Burdens and Sinning and other Gay Tales
Blog — By Penny Carothers on October 29, 2009 at 1:25 pmI have a friend who has recently come out as lesbian. Let’s call her Amy.
Like many people who love Jesus and are gay, Amy has struggled for many, many years to come to terms with her sexuality. Recently, she reconciled what many in the church consider irreconcilable. (See this site for links to a very interesting discussion between Tony and Peggy Campolo, who differ in their convictions about how gay people should live out their sexuality.)
Yesterday one of her friends, let’s call her Laura, came to her with a “burden from the Lord.” The gist: Amy is deluding herself and sinning in her desire to pursue a same-sex partner. Though hurt, Amy, being a gracious person, gave Laura the benefit of the doubt. After all, she grew up in an evangelical culture that condemns homosexuality. Confronting Amy with her “concerns” is simply the way evangelicals do it. And we’re right to in some cases – though if we never question our “burdens” we often find ourselves mimicking Job’s friends.
I can’t help but feel there’s a better way. When you have a “burden,” listen. To the person for whom you have a burden.
Anytime we in the majority culture find ourselves in discussions about ethical or “important issues” with “the underdog” we need to listen at least twice as much as we speak. If you’re a guy talking to a girl about a “feminist” issue; if you’re a white person talking to someone in the minority about their experience; if you’re straight talking to someone who’s gay; if you’re rich talking to the not-so-rich; if you’re educated talking to someone who hasn’t had, or didn’t want, that privilege; and especially if you’re a believer talking to a non-Christian, you (and I) owe it to the person with whom we’re speaking to approach the conversation with the belief that the other person also has something to teach.
Who knows, they might even have a word from the Lord for you.
43 Comments
Penny, I am glad for the times when friends have been used by God to tell me I was in sin. It’s entirely biblical to do so.
Now, this case may be one where the friend should have kept silent, or maybe said it in an insensitive way. But if she is pursuing a same-sex relationship, it is sin, and she is deceived. And anyone who knows this, and agrees with her or endorses her pursuit, is not really being a friend to her.
Penny, thank you for this message. You hit on an important point; it’s easy to condemn those that we don’t understand, that are in the minority, and that aren’t like us. As is perfectly illustrated by James’ post.
James, many people who take the bible and their relationship with Christ seriously would disagree with your claim that same-sex relationships are sinful and that someone must be decieved to believe that they can follow Christ and pursue a same-sex relationship. I would encourage you to consider the many issues that the Christian community is not in agreement on and would ask that you put this matter in the same category and offer gay/lesbian/bisexual Christians the same measure of grace.
Lisa,
I agree with you that we are all fallen- all of us who have ever told a lie (just a harmless one, right?), gossiped, lusted, stole, whatever! I am just as guilty for my greed for praise and attention (I also see this as worshiping a false idol, which inherently means I break God’s first commandment- i.e., not a good position to be in!), as is someone who gets physically involved in gay relationships. All of these things are clearly listed as “sins” in the Bible- and I imagine you already know this. In this sense, however, I have to disagree with you when you put gays into a “minority” category, for in the worldview that God gives us, gays are actually in the majority- the majority that you and I and every other person on earth are in- that is the category of those who are sinners.
The difference is that where one party is not convicted by their sins, another may be convicted, and thus repenting, asks for forgiveness. With the help of the Holy Spirit, that person begin to move in the direction of godly restoration.
Jesus never tiptoed around rebuking his disciples- he did it out of love and with gentleness- but he didn’t let those who proclaimed his name get past without hearing the truth. I desire to live as Christ, and will continue to speak the truth of his Word.
Lisa, whether someone agrees with me or not is not relevant. This has nothing to do with me. It’s about God’s word, where He has been very clear about this topic.
We are the potter, and God is the clay. When I read your reply, it sounds as if you believe that God’s word is the clay, and we can mold it however we want to fit our worldview, opinions, and experiences. That is a dangerous position to take. I hope I am reading you wrong there.
2 Timothy 2:24-25 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
Yeah, see, I disagree with you, Allyson and James. I think that an honest consideration of what the bible says about homosexuality leaves us with more questions than answers. And I think it’s pretty bold to delcare that we know the heart of God on a matter with which we haven’t personally wrestled, especially when Christians with a same-sex orientation believe they’ve been directed by the Holy Spirit to accept themselves and puruse a loving relationship with another person of the same-sex.
I don’t believe the bible is the clay and I am the potter, not at all. But I realize that each of us can earnestly grapple with the mysteries found in the bible and come to different conclusions. Further, I believe that Jesus is the word of God and that there’s more to understanding God’s will for each of us than a bullet point reading of the bible.
Penny,
Thanks for this important reminder.
There is a ton of wisdom when you say that those who are in the majority (or those who are in power, or those who are “in”) should do more listening than talking. A lot of wisdom.
A confession: I was talking with someone the other day about the portrayal of African American culture on television. I won’t get in to too much detail, but basically we were two white people sitting around a table in Salem, Oregon talking about shows like “Good Times” and “The Cosby Show,” and which was better for black Americans: depictions of life in the Chicago projects, or depictions of upper-middle class blacks like the Huxtables, and how maybe one wasn’t possible without the other.
The situation is different from the one you described, Penny, but there we were at the dinner table speaking with such confidence from a position of white middle-class power and privilege, which is to say, ignorance. Even when we are alone it is best to keep our mouths shut.
Thanks Lisa. I think your last comment was well worded. I have many Christian friends like James who consider homosexuality a sin and take a stance of “hate the sin but love the sinner,” which is their right. They have every right to interpret the bible in that way. But after a lot of soul-searching on this subject, a very close reading of both scripture and the teachings of well-respected theologians and both talking with Christian gay friends and watching a wonderful documentary about a very sincere young Christian girl who decided to come out as lesbian in her high school and in her church, I must say that I no longer think that we should “hate the sin, but love the sinner” instead I think we should just love our gay Christian brethren, as they are, and as God does. I no longer feel that any confession of “sin” is necessary on their part to prevent them from experiencing the multitude of blessings that God bestows on his children. In short, the bible is not at ALL clear, especially when reading from a socially and culturally informed hermeneutic that all homosexuality is a sin all the time.
That documentary sounds interesting. What’s the title?
I wonder if Laura is mentioning For the Bible Tells Me So.
no I’m sorry. The bible is very clear about homosexuality. In 1st Cor. 6:9 it says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators (anyone who has sex out of the realms of marriage), nor idolaters, nor adulterer, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals… …they will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
That verse is from the New testament as well.
I, myself, have been struggling with homosexuality for a long time. I have not acted out with anyone, but my mind has been a breeding ground for lust. I do not, however, refer to myself or anyone else who is recovering from the wounds of homosexuality as gay or homosexual. For those of us who are seeking out God for healing from one of the worlds most costly spiritual vices, we CANNOT label ourselves gay. Its also even more damaging for a struggling Christian to find any satisfaction under that label. We are NOT gay Christians, we are sinners just like everyone else. We are living our lives for restoration and we will press on. I hope for that same thing for all mankind: those struggling with hatred, pornography, alcoholism, drugs, abuse, anger, lust, gambling, and any other sin. Lets count all as worthy of grace. Let us also not find our selves either above or below such grace. I don’t like the Christian religion all that much. I do adore what my savior has done and I will follow Him to the end. I have given up my lusts and all my worldly desires because Jesus has given me His life to live. So I will live it! Not simply because the bible says so, but because Jesus has made alive and has given me hope. Heaven does not have to wait till we die! We can call our Father down to embrace us as only our Heavenly Father can. We are all His children and it saddens me to see us become content with the “hell” we live in, also know as the world. We are all His Children , but to inherit the Kingdom of God is OUR choice. God does not let us into heaven based upon our sins, it is only matter of us CHOOSING Him and rejecting our sinfulness. That is what being a Christian is ALL about. Choosing Christ.
