Standing in and Filling in the Gap (s)
Sometimes no commentary is needed to illustrate how the ODM’s have the unique ability to twist “news” to fit their agenda.
First from A Little Leaven comes the story of the sorry church
Is the church wrong and judgmental for claiming that abortion and homosexuality are sins and contending against them? Pastor Richard Mark Lee of the Family Church in Sugar Hill, Georgia thinks so. What did he do about it? He apologized to the unchurched for being judgmental during a highly publicized church service.
We think that Pastor Richard should also apologize on behalf of God for destroying the earth by flood because of men’s wickedness, destroying Sodom and Gomorah, plaguing the Egyptians and killing their first born, destroying Korah and those who followed him, killing everyone in Jericho, and killing the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel for their false religion.
And now from the Pastor, Richard Mark Lee, of Sugar Hill Church
“For me, I cannot stand in front of God and tell Him that I did nothing to reverse that perception. It’s important to know that the 18-28 year-olds are not against Christ; in fact, they tell pollsters that they have fond feelings for Him and believe in God. But the bottom line is that the Church is still perceived as judgmental, homophobic, and irrelevant” rather than for our love for them.
“I am 37 years old and I believe the Bible is 100 percent truth without error. But the Bible tells us we are to judge our own lives and not the lives of those outside the faith.
“Today I want to apologize to our community for getting in the way of Jesus. He really is awesome and you’d like Him, even though you may not like those in the Church.”
Lee addressed a variety of misperceptions the Church has given to unbelievers in an increasingly non-Christian society.
“I have picketed abortion clinics, I’ve held the signs and banners and done all those things. I am pro-life but I regret being involved in those things. I am sorry for having a bumper sticker mentality.
“If you have had an abortion recently or even several years ago, I want you to know that I do not sit in judgment of you today. I am sorry if you have sensed a spirit of judgment in the way I presented myself and the gospel.”
Then he addressed the gay issue and individuals in the Church who “have a pharisaical mindset,” apologizing for the way some Christians “have demonstrated prejudice, bigotry, or a hateful attitude.
“We are sorry for acting like the head of the body of Christ rather than like a part of that body. We are sorry for driving you out of church; that is not of God. “I have apologized to God and now I am apologizing to you.
“In my day of arrogance I have laughed at my share of gay jokes but I now understand that participating in such activity does color the way you view people. You can’t avoid it. And while I firmly believe that Romans 1 is true in its discussion of homosexuality I know that it is much easier to condemn when you do not know those in that lifestyle.
“I have recently renewed an acquaintance with an individual who is homosexual and I have come to the realization that I cannot engage in jokes which demean the very person I am trying to reach.
“We have used trite phrases such as ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ in these instances but we should really love the sinner and hate our own sin. The Bible teaches that love does not find fault, but the hard truth is that the world has seen that we do not love those who are different from us.
“Time and again, Jesus’ words challenged the religious establishment. He taught us to leave the 99 and go after the lost one. But we have not followed that teaching very well and have actually pushed people further away from church.
“In John 4:18 we read that ‘perfect love drives out fear.’ I apologize for driving you out of the church and making the church a place that you fear. While the Bible teaches that we should all have a reverential fear of God, we should not fear those who sit in the pews. I make this apology and genuinely ask you to forgive me.”
Read the rest of the story here.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
““We have used trite phrases such as ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ in these instances but we should really love the sinner and hate our own sin.”
Thank you, Chris, what a heartfelt statement. Why is it that any act of contrition, any words of grace, any showing of humility, gets its share of public ridicule from some? When you get bound by judgmentalism, it is a habit that is not easily broken.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
I read somewhere that Christ came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. I still believe that the ZENITH of self righteousness is to receive the grace of God and turn around and condemn thos among which you just came.
And this is from people who CLAIM (they don’t actually believe it) that it is all of God and none of them. With that theology it is GOD’S WILL for those sinners to remain in their sin. So in effect, they are speaking against God and His will.
Don’t call on sinners to change, they cannot. Call on God to change them, He can. And they seem to have missed the entire spirit of the pastor’s statement, he wasn’t excusing sin, he was confessing ours, which is something you usually only see in some doctrinal statement from some ODMs.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
“But the Bible tells us we are to judge our own lives and not the lives of those outside the faith”
Judge our own lives??!?!? Bahahahaha no way man.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
our own lives is less fun…
and getting into other people’s back yards is a “righteous” way to still wallow in sin.
