Far left activist site talk2action had an interesting post recently, entitled Knowledge is Power: Five Books About the Religious Right. The idea behind it was an interesting one – to pick five really foundational books with which to understand their cultural opponent, and to have those in common among themselves in order to have a common base of understanding by which to discuss and plan how to counter the right. So I thought, what five books would we recommend that all Christians who are interested in social and cultural reform share in common? Suggestions? Here are some possibilities:
- Total Truth (Pearcey) – essential
- For the Glory of God (Stark) – too much spin?
- Winning the Future (Gingrich) – essential
- Earthly Powers (Burleigh) – maybe
- The Myth of A Christian Nation (Boyd) – informative, but maybe not central?
I've only read Michelle Goldberg's book from either list. I can recommend 5 great movies that explore Christianity and Existentialism :) Only if your interested though! Have you watched "Ponette" yet? I'll make a shameless plug for my movie blog, I hope you don't mind.
Movie Masterworks "Art without knowledge is nothing"
Ponette just arrived from blockbuster today. I’ll let you know. Right now we can watch nothing but Madagascar with my 2 year old, so she can sing and dance to “I got to move it.”
Funny that you didn't put books by socialists on the list Seeker, what with (Some) Christians seeming to deeply believe in the idea of a nation run by a government that makes decisions for them, rather than allowing individuals to make decisions for themselves.
One of the most interesting things about today's socially regressive Christian Conservative movement is how similar it is to far left organizations, in terms of its belief that the government should fix everything while refusing to allow individuals to make decisions for themselves. Where do you stand on that?
Sam, I am not answering for seeker, but I do find it very troubling that suddenly many on the Christian right want to "use the government for good." The government should not be a tool of either side. It should be a small limited role no matter how important an issue may be, it almost always ends up worse when the government is involved.
Aaron,
I think the fundamental issue here is that conservatives are as bad as liberals when it comes to the abuse of government and its functions. It is quite clear, for instance, that conservatives are just as irresponsible about spending (if not more so) than liberals. It is also quite clear that where liberals want to use the government to right alleged societal ills (rampant gun ownership, for instance), so to do conservatives want to use the government to cure alleged social ills (homosexuality, for example).
Furthermore, I’ve seen you making the same sort of big government arguments – “Well, I don’t want an FMA, but if the judges are going to force it on us…” to use one recent example. The problem with this is that the government shouldn’t be involved. If anything, the solution to the gay marriage problem is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. If the government conferred civil unions on straights and gays alike, and we left “marriage” to the churches, then Seeker could finally calm down, because his church would never have to recognize gay marriages, and could go back to loving the bejezus out of gays.
The issue here is that both sides are desperate to use the government to solve “problems” that either aren’t problems, or are wastes of time and energy (see, the War on Drugs). But the point is that it is both sides, not just liberals, and as we’ve recently seen, it is quite clear that conservatives tend to be worse about this sort of behavior.
Funny that you didn’t put books by socialists on the list Seeker,
Well, unlike the talk2action list, I didn’t list a bunch of books “about the enemy”, but rather, books about what what our view is. If I wanted to study liberalism, then I would have listed more books about socialism ;p But seriously, that is one difference between the lists – their list is about “us”, while my list is also about “us” and what we should be doing. The difference is that they are merely running around crying the sky is falling, while my books are not only analyzing the left, but proposing a worldview and a plan of action based on the problems.
One of the most interesting things about today’s socially regressive Christian Conservative movement is how similar it is to far left organizations, in terms of its belief that the government should fix everything while refusing to allow individuals to make decisions for themselves. Where do you stand on that?
That’s an interesting comparison. I think the difference is this – liberals want to use the government to solve problems with programs, while conservatives want to solve problems by defining standards and rules around which we can be self-governed and personally responsible for our actions. Both are manipulating government with their value system, but the former are pushing responsibility away from individuals to the govt, while conservatives are doing the opposite. Or at least, that’s my superficial take on it.
It is quite clear, for instance, that conservatives are just as irresponsible about spending (if not more so) than liberals.
Sadly, that is so. But the difference is, liberals do that as a matter of principle, while conservatives are NOT holding to their values (see Newt Gingrich’s Winning the Future), but rather, are giving in to selfish pork projects and out of control defense spending.
big government arguments – “Well, I don’t want an FMA, but if the judges are going to force it on us…” to use one recent example. The problem with this is that the government shouldn’t be involved.
I don’t think setting standards is really “big government” because we are not creating programs that need to be funded. Some issues have to do with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as well as “ensuring domestic tranquility.” It is perfectly acceptable to determine these at a national level.
If anything, the solution to the gay marriage problem is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
I don’t think this argument holds. Here’s a snippet from The Alliance for Marriage:
—————-
Have you heard anyone say: “Marriage is not the business of government?” This sounds great until one considers that the disintegration of the family built upon marriage is the driving engine behind many of our most serious social problems.
No one would argue that crime and child poverty in America are not the business of government. And no one wants to see the government turn a blind eye to the social trends that are doing the most damage to American children.
Therein lies the problem with the fantasy that the health of the legal and social institution of marriage is an exclusively private matter.
———–
because his church would never have to recognize gay marriages,
That would definitely keep the churches safe from being forced to marry gays. But also, I want to protect children from sex ed programs that have to teach homosexuality as a normal, acceptable variant.
both sides are desperate to use the government to solve “problems” that either aren’t problems, or are wastes of time and energy
I agree on this point, somewhat. Much more needs to be done in the realm of education, pursuasive public debate, and preaching of morality to get our country and its citizens back to the God of the Bible. Without personal virtue and morality, no government system will fix our ills.
preaching of morality to get our country and its citizens back to the God of the Bible.