Andrew, your testimony is inspiring! The mere fact that you have struggled with a homosexual orientation and yet confess (and even defend) that to manifest that proclivity into behavior or lust is inherently sinful—while affirming both God’s love for all those who are weary, and the choice we must all make in embracing His grace by setting our will against all unrighteousness and striving in deed for the same through the Holy Spirit, giving also God His due glory—places your wisdom light-years ahead of so many and renders your testimony extraordinarily powerful and worth sharing for the edification of others. God can work wonders through you, my friend.
One distinction needs to be made clear which has not satisfactorily been made explicit: the distinction between homosexual desire and homosexual behavior. The Judeo-Christian Scripture uniquely mentions not once the subject of homosexual desire. However, the Scripture most certainly does mention homosexual behavior, and it does so twice: once in Leviticus 20.1–2, 13 (“The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites: … “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. …”’”) and the other in 1 Corinthians 6.9–10 (“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”) In other words, those who make an accepting lifestyle of such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
That the Judeo-Christian Scripture is not decisive on the matter of homosexual behavior is purely a lie. It is only ambiguous if, and only if, we suggest that the Scripture is not the authoritative word of God when it mentions homosexual behavior, which is precisely what those individuals who suggest ambiguity here are doing. The so-called “soul-searching” many people speak of in choosing to accept homosexual behavior as morally just is simply the result of allowing Satan to help one rationalize the existence of sin in one’s life: It is nothing more, nothing less. The rationalization of sin generally comes in the form of thinking that the avoidance of a particular sin is so burdensome that God could not be good if he allowed one to suffer such a struggle; but they insist that God is good, therefore they conclude that the alleged sin is not actually sin at all, and hence needn’t be avoided. (And, to suggest, as one commenting here did, that if one has not endured precisely the same experience as another, that such person is in ignorance and cannot offer any legitimate corrective wisdom is demonstrably fallacious in many cases, including whether Judeo-Christian Scripture condemns homosexual behavior.)
Ought we to love all people, even practicing homosexuals, just as they are? Absolutely! Come just as you are into the healing of the Holy Spirit, and the eternal life with the Father, through the sacrifice of the Christ: for God loves all the people of the world, and desires that all would choose to be cleansed through Him and be redeemed. Unfortunately, as some have reflected here, there are those who simply refuse to distinguish between one’s person and one’s behavior. Thus the above commenter suggests that she does not “hate the sin, but love the sinner”; rather, she says that she “just love[s] our gay Christian brethren, as they are, and as God does.” She totally missed the boat: To love one another, and yet hate the sin (precisely as God commanded), entails that we love one another! How could anyone have missed it? (And, as initially stated, there is also the key distinction between struggle with sinful desire, and submission to it, resulting in sinful behavior, or deeds.) What she is really hinting at, of course without being direct, is that she does not hate the particular sin of homosexual behavior, whereas, in fact, God does. (Refer to the above Scripture for unmistakable clarity.) It is possible that one have homosexual desire, and yet not manifest that desire through homosexual behavior, just as it is possible that one have heterosexual desire, and yet not engage in fornication or even flirt with the idea by his actions. Moreover, heterosexuals often struggle with thoughts of lust, just as must the homosexual. The real “socially and culturally informed hermeneutic” is that homosexual behavior is not inherently sinful. Thus our contention rests not in whether Scripture (i.e., God’s word) condemns homosexual behavior as inherently sinful, but in whether Scripture (i.e., God’s word) is entirely truthful.
I agree there’s a distinction between homosexual desires and gay sexual activity. However, the story which started this, in the original post, was about a young woman pursuing a relationship.
As for the other obvious distinction which I failed to mention, I will say that Scripture doesn’t elevate homosexual sin as somehow worse than other forms of sexual sin. It is in this area that I think Christians have fallen way short. If a Christian will approach a friend about their homosexual sin, as mentioned in the story above, but that same Christian will not say something to their other professing Christian friend who is shacking up with his girlfriend, then there is a problem. And I understand why gay men and women feel unfairly singled out in such circumstances.
James, I wholly concur.
James, if I’m reading Penny well she isn’t calling for a condoning of homosexuality but a respectful listening to the homosexual.
Larry, I am reading Penny and some replies differently than you.
If I am reading Penny correctly, the story is about a good friend telling her friend that pursuing a same-sex relationship is sinful. This is entirely in line with Scripture. Not verses about homosexuality, either. I am talking about the many directives to not condone our Christian friends’ sinful actions.
If I am reading Penny correctly, I am seeing that she believes it is honorable to wish her friend well no matter what kind of relationships she pursues.
If I am reading Penny correctly, she believes that the friend who spoke to her gay friend is out of line and she should let her be who God made her to be.
Ok y’all. As always happens whenever homosexuality is mentioned, this becomes a debate over interpretation of scripture and who is “right” and who is “wrong.”
Here’s my point (which has mostly been ignored in the comments):
1) I believe people can come to different conclusions regarding scripture and still be Christians.
2) I believe there is a place for admonishment and rebuke. Scripture tells us to do so and Jesus gives us an example.
3) We are not Jesus. This should give us all pause as we consider where our words come from (is this really from the Lord? Or a prejudice? A fear? How could I be behaving like Job’s friends?)
4) The point of this post is not about my stance on homosexuality but on the importance of LISTENING to people who are different from us rather than slapping them with verses.
5) Why is this such a hard message for Christians? Don’t we know we have much to learn, especially from people who have been excluded or ostracized from our faith?
6) If we’re going to talk about this post, let’s talk about what I really said (thanks Larry).
Penny, it is my opinion that I stayed on topic, and heard what you really said. And I laid that out in my reply to Larry. What you call “slapping them with verses” is, in my opinion, justified in many cases, and probably in the particular instance you described. Further, there is nothing in the story, as you described it, which indicated that the friend did not listen to your friend before sharing God’s word with her.
Leviticus 20.1–2, 13: “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites: … “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. …”’”
Matthew 5.1-2, 17-18: “Now when He saw the crowds, He went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, and [Jesus] began to teach them saying: … ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.’” Of course, out of the ceremonial, civil, and moral law, Jesus was speaking of the moral law, of which abstinence from homosexual sodomy is a part.
1 Corinthians 6.9–10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Fellow professing Christians: One needn’t “interpret” such Scripture through any philosophical bias; it is plain as day. Anyone who holds to the view that the Scripture is true, be they a “conservative” or a “liberal,” from Salt Lake City or from San Francisco, can understand what was written, as it was written, and believe it as true. There are many issues in life that are not adequately addressed in the Scripture and so are open to some interpretation with guidance from the Holy Spirit: whether homosexual sodomy is inherently sinful is not one of them.
I have a Christian homosexual friend myself; he is actually a Republican conservative who is not a supporter of the Obama administration’s policies. However, he has told me his view on homosexuality: that he believes the Scripture is prejudiced by men, and hence not valid, when it mentions homosexual behavior. I’ve listened quietly to his opinion (it is not difficult to do), and I believe it is unfounded, being misled by his desire to affirm the moral neutrality of homosexual sodomy. I disagree with him, but I respect him no less.
Penny, my fellow sister, you wrote an article on Christian matters; Christian belief is founded on the Judeo-Christan Scripture; some Christians were advocating that homosexual sodomy is not inherently sinful; the Scripture explicitly says otherwise; hence my original comments on the truth regarding homosexual sodomy according to the Judeo-Christian Scripture were not in any way unwarranted.
Furthermore, I concurred that we ought to respect practicing homosexuals as we ought to respect all people, clearly. I listened to you; I’ve listen to others. Few people have a problem with listening. I always give the other person the benefit of a doubt that they have some wisdom to offer; but when that person offers a falsehood, I owe it to no one to pretend that they have just offered truth. What many people construe as “not listening” is, in actuality, simply “not consenting.”