So much for “whatever is pure, lovely…” etc.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
on a serious note, i would suggest that, even though this pastor and i ultimately disagree on the gay issue, it’s a lot easier to show grace and respect to those who are doing the same to you.
i bring this up because one of the hallmarks of the anti-gay Christian right, whether online (the Peter LaBarberas, the Dobsons, the Family Research Councils, etc.) or elsewhere, one of the hallmark claims of the anti-gay bigot movement is that “gays are actually the hateful ones…toward Christians!!!” it’s essentially “I know you are, but what am I?”
they are all so stupid and blinded by their own hatred, though, that they don’t realize that when they spend their lives and livelihoods acting in an inhuman way toward entire groups of people, people are bound to react in kind to them.
articles like the one @ Little Leaven prove that some are merely bound and determined to lie in the filth of their own chosen ignorance and gracelessness, and that’s why people like me react to them with derision, while simultaneously carrying on friendships, online and elsewhere, with people who fit every definition of “traditional Biblical Christian.”
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Evan,
I would say that on both sides of the fence stereotypes and way over the top caricatures are used as evidence of “xy and z”. In reality truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“i bring this up because one of the hallmarks of the anti-gay Christian right, whether online (the Peter LaBarberas, the Dobsons, the Family Research Councils, etc.) or elsewhere, one of the hallmark claims of the anti-gay bigot movement is that “gays are actually the hateful ones…toward Christians!!!” it’s essentially “I know you are, but what am I?””
Don’t forget Matt Barber for Concerned Women of America.
I struggle with the Gay issue myself as the Bible seems fairly clear that it is sin. However, I read Gerry Wills book “What Jesus Meant” He brought up the point that the lepers of his day were considered unclean because they partook in the unclean. Yet Jesus embraced them, but the Pharisees(religious right?) at the time persecuted them. reading the things that Jesus actually did really makes me think that he was certainly a liberal. Just a thought
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Bam Bam is such a priss! Biggest priss @ CWA, and that’s saying a lot.
lately, he’s quoting narrow cherry-picked studies to “prove” that being gay kills, just like smoking.
no word on second-hand gay, yet.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
oh yeah. COMPLETE liberal.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Actually Jesus refused to be associated with any of the different political factions of his day. He certainly ticked off the Pharisees, who could be viewed as conservatives of their day. But he also said things that would have irritated the Herodians. Basically, Jesus transcends our politics.
I think we have a tendency to just look at Jesus the way we want to see Him. The thing is the different groups in Jesus’ day did this as well. They all wanted to use Him to suit their purposes.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Ev,
Liberal in the sense of comparison to the religious people who killed him, and the religious system of the day. He was ridiculously liberal, and a rebel to boot.
But pretty ‘conservative’ compared to what’s going on these days.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Phil, yeah good point. I was using loose definitions of liberal/conservative. It’s from a comparative standpoint I guess.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“Bam Bam is such a priss! Biggest priss @ CWA, and that’s saying a lot.
lately, he’s quoting narrow cherry-picked studies to “prove” that being gay kills, just like smoking.
no word on second-hand gay, yet.”
Worst part for me is my wife eats that stuff up, she is always on a battle against the “Gay agenda”. I try to straighten her out but she is resistant.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Friends,
I just finished reading a book called The Shack. I found a couple of statements rather pertinent to this discussion–and the entire pathetic ODM cycle of judgmental violence:
“Judging requires that you think yourself superior over the one you judge.” (159)
&
“You are free to love without an agenda.” (181)
I think these are the two aspects of the Jesus life that some people are profoundly adept at missing. I have a lot of things that need to change about, some blog posts I need to remove, and some growing down to consider.
If you haven’t yet, get the book and read it. Thanks for being a friend to me.
jerry
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
i mean “liberal” in the true sense of the word, not the weird connotations the right-wing has attached to the word in recent history.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Yeah Evan I’m with you there…
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
well, all of that is easy to straighten out using good old facts.
it also might be helpful if she knew a gay person or three.
that’s usually the quickest way people realize CWA, Peter LaBarbera, and their ilk, are lying to them.
the truth of the matter is that Bam Bam, The Peter, etc., HAVE to twist facts, and sometimes outright lie, in order to make things fit their worldview.
so a narrowly focused study on a very specific group of gay mens’ sexual habits suddenly becomes representative of all gay people suddenly becomes “being gay kills.” they’ve been known to use statistics gathered from mens’ PRISONS to broadbrush all gay people.
they’re quite filthy in their tactics.
that’s why, to go back to my original statement, it’s difficult to show any more than disdain for people who lie about us and use us to score political points with people who don’t know any better.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
What I don’t like is the use of that silly phrase as if “church” is what saves or keeps it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“it also might be helpful if she knew a gay person or three.”
