No one on that side is recognizing that "What gives you the right to push your morality on others?" is exactly aimed at pushing their morality on others. It seems strange to me that the hateful speech of "You're just a homophobic hater!" is never recognized by those protesting what they see as hate. No one protesting those who hold that homosexual behavior is a sin is asking whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin or not. That question is irrelevant, apparently.
I would suggest that the question is central ... and not trivial. Consider the facts. Historically, the entire history of the Church has been to hold this particular behavior as clearly biblical sin. The only point of deviation is the last 50 years. Scripturally, every biblical reference to homosexual behavior is negative, calling it sin or worse (like "abomination"). No biblical reference paints the behavior in any positive light. Worse, Paul's reference links it not to mere sin, but part of a string of assurances of exclusion from the kingdom.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).Isn't it odd that no church figures are calling on Christians to embrace thievery, covetousness, or adultery? No one is standing there demanding that we love idolaters like Jesus did. There is no question on those. This one, however, is somehow different.
So, the question. What if it's true? What if the historical Church position is true? What if the biblical position is accurate? What if homosexual behavior really is a violation of God's commands? What if Paul was accurate in describing that behavior as an indication of being outside of the kingdom of God? What then? If it is true, I would think it would be obvious that no one of any character would want to embrace this behavior either in themselves or in those they love. If it is true, I would think that clear warnings would be the kindest thing to do.
I live in the desert. I can imagine a parallel process here in a hike with a friend in the desert. My friend tells me, "I don't believe in snakes." I see that he's about to step on a rattler. What should I do? In today's environment they would necessarily tell me, "What gives you the right to push your views about snakes on others? What are you ... some kind of hiking hater? Why don't you just embrace your friend's desire to walk where he wishes?" I should not consider, "But ... that could kill him."
What if it's true? If it's true that a commitment to homosexual behavior (and sexual immorality and idolatry and adultery and theft and greed ...) are all indications that you are outside the kingdom, I would be remiss -- unkind and uncaring -- in remaining quiet. I would be cruel to fail to call for repentance. I would be hateful to fail to point to the danger.
What if it's true? That's the question no one seems to want to answer. If it is true, then it isn't a matter of foisting morality; it's a matter of deep and caring concern. If it is not, then we have genuine reason to question Scripture, Church history, the abilities of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth, and, consequently, Christianity itself. We really should ask the question.
17 comments:
Of course, some would simply respond, "What if it's NOT true?", though they can't make a cogent argument for that possibility.
Yes, that might be the response ... except I addressed it in the post. "If it is not, then we have genuine reason to question Scripture, Church history, the abilities of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth, and, consequently, Christianity itself." If it is not true, then the massive failures on God's part are staggering. He failed when He called it an "abomination" in the Old Testament and He failed when Paul was inspired by God to write that no one who practices such things have a part in the kingdom and He failed by sending His Holy Spirit who was to lead His people into all truth ... and the list goes on.
You're right, though. There isn't a coherent argument for the possible claim that it's not true nor a reasonable addressing of the multifaceted arguments of why it is true and the counter argument is simply, "What if it's NOT true?" without suggesting why it would or would not be true. Which was my original point. It seems as if no one is addressing the question of truth or not, but just, "Let's just embrace that sin!"
They say not to force our morality on them, yet they think it just fine to use the force of the government to force their morality on us!
True. And isn't "What gives you the right to force your morality on us?" an attempt to force their morality on us?
Ah but you swerve into another imposition, that truths regarding the sin of a thing simply cannot BE known. Of course this reasoning swerves the hater haters into their own inconsistencies: that their impositions of not imposing are not based on anything anyone can actually know... and this according to their own reasoning.
What a confusing time for those who have disconnected themselves from scripture.
Even more confusing, Dan, because many of those who have disconnected themselves from scripture think they are connected ... by changing everything.
Posted a reply to this, out on my tumblr space…
http://azspot.net/post/81567265007/what-if
Amazing how Christians can read the same bible and come to entirely different conclusions.