We’ve all gone through tough times in life that inevitably, to some extent, affect our disposition. We’re all victims of the world and its ravages; but this does not give any of us a permit from God to construe the Holy Scripture in any way contrary to as it reads. To persist otherwise is blasphemy. Hence, if anyone tells me he has received permission from God that he may pursue a homosexual relationship, I know that he has thereby spoken a lie: And it saddens me.
right on, Jared
Penny,
I appreciate your words. I think it is such a necessary message, for all of us. It doesn’t matter what the topic wether its homosexuality, doctrine, or the color of the church carpet. Sometimes when people think they are right they have a hard time listening to any other side of the story. Everyone has gone through life differently and brings a different perspective to the table. I especially liked this part:
“you (and I) owe it to the person with whom we’re speaking to approach the conversation with the belief that the other person also has something to teach.”
I wish there was a way to create a whole new vocabulary for this topic.
It’s an area where we, as Christians, have no room for struggle because we’ve been so quick for labels.
Like, when you say “out as a lesbian”, does that mean that she’s actively engaging in sexual relationships outside of covenant relationships? That’s rhetorical. It’s only to say that my desire for a heterosexual relationship may make me needy or lustful or dependent, but wanting it doesn’t make me promiscuous. In the same way, being tempted to steal and even planning to steal doesn’t make me a thief, but I would hope that if I was pursuing any kind of relationship that was destructive to me or other people, that a good friend would express concern. But, we are so quick to label this particular sin and people who struggle with it. We (on both sides) rush to make it the primary identifier, and I can’t help thinking that I’m so grateful that my most difficult struggles aren’t my primary identifier.
I’m no expert, but I wish there was a better lexicon for openly discussing these struggles, no matter what your stance on them, in a community that’s supposed to be about love and redemption, not condemnation. I feel like, if there was a way for us to talk about these temptations and sins in the safe way that we’ve developed to talk about so many “more acceptable” issues, somewhere between blind acceptance and blanket rejection, it would go a long way to mending a heart-breaking rift.
Annie,
Your point is an appropriate tangent from what Penny said. And an illustration of why so much more listening needs to take place. And by listening I don’t mean hearing, I mean attempting to really understand. Contrary to what was said above I think that we typically are horrible when it comes to listening. We seem to bring our preconceived ideas about the discussion and seek only to make our own points instead of seeking understanding.
The language used in this specific type of discussion, about homosexuality, is especially fraught with misunderstanding. I can’t help but think that is due to the taboo on discussion of sexual matters in general and also to the heated tone that this conversation usually takes. For instance, “out as a lesbian” means to me that a woman is revealing attractions she feels and does not allude in any way to how those attractions will play out for her physically. Clearly more listening and more questions are in order if we are to understand one another. Further, I wish this conversation was less focused on sex and more on relationship because in my experience that’s what seems to be the most important thing for gay and lesbian people.
And I simply must comment on the definitive declarations about scripture’s stance on homosexuality. Someone above said that it is a lie for someone to claim that God led them to pursue a same-sex relationship and that to persist in the questions about homosexuality and not take a definitive stance against it is blasphemy. I’m tempted to say that the same is true for those who bear false witness on their neighbor or who claim to know the heart of God, but I would never be so arrogant as to assume that I can speak for God. So I’ll just say that words like those are divisive and destructive and can push the children of God further from the truth of a righteous and loving creator.
Make no mistake: I wholly understand you and your rationale, Lisa, which is precisely the reason why I say that you have thus far displayed little wisdom on this matter. For you, this may be inconceivable; but be not dismayed, for perhaps it is you who have something crucial to learn from those who hold the Scripture in higher regard. You say that I am arrogant for speaking with firm conviction that the explicit moral directives in Scripture regarding homosexual behavior are not void, and that I have not considered that God might contradict the Scripture, the true word of God; but, Annie, perhaps it is you, as a Christian, who are acting in arrogance for speaking with firm conviction to the contrary of the explicit moral directives in Scripture. “He who justifies the wicked [persons or deeds] and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17.15).
The only uniquely preconceived notion that I bring to this discussion, I must confess, is that the Judeo-Christian Scripture is the true and inspired word of God: a god who does not later amend his moral directives to his creatures. What never ceases to serve as a source of bewilderment for me is the observable trend among some in the church who selectively subvert the Scripture (i.e., God’s written word) in order to defend wicked pursuits, whereby such professing Christians will (a) deny that the Scripture unmistakably commands what it clearly does command in explicit terms, or (b) selectively disparage the authority of the Scripture outright, or (c) selectively contend that only Jesus of Nazareth can adamantly correct another person on ethical issues, or even (d) purport that mankind is utterly incapable of discerning any moral component of the will of God according to His written word: all while yet claiming to speak with firm conviction from the Holy Spirit that it was God who guided them to disparage His written word and instruct others to do the same! In effect, such persons not only commit unparalleled hypocrisy, but they make themselves out to be a moral fiat, consulting neither Scripture nor Spirit.
I must correct myself, however, for the Judeo-Christian Scripture mentions homosexual behavior not twice, as I had formerly said, but three times (Leviticus 18.1–2, 22, 24, 30; 20.1–2, 13; 1 Corinthians 6.9–10), Leviticus 18.1–2, 22, 24, 30 reading:
“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, “I am the LORD your God. … You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. … Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. … Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.”’”
Also, in passing, I need to make a clarification of my careless use of Matthew 5.17–19. To be sure, it is not the requirement of obedience to the moral derivatives of Law that will ever pass away, but the continual justification by the Law according to the old covenant by animal’s blood, and the absence of the indwelling Holy Spirit, that has passed away, being replaced both by the new covenant accomplished with Christ’s blood and by a transfer of the law of moral directives from ink to being written on the hearts of those who have received the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 10).
In any case, both covenants require a repentant heart that desires what is righteous for one to be justified. That which God Himself declared a “detestable act” (Leviticus 20.1–2, 13) and an “abomination” that “defiles” oneself (Leviticus 18.1–2, 22, 24, 30) cannot now be pleasing or acceptable in the estimation of our Creator under a New Covenant: It is still detestable; it is still sin. Again, the difference between the old and new covenants is manifested in the manner in which sin is dealt with and the mode of communication with God. “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10.26–29)? And Jesus the Christ affirms that “an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice [(i.e., the voice of the Son of God)], and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5.28–9).
One would have to be awfully skeptical of Christian Scripture, rejecting the legitimacy of much of it, in order to attempt a defense of homosexual behavior as morally decent according to the Christian religion. But the Apostle Paul reminds us that “[a]ll Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, [and] for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:13-17). No informed and intellectually honest person could declare the moral decency (or even moral ambiguity) of homosexual sodomy according to the Scripture. And those who love the truth do not take offense at the contextually relevant application of Scripture.
Lisa, you say that you are tempted to suggest that to take a definitive stance in “claim[ing] to know the heart of God” might be blasphemy. But how could that ever be? Claiming to know the heart of God is precisely what one is doing who affirms that he has received God’s blessing on the pursuit of any homosexual behavior. That would be self-defeating as an effort to discourage others from affirming the Scripture on homosexual behavior. Are such homosexuals “arrogant,” as you say? –For they claim to know the heart of God in claiming to have His blessing upon their behavior. Moreover, you seem to hint that I “bear false witness on [my] neighbor.” If this is what you meant, Lisa: unless you can adequately defend your accusation against me, are you not guilty of slander, yourself?
To address a hitch that I come across time and time again with some Christians: It is possible to steadfastly correct someone with the compassion that they not be deceived and that they not deceive others; to deeply offend that person’s pride in so doing, thereby disrupting the immediate peace between the two; and yet not commit a breach in loving-compassion for that person. Such is precisely what I have done in my commentary here. It was Christ Jesus himself who claimed “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. … He who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” (Matthew 10:34–36, 38). Hence we have attestation from the Christ that even blessed peacemakers cannot guarantee peace among others when holding fast the truth, for the reality is that each person is responsible for how they choose to respond in hearing the truth. Some choose humility; some choose apathy; and still others choose hostility. For Christ, preservation of the truth ultimately takes a higher precedence than uninterrupted harmony.
