt to clear something that today's society has decided to declare "not guilty" against God's original condemnation. You see an obvious misunderstanding and I see an obvious attempt to misunderstand.
I really find this "Why don't you claim that we should kill them?" approach tiring, frankly. It is a complete failure to understand what is clearly there. The passage is talking about 1) moral values to which 2) the government must respond. There are two factors here. What changed? You say, "Everything!" I say, "We don't live in a theocracy." The moral issues haven't changed. The government has. God-given moral values don't change; what we can do about transgressors does. Israel was a theocracy, so they were to do what God said to do about it. We don't have that option ... or even responsibility. My point: There are two issues present in these statements. One doesn't change.
The word that is used in these passages is "abomination". Now, there are various things in the Old Testament listed as an "abomination", and they always had context -- abominable to whom? Shepherds were an abomination to Egyptians (Gen 46:34). Jewish sacrifices to their God were an abomination to the Egyptians (Exo 8:26). Eating particular foods were an abomination to the people of Israel (Deut 14:3ff). Some moral activities were an abomination to God. Egyptians are no longer repulsed by shepherds. Jewish sacrifices to their God are repulsive to almost everyone. New methods of cleanliness and cooking make most foods no longer repulsive to most people. Things change. Now, here's the question. Does God change? Does God say, "Today, this paraticular practice makes me sick to my stomach, but tomorrow, eh ... it's not bad at all!"? When God finds a particular activity morally repulsive, does He later change His mind?
You tried to point out that we were in agreement about a lot of things, and I am not disagreeing. I do think, however, that something like this will point out that we have more fundamental disagreements. I believe, for instance, in an immutable God as a fundamental characteristic. You (likely) don't. So it's not simply "We disagree about homosexual behaviors." It's not even a disagreement about how to interpret the Bible. I think, in the final analysis, we have a disagreement about the fundamental character of God. And, of course, if the God I worship is not the God you worship, one of us is an idolater, eh?
I DO believe God stays the same. (I suppose that is what you mean by "immutable"?)
That's why I think it is antibiblical and anti-God to suggest that God USED to tell people to slaughter children but now God doesn't. No, in truth, it has ALWAYS been wrong to slaughter children. Because God does not change. Not at all!
So, I'm glad to be able to clarify that. We both agree that God does not change.
I point that out because I think that there is a tendency to misunderstand those on the more Leftish side by those on the more Rightish side (and vice versa, although not so much in my case, since I COME from the more Rightish side, I understand their/your arguments, I just disagree that they represent good biblical exegesis or moral/godly reasoning on some points).
Perhaps it would be helpful, Stan, if you were to explain your biblical and logical reasoning on how you get to the conclusion that God does not want us to kill men who lay with men.
I mean point by point, step by step.
I understand that you think that the first half of that verse is a universal law and the second half is a time-specific command to Israel, NOT a universal law. But how do you reach that conclusion? The Bible itself in that passage does not make that distinction, why do you? What is your specific biblical and logical step by step reasoning to get to that point?
"There is a tendency to misunderstand those on the more Leftish side by those on the more Rightish side"
As you say ... and vice versa. I would suggest, in fact, that even though you believe you come from a position that allows you to better understand my view ... your complete failure to understand my view suggests that you're mistaken. As an example, "Perhaps it would be helpful, Stan, if you were to explain your biblical and logical reasoning on how you get to the conclusion that God does not want us to kill men who lay with men." This isn't new. It isn't strange. It isn't novel. It's standard. And ... I did explain, but you didn't get it.
It is not a time-specific command. The first part explains what is wrong, immoral. The second part explains what a theocratic government should do about it. Here ... let's see if I can get this across in simple terms. In America, "It is against the law to murder." In the years that America has been a country, that has never changed. That value -- that ethic -- remains. What has changed is "the penalty for murder is death." In most states now that is not the case. In other words, the consideration of what is moral in this case remains the same, but what to do about it has varied with the government. The government in Leviticus was God. Therefore, it was an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman (moral call) and the penalty was death (government response). When the government format changed, the government response changed.
"Oh, but laws change in this country all the time." Yes, they do. We make laws and then we change them. And to suggest that this would be applicable to the law we're talking about here would be reasonable ... if it weren't God's idea. Humans can make bad laws. God cannot. So unless I find a valid, biblical reason to set aside an Old Testament law, to me it's still in effect. What to do about it varies because the government varies, but not the moral law.
My point? Since this is all so foreign to you, perhaps you don't come from as similar a point as you thought and perhaps your understanding of my view (which isn't a "minority view") isn't as clear as you imagined ... as in the initial response to this post in the first place, where I called on believers to be following hard after God and you objected, even after I gave the biblical reasons why I said it.