If this happens, it will be time for me and other Americans to move to Canada. I don’t want to live in a country with a government based upon fundamentalism and superstition. It would be like living in Iran.
Cineaste, hyperbole again.
Do you honestly think that Christians, if in control, would go through the streets killing those opposed to them?
One day we hear how Christians are running everything. The next day we hear how if Christians run everything it will be as bad as Iran. That makes no sense.
Just to relax any worries, once us Christian finally realize our goals of world domination and we have Fred Phelps as dictator and Pat Robertson as chief judge, seeker and I will put in a good word for those of you that comment here.
Seeker,
This will be brief, but you can’t possibly believe in the notion of “life, liberty and the pursuit” of happiness. Everything you believe runs counter to the idea that individuals should be free to live their lives as they see fit. To go back to gay marriage, in no way would your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness be affected by gay marriage, and yet you vociferously oppose it.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to be this country’s defining characteristic, and yet you and your side are intensely against this very fundamental idea (as are people on my side of the fence). But how can you act as if you believe in that beautiful phrase?
I don’t want to live in a country with a government based upon fundamentalism and superstition.
What I was encouraging has nothing to do with government. Quite the opposite – I am saying that more individuals need to become moral, virtuous, and followers of Jesus so that we don’t have so many social problems – because the principle is, the more self-government (i.e. virtue) people exhibit, the less external civil government is needed to keep order in society, and conversely.
This will be brief, but you can’t possibly believe in the notion of “life, liberty and the pursuit” of happiness.
I don’t believe in this to the exclusion of other principles. For instance, I believe that an unborn child has the right to life. If a woman is now made “unhappy”, I’d say that you can’t have it both ways in that case.
In the case of gay marriage, I’d say that the breakdown of the traditional, natural family unit has led to all sorts of social ills, which lead to a serious threat to “domestic tranquility.” So perhaps this principle is the one I favor with respect to gay marriage.
And btw, gays have the right to “marry” in a church, and they have the right to pursue happiness with on another without discrimination. A clear FMA would not take that away. What it would do is set a logical guideline to protect the family, which in turn will protect domestic tranquility.
But maybe I am misapplying the tranquility provision. Regardless, you must balance the rights of individuals and the needs of society. No one has unlimited rights, nor can you apply one principle in exclusion to the other. You are fond of trying to do the latter when somoene contradicts your position, but taking one principle as primary to the exclusion of all others is a mark of extremism.
I am saying that more individuals need to become moral, virtuous, and followers of Jesus so that we don’t have so many social problems
The problem is your idea of morality is counter to mine. In fact, I keep thinking of what another commentator, FCL, said about your brand of evangelical Christianity, that it does not follow the true teachings of Jesus; love. I remember you ridiculing FCL because he said that.
Aaron, Seeker said “Much more needs to be done in the realm of education, pursuasive public debate, and preaching of morality to get our country and its citizens back to the God of the Bible. Without personal virtue and morality, no government system will fix our ills.”
I take that seriously not as hyperbole. For example, I know what Seeker thinks needs to be done to our education system to “get our citizens and country back to God and the bible.” Teaching ID and creationism instead of science (evolution).
I’ll let seeker answer that charge, but I don’t think he wants to teach ID and creationism instead of evolution.
Again I’ll let him answer that, but I just want all the facts laid out there. I want students aware that some scientists, even though they are a minority, do not believe in evolution. Here are reasons why they don’t. Spend like one or two days on the questions or holes raised and the rest on understanding evolutionary theory.
I want people aware that those who believe in creationism or Intelligent Design can’t be defined as scientists. Why? ID and creationism are not scientific theories. They are religion.
What if the Bible taught that the world evolved would that disclude evolution from being taught?
Should we no longer consider the world round because the Bible says that?
You can't simply dismiss something because it can be associated with religion.
As far as your point, I wouldn't even mind if during the discussion of ID on the one or two days of the year. They said, "The majority of people who believe in Intelligent Design have been influenced by their faith in a creator God. This played a role in their research."
You can't simply dismiss something because it can be associated with religion.
I can dismiss it as unscientific, and I do.
What if the Bible taught that the world evolved would that disclude evolution from being taught?
No
Should we no longer consider the world round because the Bible says that?
No
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the last sentence.
it does not follow the true teachings of Jesus; love. I remember you ridiculing FCL because he said that.
I wouldn’t say ridiculing, I’d say he was telling half truths. We sinful people love to quote the scriptures about love, but none about truth and sin. Jesus said it well to the prostitute when he said “neither do I condemn you, GO AND SIN NO MORE.” Love devoid of truth is powerless sentimentality. I am not advocating truth without love. Jesus told many parables about those who rejected his Messiaship and associated substitionary death – they will suffer a terrible fate apart from God.
but I don’t think he wants to teach ID and creationism instead of evolution.
Exactly. I just want people to understand that theories of origins, including evolution, are not really science, and there are some very grave problems with evolution.
ID and creationism are not scientific theories. They are religion.
I disagree. So we are at an impass.
ID and creationism are not scientific theories. They are religion.
I disagree. So we are at an impass.