Finally, speaking more directly about the original article, given the rhapsodic nature of the book of Job, it is not so easy to extract precisely the err of his friends from the dialogue. However, at the closing of the book; after God reproved Job for his own careless words regarding God’s holy nature, and after Job confessed of himself “I have declared that which I did not understand…. I will ask You, and You instruct me. … I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42.3–4, 6); God clarifies, speaking of Himself to Job’s friend Eliphaz that he and the others had “not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has” (Job 42.7). Therefore it is difficult to assign to those who correct a fellow brother who is in some way disadvantaged the position of having behaved as did Job’s friends. The one who has wisdom from God to offer his friend who is in desperate spiritual need, and yet does not offer it or instead offers a dilute truth for fear of causing offense to his pride, is no friend at all. According to the LORD’s testimony, however, Job’s friends, in attempting to be wise, spoke falsehoods about the character of God.
I’ve seen poster signs from pictures taken at gay pride parades which read “Jesus loves gays.” It brings warmth to my heart to see that not all homosexuals have dismissed the truth that God loves them dearly, as equally as He does all mankind! Indeed, Jesus does love the homosexual, even the practicing homosexual; but as His written word attests, He is immensely grieved by homosexual pursuits, which He describes as “detestable” and an “abomination” that “defiles” his creatures, just as He is grieved by all man’s immoral pursuits. The Scripture is clear, and yet there is no contradiction whatsoever in God’s condemnation of homosexual sodomy and God’s unconditional love for those who are afflicted with homosexual desire. May we take opportunity in God’s grace, and not reject it with an unrepentant life of sin. Such is a lesson for us all to live by.
Okay, this is a bit embarrassing, but I forgot to mention the Apostle Paul’s mention of homosexual behavior in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans. Here, too, the behavior is spoken of as indecent. It would appear, then, that the Judeo-Christian Scripture mentions homosexual sodomy four times, each disapprovingly.
Jared,
You weren’t even able to identify all of the scriptures cited to condemn homosexuality in the bible. Which makes it clear to me that you aren’t familiar with the passages or their historical context/interpretation. Perhaps you should do a bit more study of these particular scriptures before condemning me, my precious girlfriend, and the countless other gay and lesbian Christians who love God and follow Jesus.
Lisa
1. Jared was to inattentive to identify each passage dealing with homosexual Behavior;
2. Jared initially misunderstood Jesus’ intent regarding “Law,” that Jesus was speaking of Mosaic Law in sum (not its core moral component), which, of course, was abolished under the new covenant;
3. Therefore Jared is not familiar with the full context of the passages regarding homosexual Behavior that he did cite, nor is he able to understand such passages.
Emily, it does not take a logician to discern that your conclusion about my knowledge is a non sequitar. My reply to Emily below will shed even more light on exactly why.
Given the ease with which a Judeo-Christian case can be made against the moral permissibility of homosexual sodomy, it is true: I was inattentive to identify all such verses which condemn homosexual behavior. Again, the conclusion does not follow, however, that I therefore did not understand the context or connotation of the passages which do mention homosexual sodomy. And my confusion with the application of the passage Matthew 5.17–19 in no way affected and my overall successful case in maintaining the very point which has been the focus of my purpose here: demonstrating through Scripture that God does not esteem homosexual sodomy as morally acceptable. It is sin. If an act was deemed a sexual perversion which defiled a man according to God in 1400BC, it is so today. You certainly have not refuted that, and if you were honest in your reply, you would have granted me that. Lisa, you have, however, to my dismay, been very ungracious in how you have addressed me. I, on the other hand, have not said one condemning thing against homosexual persons as such, nor have I been unkind, though you continue to libel me as if I have. Rather than construing me as a hateful, condemning person, I would ask that you extend to me the courtesy of understanding that, far from being callous, I am deeply concerned for the eternal destination of my fellow man for the reasons that I have adequately explained. It cannot be deduced from anything I have said that I harbor bitterness toward homosexuals. We need not burn in anger against those who believe as the Scripture attests that homosexual sodomy is inherently sinful; nor are we wise to assume that all (or even most) of such individuals hate homosexual persons. Let us be kind to all, but let us also hold fast the truth, lest anyone be deceived.
Thanks for all the comments and opinions.
It’s hard not to get tired of this conversation, but I have Christian friends who are some of the-most-genuinely-in-love-with-Jesus folks I’ve ever met. And they are gay. And they take Jesus’ words seriously, just as I know every one who has commented here does. So, it’s hard to throw in the towel.
I am trying to learn the discipline of listening. Of assuming that I have something to learn. Of believing God has words for me in the form of every one I encounter, particularly those who I would rather avoid. Especially those who I easily categorize and dismiss. I pray God gives me the grace to continue to listen to you and to everyone I meet.
@Jared,
“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any related duty. He shall be free at home one year, to be happy with the wife whom he has married.” (Deuteronomy 24:5, NRSV)
“You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether Israelites or aliens . . . . You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt.” (Deuteronomy 24:1415, NRSV)
“Suppose two persons have a dispute and go to court, and the judges decide between them, declaring one to be in the right and the other to be in the wrong. If the one in the wrong deserves to be flogged, the judge shall make that person lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of lashes proportionate to the offense. Forty lashes may be given but not more.” (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, NRSV)
33 ” ‘When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:33)
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
These are just the most interesting ones I found when I took 5 minutes with Google. You can’t say that every command in scripture is obvious, cut & dry, and without any need of interpretation. Scripture tells us to do some really weird things that many of us have no problem ignoring. Ever talked to a woman who was menstruating? According to Levitical law, you are engaging in an abomination just like homosexuals. Penny’s article was about LISTENING. Not a call to start throwing around the same 5 verses Christians always argue about when homosexuality comes into play.
Also, I think it’s worth noting that Jesus was the inherent word of God and he never, not once, mentioned homosexuality.
Emily, I have not said that all passages of Scripture are obvious and require no interpretation. My statement wherein I said “such” passages needn’t be interpreted regarded only those passages on homosexual behavior and the passage Matthew 5.17–19 (which hadn’t a thing to do with homosexual behavior), the latter of which (again, not having to do with homosexual behavior) I misunderstood, later clarifying, and which, regardless, did not affect my case on the moral indefensibility of homosexual sodomy by the Christian moral standard. Please keep in mind, Emily, I am not speaking of homosexuality, which might entail both desire and deed, but specifically of homosexual behavior, that is, homosexual deed or action. Moreover, to be clear, lust is willful and uncontrolled desire, not desire or proclivity itself; hence homosexual desire is not inherently lust; nor is homosexual desire equivalent to homosexual sodomy; thus having homosexual desire is not inherently sinful: The behavior, however, is.
Jesus states “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Matthew 23.23). But by equating the moral significance of God’s proscription of homosexual sodomy with provisions of civil law as you have done Emily, have you made Jesus out to be a liar by haphazardly suggesting that every law and directive of Mosaic Law holds equal moral value? Emily, consider this: Could not the new covenant have done away with the overarching Mosaic Law, while yet retaining the core moral component of it, just as one could draft a new bill while yet retaining many key provisions? The answer is yes. (Additionally, the Old Testament does not mention that one may not speak with a menstruating woman, as you said. It was written that one may not touch her, or anything she touches, or approach her to lay with her.)
Clearly, not all directives from the Old Testament are done away with. Murder? –––Theft? –––Serving other gods? Are moral directives concerning these done away with under the new covenant? Of course you are willing to accept that we ought not murder or steal, which is part of Mosaic Law, but where does one legitimately draw the line of demarcation? Which instructions from God are timeless moral directives, and which are not? If a man, having never been wed, marries his twenty year old daughter, the man now being sterile, and has sexual intercourse with his daughter, is this morally acceptable in God’s estimation? For incest is not explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments, the provisions of Mosaic Law which most skeptics are willing to allow (excepting the fourth), however, let us ask: Is the moral demand to abstain from incest not implied therein by the commandment “You shall not commit adultery,” given God’s moral directive elsewhere condemning the sexual relation of incest? Or what shall we say of polygamy? The Ten Commandments do not explicitly address polygamy; though, perhaps the same man desires to marry and penetrate two of his young adult daughters. Emily, if incest (or polygamy) is immoral according to God, then so too is homosexual behavior, for God undeniably condemns homosexual behavior as well, and both are portrayed as sexual perversions. Of course if we grant “You shall not commit adultery” as a legitimate Mosaic Law remnant, then we have a parallel in the sayings of Jesus when he takes for granted the legitimacy of the moral directive to abstain from adultery, specifically saying “You have heard that is was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5.27, 8). To metaphorically demonstrate the scrupulousness with which He regards this moral imperative, Jesus continues, saying “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for you whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5.29–30). In other words, according to Christ Jesus, an eternity in hell awaits those of us who continue a life willfully sinning.