Perhaps we'd both do well to let the other speak for themselves? For my part...
1. I did not object to "following hard after God." I simply did not do that. It is of course a good thing to follow hard after God and I have no problem with that.
I'm glad to clarify that misunderstanding you had.
2. I DO understand where at least traditional Southern Baptists, Nazarenes and Methodists are coming from, as these are the traditions I'm very familiar with. And, to a slightly lesser degree, some Churches of God and Churches of Christ. If you differ from them, I may have misunderstood your position and, if so, I apologize.
3. When I summed up what I took to be your position, I was trying to be brief and use short explanations. What I said was that your position was a time AND PLACE specific to the Kingdom of Israel in that period of history and that is what you repeated. I was intending that you think it was specific to what you call the (somewhat mislabeled) theocracy of Israel, I'm sorry if you did not understand my intent.
But again, I do understand your point. I think, though that you are misunderstanding my question to you (and I was in a rush earlier when I wrote it so I'm sorry if I was not clear enough).
Let me try again...
Allow me to sum up your position using your own words...
The passage is talking about 1) moral values
Yes, we totally agree.
The passage is talking about... moral values to which 2) the government must respond.
THIS would be where I'd ask you to support your position. God gave laws, commandments, rules and regulations to the people of Israel to follow for all of time. The passage in Leviticus is introduced with...
"Speak to the Israelites and tell them: I, the LORD, am your God.
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you once lived, nor shall you do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; do not conform to their customs.
My decrees you shall carry out, and my statutes you shall take care to follow."
God, in this passage, does not make a distinction between universal parts of the law and ones that are specific to Israel only. God says here, "I want Israel to follow these rules..."
IF you are making the argument that the second half of the command (ie, "kill 'em") was specific for "the theocracy of Israel," and I think you can successfully make that case, WHY do you think that the first half of that law (men shall not lay with men) is not specific to the people of Israel?
For starters, that would be one place that I'm wanting to know how you get from what you believe from what the Bible says. You're making leaps without explaining what logical or biblical reason you had for making that leap.
Am I making my point clear?
On the other hand, here is my approach to that scripture and my explanation of how I can reach that point.
The passages says, "Men shall not lie with men. If they do, you must kill them."
1. This passage is introduced by noting that these are rules for Israel, who is not to be like the people in the surrounding pagan nations.
2. There are many rules listed in these passages, along with consequences for those actions. There are many actions that are condemned (wearing polyester, eating shrimp, for instance) that we fairly universally acknowledge don't apply to us, as there is nothing innately wrong with these actions, along with other actions (killing, bestiality, for instance) that are fairly universally acknowledged as being wrong.
3. What does this tell us? That some of the actions described, as well as some of the penalties described (killing, chopping off hands) are not universal moral absolutes.
4. Well, how do we know which rules are more universal and which ones were specific to the people of Israel?
a. We can look to the rest of the Bible to see if any of the rules are echoed elsewhere in a more obviously universal sense. Especially, we can look to the teachings of Jesus to help inform us.
b. We can use our God-given reasoning to sort some out (ie, is there any logical reason for us not to wear polyester? Is there any logical reason for us not to eat shrimp? Is there any logical reason for condemning bestiality?)
c. We can seek to determine if there is some inherently harmful aspect of the behavior.
======
Using this process, I have arrived at the place where I support gay marriage, but oppose bestiality. I support (with some reservations) wearing polyester as a choice, but oppose casual sexual expression with strangers.
I'm showing (very briefly and perhaps missing some points) how I reach my position. That's what I'm missing from your viewpoint. I understand you think half of the verse is universal and half is specific to Israel, but WHY? How do you reach that conclusion?
Why is the first half of that passage (men lay with men) universal, but not the passage about not wearing mixed fabric clothing?
The first half (men lying with men as with women) is as universal as adultery, sex with your daughter-in-law, sex with your father's wife, and bestiality. For some reason you see one item, plucked out of an entire string of items, as "no longer applicable". The validation of your reasoning appears to be "because that's the way I see it today". (For instance, you automatically assume that the death penalty ought no longer be in effect ... for anything. We know better now.)
I come to my conclusion because I see that God found it abominable then and don't believe He changes His mind about what He finds abominable. I do not see shellfish, polyester, and sex with a menstruating wife as abominable to God, so they are not in the same category. But since the post was about the need for us to follow hard after God and not after the world, I cannot imagine what any of this has to do with the post.
One other comment here...
Could it be possible that you're misunderstanding the word, "abomination?" Did you know that the Hebrew word toevah, "did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry."
