The deciding LGBT issue that Christians cannot ignore

by John Shore on August 23, 2012 in Christian Issues · 276 comments

Professor Malachi tapped a file resting in the middle of his desk. “Let’s consider this candidate right here. The man’s a homosexual.”

Arthur shifted in his chair. “I think he goes to hell.”

“Are you certain of that?”

Arthur paused in case he wasn’t. He wanted to impress Malachi, who had asked him into his office for this special chat. Besides being Dean of the Discernment and Judgement Department at Heaven U., Malachi was also one of its most popular professors. “Well, the Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.”

“What’s the first thing we teach about sin here at Heaven U., Arthur?”

Arthur thought back to his Introduction to Judgement class. “That it’s contextual.”

“Exactly. When is it not a sin to kill?”

“When it’s done in the service of a greater good. In defense of the weak. In self-defense. Or even if it’s an accident.”

“So despite the fact that the Bible says very clearly Thou shalt not kill … ?”

“We consider the context in which the killing occurred before determining whether or not it was a sin.”

“That’s correct. And if a woman tells her best friend that the Christmas cookies she made her were so delicious that she ate them all, even though she really threw them in the garbage because they tasted like dead cat?”

“No sin,” said Arthur. He remembered the time back on earth when he told his Grandma how much he loved the horrible red and purple sweater she’d knit him.

“But the Bible says very clearly Thou shalt not lie,” said Malachi.

“But it’s okay. Because the larger good was served by her showing affection to her friend.”

“And the poor man who steals a loaf of bread from the kitchen of a rich man to feed starving children?”

“No sin.”

“Despite the very clear words of the Bible? Despite the Eighth Commandment, Thou shalt not steal?”

“Still no sin. There’s no judging sin without context.”

“Spoken like the angel we’ll make of you yet, Arthur.”

“Thank you, sir.” Arthur took a moment to look out at the vast shimmering empyrean.

“Beautiful, isn’t it?” said Malachi.

“Even when I dreamed of it on earth, I never imagined anything like it.”

“Speaking of those who aspire to be here. Right off the bat, do you vote thumbs up or down for our gay applicant?”

“Well,” said Arther, “I know that as a Christian I definitely believed that homosexuality was a sin. That’s all I was ever taught.”

“You died a young man, Arthur. Did you hold that same belief at the time of your accident?”

“By then the whole issue had grown more complicated. All I ever heard growing up was that being gay was extremely sinful. I learned that basically there was no such thing as a homosexual: that gay people were really just straight people who needed to get right with God.”

“You believed it possible to pray away the gay, as the term had it.”

“I did believe that, yes.”

“As did most Christians. What happened to that belief?”

“Over time it became obvious how wrong it was. It became perfectly clear that nobody could pray away their gay—that some people really were just born gay, the same as some are born left-handed, or red-headed.”

“Ah. And what followed that revelation?”

“Then we started being taught that while it might not have been possible for a gay person to stop being gay, it was possible for any gay person to resist the temptation to act gay.”

“Interesting,” said the professor. “What exactly does that mean, you think, to act gay?”

“I guess it means, well, to engage in homosexual sex. What else could it mean?”

“Nothing that I can see. So the new idea was that gay people could, and should, will themselves not to be intimate with others of their kind—to never have life partners in the way that straight people do.”

“Yes. Just like everyone else, they were supposed to resist the sins they personally were tempted to commit.”

“Which means, doesn’t it, that everyone is then beginning on the same moral footing. Up until then being gay, in and of itself, was an irredeemable sin. But that was no longer the case, was it? Now it was intrinsically no more a sin to be gay than straight—a sin committed by a gay person was no more immoral than the same sin committed by a straight person. All were now equal. All were innocent until proven guilty.”

Arthur thought for a moment. “That’s right. That’s how it was.”

“So tell me, where has all this left you on the gay issue?”

“Still a bit confused. I honestly don’t know what to make of the whole question of the sinfulness of homosexuality.”

“Then let’s reason it out, shall we? If I understand correctly, you no longer hold to the idea that it’s a sin just to be gay, any more than it’s automatically a sin to be straight. Agreed?”

“Agreed.”

“So sinfulness is not determined by what we are, but only by what we do. To be sinful we must first act sinfully. Yes?”

“Yes.”

“So virtually the only way to judge if anyone, gay or straight, has done something sinful, is by evaluating the action in question. There simply is no other way to determine sinfulness, yes?”

“Yes.”

“And what do we know to be the indispensable tool for judging the morality of any given action?”

“Context.”