But, Emily, if we use the sole criterion of moral burden you seem to suggest in your statement “I think it’s worth noting that Jesus was the inherent word of God and he never, not once, mentioned homosexuality”: that only Jesus’ explicit (recorded) sayings are legitimate in placing moral burden on us, perhaps we ought to consider also that Jesus never, not once, explicitly addresses bestiality, either, for adultery only pertains to sexual activity between humans. Thus, if a man proceeds to obtain sexual pleasure from his dog, penetrating its anus with his genitals and stimulating its genitals, is this not morally “abominable” as God so declared it formerly? Does bestiality no longer “defile” a man under the new covenant? Absurd. Clearly, then, homosexual behavior is likewise sin. I understand this may be a painful moment of discovery for some, but we mustn’t run from the truth, nor berate the messenger.
God designed and therefore intended woman for man: not woman for woman, or man for man. Yes, even the Christ testified: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19.4–6). Such were Jesus’ words. Is this the same Jesus you were speaking of, Emily, who sanctions homosexual relations? According to the Christ, mankind was made male and female by their Creator for a particular purpose greater than that of mere breeding.
We can all groan in mourning the tendency of some (though not all) homosexuals to reject Christian belief and its moral obligations in order to pursue a faith more accommodating to homosexual sodomy; but what we simply cannot afford to do is tell our homosexual friends a lie about Christian morality, giving them a false hope and thereby jeopardizing the redemptive eternal consequences for such persons.
Emily, as you say, the Son was and is the Word of God; this is correct. Through oral communication, Jesus spoke; through written communication, the Scripture attests. However, the Christ and the Father, the latter whose moral compass is attested to regarding homosexual sodomy, cannot be in moral opposition. Jesus spoke, “I and the Father are one” (John 10.30). We serve one God. We have a new covenant with Jesus, not a new God with a new morality.
In continuation, to put the final nail in the coffin (in which is contained the idea that the pursuit of homosexual relations is not inherently sinful according to our holy God and his written word insofar as Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexual relations), let us who profess the Christian faith also consider that Jesus the Christ did not specifically mention, and thus did not specifically condemn premarital sexual relations, either. Read strictly, adultery concerns sexual infidelity in marriage. If two people are not married to anyone and furthermore even agree that they never plan to be wed to anyone, according to the Christ, are they free to fornicate with whomever they choose, only so long as their sexual partners are not married and so long as they uphold the rule of reciprocity: to do unto others as you would have them do unto you? This is also absurd. Accordingly; as stated above regarding incest, polygamous relations, bestiality, and homosexual relations: all such relations having been already deemed sexual perversions by the one true God; the moral obligation to abstain from premarital sexual relations is implied in Jesus’ affirmation of the command not to engage adultery and lust.
Sexual perversions are blasphemy against our God’s design of man and woman and the sacred union of marriage between the two; thus we willingly decline to love the LORD our God with all our heart by engaging without repentance in sexual perversions, and therefore forsake the “greatest commandment” that Jesus confirmed (Matthew 22.37-38), which is “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.” So said the Christ of Himself, “If you love Me, you will obey what I command” (John 14.15).
If we grant that the Apostle Paul is not a liar when he claims to speak with the authority of the Spirit of God in condemning homosexual behavior, then discerning the truth of the matter is not difficult at all. Some professing to follow Christ, however, are not willing to grant that the Apostle Paul, who had encountered the risen Christ and thereupon received the Holy Spirit, is not a liar; thus I have provided other reasons.
In sum: If we grant homosexual relations as morally acceptable to our Creator, we must also grant the moral permissibility of incest, polygamy, bestiality, and all mutually consensual fornication, for all such things have been equally regarded as sexual perversions (which are blasphemous and sinful) by the LORD our God. To maintain that all such deeds (being manifestations of a man’s unGodly desire) are morally acceptable to our holy God is absurd, therefore all such things remain sin.
Thanks for the posting Penny. I really appreciate your point that we need to listen, more than we need to state our position.
I find this discussion interesting, given that I recently had a great discussion regarding our submittal to the “Law” (the Torah). We were discussing the book of Galations, where Paul is yelling at that church for saying that following the “Law” is above everything else. In our discussion we came to the agreement that Jesus came to free us from the bonds of that tradional law, and to bind us to a new behaviour focused on Love (that of God, and of our neighbours). This new law is so much more abstract, obviously requiring much more listening from each other, rather than relying on things written down. Yet we all constantly fall back on that law, as its much easier to understand “Don’t do this, and Don’t do that”, rather than what it means to actively Love each other.
Thanks again for your post.
Peace.
Wow! Great discussion! For those that really do think that there is no other conceivable interpretation of the bible other than that it condemns ALL homosexual behavior as sin, I would argue that an interpretation of the bible which takes into account the historical context in which the bible was written (which is about 90% of what is taught in evangelical churches) there is another possible interpretation. During the time of the new testament (I am going to ignore the OT on this one. Most people would generally agree that a modern day believer needn’t follow ALL the minutiae of the OT law and I believe in covenant theology anyway
homosexual rape and orgy were relatively common. Older men would commonly rape younger man as a sign of power/status and homosexual rape was common as an act of war and for the subjugation of a people group. Homosexuality as its understood today in the context of a consensual, monogamous relationship was very rare to nonexistent during NT times. And as such when I read the bible I interpret the NT writers to be condemning those homosexual “offenders” who commit homosexual rape and use homosexual sex to subjugate persons as a show of power/status. Much in the way that one can interpret Paul’s words that women be silent in the church to not mean that women must NEVER speak in church, I, and many respected theologians, can interpret passages about homosexual sin NOT to mean that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin.
To Penny: I ABSOLUTELY agree that the key, key, key is to LISTEN. My uncle, who I probably respect more than any other Christian thinker alive (and who btw the way disagrees w/ me about homosexuality), has spent the past 20 years, thinking, reading and speaking on how Jesus Christ asked questions. Not just any questions, but great, thought-provoking questions because of his deep, abiding desire to KNOW us. And that is a powerful example to follow.
Laura, of course we needn’t follow all the minutiae of Old Testament Law: The old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant and thus there is a new law. Who here has suggested that all provisions of the old covenant law are still valid? Certainly not I. (See my other replies to Emily and Lisa for clarification.)
But on to the crux of the matter. We not only have several passages of Scripture—both in the Old Testament and the New—which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior as such, and which do not give any special mention of certain kinds of homosexual behavior such as between a man and a boy or regarding rape or polygamy as a condition of the sinful nature of homosexual behavior, but we also have countless passages of Scripture which take for granted that God’s sacred plan for sexual relations from the beginning of the creation of mankind is for such relations to occur only within marriage, and that God’s sacred plan for marriage is the union between a man and his wife for as long as they both shall live. Thus to equate Paul’s condemnation of homosexual offenses with homosexual rape is no more than sheer, naive wishful thinking which is easily undercut. (See my reply to our sister Emily above regarding the equality with which homosexual behavior, incest, bestiality, polygamy, adultery, lust, and premarital sexual relations are all condemned in Scripture, each being blasphemy by sexual perversion.)