She is a housewife so those chances are slim, she also thinks that homesexuality is a spirit, she was influanced by the likes of Pat Robertson. I gently try to show her that his influance is more nutty than rational.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Oh my I hear it is worse that if you inhale a gay person yourself! But not as bad if it is with a filter…
; )
iggy
I know Evan… I know… I am sooooo straight…
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Where have I heard that before? Hmmm…
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
oh, dear. didn’t Pat say hurricanes were sent as God’s judgment on gays or something? or that 9/11 was God’s punishment for gays? i never can keep up with which natural disasters are punishments for what…
i do know John Hagee said that Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans having a gay festival that happens every year the same weekend…one gay commentator quipped that, if that were true, then God apparently needs to learn to use Mapquest, since the gay neighborhoods in New Orleans were among the least affected by the storm…
as for homosexuality being a spirit…sigh.
a selective spirit that hits random people at the onset of puberty? does it have to compete with the heterosexual spirit that takes the other 90-95% of the population?
as to her being a housewife…i mean, if nothing else, Ellen is on every single day…
also? weeee are evvvvverywhere. next time you have a really really nice waiter somewhere? just look at her and say “gay.”
85% chance you’ll be right.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
still causes gay, just not quite as fast.
as to second-hand gay, maybe there should be warning in front of Pottery Barn.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Evan,
I was perusing your blogspot, and based on your comment “Weeee are everywhere” it appears you are gay. Correct?
If so, it’s no wonder you are away of Matt Barber, and Peter Lababera. I am not sure about changing the wife tho, she just told me that the kids will not be going to McDonalds because they signed on to the gay marriage agenda. For me its a battle I am not willing to fight any longer, the more I understand Jesus the more that I don’t want to fight battles that I don’t think he would. Homosexuality existed back in Jesus’ time but he was mum to the issue. Paul talked about it but he also told women to not speak either……..
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Apples an oranges, Jeff… One is demonstrably culture-specific, and the other is demonstrably a cross-cultural prohibition, reiterating a consistent scriptural teaching. Just because a number of Christians have acted incredibly poorly toward a specific sin, elevating it above the common sins of which they are often guilty, does not necessitate an equal and opposite error of nullifying the existence of sin.
I’m not going to rehash everything covered here, here, here, here and here, though…
Were we to choose a different sin, for instance ‘lying’ - if much of Christianity treated admitted liars in a graceless, ostracizing fashion, particularly those who do not claim to follow Christ, the solution would be to correct the behavior of the graceless Christians, not to declare that lying is no longer a sin…
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
iggy confession:
I love to shop with my wife…
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I will read through those blog entries when I get some time, thanks Chris.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Jeff,
I believe that the focus on “sin” or “not sinning” is what is wrong in the Church… I see that if Jesus did “take away the sins of the world” then we need believe it.
Realizing we are all “sinners” in need of Grace… and that God resists the proud. If one professes to trust Jesus, and is a possessor of the Holy Spirit, then they are no longer the old person they were. Mean they are a new creation.
In that we all “struggle” with our sin, but we no longer dwell in sin and death, but dwell in Christ Jesus by His Spirit that is Life.
In that we are “new creation” (Paul never stated “a” though it is in the translation- he simply stated “if anyone is in Christ, new creation”) we have new identities of being “sons of God”…
I see that many “Christians” miss who they really are… instead of pursuing Jesus to find out their “purpose” they seek a “purpose” in stead of Jesus… or they live as they want because they do not understand who they really are.
I am not saying that when one understands who they are in Christ everything is easy… gay people will still have attractions to the same sex… I will still want to look at porno and check out that “chick” in the short skirt… or talk down to my wife or spank my kids instead of listening…
I am a sinner… saved by Grace… not of works… so I will not and cannot boast… I will not lord over other sinners that i am of a greater Grace than them… for biblical they are of greater Grace than me if they sin more than I do.
Be blessed,
iggy
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The Gay Calendar:
January - make people gay
February - see January
etc.
I wonder, in a gay church is the invitation to come forward and pray the gay prayer?