“Context. Sometimes lying, stealing, or killing is a sin. Sometimes any action at all–or taking no action at all—can be a sin. And when we look to context, what do we look for?”

“Harmful intent and harmful action,” said Arthur. “At the motives behind the action and the harm that resulted from it. Or, as you put it in one of your lectures, ‘To find the sin look within.’”

“Very good! And what does the Bible say about the context of homosexual sex?”

“Gosh,” said Arthur. He thought for a moment. “Nothing. The Bible doesn’t say anything about any contexts or situations in which it is or might be okay for gay people to actually be gay. Same as it doesn’t with lying, stealing, killing, and all the other sins it mentions. It doesn’t talk about contexts at all.”

“Then the Bible simply cannot tell us, in any blanket sort of way, what individual acts are or are not sinful, can it?”

“No,” said Arthur. “I guess it can’t.”

“And that leaves us to do what the Bible is incapable of doing, isn’t that right? It is necessarily our responsibility to determine whether any individual is sinful. Because only we can consider context.”

“That’s right. It’s up to us. There’s no other way.”

“Which brings us back to the question of our gay candidate. Heaven or hell?”

“I have no idea.” Arthur smiled. “After all, I couldn’t possibly make that call before I know the man—really know him—as a person.”

 

(A shorter version of this story is To Find the Sin Look Within.)



 

11prayerofweek
Subscribe to John’s Prayer for the Week and/or John’s Monthly Newsletter here. (Read a bit more about them here).

{ 276 comments… read them below or add one }

1 2

Brian March 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm

There are a host of things called “SIN” in the Bible by pastors, theologians and scholars of dubious background…

Some years ago, it began to occur to me that pretty much all of these “sins” are actually symptoms of “SIN.” In Spanish there is a preposition spelled S-I-N, which means “without.” Jesus told us to pray “without ceasing.” Why? Perhaps it was because he wanted us to live with God, but when we don’t pray without ceasing, we eventually are left “without” God.

To judge someone else, something Jesus told us not to do, causes us to reject God by judging his Spirit in another…

What if, in the end, we discovered that “heaven” and “hell” were simply two different ways of relating to God. Jesus stated that he is the “Alpha” and the “Omega.” He is the beginning of all creation and the end of all creation. In the end, it is entirely possible that in the next life, we will all wind up in the same place. Perhaps our eternal disposition will be the direct consequence of whether we have embraced God or rejected him.

We are all sinners, because we will never be able to perfectly pray without ceasing, but it may well be that the more we are able to pray and accept God’s Grace in this life, the more we will grow acclamated to the presence of Unconditional Love. The one who can accept and share was has been given freely is usually the person who realizes just how much they need that Love…

Reply

CH August 28, 2012 at 7:56 am

Bottom line is that this argument, in the OP, fails to hit the titles mark. It fails to convince a “bible believing idiot” that so long as you have a valid reason in your own eyes you can sidestep Gods commands.

And a word of advice to all of you: if you really want to convince people who hold to the traditional, historic understanding of marriage that yours is blessed of God too, you might want to stop insulting and censoring everyone who calls you on the carpet. You all sound like the raving fundies you all gather to disparage, just with a different agenda.

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 8:24 am

And if you want to convince people that your arguments are based on Christian love rather than private bigotry, you might want to stop insulting and dismissing everyone whose life experience doesn’t match your tidy worldview.

Sigh. If only God had ever sent someone to be an example of His love who was willing to hang out with sinners and tax collectors, lepers and the socially marginalized, and who could tell stories of how God’s love isn’t about slavishly following the rules, but engaging one’s neighbor with compassion.

But then, if God had, people probably would have executed him for bucking the system, so it’s probably just as well.

“You all sound like the raving fundies you all gather to disparage, just with a different agenda.”
Pot, meet kettle.

Reply

David S August 28, 2012 at 8:31 am

Lymis – I’m with you! Thanks for your clarity. And I share your *sigh* of exasperation with you-know-who.

Mr. Shore – I’m done giving any more oxygen to this dialog. My apologies for feeding it as long as I have.

Reply

Jill August 28, 2012 at 8:46 am

May I add a thank you to those who have gone the distance and continue to challenge these kinds of…insufferable know-it-alls.

A person struggling to find her place needs to know in no uncertain terms that she is safe, respected, cared for, and validated. I have my own work cut out for me, but it’s more than nice to know people like me have support against the Pharisees of the day.

It is of the utmost necessity. I cannot express that enough.

Reply

CH August 28, 2012 at 8:33 am

Lymis, o extend the same challenge to you as I did DR. Quote me insulting any of you.