This is the equivalent me saying "astrology and palm reading is not science" and you replying "I disagree, so we are at an impass." Just another case of a delusional creationist, especially on this point.
NO, it is the equivalent of saying “I have said all I can to convince you, and you are not convinced. And conversely. So for now, there is nothing else to do but admit that we are at an impass.”
It also means that I am tired of arguing that specific point with you. You can call me names all day, and content yourself that you have won, if you like. Me, I need a break, and have other things to do than go around in circles with evolutionary believers.
You cannot spit bile at gays, evolutionists or even heathens and still claim to speak of the love and truth of Jesus Christ.
While I do engage in some descriptive pejorative terms, confronting spiritual lies, half truths, and deceptions is not bile. To avoid confronting such lies is often cowardice.
Would you criticize Jesus for calling religionists snakes, children of hell and of Satan? Would you criticize Paul for saying that pagans are offering up their sacrifices to demons and not god? How about Jesus’ pronouncements that if people reject the message, it will more intolerable for them on the day of judgement than it will be for the wicked city of Sodom?
Was Paul spewing bile in Romans 1 when he called homosexuality and other sexual sins unnatural, debased, impure, dishonorable passions, and shameless? Paul is not trying to spew out bile, he is describing the true nature of such acts. He is not exaggerating or trying to be hurtful – he is calling these sins what they are. We should all forsake them. You may find that cruel and vicious, and certainly, it can be delivered in a cruel manner. But these actions in and of themselves are not mean, but have scriptural precedent.
He goes on to say “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” I’m sure you’d call him a “hater” and not walking in love. But I beleive Paul would say that real love must tell the truth, sometimes with confrontation.
His love is truth
That is a nice sentiment, and of course, His love is semething that is true, but your claim is not a biblical or accurate portrayal of the biblical message. Scripturally, love and truth are related but not synonymous. See, for example, 2 John 1:3 –
Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, in truth and love.
In fact, Jesus was filled with “grace and truth” (John 1:14). You seem to want only grace (love), but not truth. The truth is that we have all sinned, and sin leads to death. Further, if we call ourselves Christians, one of the evidences is forsaking sin. As Paul relates in Romans 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
To ignore the sinfulness of sexual sins, including homosexuality, and to justify them as god-given is shameful lying, it is supressing the truth, as it says in Romans 1.
Your piety is admirable, but I think it is incomplete if you only focus on love and forget to Paul’s admonitions, such as this one to Timothy
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
However, in your defense, I would say that I could also do a better job of obeying this command from Paul in 2 Timothy 2:24
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
While I do engage in some descriptive pejorative terms, confronting spiritual lies, half truths, and deceptions is not bile. To avoid confronting such lies is often cowardice.
Seeker, you ignore the truth in what people are telling you. You're all denials. You tell yourself lies so that you don't have to confront truths like evolution, homosexuality in nature, and that His love is truth (FCL's message). By not confronting the lies you tell yourself to preserve your fragile little world view, which hinges upon literal interpretation of the Bible, you are a coward by your own definition. Perhaps I'm being nasty by confronting you with the word "coward" but no doubt you would accuse me of cowardice if I didn't confront your "spiritual lies, half truths, and deceptions."
But I believe Paul would say that real love must tell the truth, sometimes with confrontation.
So, does calling you a coward mean I really love you, Seeker? :P
Look, I used to be an evolutionary believer. Contrary to your claims of cowardice, it takes great courage to reconsider your world view, and consider that what you’ve been taught it wrong. I lack the confidence you have in evolution because as a believer AND scientist, I find it’s claims lacking. You find that hard to believe, and project all kinds of insecurities on me which aren’t there.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, I accept that. So do rape, incest, infanticide, and murder. I also accept the truth that such things in the human realm are most often perversions. We are not merely higher animals, so taking our moral cues from nature is encouraging us to “live like animals.” Is that where your theology takes us?
FCL is right, I could be more loving, especially when attacked with baseless and rude accusations. But he is wrong in justifying homosexuality – I believe that his theology is in error.
So, does calling you a coward mean I really love you, Seeker?
You could be doing so in love, or out of a desire to harm me. Which is it? ;) Are you getting the picture yet?
What Jesus railed at was our failure to love God with all our hearts, minds and strength and our failure to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is the crux of all of Jesus’ teachings. On top of this He gave us the core commandment of the Christian faith in John 13:34; to love one another the way I have loved you. This is the consistent thread throughout the New Testament. This is the truth of His message that I spoke of. It is the failure to accept this truth that separates us from God and is the source of Jesus’ lament for the fate of those in such a condition.
It is in light of this that your view of “grace and truth” is so misguided. Grace is the gift of redemption given at Christ’s expense. It was given out of God’s love for His children. This is the ultimate truth. It is the acceptance of that gift and the faith it provides that moves us to proclaim Christ’s message in the world. The challenge for Christians is to proclaim this message in both word and deed, not in order to earn God’s love but out of sheer gratitude for God loving us.
This was something that Paul understood well. It was in the light of this gift of grace and redemption that he penned his letters. Yes he talked of sin and the failure to love the way Jesus would have us. All of your Scriptural quotes point to this. Yet it is your theology that is left wanting in your view of Paul’s teachings. Romans 1 is not the condemnation of homosexuality that you think it is. First of all that term does not appear in the Bible. Secondly the notion of such an orientation would be alien to the authors of Scripture. Most importantly your interpretation of that text is in serious error. Paul is arguing that when people turn their back on God and fail to love one another fully they will take up sinful behavior. The logic of Paul is clear: If people turn their back on God they will sin, in this instance by engaging in same sex relations. This logic does not establish that all such behavior is the result of sinful disobedience, but that those who are disobedient may manifest their disobedience in this manner. So we can conclude that some homosexual behavior may indeed be sinful and arise out of disobedience to God. This however is equally true of heterosexual behavior. The point is that there is no condemnation of homosexuality as a sin in and of itself.