In any case, let us consider a sort of Pascal’s Wager in terms of Paul’s intent. Your exegetical speculation, Laura, that, to paraphrase if I may, “The most appropriate reading of the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual offenders is in terms of a condemnation of homosexual rape and man-boy relations” is a wild guess at best, for you suggest, without knowing, that there is an implied intention on Paul’s behalf that there be a conditional provision to the condemnation of homosexual behavior. Not Paul, nor any author of Scripture, has expressed such a condition in the Scripture, nor can such a condition be deduced by the same. You must already confess, then, that the weight of plausibility is not in your favor. This naive suggestion of yours then demands an answer to the question: Why would you attempt to offer any encouragement to homosexuals to declare that they are eternally safe to ignore the warnings from Christians such as myself and to pursue a homosexual relationship based upon an undeniably counterintuitive exegesis of the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual offenders which bears no proof in the Scripture, being neither explicit nor deducible therein? In doing so, you assist in jeopardizing the heavenly eternal destination of our homosexual friends on a wild guess. —Such is not compassion, but grave cruelty! You mean well but you do much harm: for if I am wrong, the homosexual who heeds my advice forfeits sexual pleasure but his soul may be safe for all eternity, but if you are wrong, the homosexual who heeds your advice surely forfeits his soul unto the devil for eternity though his pleasure may be pursued for however many years his earthly life may endure. Of course, I am not wrong.
Perhaps, as common sense with the Holy Spirit would attest, when the Apostle Paul wrote
“[K]now ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 — American Standard Version),
we are best to construe the implications therein regarding homosexual behavior with Paul’s later letter to the Romans wherein he wrote with clarity
“Professing themselves [(i.e., ‘men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness’ {v.18})] to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due” (Romans 1:20-32 — American Standard Version).
Three things are apparent in this passage which are relevant to our purpose here, Laura, which we would all do well to take note. Firstly, Paul specifically undercuts any inclination that liberal scholars might have that he was making reference to the adult/adolescent age coupling in the homosexual relationship (as was common in Rome) as a condition of the sinfulness of that relationship by his affirmation that having “burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness” is sin, or that which is wrought from “vile passions.” If Paul meant to suggest that only men with children burning in lust for each other constitutes homosexual sin, he would have written so. Second, again, the phrase to have “burned in their lust one toward another,” in speaking of men, Paul undercuts any misconception that he was only speaking of certain kinds of homosexual relations between men, such as homosexual rape. Thirdly, by stating “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,” in drawing a parallel to the “vile passion” whereby the “women changed the natural use into that which is against nature,” the wise Apostle Paul specifically condemns lesbian relations so as not to leave out women.
Aside from my revision of Pascal’s Wager and my conservative reading of Paul’s intent, Laura, don’t hesitate to review my replies to Emily as well. Also, I am going to provide you (and everyone reading here) a link to an insightful article by Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig entitled “A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality”: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5339. Although, please note that this particular link cannot be followed to the article until you log in to the website to receive his once-monthly newsletter.
And remember, “homosexuality” is often meant to imply both the homosexual orientation and the manifestation of that orientation in deed or lust. The homosexual orientation is the result of a fallen world under the curse of sin, just as is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (as many scientists believe there is), but the mere proclivity is something that the vast majority of the afflicted have not made a conscious decision to acquire, and thus it is not itself a sin for which the individual is accountable. But just as the one who is afflicted with alcoholism is not thereby given a moral pass to drink to his heart’s content, so, too, the one afflicted with homosexual desire; be it by nature, by nurture, or both; is not thereby excused of his obligation to abstain from sexual perversion.
Jared,
I think I understand your stance on confronting people in an effort to guide them to a healthy relationship with their Creator. It is noble and just. I submit however, that you may be coming from a point of belief rather than knowing, and that means you are speaking more as a pharisee than as a disciple of the Christ. (I could be wrong, it just sounds that way to me)
I would like to offer a different image of what “inheriting the kingdom of heaven” might mean. According to the gospel authors, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is “at hand”. Perhaps this means that our divine inheritance is not a phenomenon that is only reserved for after death, but is one that can occur during life and in fact in the present moment. If this is the case (and I believe it is), then I would be wary of recieving guidance from someone who has yet developed the “eyes to see” (not that I have the authority to say who that is). Jesus instructed his followers to “remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from your neighbor’s eye.” I take this to mean that we should not go around condemning our brothers and sisters until we too have claimed our divine birthright and entered into the “joy that is beyond understanding”.
Ekhart Tolle gives a pretty lucid description of the spiritual consequences of homosexuality in his book “The Power of Now”. He says that a homosexual orientation can be of spiritual benefit to an individual because such a person will be made to feel as an outsider and will have greater impetus to seek an identity rooted in a spiritual, rather than a physical, reality. He also says that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle can be a hinderance because of the strong pull to invest the identity in being a homosexual which is a purely physical (and therefor temporary) phenomenon. With that perspective it seems far more helpful to encourage people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, to seek the kingdom of heaven. I know that I respond much more easily to someone encouraging me to do something rather than to not do something.
I firmly believe that we can be of far greater assistance to one another if we choose to listen without condemning. The act of condemning automatically closes us off to the possibility of receiving what the person needs and locks us into a dogmatic view that may or may not represent Truth. It also creates an attitude of righteousness which seems to be at odds with what Jesus taught. Jesus told the pharisees that he “did not come to call the righteous, but the sinners”. I don’t think Jesus was suggesting that the pharisees were in the clear and therefor did not need his help, after all he warned his disciples to “avoid the leaven of the pharisees”. I think Jesus was rather telling his followers that an attitude of righteousness closes the mind from receiving Truth.
As one who is earnestly seeking the kingdom of God, I do not feel I have the authority to condemn my fellow humans until I have achieved the goal and thus know the way from experience. There is a big difference between teaching from a point of belief in something I have learned from a book or a teacher (like the pharisees did) and teaching from a point of authority (like Jesus did). Until I have the authority to teach like Jesus, I am going to stick with listening so that I can support my fellow seekers in the most loving, compassionate, and helpful way possible – as one who wants to know God and wants to help others as well.
As for Pascal’s wager, it is often an unacceptable move for someone to give up earthly enjoyment on the “chance” that it might lead to eternal consequences. It is therefor more skillful (as far as I can tell) to be there for our brothers and sisters and support them in continuing to seek God, even if their choices of lifestyle differ from our own or do not line up with our own understanding of how God wants us to live.
Regards,
Ryan
It simply amazes me that the false accusations against my character—-most of which I have already addressed—-continue to fly toward me by the very same people who also accuse me of not “listening” to others.
To address your statement, Ryan, that I “may be coming from a point of belief rather than knowing,” my reply would be “Yes! I have not rational certainty; though who does? For example, it is by faith that you and I ‘know’ the Christ and that we ‘know’ that we have the Holy Spirit.” But to suggest then that this means that I am speaking more as a Pharisee rather than as a disciple of my Lord, I must confess has cast me into total bewilderment. It is not uncommon for those Christians either whose emotional sensibilities are a bit more delicate or those Christians who focus sharply on the same to do such a thing. Whenever a Christian stands firm in a tough truth that perhaps another is fretful to hear, some of those who faint at the hearing of hard truths are quick to whip out accusations of Pharisaism. Remember, the Pharisees proceeded in a manner to stone those persons who disagreed with their understand of God, which Jesus attested was even false. Have I proceeded in my comments in a manner that displays hatred, or has anyone here demonstrated that my affirmations of God’s written word amount to falsehoods? To both of these, the answer is no. Thus, yes, I would say that you are quite mistaken in your assessment of my character. My request then is that you turn from these false charges against me.
Moreover, when you issue the statement “you may be coming from a point of belief rather than knowing, and that means you are speaking more as a pharisee than as a disciple of the Christ,” is it not ironic that you have loaded your reply to me with phrases of uncertainty (or belief) such as “I think I understand,” “you may be coming from,” “I could be wrong, it just sounds that way to me,” “If this is the case (and I believe it is),” “not that I have the authority to say,” “I take this to mean,” “it seems,” “seems to be”? Does this then not make you similar to a Pharisee by your own standard of measure? Likewise, when you say “There is a big difference between teaching from a point of belief in something I have learned from a book or a teacher (like the pharisees did) and teaching from a point of authority (like Jesus did). Until I have the authority to teach like Jesus, I am going to stick with listening,” does this not make you a hypocrite, for you extend yourself beyond mere listening and are attempting to correct me (as you believe that I am misguided)? Furthermore you suggest that learning from books or teachers is akin to having the futile wisdom of the Pharisees. Would this not then suggest that your claims to knowledge here are like those of the Pharisees, for you mention that you have taken wisdom from a book by Ekhart Tolle. Ryan, slow down and think a little more before attempting to correct someone.