Reply

Jill August 28, 2012 at 8:36 am

I can only speak for myself that at this drawn out stage in the developments, you have insulted my search for Jesus for my own life.

If He is as opinionated, dismissive, and absolute as you represent yourself to be in his corner, perhaps I’ve got Him all wrong.

Reply

Melody August 28, 2012 at 8:54 am

By accusing us of mocking God simply by challenging your obstinate views. Don’t deny it. You think you’re better than we are because you don’t question anything and hold to your robotic, legalistic views. You said it yourself. Don’t lie.

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 11:48 am

Melody has it right. You feel you are justified because you carefully never said something like “Lymis, I think you are an abomination and are going to hell.”

But you’ve repeatedly said that you don’t think we can set aside Biblical rules just because we “think we have a good reason.” That’s dismissive of ANY reason (because obviously, none of them will be good) and therefore, dismissive of everyone who has, through years of pain, prayer, and discernment, come to a conclusion about our own spiritual relationship with God that doesn’t match your condemnation of us.

That’s insulting. And it’s even more insulting that you want to try to force us to say you weren’t. So you get to be dismissive, obnoxious, insulting and closed-minded, while at the same time able to claim that you took the moral high ground.

In a discussion of knee-jerk condemnation of homosexuality, you say you don’t think it gets to the heart of doctrine on sin. That’s insulting.

You say as a Christian you submitted yourself to the will of Jesus and that it wasn’t easy, while clearly implying that gay people don’t, or presumably, we’d make other “choices.” That’s insulting.

You discuss being gay and in a committed, loving, marital relationship with “appetites” and “whatever we can justify as being right in our own eyes.” That’s insulting.

You dismiss the analysis and opinion of people whose views differ from yours with the claim that you have seven years of seminary, implying that anyone who doesn’t can’t possibly understand the Bible, and by extension from the rest of your argument, God, without it. That’s insulting.

You claim that Paul has to be taken in context – context that apparently requires extensive technical schooling to understand, but deny that anything in the Bible relating to homosexuality – you know, like gang rape or temple prostitution or child slavery – can be considered in context. Things that might apply to you or inconvenience you? Context. Things that are central to the lives of your LGBT neighbors? Appetites. That’s insulting.

And then, in the midst of spouting all of this, you then ask permission to “be vulnerable” and announce that you have gay friends that you love and that you really haven’t actually come to an opinion about homosexuality at all, and seem to expect adults who can do things like read, type, and presumably, not drool all over ourselves while doing so to buy into that fertilizer for even an instant. That’s insulting.

Did you use any phrases that, taken out of context, could be pointed to as a clearly insulting or inflammatory? Not that I can recall. Does that mean you are exempt from our being insulted by things you clearly intended to be insulting? Not for an instant.

And neither is the horse you rode in on.

Reply

CH August 28, 2012 at 12:03 pm

So basically, Lymis, you are insulted because you think you have judged the motives of my heart. All I can say is you are way off base. Your tirade is nothing more than ad hom attacks, none of it based in what I have actually said.

If you are insulted because I stand on the conviction that you nor I get to change what God has said just because we have a good excuse, then that is for you to take up with God. I won’t apologize for that. It is the truth. Yet you also conveniently left out where I said gay Christians everywhere can rejoice that there are far more faithful and biblical arguments that support your cause than this example of acting like my 7 yr old (who decides he can disobey dad because he really NEEDed that toy).

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 1:34 pm

“Yet you also conveniently left out where I said gay Christians everywhere can rejoice that there are far more faithful and biblical arguments that support your cause”

No, I didn’t miss that. I just don’t buy that you think so. Your entire approach radiates the opposite.

I’m not insulted by your conviction. I’m insulted by your insulting behavior. There’s a difference.

Take, for example, comparing my most intimate relationship, based on a lifetime of prayer, discernment, submission to God’s will, and deep reflection, to a childish whim for a selfish desire.

Still can’t see anything insulting? That plank in your eye again?

Reply

Melody August 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Lymis, you are awesome. I gave up on CH a long time ago. And I say, give up. You’ve done everything you could to try to make her be considerate. It’s impossible. She is a hopeless case. Just let her be stupid and blind to her faults. I believe in karma, and someday, it is going to hit her right between the eyes. It’s clear her Duke education was a waste of time and money, because let’s face it: You can’t fix stupid, and you can’t learn when your mind is closed. Only she can overcome her stubbornness and arrogance and open her own mind. Sadly, we can’t do it for her. She’s so hard-headed, she’s going to have to figure it out for herself. No matter how much sense you make, she refuses to see it, for the reasons I mentioned.