I would suggest that your fear and hatred of homosexuals (in your recent post you compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers) has colored your view of the Bible. You appear to have entered the study of Scripture with your mind closed and your conclusions already formed. This has blinded you to the clear message of love and forgiveness that is Jesus Christ.
What Jesus railed at was our failure to love God with all our hearts, minds and strength and our failure to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is the crux of all of Jesus’ teachings.
I totally agree. However, the type of love you talk about, where “love is the only truth” is not real love, nor is it biblical, because real love also includes truth about our condition (sinful, guilty, separated from God), and of the wikedness of sin. Real love is also willing to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” 2 Timothy 4:2
Not just rebuke people for not loving, but rebuke them because they are sinning – hence Paul’s instruction to confront the brother caught in sexual sin, and to expel him from the church if he is unrepentant, but to restore him quickly and with love once he does repent. Would you do such an “unloving” thing?
If people turn their back on God they will sin, in this instance by engaging in same sex relations. This logic does not establish that all such behavior is the result of sinful disobedience,
I agree that turning from God leads to sin. However, I respectfully disagree with your evaluation of homosexuality and scripture. Sexual sins are not judged based on motive. Homosexuality, like promiscuity and adultery, are sinful even if we have the best of intentions or circumstances. I understand your reading of Romans 1, but believe that this scripture, along with others condemn homosexuality along with other sexual sins. It is very clear that Paul is condeming gay relations in general when he describes them as against nature and shameful.
“For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
I would suggest that your fear and hatred of homosexuals (in your recent post you compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers)
Perhaps you couuld quote me in context – I think this is a shameful, purposeful twist on what I said and intended, and am amazed that you would stoop to such, seeing that you consider yourself a teacher of the “blind.” ;)
I do not fear or hate gays, and your accusation would be offensive if I am not already thick-skinned due to the commonness of such accusations from those who justify sin, who percieve moral opposition as hate, and who pretend they can divine my motives from my writings implicitly (I have stated my motives explicitly, but you do not believe me). I encourage you again to read What is Hate?
I do have a dislike for the unsound doctrines that teach that sin is not sin, and that truth (including the Law) has little relevance to love. I agree with Paul he writes:
Romans 1:32
Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
This has blinded you to the clear message of love and forgiveness that is Jesus Christ.
I am not blinded by it at all. The love and forgiveness of Christ are amazing and true. However, I think you have succumbed to an emasculated version of Christianity, a false piety that, in the name of love, is unwilling, even unable, to confront sexual sin because it silently condones it in the name of “love”, has no heart for biblical rebuke, and is basically a “nice guy” type of Christianity. No wonder men don’t want to go to church!
Proverbs 27:5
Better is open rebuke than hidden love
Arguably, even sarcasm was modeled by Jesus and Paul
Galatians 5:12
I wish those who unsettle you [requiring circumcision] would emasculate themselves!
Mark 7:9
You have such a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God
Mark 2:17
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners.
But the emasculated Christianity that I perceive you are promoting can not stand, nor comprehend how Jesus’ outbursts, Paul’s condemnations and use of sarcasm, nor the injunction to “be angry without sinning” really fits into the Christian life. Rather, they shun anger since they have no concept of holy anger, and shun any kind of spiritual warfare and agression, because to them, soft, often truthless love is their safe mantra.
In the realm of ideas, I think Christians should be gracious but aggressive – not in an armed kind of way, but spiritual “warfare” is not just doing works of service. I take the following scriptures seriously:
Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. (I admit to not fully understanding this text)
2 Corinthians 10:3-5
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ
You assert that not confronting “spiritual lies, half truths, and deceptions” is cowardice. I asked myself who these terms aimed at. Answer: those who don’t hold Seeker’s view of truth:
Not exactly. It is aimed at those who call what I am doing “unChristian” – and I am firing back that their opposition to such actions is unchristian.
Sanctimonious, because you are speaking as if you have the moral high ground. You do not. Why don’t you come down here with the rest of us and stop speaking as if you know any better.
I think I have the intellectual high ground, at least ;) I think most of the arguments posed have poorly supported suppositions. But I’ll try to be more understanding in the future. %-p
I think most of the arguments posed have poorly supported suppositions.
Your own arguments no doubt. I agree when FCL says…
You (Seeker) appear to have entered the study of Scripture with your mind closed and your conclusions already formed.
Though your blindess is not limited to just scripture.
Seeker,
What you cannot comprehend is that failure to love God as well as others IS sin. It is this that separates us from God. Yes real love does sometimes “rebuke and reprove”. It rebukes those who consistently fail to love our neighbor as ourselves. What you have done is to define sin as that which fails to conform to a pre-conceived notion of behavior (particularly sexual behavior) that you have super-imposed upon Scripture.