Christ Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Ryan, so I’m afraid you’re just going to have to put aside this notion that brothers and sisters in Christ cannot righteously hold each other accountable by the moral direction God has given us until they are elevated to the authority of Christ Jesus. Such is a not something that Scripture teaches us; I’m not sure where you picked it up. But, although we do not have the authority of God inasmuch as we are not the original source of all that is good and neither are we perfect (despite our striving), we do have much guidance from God laid out clearly in the Holy Scripture and by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the New Testament writers, who I am inclined to say have more credibility than any theologian, charge us that we see to it that false doctrines do not overtake the church.
Now, in an attempt to convict me of wrongdoing, you say that Jesus taught that “an attitude of righteousness closes the mind from receiving Truth.” Ryan, hold back the reins, brother! By imputing an “attitude of righteousness” on me are you attempting to discerned my intentions in offering Christian guidance to others in desperate need? I reserve no offense at those who suggest the prideful intentions of others if the allegations are backed by unmistakable reasoning, being sufficiently deducible from the expressions of the one accused of arrogance. But, sir, you have utterly failed to demonstrate my arrogance, instead simply accusing me of it! I believe in some things I am righteous. (Ought Christians to flee from righteousness?) But, if I credit my righteousness (as well as my wisdom and my capacity for compassion) to God, as I in fact do, what wrong have I done? Ryan, it is an attitude where one’s righteous efforts are credited to one’s own glory that is sinful. Have I lavished glory upon myself, that I am the source of my righteousness? Friend, you really ought to be more careful.
And if by “condemning,” Ryan, you mean to suggest “reproving,” your “firm belie[f]” that “we can be of far greater assistance to one another if we choose to listen without condemning,” is quite common and also often quite misguided. In any case, we will be far more appreciated if we choose to listen without condemning (i.e., reproving). This much is true. But we are not called to be loved by the world and those who pursue the world, but to speak the truth in love, precisely as Jesus the Christ did; and thereupon, those who crave the truth will choose to love us and the message we carry, and those who cringe at its telling will choose to hate us as well as the message we carry. By passing up the perfect opportunity and sparing someone the hard truth that could lead them to the redemption of their souls, you effectively dismiss the significance of their salvation. Wise up, brother. And consider this: If I merely relay God’s written word wherein he has condemned certain practices and the persons who willfully pursue them, is it really I who condemns anyone? —-For I have not the authority to declare what is right and what is wrong Of My Own Accord. Rather, it is the authority that comes from the wisdom of God, much of which is at our fingertips within the pages of Scripture, that condemns a man or spares a man; I am simply an earnestly concerned messenger. A liar ignorant of the truth not only is deceived himself, but, if he is bold, he deceives others as well. Thus if I correct a false teacher, my investment for the Kingdom extends far beyond the original source of false teaching, perhaps even exponentially. (And your clarification of “the kingdom of heaven” is really not something that is relevant to the truth of what I am saying.)
When moral correction is given to us, as Christians we bear the responsibility, the moral obligation, to receive it in humility and to compare it with God’s written word and also with the Holy Spirit. There is no gentleness in all the world than can compel an arrogant spirit to receive a righteous reproof in humility. I have spoken Scripturally sound truth with all love and all compassion, and yet some have responded to me in hostility. This reveals not the slightest bit of guilt on my behalf, Ryan; it does, however, reveal the arrogant spirit of some of those who receive correction. I have stood firm in Biblical truth, protecting it from misrepresentation, and therefore offered guidance for others in receiving the promise of my Lord and Savior. “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” (Hebrews 10.25–27; see also Hebrews 6.4-8). The key word in this passage is “willfully.” Those who pursue homosexual relations, insisting that such is not sin, rejecting the opportunity to repent and strive for righteousness, and thus rejecting the Scripture which attests to the contrary, are sinning willfully, by spirit.
You say “it seems far more helpful to encourage people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, to seek the kingdom of heaven. I know that I respond much more easily to someone encouraging me to do something rather than to not do something.” Again, Ryan, responding with joy to the absence of much needed correction is not necessarily indicative that the one addressing you has addressed you appropriately. Moreover, there is an affirmation in every moral negation, my friend. To encourage someone not to reject God’s grace in a life of willfully sinning is, as a matter of fact, to encourage them to passionately seize God’s grace. And, have I really suggested that practicing homosexuals ought not to seek an eternity with the Father, as you imply? I have not. Be careful that you not slander your brother. Remember, receiving correction is a two-part responsibility, not one part greater than the other: the one who corrects must do so in compassion, and the one who receives must do so in humility. If only the receiving end of a righteous correction is arrogant, the one who corrects bears no blame. But with not the slightest defensible reason you assume to discern arrogance on my behalf. I attest, sir, that you are presumptuous and mistaken.
However, perhaps our one point of agreement is that building relationships with people to put a face to the love that Jesus brought is a crucial component of making disciples. However, also, there is a time and a place for making a concerted effort toward building relationships: whilst reading and writing on blogging sites is often not one which lends itself to the cultivation of traditionally conceived friendships. For example, in your reply to me just now wherein you offered advice, was this commentary given because you intended to spend time with me, to build a continuing friendship with me so as to share my burdens and my joys? Likely not; and yet that itself was not of any harm.
My purpose here has been that of establishing a superior case as to why something, namely the validity of a moral imperative, is true by the Christian standard and why the imperative is worthy of our obedience. There are different aspects in guiding people to the truth. Just recently I went to an event where evangelist Ravi Zacharias was speaking at a university, and he presented intellectually oriented information to the audience to address those who denied or doubted the truth of the existence of a Creator. Some attending Christians whom I spoke with afterward grumbled, saying, “I doubt many people came to Jesus after that lecture.” But such Christians missed the whole point of the lecture! What a shame. While the eternal salvation of those in the audience was doubtless on the mind of Ravi Zacharias, he was addressing apparent intellectual stumbling blocks to faith in Christ. If one believes there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of a Creator, then this is a sure impediment to believing that Jesus is the Christ and receiving an eternity with our heavenly Father, wouldn’t you say? But out of compassion, Ravi extended grace in striving to remove such a stumbling block so that those who were skeptics might now be enlivened with a curiosity to seek the truth to further extents, whereas before they felt that the nonexistence of God was a given. In a similar manner, I have been endeavoring to remove a stumbling block, a false philosophy that can cause some of us to become complacent in a particular sinful lifestyle, believing that God approves of it, which will hinder some of us from choosing to receive God’s grace.
Therefore, Ryan, I submit that God raises up diverse leaders with dissimilar skills, no one greater than the other, to work together for the glory of God; that the one who wishes to be an encourager is not to dismiss the value of intellectual contribution, thereby pitting reason against spirit; and that the intellectual is not to dismiss the value of encouragement where such is due. I believe that my skill is a very misunderstood one (and often underappreciated), indeed. One might even say, Ryan, that I am a bit of an outsider in how I am sometimes received: Surely Jesus knew what this felt like at times. Though, I am sometimes also given encouragement from persons of older generations, even women, in my efforts to stand firm and speak the truth, even the tough truth, when others lack the wisdom or courage. In fact, Ryan, if you’ll notice, Andrew, who has commented under this article, and who has confessed his struggle with his own homosexual orientation, has even offered his encouragement to me under one of my replies here, saying in approval, “right on, Jared.” Apparently his spirit did not take offense with my comments. And to his confessed struggle—-which did not lead him to embrace defeat—-I expressed much joy for his honesty and determination to remain faithful to Jesus, even in the face of cultural pressure whereby those with his orientation are encouraged to embrace defeat.
I would also encourage you to review my response to Laura on November the tenth, at 12:54pm. It bears a similar theme to what I have written here.