The reason it is irrelevant to a conversation about gay rights whether or not homosexuality is a "sin" is because, if those protesting fully believe that it IS a sin, they are free not to engage in it -- I have never seen anyone protesting (or needing to protest) being compelled to engage in gay relationships or activities; they are protesting what OTHER people do with their own lives. The very second I see someone forcing other people to be gay or placing legal restrictions or penalties on their lives and relationships for being heterosexual, I will acknowledge that there is something resembling mutual "hate" and antagonism. Until then, such an assertion is ridiculous bordering on utterly delusional. No one is expressing "hate" toward you by not caring whether you think what they're doing is sinful; the sense of entitlement that goes with such a claim is absurd.
Anonymous, first, it is important to note that the point is not "hate". If it is true that a behavior is a violation of God's instructions, then warning people about it isn't hate; it is concern for their well-being.
Most pointedly, however, it would appear that you are wholly unaware of the campaigns, death threats, and legal actions taken by those in the "gay community" against those who simply agree with the Bible on the subject. But, of course, despite your claim " I will acknowledge that there is something resembling mutual 'hate' and antagonism", I'm pretty sure you won't.
Yes, indeed, Naum, isn't it amazing that people can read the same Bible and come to radically different conclusions?
In your rejoinder you point out "a few instances of 'biblical teaching' on sexual relationships that most today would deem detestable." Without addressing your list, is it your contention that such a list (assuming it is accurate) is wrong? Is it your view that God was mistaken in making these rules and we've managed to improve on God's design with "new social situations"? And if it is your claim that "A truly Bible-based faith would see that fallibility of the human understanding of divine revelation", what's the point? I mean, we can't really know anything and humans are improving on God's original design anyway, so why bother? If the real issue is just being nice to each other, why bother with Christianity at all? I know it sounds like a rude and sarcastic question, but it's not meant that way. I seriously don't understand the point.
You know (to no one in particular, just to readers) what's really disturbing, though? At no time have I suggested that we ban homosexual behavior. I have never tried to foist my morality on others. I point out that God considers "this" or "that" as sin and I urge people not to engage in sin, but I have not -- indeed, I would find it repugnant to -- force people to follow God's commands. That makes no sense from my perspective. It makes no sense to me to force people to pay to help the poor and it makes no sense to me to, by force of law or something more, force people to obey God. I find both notions offensive and, in fact, foolish.
Now, what is happening is that my sense of morality that I value is being outlawed. "Marriage is ..." and I'm not allowed to hold that if I own a business or hold a public opinion. And yet, it is me who is being coercive and they who are being coerced. Why is that? Why is it that I can simply urge people to repent -- requiring that they do it of their own accord -- and I'm the hater pushing my morality on others?
And if it is your claim that "A truly Bible-based faith would see that fallibility of the human understanding of divine revelation", what's the point? I mean, we can't really know anything and humans are improving on God's original design anyway, so why bother? If the real issue is just being nice to each other, why bother with Christianity at all? I know it sounds like a rude and sarcastic question, but it's not meant that way. I seriously don't understand the point.
What that means is human knowledge is provisional, God's truth and Jesus is absolute. To take a leap and assert that it just about "being nice to each other" is to take a giant rhetorical leap and miss the point entirely.
We work out, best we can, the morality of our conduct, always striving to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God.
"We work out, best we can, the morality of our conduct, always striving to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God."
Naum, here's my question. By "we work out" you imply "Well, we can't really have any sense of certainty" (with a real suggestion that certainty would be a wrong thing to have). Isn't that your position?
And my real question is this. If "we work out, best we can, the morality of our conduct" and conclude, taking into account that limited list you offer of justice, mercy and humility, that, say, homosexual behavior is indeed immoral, what would you suggest we do?
By "we work out" you imply "Well, we can't really have any sense of certainty" (with a real suggestion that certainty would be a wrong thing to have). Isn't that your position?
What does "walk humbly with God" mean to you? I think there are some matters we are in unanimous agreement about (but even there, one should exercise caution and take the "long" view -- for example, for most of Christian history, concepts like freedom of thought or that slavery was an intolerable injustice were only held by a tiny few).
And my real question is this. If "we work out, best we can, the morality of our conduct" and conclude, taking into account that limited list you offer of justice, mercy and humility, that, say, homosexual behavior is indeed immoral, what would you suggest we do?