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
affirmative.
actually, all that happened was that one of their execs who happens to be gay joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. (See? allllll of those organizations have to LIE on a daily basis!)
b/c you want it to, because it’s conveeeeenient.
Paul’s not the end-all and be-all anyway. scriptural evidence exists, when considered from a culturally-educated viewpoint, that Jesus had an opportunity to take a position on gayness, and He didn’t. this truly will be the “oh my gosh i can’t believe they used the Bible to support slavery!” of 2050.
yes, but it’s in the entirely invented language of Sanfranciscan, so you can’t understand it unless we give you special decoder glasses and a glowstick.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
It has nothing to do with what I ‘want’ - and I’m not sure I find it convenient at all. It would be rather convenient if it could be easily explained away without rejecting all principles of Biblical hermeneutics - including trajectory hermeneutics, which are rejected by most reformed/fundamentalists, but accepted by many in the ECM and the liberal mainline movements (see Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William Webb)
Sorry, but your silly attempt at elitism (culturally-educated viewpoint … whatever) doesn’t wash either - homosexuality was not an issue in Hebrew culture - it was settled law. Josephus and others document the key issues of debate within Jewish culture (which was where Jesus worked almost exclusively, aside from a few specifically mentioned encounters in the Gederenes and in Samaria). All of the key issues of the day (divorce, resurrection of the dead, hand washing, etc.) were addressed specifically by Jesus.
The Bible “supporting” slavery is pretty easy to debunk, and one can do a cultural analysis of the treatment of women, beginning with the Tanakh and then applied by Paul in a specific setting (Ephesus). With the practice of homosexual sex (not the temptation, itself), though, the thread is clear - from Leviticus 18 through Ezekiel, Acts 15 and Paul’s writing.
It is not a matter of convenience, but a matter of obedience for believers. It is not the business of believers to try to make non-believers act like Christians. However, if you set out to walk the path of Christ, that means putting Scriptural teaching above your own desires of what you wish it said. It compels recognition of all sources of sin in your life and elimination of them - even when you don’t like it.
It has nothing to do with what is ‘convenient’… It would be much more convenient if there was no such thing as sin at all…
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
nope, that was Barack Obama, ‘member?
actually, i wasn’t being elitist at all, i’m saying that scholars who have deeply studied the culture and read the Gospel through those lens have noticed an instance where Jesus had an opportunity, if he felt that way, to say something about homosexuality, but he didn’t.
actually, this is stemming from today’s fundamentalist willful indignance against admitting that the biblical authors didn’t understand sexuality as we do today, and as such, there were many more models for relationships in that time period, many of them sexual, and the Law addresses ONE type, and Paul addresses TWO, neither of which bear any resemblance to today’s understanding of sexuality, and neither of which is a full explanation of the scope of same-sex relationships in that time period.
refer to what i just said about willful indigance against understanding the true nature of sexuality.
sexuality is not a temptation, it’s just something you are. sexuality is not some kind of “demon spirit,” it’s just something you are. yes, there is a framework for making choices within sexuality, but you can’t “choose away” sexuality.
2050, seriously. people will get it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
actually, Paul addresses two, but also one…he’s addressing a specific type of prostitution. customer-client.
it’s the only way the passage actually makes any sense. otherwise, why does he “condemn homosexuality” twice?
because he didn’t.
also, all the other places where Paul says “sexually immoral,” people are just placing their own cultural understanding of sexual morality into that verse and saying “lookie! it sez raht here! SEE?”
and again, Paul is not the end-all and be-all.
Paul was a radical, which is what usually happens when people go from radical unbelief to radical belief. common sense usually gets lost along the way, if it ever existed to begin with.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:06 am
hehe…something else just occurred to me…where in the Bible does it mention the specific “temptation” of homosexuality?
seriously.
there’s a line of questioning missing from the debate.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:49 am
“Thou shalt not…” not “Thou shalt not consider doing…and then not do it” so “practice of homosexual sex (not the temptation, itself)” is correct.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:57 am
“actually, all that happened was that one of their execs who happens to be gay joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. (See? allllll of those organizations have to LIE on a daily basis!)”
Do you have a source for this?, I know that AFA and the like lies, my wife doesn’t think so, if I can point it out maybe she will realize that their motive are less than pure.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:54 am
They do… it was sad as I checked one of their “sources” about the gay olympics… they had some “pictures” that were from some mardi gra or gay pride parade and stated that it was off the official gay olympic website. I had to go about 6 or more links deep to find one close to that sort of picture and it was from Australia’s mardi gra…
I have caught them a couple of times like this where they exaggerate things way too much. No doubt the picture might have been at “a” gay olympic some place or time… but it was not on the official site.