With all the false accusations which have been leveled at me from various commenters here in an effort to divert from addressing the underlying issue itself, instead of construing me as arrogant and uncompassionate as you and others are eager to do, perhaps my Christian detractors might marvel: “Boy, given all the false and damaging accusations against Jared; which have been issued by folks who claim he does not listen, when in fact the shoe is precisely on the other foot; and which he has had to resolve; he sure is an extraordinarily patient, kind, and gracious person.” I say this not for my sake, but for yours, to convict you so that you might grow in the Spirit of the LORD.
Jared,
I don’t know what your experiences are or have been and therefor I don’t and didn’t know if you spoke from authority or not. I have come across rhetoric very similar to yours in many instances throughout my life, and I really just wanted to offer a different perspective regarding what “biblical truth” might be. I don’t claim to have knowledge of absolute truth, I do claim to be keenly aware of when I speak from believing rather than personal experience and I intended to make it clear in my post that I was only offering a different perspective, not accusing you. I recognize now that the line I wrote about pharisees could be taken as an accusation, sorry about that. The idea I was trying to communicate is that the pharisees taught without authority, and those who rely only on the Bible (rather than their personal experiences of God) are like the pharisees in that respect. I did not mean to imply that you are violent and I do not claim to know that you lack personal experience of the divine. There is a subtle difference between a suggestion and an accusation. A suggestion (as I intended to offer) implies a lack of knowledge or desire necessary to accuse (and I lack both). You can do what you like with a suggestion, I see that you have made your choice concerning mine. Sorry that I offended you.
Be well,
Ryan
@Jared.
Wow guy. Interpreting the bible differently than you does not mean I don’t believe that the bible is Truth.
Also, this semantic fine-tuning that God “loves the sinner and hates the sin” is outdated and frankly offensive to a lot of non-believers. I try to avoid talking to people that way.
But I wouldn’t disagree that God loves people and hates sin. He hates sin plenty. I hate sin plenty. Sin is ruining this beautiful world we live in: people are starving, dying, hurting, hating and a whole lot else. To me the message of Christ is a message of hope and of peace. People aren’t stupid. They know life sucks and most of them have a pretty clear idea of why. The bible helps a lot with understanding that. Hate seems to be a big theme, lack of justice, selfishness.
Personally I choose to emphasize God’s love when I speak to others. Don’t get me wrong, God has PLENTY of judgment, but his judgment comes from a place of justice and looks VERY different from human judgment. It is, after all, divine.
Are Christ followers still called to confront sin? (Back to Penny’s point) Absolutely. But I don’t think we are called to confront sin in the way you might be talking about. We are called to confront sin in love and (I really like Penny’s point here)listen and ask questions. Telling someone that what they are doing goes against God’s law is easy, asking them why they are sinning and becoming committed to their freedom from sin through love is HARD. But I believe, unequivocally, that this is what God calls us to do. He calls us to emulate his relationships of love and trust. He wasn’t joking about going and making disciples. Our fellow disciples should be our deeper that deep, closer than close brothers and sister. And walking, talking, listening and learning through someone’s journey is humbling and allows us, mere broken humans, to participate in the divine came near.
Laura said: “Wow guy. Interpreting the bible differently than you does not mean I don’t believe that the bible is Truth.”
Laura, your oversimplification of my words are not insightful. And, if you were assuming (as many are all too eager in an attempt to dismissively categorize me as they wish) that I am sheltered from alternative views, that I find it difficult to love, to respect, to listen, and to understand homosexual persons, please pay closer attention to what I say, for such is a total misunderstanding. Other than that, who could disagree with your post? I surely do not. What is more important than repeatedly asking questions? —Getting answers to those questions. I’d say I have sufficient answers from the homosexual’s point of view. Surely I received enough answers from commenters advocating the Christian moral permissibility of a life of homosexual behavior on this article likewise.
It is truly ironic, though, that often those who accuse others of not listening, and of not showing grace, are the most eager of all to oversimplify the words of more conservative ideological opponents in order to maintain a veneer of intellectual victory, as well as to demonstrate a lack of grace toward ideological opponents.
Laura said to Jared:
“Are Christ followers still called to confront sin? (Back to Penny’s point) Absolutely. But I don’t think we are called to confront sin in the way you might be talking about. We are called to confront sin in love and (I really like Penny’s point here)listen and ask questions. Telling someone that what they are doing goes against God’s law is easy, asking them why they are sinning and becoming committed to their freedom from sin through love is HARD. But I believe, unequivocally, that this is what God calls us to do. … And walking, talking, listening and learning through someone’s journey is humbling and allows us, mere broken humans, to participate in the divine came near.”
I suspect that I really do need to address this matter of loving and listening to the afflicted as a separate note: the confusion among some of you is so heightened. Laura, you say in agreement with Penny in one of your replies, “I ABSOLUTELY agree that the key, key, key is to LISTEN.” Laura, for what purpose are we listening? If we are seeking to provide comfort to someone facing a confessed tribulation from which they are seeking freedom or refuge, then, of course, the key is to listen to that person in order to understand what is troubling them (and why) so that we might appropriately care for them: be it with Spirit-led advice, prayer, physical help, or all three. But, in our case, Laura, it behooves you to acknowledge: Those homosexuals who willingly pursue homosexual relationships and have confessed a determination to reject the opportunity to repent inasmuch as they believe their behavior is not sinful are precisely those who only desire that someone lend an ear on matters of homosexual behavior inasmuch as they are seeking encouragement for their continued pursuit of that sinful behavior. Do you see? Such persons as I just described will not benefit from your suggested course of action that we “ask them why they are sinning” because they do not believe they commit any sin by homosexual relations! Nor have I suggested that we not take the course of action you suggest with those afflicted by homosexual desire who do, in fact, confess the sin of homosexual behavior. Different approaches to different struggles. The one who does not confess the sin will not benefit if we take for granted that the behavior is sin, therefore we must persuade them (and those who advocate on their behavior’s behalf) that such behavior is sinful in order to proceed to the next step. Acknowledging the problem is the first step on the road to recovery. And to persuade a person who has demonstrated resistance requires that we listen to their reasoning, which I dare say that I have done rather superbly.
Would you suggest that my sympathy for one who struggles with a sin ought to persuade me to dismiss God’s clear prohibition on that sin as expressed in the Scripture? You say not, but your attempts to discourage me thus say otherwise. (You are not alone in this practice; I have seen it often.) Moreover, Laura, your attempted counsel, as well as that of some others commenting here, can be likened to that of one who, after befriending a drug addict ignorant of consequences, endeavors to show compassion to that person by defending their damaging drug habit when the person becomes depressed insofar as the drugs help to soothe their pain! It is to their ultimate destruction, but rest assured, they will thank you for your encouragement, for neither you nor they are careful to heed the warnings of concerned friends who speak the truth. And the concerned friends are often libeled as “uncompassionate,” “ungracious,” “hateful,” “bigoted,” and perhaps “ignorant” for their compassion, their grace, their love, their acceptance of those who are afflicted, and their sufficient understanding of the crisis being suffered. Concerned friends are often libeled because they offer the crucial love that is difficult to receive, whereas the enabler offers either the encouragement to pursue the object of one’s desires or a truth so dilute as to be ineffective.
Therefore we must be very careful in suggesting or even hinting that someone does not speak in love, or, as it was suggested by Lisa, that one speaks in arrogance. Such a serious allegation demands remarkable evidence, lest it be libel. And perhaps that person who is accused actually has a greater understanding of love than his accuser thus far understands. Let us love all our brethren and even those outside the church as does our LORD: one such way being that we not deceive them, for love “rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13.6). Thus, if love rejoices in truth as do I, and I have not spoken hateful words toward any person here, then I have spoken the truth in love (Ephesians 4.14–16). For a man to call something precisely what it is does not suggest that he speaks without love or that he speaks in arrogance. Nor are we to believe ipso facto that one who speaks the truth is without compassion when those who despise the truth cringe at its telling.
so interesting to see so much speaking and so little listening in this articles comments…
i guess that’s what happens when you mention the word “gay.”
or “abortion”