Many people think of "abomination" as something detestable in the most horrid, disgusting way possible, but that is not the Hebrew word being used here. At least, that's my understanding.
More useful information along those lines can be found here
I would suggest two things. First, the meaning of "abomination" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of whether or not we should be sold out for God rather than agreeing with the world.
Leaving that, it seems to me that to argue that the word means "ritually unclean" makes little sense considering the context and usage and would likely have to be arrived at with a predisposition that "a man lying with a man" is not sin ... "so how can we make the bible agree with us?"
I mean, there is a lot of "ritually unclean" (in which they use the word "unclean"). They don't carry the death penalty. This is apparently something beyond merely "ritually unclean".
The "ritually unclean" word would be sheqets as found in passages like Lev. 11. Now, tow`ebah would certainly include "ritually unclean", but it seems patently obvious that it goes way beyond that.
Obvious, to you. I don't think the context requires your take at all. But you're welcome to it. As I noted, I held it once, too.
Well, that's fine, of course. If you are good with a God who commands brutal death for ritual uncleanness, that's your choice. I always thought He was more fair than that. ;)
Hey, you're the one that reads the Bible and finds a god that would command a brutal death for innocent children. I believe God to be more fair than that...
(And, as you have noted about yourself, I, too, tend to write these things with a smile in my voice. Just so you know I'm not being harsh, here...)
(Yes, I'm fine with "I tend to write these things with a smile in my voice.")
Here's the funny thing. I see justice in God's wrath. (I do not find "a god that would command a brutal death for innocent children" -- remember, I don't believe in "innocent children".) That means that His wrath is justly displayed in those who commit sin, and it is justly mitigated in cases of "ritual uncleanness". I see, in other words, consistency in His justice. You, on the other hand, dismiss the "just wrath" argument in the case of "innocent children". I would have to conclude that you would, to remain consistent, also dismiss the "just wrath" argument in the case of "ritual uncleanness" for the same reason. Therefore, to be consistent, you would necessarily dismiss the entire "put to death men who lie with men as with women" argument. Or, to state it most clearly, that entire set of commands would be viewed as a cultural anomaly, not a righteous moral judgment. Adultery and bestiality, then, are still wrong (in your view) simply because you logically see them as wrong, not because a just Sovereign has declared them wrong. And, in that, I'm the odd one. I don't know. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
(I do not find "a god that would command a brutal death for innocent children" -- remember, I don't believe in "innocent children".) That means that His wrath is justly displayed in those who commit sin, and it is justly mitigated in cases of "ritual uncleanness".
But the Bible is quite clear that the sins of the father (or others, in general) will not be paid by the children (or the innocent, in general). So, I don't believe your position to be an effectively biblical or Godly one, on this point.
You're concerned that I will misrepresent what you believe. You are not concerned about 1) misrepresenting what I believe or 2) accurately understanding "orthodox, historical Christianity".
Nice dodge. (Pointless, but a dodge anyway.)
? I am not at all sure what you mean.
Yes, I am concerned that we understand one another. I think that is a good thing and it is why I am visiting here. If I have misrepresented what you believe, by all means, let me know so that I can apologize and set the record straight.
And, like it or not, I AM quite familiar with orthodox historical Christianity, or at least the anabaptist, baptist and generally evangelical flavors of it.
No dodge, and I'm not sure what I might have said to make you draw that mistaken conclusion.
You're the one who said, "you're the one that reads the Bible and finds a god that would command a brutal death for innocent children." It's like the lawyer who asks, "Mr. Smith, answer yes or no -- have you stopped beating your wife?" I can disagree that I find a God (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that the lower case "g" is a typo) who commands a brutal death for innocent children (in opposition to what I've already said) or I can agree with you. I can't disagree with your "innocent children" portrayal. No, that would be an unbiblical and ungodly position. You don't see how you're painting me into an unkind, unfair, unfriendly corner?
The dodge? Throwing unkind, unfair, unfriendly accusations about a different topic rather than answering the very clear statement I made that your morality is derived from your own logic rather than from biblical exegesis. (Please note: The point of that statement is not "You're wrong" as much as "You're arguing against and for the Bible at the same time." It's just that you've set some apart as myth or cultural legend and accept some as genuine ... apparently even in the same text. It's inconsistent.)
But, look, I've obviously pushed you way too far in this conversation. I haven't seen you use this kind of rhetoric before. I've upset you -- pushed some buttons I'm not aware of. So I won't respond further on this topic. Nor do I plan to put up anymore comments from you on this topic. It's so far off topic anyway ...
Post a Comment