How do you treat fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (be they believer or believer-to-be) when they differ on whether infants or adults should be baptized? On their communion/eucharist practice? Or whether or not women are treated with full equality, or deemed subservient?
At the minimum, if you think same sex covenantal unions are immoral, then don't engage in one :)
Otherwise, you're playing God and declaring on behalf of phantasmal victims (unlike true injustice). You sound pharisaical in that respect to many.
Propaganda seeks to convert the unbeliever, while truth seeks to hear them out.
"What does 'walk humbly with God' mean to you?"
Well, now, a fine example. "Walk humbly with God" to me means "agreeing with whatever God says is true and doing whatever He says to do." It means not placing my competing moral values over what He says.
"How do you treat fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (be they believer or believer-to-be) when they differ on whether infants or adults should be baptized?"
Is this really that kind of an issue to you? Consider the facts. There are no biblical references supporting homosexual behavior. All biblical reference to the behavior classify it as sin. There are actually a limited number of sins about which it is said that if you are identified with it, you are not part of the kingdom of God. This is one. There has been no disagreement on this in the entire history of the Church until the last 50 years.
So, you would argue that, despite these facts, this is a side issue not worthy of concern, a peripheral matter. Paul warns these people are out of the kingdom, but you would argue that we shouldn't consider it a problem and just "get along". So I'm back to what we can know. Is Jesus the only way? Are we saved by grace through faith? Is there really any difference between Christianity and every other world religion that offers "salvation" (whatever they may mean by it) by social justice and good deeds? If this issue is unclear and peripheral, what is not? It would appear that your view would be one single verse (the meaning of which you and I apparently disagree on) -- Micah 6:8.
…"agreeing with whatever God says is true and doing whatever He says to do." It means not placing my competing moral values over what He says.
But the point still is, your interpretation of Scripture is tinted by your own cultural and/or traditional accommodation. You impose upon Scripture standards of your own which are not to be found there, and you accept as binding specific rules that suit you, while completely ignoring or discarding many other Biblical proscriptions and rules that you do not like. In other words, you pick and choose, and your “affirmation of human sexuality” is more a combination of social convention and prejudice, which you support by cherry picking carefully edited portions of Scripture.
Consider the facts. There are no biblical references supporting homosexual behavior. All biblical reference to the behavior classify it as sin. There are actually a limited number of sins about which it is said that if you are identified with it, you are not part of the kingdom of God. This is one. There has been no disagreement on this in the entire history of the Church until the last 50 years.
Simply not true and/or reliant upon assumptions you cannot cannot have certainty about.
Are we saved by grace through faith?
Finally something we can agree on :)
But you seem more interested in purity codes and legalism and indeed, make it transactional (grace is free!, has nothing to do with "intellectual" assent, but a heart thing -- in other words, it's not your doctrine that "saves" you). Smacks more of moralistic therapeutic deism than the liberating grace of Christ Jesus.
When Jesus is quite clear that he desires mercy, not sacrifice.
"your interpretation of Scripture is tinted by your own cultural and/or traditional accommodation."
An astounding proposition coming from you whose entire theology is decided by your culture. I impose biblical standards that have been imposed since the Bible was written. I'm not writing new things.
"you accept as binding specific rules that suit you, while completely ignoring or discarding many other Biblical proscriptions and rules that you do not like."
Interesting accusation. Since I attempt to form my worldview from Scripture, I don't know how accurate you might be. Seems not likely. Am I perfectly attaining the biblical standards? No. But "completely ignoring or discarding"? No.
"you seem more interested in purity codes and legalism"
And you seem to embrace antinomianism, a discarding of all biblical standards. Look, it wasn't me who said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." I suggest that obedience to Christ is a natural result of loving Christ. You suggest that loving Christ can be done without any obedience. More telling, it is abundantly clear that you are overlaying your own sense of morality over Scripture and discarding God's version, and you consider that "walking humbly with God".
Look, if God says, "Doing this will be bad for you," would you have me say, "No, God" or would you have me say, "Well, don't worry, folks. God says it will hurt you, but I won't bother letting you know"? All I'm doing is saying, "God says this is a bad thing. Do with that what you will."
Post a Comment