The other was how they were claim to be responsible for Ford having lack of sales when car sales across the board were down. They used that as a platform to make money as “proof you are making a difference”.
The AFA are very loose with facts…
iggy
April 24th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Evan,
I know this issue is personal for you, and I can respect that. I think your contention that Paul was somehow ignorant about sexual practices just not true. In many ways, sex was more prevalent in Greek and Roman culture than it was in ours. The Romans definitely understood homosexuality, and it was more than just in the context of prostitution.
N.T. Wright actually talks about here, and it’s not like he’s some hillbilly fundamentalist in the backwoods of Alabama.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Iggy,
It bothers me to no end the way the christian community is willing to bend ans stretch the truth, for the “Truth”. We see it in ODM’s, and many of the family organizations. Many christians are lemmings and if James Dobson or Don Wildman says it then it must be something we would stand for. Especially is the point is framed in the idea that the other side is “well” organized and “we” are the victims. This process is well oiled, and I only hope that people realize that if someone claims those things then it is most likely the opposite, WE are the persecutors, and WE are organized, not the other way around.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Jeff,
I will say every one of my spiritual “heroes” have fallen or have stated something disappointing. I really do not follow “people”. Even at the church I go to and am an intern at I disagree with the pastor at times… but I love him. If every one’s eyes were open for a day to their own apostasy, they would be shamed.
I once heard someone say, ” Everyone gets to heaven with bad theology, but no one gets to heaven without Jesus.”
That is why humility is so important… no one is right… only Jesus is right.
iggy
April 24th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Evan,
Here is the AFA article, (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=74691) If I could find the story that you mentioned it would be helpful for my cause.
“McDonald’s … has given a significant amount of money, I might mention, to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce,”
“Among the many other things that the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce promotes is hate crimes [legislation], the ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]. [T]hey’re dedicated to pushing the homosexual agenda.”
“In exchange for the donation, a McDonald’s senior executive has been placed on the board of the pro-homosexual group.”
“If a person really wants to make an impact,” Wildmon encourages, “call your local McDonald’s and say, ‘As long as you are members of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, I’m going to have to seriously consider whether or not I’m going to continue to come to your restaurant and bring my family to your restaurant.’”
I am suprised they didn’t mention that Ronald is going to come out and state the he and Bozo are now lovers.
I tell you man, I have a hard time believing Jesus would read this article, even if it were all true, and say, right on I stand for that.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:52 am
“I once heard someone say, ” Everyone gets to heaven with bad theology, but no one gets to heaven without Jesus.”
That is what I keep trying to bring across to my wife, who is very fundemental. She thinks I am going off the deep end by admitting that scripture is not innerrent. I tell her, all you have to do is read it to realize it is not innerrent, once you come across a clear contradition, inerrency is removed. I like the term authoritative, not inerrent.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:08 am
You don’t get much better than N.T. Wright when it comes to first century scholarship. Even his fundy critics tend to admit that…
April 24th, 2008 at 10:02 am
i’ll have to find the stuff on the Hamburglar later. Big…gay…Hamburglar. um, anyway…
but here’s a perfect example of the fundie right lying about an issue to enrage the sheep.
Tomorrow is the National Day of Silence, a day where students and teachers all over the nation will stay silent in order to bring to light the bullying and intimidation kids who are gay or perceived to be gay go through every other day of the school year.
but Bam Bam Barber, The Peter of LaBarbera, Ken Hutcherson (I’m so straight i used to play football and i once said i’d rip a man’s arm off and beat him with the wet end if he tried to open the door for me! - true.), and their ilk are all panties-in-a-wad…well, let’s take the Americans for Truth article and just debunk it paragraph by paragraph for the bald-faced lying it is.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/ken-hutcherson-plans-day-of-silence-protest-at-mt-si-high-school.html#more-1890
1. the comment from Matt Foreman was taken out of context. Foreman was saying that gay people DO need to take responsibility for HIV/AIDS in the gay world, and need to be proactive in owning the issue and doing something about it. The Peter, etc., have decided to co-opt the quote as a “look thar! they done admitted it!” statement to somehow “prove” that being gay inherently causes AIDS, by saying that the “homosexual lifestyle” is high-risk, which is utter crap, since there is no “homosexual lifestyle.” unsafe sex is high-risk. (as usual with these liars, there’s no mention of lesbians. why? because lesbians have lower STD rates than straight people. oh dear, that’s inconvenient…)
2. Bam Bam says Day of Silence about promoting FULL acceptance of gay people. No, Lil’ Bam Bam, Day of Silence about saying kids shouldn’t have to worry about getting bullied and harassed when they go to school for ANY reason, and the murder of Lawrence King a couple of months ago in California bears out that there IS a problem. Then he does the thing where he compares being gay to abusing drugs or smoking. This is just Bam Bam being Bam Bam. There’s no logical correlation between the two, since kids don’t wake up one day and realize they’re drug users. Also, again, “being gay” doesn’t carry health risks, Bam Bam.