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Somewhere in the … let’s just go with “collected works” that CH posted here was the claim that the point of all this was to convert the other side to one’s own views. CH has repeatedly sunk to the level of trying to discredit what I’ve said on the basis that it wasn’t convincing — to CH.

Well, duh.

While I’m certainly not incapable of getting sucked into drama for it’s own sake, I honestly don’t feel my main motivation was to convince CH of anything – I’ve tilted at that particular windmill far too often in my life, with far more compelling and subtle opponents, to expect success to come in that form.

It’s more about speaking the truth. To the degree that CH claims to speak for all Christians, and several times, to speak for God – or, to be more precise, claims to be graciously stepping aside so that we can address our complaints to what CH claims is God, but is an inexpertly disguised sock puppet with CH’s hand up it’s butt, it is speaking the truth to what passes for power.

The last refuge of this sort of mindset is the eventual claim, in the final face of complete defeat, and faced with all the damage and destruction that their views have caused, that “I never knew! Nobody ever told us that what we were doing was hurting people! We never would have done it if we knew at the time!’

There are very few people these days who will admit to having been segregationists in the 60′s, just as there was an astonishing shortage of people who admit to having believed in the Nazis in post war Germany, or a generation earlier, ant-suffragists, and so on, all the way back. It’s particularly vile for Christians to be the moral descendants of the people shouting for the crucifixion of Jesus, but here they are.

To the degree that people like CH feel that they can make this sort of smug, self-righteous, outdated, and discredited claim, someone needs to stand up and, if nothing else, make sure that that sort of claim doesn’t just go unchallenged. That’s what CH is used to – witness the waving of the magic “I went to seminary, nyah, nyah” card.

But you’re right. There’s a point where it’s pointless.

Reply

C_H August 28, 2012 at 2:34 pm

“No, I didn’t miss that. I just don’t buy that you think so.”

Thus the reason I said you are judging my motives rather than what I actually say (and you are still wrong). Should I be insulted by such behavior, Lymis?

“Take, for example, comparing my most intimate relationship, based on a lifetime of prayer, discernment, submission to God’s will, and deep reflection, to a childish whim for a selfish desire.”

I have said this several times already, but you seem determined not to hear it. But I’ll say it once more:

IF the ONLY argument that existed was THIS one from THIS post, which YES, amounts to applauding nothing more than a childish whim or a selfish desire, then YES, you would have no case as far as I am concerned and I would not even be considering whether or not the 6 passages of Scripture which I know you know well ought to be reconsidered. HOWEVER (please listen), gay CHRISTIANS everywhere can REJOICE that THIS argument is not the only one and that others have seemed to find a way to make better arguments WHILE STILL REMAINING FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE *unlike this post and the commenters who applaud it*

Many if not most of you here exalt your own wisdom over God’s. “Paul is wise but wrong,” for example. “The Bible isn’t God’s Word just a book not unlike what we are doing here…” for example. SUCH arrogance and disdain for Scripture does not HELP YOUR CAUSE as it pertains to the title of this post, which boasts it is the DECIDING ISSUE that Christians cannot ignore. Well, I’m trying to let you in on an important secret which you might want to take to heart if you care at all about building bridges rather than burning them:
Christians whom you seem to wish would wake will not only IGNORE this post and reasoning but they will be further convinced THEY are right and YOU are wrong when you try to appeal to the same reasoning my 7 year old uses when he disobeys mom and dad. “But dad, I had a GOOD reason! MY CONTEXT was that I WANTED it!”

I hope I’ve made myself clear.

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Your caps lock key seems to be sticking.

Reply

CH August 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm

Sigh. I’ll take your glib dismissal as another sign that you don’t care what I say but only about your perception.

This is “liberal” Christianity? God have mercy.

Reply

John Shore August 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm

(and that’ll be the last we hear from CH. but good job to all.)

DR August 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Yet another example of a Christian who doesn’t possess the integrity or self-control to leave a place that she’s been banned from and instead, has the arrogance and hostility to evade the ban and try to continue the conversation on her terms.

It’s so frightening.

Reply

Diana A. August 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm

WARNING: WALL OF TEXT AHEAD!

I think Melody’s right. You can’t fix stupid. Never-the-less, I am in one of my Don Quixote moods, so I’m going to try.

The challenge at hand is: “Quote me insulting any of you.”