This is a good time to compliment you on your technological trick of linking any Scriptural reference, even those made by me, to your favorite version of the Bible. This is however a cheap and intellectually dishonest tactic. It implies endorsement of a specific version when none is given. For the record I do not think that the English Standard Version is the most sound; the New Revised Standard is based upon much better scholarship. A prime example is the use of the word “homosexual”, which does not appear in the original, it was placed there by those of a similar mind to you who wish to “prove” what they already believe. The better translation of the passage in First Timothy Chapter 1 Verse 8-11 is “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” Repalcing homosexuals with sodomites is a crucial distinction because there is no same sex relations in the story of Sodom. The sin of Sodom has to do with violating the law of hospitality, that is not loving one’s neighbor fully; GO FIGURE!
Getting back to Paul, he is very likely speaking of pederasty or some similar power relationship in the First chapter of Romans. These are not loving relationships but relationships built upon passion and lust for power and control. Passion is clearly a concern for Paul. It leads to all sorts of unloving actions which sinfully separate us from God. What is “natural” in these passages? It surely is not pederasty or a power relationship built upon passion and lust. It does not, however, devolve into some sort of blanket condemnation of gays.
Regarding your fetish for the “law”, I would lose it. As Paul points out the law serves to condemn, the Gospel saves. Those who have died with Christ have also risen with Christ and have become a new creation for whom the law is dead. Study the seventh chapter of Romans verses 1-6: “Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during that person’s lifetime? Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”
So I agree that we should confront sexual sin where it exists; among those who fail to love one’s neighbor and God fully. These are the one’s to rebuke. We should also take the opportunity to rebuke the hard-hearted and the narrow minded who use the “law” and the Scripture to beat down those who happen to be different. The better course of action, and the more difficult, is to open your hearts to those whom the world rejects and embrace them as children of God. Chastise people when necessary but do not condemn for merely being different. This is most especially true when there is NO justification to do so found in Scripture. I ask you to reject your hard-hearted view of sin that seeks to punish others based upon your Earthly prejudices. If you think this may emasculate you then think again. The model for this kind of life is none other than our Savior Jesus Christ. He so believed in pouring oneself out for the love of another that He suffered death, a death upon a Cross. This could only be done by a fully human man.
This is a good time to compliment you on your technological trick of linking any Scriptural reference, even those made by me, to your favorite version of the Bible.
Perhaps you would like to repent now for your judgemental attitude. Rather than a trick, it is merely a time-saving device for me. Your assumption of my bad motives is surely sinful, if not arrogant. Perhaps I am not the only one who could grow in love here.
Regarding the translation, yes, perhaps interpreting Sodomites as "homosexual" was not a sound choice for them. However, I am not a fan of the NRV. How about the NASB? I may be able to change the version to that. But it has naught to do with trickery. Can I expect an apology, or are you a hypocrite? :D
Regarding pederasty, that's a bit of a stretch since it says "men with men" not "men with boys." Also, it says MEN abandoned the natural use of the woman (i.e. sex with women) and burned with lust for EACH OTHER – not boys, but for the other MEN who left the natural use of a woman. In addition, "exchanging the natural use" speaks more of switching genders than abandoning adult sex for same-gender sex with children. Even more, if it was pederasty (traditionally defined as man/boy sex), why does it also mention women with women? Ritual pederasty of men with boys may have been condemned, but I doubt that woman/girl sex is being mentioned here. Your interpretation is a huge stretch and strains the text pretty badly, and makes the text seem hugely imprecise in it's word usage.
I understand that we do not live under the law, but you seem to want to abolish it for your "love only" version of faith. Your pejorative use of the word "fetish" for the law smacks of your own sarcasm, and by your definition, lack of love. Again, are you practicing what you preach?
Sure, you can teach everyone that they are saved by grace, but saved from what? If they are ignorant of the law, your gospel makes no sense at all.
But look. You are more than right that I am often unloving in my tone and choice of words, and often unneccesarily belligerent and unbending. I may also focus too much on sin and not enough on the goodness of God – a sin of fundies I don't want to emulate. I will read your commentary and evaluate myself in light of it and what God shows me in my time with him.
However, I think you are incorrect in your justifications of homosexuality and your associated interprations of the text. However, I will consider what you say.
But I do have some associated questions for you.
– Do you believe in a literal hell?
– Do you believe that people who reject the gospel go there?
– How do you interpret the scripture "unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of god?"
– Could a serial murderer go to heaven if he repented and believed?
FCL,
I actually changed the automatic scripture links to use the NKJV (across the entire site), my other favorite version. It uses the term "sodomites" instead of homosexuals. But then I recanted after looking at the greek.
I had recently become enamored with the ESV because certain notable evangelicals recommended it. I had not examined it, but you are right, if "sodomites" is closer to the original text, that would be a better translation. But it is not.
Looking at the original greek, the word is "arsenokoites", which is NOT a direct reference to those who lived in Sodom. So "Sodomites" is incorrect. The common translations for this word include "abusers of self with mankind" and "homosexuals" – the translation of "sodomites" looks like it was done with the assumption that sodomite meant homosexual, rather than the original word being the greek for "sodomite" translated to "homosexual."
Looking at the original greek, I'd say homosexual fits better, since Sodomite is a proper name, and the greek doesn't use that or any variant of that proper name. Rather, it uses a word that seemed to be a common word for homosexual.
Interestingly, the only other time in the NT that this greek word is used this way is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (NKJV)
Again, the NKJV translates the greek word to "sodomite." Interestingly, the word above translated "homosexuals" in the NKJV is better translated "the effeminate" – now why do you think that Paul would mention the effeminate and homosexuals (improperly translated "sodomites") next to each other? Is it conceivable that he was including the typical description of gay men? It's a reasonable possibility.