3. then some talking hack from Focus on the Family applauds great big former football player who has threatened violence against gay people (did i mention Hutcherson has a huge bigoted congregation in Washington? also, he’s highly delusional. Google his name. he used to run around saying he was a “special envoy” of the US Government to Latvia, when no such thing ever happened…creepy anti-gay man…). but anyway, hack from FotF applauds Hutcherson for taking his lemmings to a HS to stand outside and protest for their…right to discriminate? right to bully gay kids? i mean, what? ‘
4. then they bring in a very very conservative Jew for a quote, so as to appear that it’s not just Christians doing this. trouble is, the great majority of Jews aren’t anti-gay, and don’t align themselves with these causes. in this way, Jews have more Christ than their conservative Christian counterparts. the trouble is that fundamentalists only use Jews when they need them. then they go back to being anti-Semitic and waiting for the rapture to come.
i mean, this is just one article, folks…
April 24th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Jeff,
Inerrancy is not the point of scripture. If in Leviticus the Bible states bats are “fowls” yet they are not… to the people of moses day they were so in that context God spoke to them in a way they understood.
Technically we know a bat and a bird are not “fowls” so technically the bible is wrong… but the Hebrews understood what God stated and what not to eat.
It is not “cut and dry” and the bible is without error. Unless someone can produce an original doc with Paul, John, Peter, James and Jude’s autograph, then we can argue with all honest integrity. But really… we need to keep a perspective that the bible is to point us to Jesus and to teach us of God… and we need to understand why God might have stated a bat is a “fowl” and not a mammal. (There is an obvious reason for that)
Again, if it is “inerrant”, which translation is the most inerrant… ; )
The Bible has authority because Jesus/God gave it authorty.
I am certain the things concerning my salvation are without error… but I will not state emphatically that the “bible is without error”…
iggy
April 24th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Evan - this is an example of something that probably belongs more on your blog, than in the comments here. While it is tangentially related to the OP, it is really a coatrack back to the Barbara discussion…
April 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Iggy - I would note that “fowl” is the English designation, and it was given to bats several millennia prior to the development of Alpha Taxonomy, which differentiated mammals from birds from fish, etc. As such, you’re making an apples to oranges comparison to say that a bat was not a ‘fowl’, as in the taxonomy of its original context, ‘fowl’ were designated by the ability to fly - not bearing live young, having fur, etc.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
oh, it’s right on topic. the original post was about fundamentalists twisting facts, i mean lying, to support their single-issue mindset/worldview.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Evan - please don’t parse - you can make anything link to anything else. To be more clear, this is about a specific situation, and if you would like a soapbox, you’ve already created one for yourself to write independent articles on whatever group you want to address.
You’ve got your blog, we’ve got ours. You are more than welcome to comment here, and I think you’ve been welcoming with allowing commenting on yours. However, we don’t write entire posts on topics of our own choosing on your blog. Please don’t do so here.
I’m not singling you out specifically (I’ve had to remind amy and others of this in the past), and more often than not, this seems to occur on the ’submissions’ page, where things go beyond being ’submissions’ to becoming mini-posts of their own.
In this particular case, bringing up articles not cited and doing a full-fisking of them is more relevant in a stand-alone post than in the comments of this one. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but just asking you to show a little bit of respect for the format here…
April 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Fair enough, Chris.
I do, though, think it’s worth pointing out that the “ODM”s you all go after are not unique among those of their mindset, that the disregard for the truth and unrestrained hatred they show toward people is, in fact, endemic in the Fundamentalist Christian community.
That said, I had some extra time this afternoon, and I wrote a little piece, inspired by this and some other things. Jeff, let your wife read this. http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/hate-groups-for-jesus/
April 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
don’t want to confuse anyone, but i’m streamlining my posting names different places, so, see above. that’s me.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
CHris L.