Well, I’m not sure that “insult” is the correct word. But as to things you’ve said on this blog that I find objectionable, well:

1) “Bottom line is that this argument, in the OP, fails to hit the titles mark. It fails to convince a “bible believing idiot” that so long as you have a valid reason in your own eyes you can sidestep Gods commands.” I’m not sure that this was the point of John’s blog post, but okay.

2) “Nina, The 8th commandment isn’t the only place we are told not to lie. There are many others, and here is just one of them (quoted for Melody’s benefit, as well)…” “Hi. My name is CH. I know everything. Nobody else knows anything. So I’m going to sanctimoniously quote Bible verses at people to show off how smart I am and how stupid everybody is in comparison to me.” Really?

3) “Paul is once more proven right. ‘Knowledge puffs up….’” I already addressed this one, but it’s similar to #2.

4) “The fact that grandma is not humble enough to accept that her gift is not all that great and the fact that the receiver is not grateful for all gifts received is just a mark of our humanity.” This is just flat out mean. I sure hope you’re not this disrespectful to your own grandmother. If so, I sure feel sorry for her. In fact, I feel sorry for anyone who’s dumb enough to love you, including God.

5) “To put it another way, it is the same ol’ question: Did God really say….?” Comparing John Shore to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, now that’s a way to win friends and influence people–influence people to run to the toilet and vomit. Plus, again, I’m not sure that this was John’s point. But you’re free to believe as you please, as are we.

6) “No one said following Jesus was easy. It requires us to dethrone ourselves and our own desires, wants, wishes and feelings and accept another as Lord of our life.” Yeah, dethroning yourself. There’s a plan. How ’bout you practice what you preach? Or are you the exception to the rule?

7) “When I became a Christian I submitted my life under the lordship of Jesus.” (coughing fit ensues.) Really? ’cause it doesn’t show. Again, less preaching, more practicing would be a good thing for you to, well, practice.

8) “And he also calls us to commend and rebuke and correct those in the household of faith.” Yes, it is a Bible verse. I’m certain that it was Paul, your God, who said it. And I say that Paul is wrong here, or at least that taking this Bible verse out of context and using it as the rule of your life is probably ill-advised. Most people don’t like being preached at. Too bad for them? Maybe, but an ounce of effective is worth a pound of right. Running around sanctimonously telling everybody how wrong they are is not the way to get them to pay attention to you. First, you listen to them. You attempt to see things from their point-of-view. This can be anatomically impossible (certainly, my neck and back hurt from trying to get my head where yours is), but one is called upon to try. Then, and only then, will you be in a position to influence the other to change. Otherwise, your preaching is just so much hot air. Just another noisy gong or clanging cymbal.

9) “Coming out the other side of 7 years of bible and theological education, including seminary,…” Oh look, more sanctimonious bragging! Gag me with a spoon!

10) “I agree – Paul requires a lot of context (as do all the biblical writers). I hope we can agree though that it is THEIR context that matters, not MINE. By this I mean, I can’t just interpret them based on me and my feelings today. If you want to quote me, lymis, do so, but get it all.” Ah, and you’re the only one who knows what THEIR context is, right?

11) “We need a whole lot less of people speaking their own mind and more Christians striving to have the mind of Christ (Phil 2) and being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12).” Again, try practicing what you preach.

12) “In the same way, saying you love God while showing contempt for his Word exposes a serious flaw on the supposed relationship.” We’re not showing contempt for God’s word. We’re showing contempt for your interpretation of God’s word. Yes, there is a difference between those two things.

13) “You (and Diana) are essentially saying that all opinions that don’t agree with you are irrelevant.” That’s not what I said and I doubt it’s what Melody said. But you are free to take it that way if you choose.

14) “I’ve never seen so many self-professing Christians so openly and gleefully mock the Bible and anyone who submits to it as God’s Word.” We’re not mocking the Bible. We’re mocking you. Again, there is a difference.

15) “, it is not Shore, but God, who we ought to be trying to please.” Oh look, another self-righteous, sanctimonious remark. Why am I not surprised?

16) “All i have done is speak truth according not to my authority but Scripture.” La-ti-da! You think it’s Scripture. I think it’s your sanctimonious interpretation of Scripture. I also think you desperately need to get over yourself.

17) “My hang-up is with a post and comments which once the fluffy narrative is removed boils down to this main point: MY context determines what is sin or not.” That’s not what he said. He didn’t say “MY context.” He said “context.” There is a difference. Boy, you really don’t have a head for nuance, do you?

There’s more. I’m sure of it. But I have run out of time at the moment. Perhaps now, you see a pattern?