But I digress. I have noted your criticisms of both my approach and my interpretation of scripture. Regarding the former, I will mend my ways, so thank you. On the latter, after having done the above research, I remain unconvinced that scripturally, homosexuality is not condemned. Further, I am still convinced that most homosexuality is a maladaptive emotional disorder that can be healed with therapy, and perhaps medication if we knew more about its physiologic causes.
So I agree that we should confront sexual sin where it exists; among those who fail to love one’s neighbor and God fully.
Well, I would say that all sexual sin is a lack of love. You don’t have to ask if they are sinning AND not loving their neighbor. The former implies the latter. All fornication is a selfish defrauding and exploitation of another, whether they consent to do the same or not. All adultery. All homosexuality.
Opening our hearts to those who are outcast and different is definitely Christian. Telling them that God loves them is too. Serving them while they are yet sinners is Christian. But telling them that sexual sin like homosexuality is “ok” is wrong, unbiblical, and it is not loving. There are plenty of admonitions in scripture to flee sexual sin because of its damaging affects.
And being kind and open-hearted is not an emasculated form of xianity. But gutting it of the truths of the law and justifying sin in the name of being kind is the salt-less kind of xianity that I call “emasculated.” Jesus would embrace the homosexual. He would also say “go and sin no more.”
I think that these matters show how difficult comparing different cultures and their attitudes, mores, behaviors, etc. can be. The age issue should be addressed by people who know the language better. Many cultures consider adulthood to begin with puberty, so a fourteen year-old could be considered a man in this society. Remember that a Jewish Bar Mitzvah takes place at thirteen, so the men in Romans 1 could include young teens. Similarly, while female relations are less recorded and understood by historians, we have evidence of similar bonds forming between women. Sappoh of Lesbos (where the word “lesbian” is derived from) is an example from an earlier period, though such an attitude changed over the centuries. Another issue comes from the understanding of early Christian writers, as the verse does not go into women burning for women. Augustine and others viewed this verse as condemning non-procreative heterosexual behavior rather than being the Bible’s only specific mention of lesbianism.
The next section will probably be debated by linguists for a long while unless new documents are found that can shed light on their exact meaning during the period. The pederasty argument would hold that effeminate refers to young men or boys because of their soft, womanly appearance. Another argument considers the term to be a reference to behavior. At the time, sex was considered a fundamentally unequal activity. Men are over women, so the problem only emerges between equals. A Roman citizen could be sexually active with any number of male slaves, prostitutes, etc. without social stigma, but submitting to sex with another citizen and becoming lower than one’s equal would result in loss of status. In essence they are taking the status of a woman. Also, some argue that the word does not refer to sex. I remember reading that John Wesley considered the term to mean morally soft or lax rather than sexually soft or effeminate.
I leave the love argument alone, as the usage appears to be religious rather than something directly verifiable.
I did not abolish the law but rather dying and rising in Christ Jesus has made me dead to the law. We have no need for the law at that point. Yet it is true that we all “fall short of the glory of God” and the law is there to serve as a condemnation of our lack of faith. Every day we should rise as a new creation in Christ and go proclaim His gospel of love and redemption. When we fail and hear the call of the law condemning us then we beg God’s forgiveness and again pledge to die and rise again in Christ. This is, I think, the most appropriate use of the “law and gospel”.
Regarding the pederasty argument I think Irrational Entity has made some valid points. I would only add that in Paul’s discussion of this subject in First Romans he is painting the Gentile world in very dark and vivid colors and is painting that world with a very broad brush. One main way to portray this world was to refer to them as idolaters and sexual deviants. Pederasty was but one form of this deviancy, albeit the most despicable in the eyes of the Jews. This fits into a broader condemnation of same sex relations among the Gentiles that almost never involved members of the same age and class. We can conclude that Paul’s criticism has to do with the unequal power involved in such relationships. It is an enormous stretch to move to a position that this passage condemns all committed and loving same sex relations as sinful.
In First Corinthians there are two words to deal with. The first is “malakoi” which is the ordinary Greek word for soft. It has been translated to mean effeminate. The second word is “arsenokoites” it does likely refer to a specific type of homosexual behavior, probably one who is penetrated by another male. This likely does not refer to an orientation but rather to the type of power relationships that were then all too common. The point is that the word “homosexual” is not the best word in this instance. Sodomite may not be the best word either but it is less confusing. This is especially so in light of the fact that the sin of Sodom was one of inhospitality and lack of concern for others. The power relationships to which Paul was likely referring fit the word “sodomite” much better than”homosexual”.
You stated the following: “All fornication is a selfish defrauding and exploitation of another, whether they consent to do the same or not. All adultery. All homosexuality.” With this statement you have closed the Cartesian circle. You have begun with the assumption that you set out to prove. Your other statement that “I am still convinced that most homosexuality is a maladaptive emotional disorder that can be healed with therapy and perhaps medication if we knew more about its physiologic causes.” should put to rest any notion that you have any objectivity in this discussion. This statement by you shows the underlying assumption that you used when you opened the Bible to “prove” your case against homosexuality. A closed mind, like a closed heart does not allow any room for the Holy Spirit.
As to your series of questions I offer the following. I think Hell is a literal place. Is it populated with a horn-sprouting, pitchfork wielding Satan? I have no idea. Separation from God is Hell. If that is a physical place; like Peoria then so be it. The point is that if you separate your self from God now then that will continue after you die.