Note i do have disclaimers within what I stated… and this is what i stated as at the time of Moses, if it flew it was a “fowl”.
Yet, to take the Bible as it is and not place things in proper context, one cannot state it is without error. A bat is still not a bird.
Often if one looks at scripture and uses the “either/or” one will find many error, yet using “both/and” one can see that the bible is not always black and white.
Again, many act as if God would have known the difference between a bat and a bird and would have written the Bible to be all truth for all the ages. If that is then how it is to be read, then we need reclassify the bat. LOL!
If the Bible is “inerrant, without textual error”, again… which translation, which text, which parchment… which school of manuscripts? Though the differences are not so much as to shake me from my faith, there are differences.
Even today almost every single English bible translates 2 Cor 4: 4 (The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,…) as if it is Satan, yet Irenaeus states that is wrong and corrected it in his writings. He stated that Paul never taught there was any God but YHWH… and that YHWH was the one that blinds men… which if taken in the context of Pauls other writings actually makes more sense. God blinded the Jews, God send delusion… God is the Only God and there are none beside Him.
Yet we seem to consistantly add this error to our bibles and teach it as “Truth”.
I could go on… but sadly the fact is there are many things that lead me to not agree that the bible is without error as we have it. I do see it without error on the things of salvation.
iggy
April 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Iggy - there are several more legitimate verses that have questions, the verse and interpretation you site is obtuse and a real stretch. Every Greek scholar realizes that theos can be a magistrate or ruler or god, as in Acts 28:6.
Here is one for you:
In Acts 7 Spephen rehearses the chronology of Abraham’s calling out of Ur. In verse 4 he says that Abraham left Haran when when Terah (Abraham’s father) was dead. But Genesis 11:26 says that Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years old. And Gen.11:32 says Terah was 205 years old when he died in Haran. But Gen.12:4 says that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran which would make Terah 145 years old and 60 years before his death.
And the answer is?
April 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
that the authors were human and screwed up sometimes?
April 24th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“That said, I had some extra time this afternoon, and I wrote a little piece, inspired by this and some other things. Jeff, let your wife read this. http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/hate-groups-for-jesus/”
I will, thanks Evan……..
April 24th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Th answer is:
Luke accurately recorded the mistake in chronology spoken by Stephen.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Rick and Chris,
I think the real issue is when people try to force the bible to be and do what it is not proposed to do.
Some people have “rules” of interpretation that even the authors would never had used such as the Gospel of Matthew. He just seems to pull random “prophecies” out of the OT… not proper hermeunetics would say that he just broke their rules… but he wrote that Gospel for a purpose which is outside these “rules” and IF these scriptures are “God breathed” (which I believe they are) then the “outside the rules” hermeneutics are also.
I hope that made sense.
Again, I see that the Bible is 98-99% without error and the small percentage that might be error is rather insignificant.
iggy
April 24th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Iggy - Matthew’s use of prophecy actually makes a great deal of sense, when viewed in the PaRDeS methodology of teaching and interpretation…
I hear what you’re saying, but the things you’re defining as ‘errors’ don’t fit as such…
April 24th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Chris L,
I think if you are one that stays only in one “system” of theology, then you will have to deal with the ‘errors’ I am talking about. Now again, in their context they are not all errors but some systems cannot work these out in their defined rules… they break the rules so either the “system” broke down or the bible did.
Again, though it is hard to prove the bible is without error especially when the manuscripts themselves may differ from each other.
The main point I am making is that we need not need fully trust the bible to trust Jesus. I came from the very modernist idea that everything in the bible can be explained. Yet, sometimes I think there is much more or our own views placed into the text and the text on its own may be a horrific story that shows man is a sinner.
Now, again which bible translation is “inerrant”? If the bible is inerrant, then all translations should be also… right? We would all agree in what is error and what is not?
iggy
April 25th, 2008 at 3:58 am
This inspired me to write to parady blog posts:
The arminianists bible
and the calvinists bible
April 25th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Sorry if I double post - I’m not sure if the comment went through
This inspired me to write to parady blog posts:
The arminianists bible
the calvinists bible
April 25th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Iggy - It is all a matter of faith. Here are distinct views of faith:
*The BIble has problems, but they are ours not His
*If God could bring His Word 98% He could bring it 100%
*The Bible is inherent even with not being inerrant
*Even with some errors, the Holy Spirit makes them inerrant
*If all the errors are miniscule and unimportant than…so what
*I do not worship the Bible, I worship the Author
Trusting God to bring us His eternal Word is a cornerstone of our faith. However millions of true Christians from the Day of Pentecost to now have relied on someone else to read this Word since they are illiterate, so the inerrancy of the original manuscripts and/or the accuracy of any translations is not the issue with them. The issue with them is God’s ability to use a human conduit through which to bring them the eternal Word.