Reply

DR August 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm

This is such an almost sociopathic response, it’s chilling. People like CH actually believe their own narrative – she’s set up the rules of engagement quite clearly. If someone is angry with her for hurting a vulnerable community and says so, she literally translates that into her mind as “insulting”. But that filter is really more of a protective mechanism of her ego – she needs to stay in control and she needs to be right, especially with something like understanding the Bible. Because if she’s gotten this wrong (and it’s pretty clear she’s finding reasons to not answer comments to which there’s no answer), that means (to her) that her whole life is wrong and doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps what she was brought here to experience was the courage that it really takes to be in authentic dialogue with people who simply don’t like her belief system and are angry with her continue to act out of it because of the damage it does. People like CH aren’t used to be stood up against so she plays the tone police and finds a way of removing herself from the conversation.

She’ll never reply to this – even as she creepily tries to evade the ban (by the way, what crazy, hostile compulsion drives something like this to come BACK to a forum with a different name after being told they are no longer welcomed and actually keeps talking? What kind of Christian does that? It’s like being asked to leave someone’s home because you won’t follow their rules and you find a way in through a window to keep talking about your Biblically-based beliefs on ethical behavior) . But she’ll read it. And that’s all I need to know.

Reply

Elizabeth August 28, 2012 at 8:45 am

I’m a “bible believing idiot”, and I want to convince you. I’ve known too many miserable, sex-hating lesbians. It’s OK for you, CH, to marry, have sex, and stop being miserable. Our “agenda” should be a rational debate on Jesus’ actual words in the New Testament. I’m waiting. I’m impatient. God will just have to forgive me.

Reply

catrenn August 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm

The problem you have, CH, is that you believe in the Bible so hard it stops you believing in God.

If He is real, if Jesus was who He said He was, and if the Spirit is still moving in the world, then you can’t STOP at the end of the Bible and say, that’s it, movie’s over, these are all the instructions there ever will be. The Bible itself tells you to read it with the Spirit as your interpreter. And everybody here does that.

Remember that Paul himself made distinctions between received inspiration and his own best guesses.

If God is real, then He’s talking to you right now. Start listening. What matters to you more, love or law? Are you a Christian or a Pharisee?

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Even if you do believe in the Bible that way, John clearly says that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would continue to instruct us. Claiming that the Bible contains all that God has to say is to deny that the Bible itself is true.

Reply

Lymis August 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Umm. That would be the John to whom the Gospels are attributed, not the one to whom this blog is attributed, though that one would no doubt say the same.

Reply

DR August 28, 2012 at 7:32 pm

You flouncing off in a petulant huff because people dared to vocalize how digested and angry we are with the impact of your belief system to you directly is an example of the grave emotional immaturity and lack of integrity my Christian brothers and sisters have when choosing to enter into tough conversation. You demand to be spoken to in a specific way – one that is sanitized of all anger and pain – or you walk. It’s so pathetic. If you want an example of why people walk away from the church and want nothing to do with us? Take a look at your behavior in this thread and this comment. You *chose* to be here – people treated you like a grown up, we were honest about how angry we are with you – and you’re leaving because you can’t handle it and you have the self-absorbed arrogance to actually suggest that it’s our problem.

Grow up.

Reply

Ben August 27, 2012 at 1:41 pm

I just want to give a little bit more accurate version of the way such a heavenly dialogue might go (in a Christian understanding) taking into account all sorts of different people…

“This man is a murderer.”

“This man is an adulterer.”

“This man had sex outside of marriage.”

“This man is prideful.”

“This man is loveless and hateful.”

“This man is full of anger and rage.”

“This man is full of lust and greed.”

“This man is a rapist.”

“This man is a religious hypocrite! He trusts in himself.”

“This man loves money.”

“This man neglected his family.”

“This man tells lies.”

“This man looks at women with lust.”

“This man hates his brother in his heart.”

“This man is disobedient to parents.”

“This is the worst of them all…he thinks he hasn’t done anything worthy of judgment. He thinks he is a good person.”

“Yes, I see it all Father. I see all the sins, evils, and injustices that all these men have committed against You. I see the debt they owe to You and Your justice. I see the punishment and the wrath that awaits them. Yet I will take it on myself. Put all their debts to my account. I want them to be saved. I love them.”*
-says the Son of God

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Hebrews 2:9)

We must repent, turn from our sins and trust Christ. But He is mighty to save anyone who comes to Him.

I have ignored the issue of homosexuality here, because I saw that the central message of the Christian gospel was misrepresented (if that was the intent of the dialogue). Nobody gets to heaven based on their own works, nobody has pure motives.