As to your questions “Do you believe that people who reject the gospel go there? And could a serial murderer go to heaven if he repented and believed?” I truly do not know because the position of judger of all things is filled and anyway I have a job. The same is true of your question regarding the passage “unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of god?”. It is for God to determine whether and how this is accomplished in the life of an individual. The important thing for us as Christians to focus on is our own sins, the proclamation of the good news and the care of God’s good creation and everyone in it. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior means acceptance of the fundamental reality of this universe: that God is God and I am not.
John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality is probably the best known work that argues against the traditional understanding of these passages while Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice is one of the best arguments for the conservative position (though I would stay away from his positions outside of theology). Many of the arguments, including the interpretations of Romans by Augustine, are thrown around there. I should note that Boswell’s take is more historical than theological, so you may want to go elsewhere for more detailed positions. Those two seem to be the most widely cited in the debates I have seen. Bernadette Brooten would be a good source for lesbianism, and she probably deals with Augustine’s position.
Regarding young men, the reference would be tied to sexual activity rather than age alone. Being a non-Christian, I obviously think everything Paul takes is from the cultures around him. He says in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that nature itself teaches it is shameful for a man to have long hair, and I take his conception of unnatural to be in a similar vein. Regardless, he certainly may not mean citizens or prostitutes. I am merely trying to place a historical context on why something like homosexuality would be considered shameful, especially in a Gentile community in a culture that accepted homosexual behavior in certain circumstances.
If you want my opinion, Paul’s argument is here based on a series of exchanges. These people knew God but gave Him up for created images. In turn, this move to the false has blinded them to the rest of the proper order. They have become so blinded and enslaved to passions of the moment that they no longer recognize the proper sexual behavior. Homosexuality is the result of the bigger sin of idolatry. They experience the equivalent of getting drunk, acting like a fool, cheating on one’s beautiful wife with an ugly chick, waking up with all your possessions stolen, and having a major hangover. Of course, this condemnation is a setup for Paul’s next argument that the Roman church members should not be too haughty because the state they are in is no better, for all have fallen short of God’s standards.
I truly do not know because the position of judger of all things is filled and anyway I have a job.
Your failure to “judge” here is really a failure to discern, and a failure to understand the gospel of grace. You couldn’t give much assurance if you were ministering to criminals with such a weak understanding of the gospel. But again, you may understand the gospel, but seem inhibited by your extreme “do not judge” position that makes you unwilling or unable to discern out of fear of being judgemental. Perhaps Paul isn’t desribing the effeminate in 1 Timothy, but those who are so doctrinally soft ;)
The second word is “arsenokoites” it does likely refer to a specific type of homosexual behavior, probably one who is penetrated by another male.
On what grounds do you say it refers to a specific type of homosexuality? Since it has no qualifier in the greek, and it’s basic meaning is generic, I’d say it refers to all homosexuality.
The same is true of your question regarding the passage “unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of god?”. It is for God to determine whether and how this is accomplished in the life of an individual.
What I interpret this to mean is that you don’t understand this passage, perhaps because you are not born again yourself, or don’t understand the doctrine of regeneration which is at the heart of the gospel. This is Jesus answer to the most basic question of all – how can we be saved? Jesus ansered Nicodemus “don’t be amazed when I tell you that you must be born again.” Translation – if you are not, you can’t enter the KOG. It’s simple. Of course, to understand just what that is, we must consider the other scriptures that tell us what that means. And I’m sure you know those.
Your other statement … should put to rest any notion that you have any objectivity in this discussion.
Yes, well eveyrone who disagrees with you or maintains a biblical definition of sexual sins must be closed minded. :p phtttt.
Being a non-Christian, I obviously think everything Paul takes is from the cultures around him.
Taking into consideration the culture of the time is important. However, Paul was probably more formed by his early lifetime trained as a Jewish scholar. This made him particularly suited to understand Jesus and gospel, having come out of Judaism. I suspect he was really ministering from his understanding of the God of the OT, whom He served with vigor.
And this “power relationship” theory, while interesting, it certainly is not in the text – in fact, this passage is not about relationships and power at all. It is about turning away from the knowledge of God, and the results, which include sexual perversion, as most notably seen in the unnatural acts of homosexuality.
Your interpretation forces some very strained interpretations of the surrounding text, and ignores the straigtforward and obvious interpretation (where’s Occam when I need him?), which is that Paul was using homosexuality itself as an example of one of the most unnatural and debased sexual relationships in his explanation of what happens when men turn from God – he chose homosexuality as a behavior he would consider the depth of depravity resulting from serving the creature (ultimately, selfish mankind). This is why it is mentioned with the other sins in 1 Timothy.
He says in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that nature itself teaches it is shameful for a man to have long hair, and I take his conception of unnatural to be in a similar vein.
That is an interesting point, and I’ve never been able to reconcile this scripture. But I don’t think we can use that principle to explain away some of the classically condemned sins, esp. those attested by the Old Testament. I mean, is the prohibition on prostitution or adultery merely because we should not do as the culture or pagan religions? Of course not.
dying and rising in Christ Jesus has made me dead to the law.
True, but while we do not live under the law, nor are justified by keeping it, yet the law is good, but should keep it in the midst of our hearts so that it can live there and convict us of sin. Also, in my quote above, Paul says the law IS for the unrighteous – those who have no conviction or concept of sin are still sinning and hurting themselves and other, and most of the great revival preaching from the past was done preaching the law to bring conviction, and grace to bring salvation.