The inerrancy debate can be used of the evil One in many ways. The devil desires a deconstruction of God’s Word especially as it pertains to Jesus and salvation. If the devil is unsuccessful at that, he subtly makes one side get prideful about defending inerrancy while the liberal side gets pridful about their intellect. One side treats the Bible as the Periodic Table of Elements while the other adds their own personal flavor.
Both should be avoided. The Scriptures are God’s written revelation to man and can be fully and exhaustively trusted in ever spiritual matter, especially the ultimate matter of salvation. The reason that so many use the Bible to teach so many different ways to be saved is a revelation of man’s finite and mercurial capacity to understand his own language. In short, man’s fallen state has many complications, which are ours and not God’s.
Even the topic of inerrancy is probably a fallen debate which cannot be flushed from a human perspective, it must be approached by faith given by God’s Spirit. Someone who says that all the manuscripts agree in 99% of the verbiage and the areas that are different are not substantive issues - that person still believes in inerrancy. But deconstruction always leads to wrong and dangerous doctrine.
In the end, we have God’s Word and it the only basis for faith and truth as it applies to the eternal things of and about God. But this Word is not Algebra and it is not some battering ram, it is God’s loving and passionate attempt to show us who we are, who he is, and who Jesus was and is to us.
1. Who we are - we are sinners. We should not take pride in our sin or take joy in telling others about their sin. There are not classes of sinners, we are all completely fallen and unworthy of eternal life with God. After being born again we are to avoid sin although we all still sin. God gives the power to change as we journey to one day being totally changed by God’s Spirit into the image of Christ. But our mission is Christ and His gospel, not to become experts in the sin of others because we still could spend a lifetime condemning our own sin.
2. God is beyond description, except what He has graciously revealed to us. Only a born again person can actually become aware of a relationship with the Creator Father. The experience of salvation authenticates the scripture and will always be a mystery to the unsaved.
3. Jesus is the only Savior of the world. Only through His atoning work can anyone become a regenerate son of God, and in reality one of his younger brothers by faith. Jesus is the word made flesh and is the revelation of God in human form. All the many streams of revelations that Jesus is to His followers are impossible for any one believer to receive and identify. He is the Incarnate path to eternel life. People can debate the particulars of heaven but we must agree on the path of faith that leads through Christ to get there.
Now if a sinner only had those three truths written on the back of a used milk carton that would be enough for the Spirit to save Him by faith. Those truths in effect would become inerrant to that sinner who finds Christ. Let us not agrue about inerrancy among brethren who desire no desconstruction, instead let us revel in the power and majesty og God’s eternal revelation of Himself to us who deserved nothing but eternal condemnation.
Let us all bathe in the laver of His Word without taking pleasure in splashing the eyes of others with this wonderful river of truth! Aim for the ears not the eyes - in love.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Personally, I think the issue of inerrancy is mute and a none issue unless someone makes claims that cannot be backed up. If the bible does not state it clearly, as in the case that nowhere does the bible state of itself that it is inerrant… Yet, saying that I see that its purpose was not to be without error, but to point to He Who was without sin and perfect.
In that, it does what it was meant to do.
Again, the actual debate and need for the bible to be inerrant is for modernists and to meet the modernist’s perspective. In that way, 98% is better than most high school science books that are out of date before they are printed… It seems to have such a high accuracy that to push the minute errors seems foolish as even if one could prove the 2%, they then need prove that the other 98% is tainted by that 2%… and that would be a very stupid thing to do as even things like carbon dating or other things considered “pure” science often have even less that a 98% accuracy.
Do apples “always” fall to the ground and prove gravity… if so then, what about monster tides that rise and defy gravity? In that there is an anomaly it does not prove that most the time the apple falls to the ground yet that occasionally gravity is defied?
My point again that if one expects that science be of a higher percentage of inerrancy than the bible the bible would win.
(That may be an apples and oranges argument I know) = )
I am not arguing against the bible but for it, as it is harder to prove it wrong than it is to see how much it is right.
iggy