*the idea for the dialogue comes from John Flavel’s “The Father’s Bargain”

Reply

CH August 27, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Excellent point, Ben. With all the dust kicked up it was hard to address the other side of the coin here, namely, grace. This post, imo, misses out on what sin is and what the cure is.

Glad you brought it to light.

Reply

Lyn August 28, 2012 at 7:48 am

One wonders if you’d post a similar response to the parable of the sheep and the goats, or the story of the talents, or the corrupt judge. After all, all of those missed the central message of the gospel, too. This wasn’t a parable about grace. Not all Christian stories have to include grace, or faith, or love, or any other central concept of Christianity. They teach the lesson they teach. You want a parable on grace, go find a different story.

Reply

CH August 28, 2012 at 8:09 am

The difference between the parables Jesus told and this one, Lyn, is that the former do not have as their foundation a redefinition of sin and a misunderstanding of the human heart.

Reply

Jill August 28, 2012 at 8:30 am

CH, would it be at possible for you to do me personally a favor?

Could you shelf the obviously dripping arrogance from your commentary here?

I, as an ex-Christian struggling to find whether I can find a place within Christianity again, am tripping over your words and attitude.

I’m sincerely glad that absolutism works for your faith, but it nearly killed me as a young girl. I’m not asking you to explain yourself to me, nor feel responsible for my faith-based wrestling.

I am merely asking, from one Christ-inclined person to another, to please hold back the corrections to others and the moral certitude and allow the faith that is represented here to breathe and include people on the edge like me.

If however you feel I am undeserving of Christ’s (or your) compassion, then by all means ignore my plea. I hope I am mistaken about your intent here.

Reply

DR August 28, 2012 at 7:34 pm

CH can’t handle being in a place where she can’t control how she’s spoken to. So she’s chosen to play the “tone police” in order to remove herself from a conversation that felt uncomfortable for her.

I’m glad s/he was here. It’s about time the CH’s of the world had a nano-second of what it means to be on the receiving end of rage. Maybe now s/he’d know what it feels like to be a gay man or woman in Christian America.

Reply

Melody August 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm

Right on in the first sentence.

As for the last, I’d like to think she would have learned something, but given her reactions, I’d say she hasn’t learned a damn thing. She doesn’t think; she just feels and reacts. Oh well. Maybe she’ll take it with her and learn from it someday.

Reply

Lyn August 28, 2012 at 9:09 am

Oh, hon, if you’ve missed the fact that Jesus redefined sin from being one of following several hundred rules to a basic principle of love, then you’ve missed the entire gospel message.

Reply

Elizabeth August 28, 2012 at 9:17 am

The entirety of it. She missed the whole thing.

Reply

Diana A. August 28, 2012 at 9:18 am

No, the difference between John’s parable and the many parables told by Jesus is that John’s parable isn’t in the Bible and since it doesn’t fit your rigid understanding of what the Bible says, you’re inclined to dismiss it, which is your right. Just as it is the right of the rest of us to completely dismiss what you have to say.

Reply

Elizabeth August 28, 2012 at 8:35 am

“We have to be on our guard against the supposition that grace is an abstract quality; it is an active personal principle, showing itself in our dealings with those by whom we are surrounded.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/grace.html

Reply

Ben August 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Hi Lyn,

Thanks for your comment. You touch on an important point when reading parables. On one hand, parables are told in a certain context to express a certain truth and entire theologies are not to be extracted for them. For example, from the parable about the corrupt judge: “And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;” (Luke 18:1). Here the reason is expressed, that they would pray and not give up. At another time it says that Jesus told a parable against those who trusted in themselves. So parables do have particular points in particular contexts, that is a fair point.

On the other hand, though, Jesus’ parables are consistent with one another and do not contradict His teaching as a whole. I guess one of the reasons that I felt the need to post was not necessarily just because the central message of the gospel wasn’t mentioned, but rather because it was misrepresented.

It might not have been the author’s intent, and I hope I have not misrepresented the author’s views, but when I read it I felt like he was implying that Christian teaching is that one might be accepted into heaven based on their good works or the purity of their motives. In light of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, I thought it might be helpful to point out that that is not Christian teaching.

You see, I don’t want Christianity to be seen as just another list of rules and morality, and if someone meets those rules then one pronounces them “saved,” and if one does not meet those rules one pronounces them, “condemned.” If Christianity is just another list of rules and morals one must follow in order be saved, I’m toast.