Also, your response brings up a needed clarification here. As Christians, we have one approach for learning and applying scripture to those in the church, but quite another for our approach to those outside. For example, we ARE supposed to do some judging in the church. How we apply scriptures to ourselves, the church, those who are unbelievers, legislation, etc. vary, and we have discussed the principles of some of these (legislation) here.
I think the relationship aspects are tied to the shameful and unnatural considerations. Beyond that, I think our differences are on of emphasis. The primary problem is idolatry, which in turn leads to depravity. As a side note, I doubt Paul actually wrote either of the letters to Timothy, so those letters do not help us understand his thinking. First Corinthians 6:9 does.
I would not doubt that Paul’s Judaic roots are at work here, but his audience is mixed Jewish and Gentile. He seems to be borrowing on already present ideas like those found in the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon. For example, Wisdom 14:26-27 states the following: “Disturbance of good men, neglect of gratitude, besmirching of souls, unnatural lust, disorder in marriage, adultery and shamelessness. For the worship of infamous idols is the reason and source and extremity of all evil.” There are other parallels to Romans in Wisdom, so I think the scholars that argue Paul is borrowing from this work have a good case. On the other hand Greek thought, especially of the Stoic variety, considered unnatural sex to be non-procreative activity. Obviously this influence is a major part of Catholic theology.
Lastly, the natural/unnatural argument as tied to culture is one to be settled between Christians. The conservative side will follow your reasoning and the other side will consider them culturally dependant. To go back to hair length, the common understanding is that the guiding principal is submission with hair length being symbolic. The nature’s instruction section is problematic, but the general idea remains workable. I see it as simply more evidence of the lack of divine inspiration but to each their own.
(And to be off topic, have you noticed that we no longer require women to cover their heads in church but the tradition of men removing their head coverings continues? These cultural quirks are fascinating.)
Let me be clearer in my answer to your questions regarding salvation by acceptance of the Gospel. Yes if someone accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ they are saved. I believe this to be true even if they be a serial murderer or even Adolph Hitler. However, let me be equally clear I am not the judger of an individual’s soul and neither are you. I have no real way of knowing if someone has truly accepted Jesus as their Savior and neither do you. There is an extreme limit to what we as humans can see. This is why such judgments are for our Father in Heaven who sees all in secret. If you agree with me then we have no argument. If you do not then your error borders on blasphemy.
The same point is true regarding whether someone is “born again”. I was born again when I was baptized as a child and marked with the Cross of Christ forever. In this sense I have indeed been “born again”. The question remains as above: do I know for certain whether someone has been born again? No I do not, but I don’t have to, for God will always know.
Regarding the questions surrounding the words in First Corinthians there are actually three words to deal with: pornoi, malakoi and arsenokoitai. Pornos (the singular form of pornoi) means one who practices sexual immorality, a fornicator. It is usually applied to a wide range of sexual activities. Later in this same chapter (verse15-16) Paul opposes a Christian man who joins his body to a prostitute. Such an action is “porneia”; an unlawful sexual intercourse. Since pornos is listed first followed by idolaters and adulterers and because it is not immediately linked with terms referring to same-sex relations, it does not refer specifically to same sex activities.
The next word is malkoi, which refers to being passive in a same sex relationship-i.e. effeminate. I mistakenly identified this as arsenokoitai in my previous post. Arsenokotai, according to the Greek-English lexicon refers to “a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast”. It specifically refers to one “who assumes the dominant role.” You see its basic meaning is not generic despite your assertions. It is one thing to say that “effeminates” and “pederasts” will not inherit the Kingdom of God and twisting it to say that in a general way all persons who are passive and dominant in a same sex relationship will not inherit the kingdom.
This brings me back to the point I made earlier, a point you have never addressed. Paul is using a logic here that says people who turn away from God will sin in a variety of ways some of them involving same sex relations. This does not mean that all people who engage in same sex relations are sinfully turning away from God. The syllogism goes as follows: If A then B does not equal If B then A. This logic is clear (here is Occam if you care to find him) in Paul and remains unaddressed by the Fundamentalist anti-gay contingent.
As regards the clear anti-gay bias you bring to your views of Scripture you state that “well everyone who disagrees with you or maintains a biblical definition of sexual sins must be closed minded.” You have not established a biblical definition of sexual sins and your attempts to flail away at Scriptural passages that do not fit your worldview only serve to expose your pre-existing prejudice.
Yes if someone accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ they are saved. I believe this to be true even if they be a serial murderer or even Adolph Hitler. However, let me be equally clear I am not the judger of an individual’s soul and neither are you. I have no real way of knowing if someone has truly accepted Jesus as their Savior and neither do you.
Damn it was hard to get a straight answer out of you. Finally. I agree with you when you speak straight. We are in complete agreement here.
I was born again when I was baptized as a child and marked with the Cross of Christ forever.
Well, there we’ll have to agree to disagree. But if you have saving faith now, I’m sure you’re fine. But water baptism isn’t salvific. But spare me the doctrinal explinations – I understand them, and do not agree.
Your arguments about the meaning of the words used is interesting, and I’ll do some research, since I am not schooled as deep in defending homosexuality from the scriptures as you. I actually have some of the gay theology books in my libarary, but now I’ll have to read them and the rebuttals – so I have no rebuttal for now.