The wonderful thing abot Jesus is that there is always hope for anyone who will turn and come to Him. He suffered the punishment in place of sinners, and He lived a righteous life for them. He died and rose again and ever lives. It is not about what I have done or not done but it is about what He has done. It is not ultimately about my identity but about my loss of identity and identifying with His death on the cross. It is not a law written on stone tablets but a law written on the fleshy tablets of the heart.

So I do understand your point about parables being addressed to a particular point. It may be that I read too much into the author’s use of a parable. I guess in short, I saw something that perhaps could misrepresent Christian teaching and confuse about what the gospel says, and I just wanted to clarify.

I appreciate your thoughts.

Ben

Reply

catrenn August 28, 2012 at 12:24 pm

the reason faith and works are dead separately is that if your motives are pure, you will do the good works as a result. if you are doing works for the opinion of others or out of fear, they are not actually good.

Sometimes when you work from the Spirit, when you are moving in grace, it doesn’t look that way to the Pharisees. remember that the law was given for the hardness of their hearts – ie, they didn’t want to take responsibility for their own choices, or listening to the Spirit. They wanted something concrete to point to.

Reply

Diana A. August 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm

This exactly.

Reply

Diana A. August 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Part of the problem is that this is just one blog post. It’s not an entire theology. Even the book of Romans is not an entire theology –though of all the NT books, it comes the closest.

Reply

Lisa Salazar August 27, 2012 at 10:07 am

Thank you for your new post; it harkens back to something Obama said in press conference about the time congress repealed DADT when he said, “I think what you’re seeing is a profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they’ve got to be treated like every other American. And I think that principle will win out.”

Reply

Nina Erickson via Facebook August 26, 2012 at 7:51 am

This is a nit-picky thing, but why do we always interpret the 8th commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” to mean, “Don’t lie. Ever?” The word “against” seems to imply (to me, at least) that this is about lies that deliberatly cause harm to other people; lies that protect the feelings of other people or smooth over awkward situations – the so-called “white lies” – don’t seem to be covered here. Thanking your grandma for the ugly sweater she knitted is not a harmful lie, and therefore not a sin.

Reply

Melody August 26, 2012 at 9:11 am

Exactly, Nina. Very few conservative and fundy Christians understand that verse. To those who would say that lying is *always* a sin, here’s a challenge for you: How do you respond to the midwives who lied to pharaoh to save the Hebrew babies? Would you take that as an exception, or as lying for the greater good? I choose the latter. And don’t forget, the Bible specifically.says that God *blessed* the midwives. He didn’t say, “Well, I’m gonna have to punish you; lying for any reason, even for good, is a sin.” So take that, you who call yourselves “biblicists” or “Bible believers.” You’re cherry-picking for your own convenience, just as you accuse liberals of doing. Hypocrites.

Reply

CH August 26, 2012 at 12:42 pm

Nina,
The 8th commandment isn’t the only place we are told not to lie. There are many others, and here is just one of them (quoted for Melody’s benefit, as well)…

Col. 3:
8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Reply

Melody August 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Way to ignore the basic point, CH. You fundies are really good at that.

Reply

Elizabeth August 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Forehead, meet laptop.

Reply

Elizabeth August 27, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Elizabeth is reduced to speaking of herself in the third-person while she knocks herself unconscious waiting for CH to stop picking on people intellectually bigger than she is.

Deep breath. I’ll go reread Mark again.

Reply

CH August 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm

Paul is once more proven right. “Knowledge puffs up….”

Reply

Diana A. August 27, 2012 at 6:41 pm

You should know, given how puffed up with knowledge (or something) you are.

Reply

Elizabeth August 28, 2012 at 8:58 am

Just for the record, Paul is demonstrably “wise” but not “right”. Buy a dictionary. I also understand they have them free online now. This aggregator is my favorite. http://dictionary.reference.com/

Reply

Lyn August 28, 2012 at 7:37 am

“Do not lie to each other”– Hey, lookie there, CONTEXT! Did you see it? Or did you just ignore that “to each other” as being a jot or tittle you could mentally remove from scripture?

Reply

Melody August 28, 2012 at 7:50 am

Well, that’s how fundamentalists work. It’s okay for THEM to pick and choose what scriptures apply and don’t, but not anyone else. I guess they think they have some kind of hidden knowledge that makes them superior to us filthy librulls. If you don’t cherry-pick exactly the way they do, you’re (in the words of our lovely friend CH): “mocking God.”

Reply

Elizabeth August 28, 2012 at 8:51 am

It’s frustrating, how often commenters misrepresent themselves on a Christian blog. “Don’t lie” is pretty basic, right?

Reply

1 2

Leave a Comment

Previous post in Christian Issues:

Next post in Christian Issues: