Jesus to Dine with Pharisees
Posted by JohnD on Jun 6th, 2008
2008
Jun 6
Following Bill Hybel’s and Rick Warren’s example of dining with sinners, Jesus will be joining Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36ff) for dinner. Simon and his Pharisee friends are professing “Jews” who are in moral revolt against the Word of God, not atheists at a Roman parade who need someone to bear witness to the truth. These people know the truth and have rejected it. Not only that, they want everyone else in the synagogue to reject it, too. For more information on this alarming trend, go to Slice of Laodicea here.
Definition of parody: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect. (Just in case anyone missed it).
June 6th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Haha, what’s really funny about this is that they’re meeting with fellow believers, but some peoples’ peaskulls can’t process that.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:58 am
hmmmmm ..
Evan i mentioned my past and my best friend/boss/flatmate is gay before..I know thats starting to sound like i’m covering all angles before i slaughter them…
I know many people say there’s no differences between a glutton or a liar then a gay person who all happen to be Christian’s..But i think there is a differences between a person who defends their sin vs a person who struggles with it but still acknowledges it as sin..
I really struggle to see how an active gay person who’s conscience doesn’t tell him its sinful can be a Christian,i know i was racked with guilt..
The issue is not would Jesus go to this meeting,but would is very presences touch their conscience about their lifestyle…
I’m guessing you and this group doesn’t think it as too about this particular sin?
June 6th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I think that whatever side you come down on (sin or not) with this issue the posture of the church should be the same. Our doors should be open to welcome all and any, inviting all to the banquet that Jesus is hosting.
Do we really want to adopt an attitude that says, “you are welcome in our church as long as you recognize that what you are doing (insert your favorite pet sin, here) is wrong”?
June 6th, 2008 at 7:22 am
andy,
Well, regardless of our particular opinion of a certain sin, we can still treat a person with respect.
The question you ask about how can a person not feel convicted is something that can be applied to a lot of things. For instance, how can a church treasurer not feel convicted about stealing money from a church over the span of 10 years (something which I lived through). How can a person get up in front of a congregation and lead in worship, but be one the most verbally abusive people you’ve met.
In the end, I have to trust that God will deal with people, and that is their responsibility to obey. I can’t force them, no matter how hard I try.
That’s my perspective, anyway.
Honestly, even, though I probably disagree on some things with Evan, he has been pretty respectful here.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Phil,
Is this really an issue of respect? And if it is, isn’t respect a two way street?
Evan might be respectful. That’s not the issue. The issue is trying to ‘force’ people to accept something that is a sin as something that is not a sin.
I don’t care, frankly, who Rick Warren has dinner with. Jesus ate dinner with sinners too. Fact is, however, those ’sinners’ that Jesus ate with do not appear to be making any attempt to convert Jesus to their way of life. They enjoyed his company, yes, but I hardly think this means that Jesus was in the business of leaving them where they were. Jesus ate dinner with anyone who asked him to so I don’t know that this means much though.
The apostle Paul does commend us in 1 Corinthians to associate with ’sexually immoral people of the world’ (1 Cor 5:9ff). But, and I think this is significant, he tells us to stay away from those who are sexually immoral and ‘calls himself a brother’. (1 Cor 5:11): “With such a man do not even eat.” Yes, yes, I know Paul here is talking about an incestuous relationship. But ’sexually immoral’ here (pornos is Gk.) is sufficiently broad enough to cover many bases as Paul demonstrates in 1 Cor 6:9 where he expands and defines the word to include other sexual sins that will prevent kingdom inheritance.
Thus, Andy well said: “But i think there is a differences between a person who defends their sin vs a person who struggles with it but still acknowledges it as sin..”
I don’t believe, then, that this is a matter of respect. People should be loved; I agree. But there is also the issue of sanctification that must be grappled with and I don’t think Jesus means to leave us in the same condition he found us–whether we were born that way or not. He means to change us.
respectfully,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Was there anyone that Jesus refused to dine with?
June 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I don’t disagree with this. I’m just saying that we need to leave sanctification up to the Holy Spirit, especially when we’re talking about someone else’s sanctification. No matter how hard we try, we can’t change a person’s heart.
An example I could give is this. I grew up with a lot of people who think drinking is an absolute sin. They don’t even think it’s a matter of conscience. To them it’s a sin.
I know a lot of Christians who drink, though. So to this one group of Christians, there are a lot of Christians living in sin. Yet somehow they are able to live with this tension a lot more than knowing someone is a homosexual.
My point is that sanctification is really a personal thing. Certainly we can care about people and help them, but that has to be in a context of a relationship. My question would be this. Are we more comfortable inviting a homosexual for dinner to get to know him or just telling him he’s wrong? From what I’ve seen it’s the latter.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Jerry,
Do you n0t think that Hybels is trying help lead these people closer to Christ by doing this? It’s crazy to assume that he is having this dinner meeting so that he can rethink his own moral compass on the issue. If MacArthur did this, they would be praising him for bring the true gospel to the — how did Ingrid put it? Oh yeah… the “unrepentant, bold face rebels who engage in sodomy in the name of Christ”
June 6th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Phil,
I’m not even suggesting that ‘we’ have to tell anyone they are wrong–especially the homosexual. That’s not my point. However, and this is where I think you and I might be missing each other, neither does that mean we should invite them over to validate their behavior. This is an issue of Scripture and, to be sure, drinking is probably not a sin, but drunkneness is. I have no problem with Christians who drink, but I don’t think that means I should neglect telling the drunkard he is living in danger. Ironically, it is drunkards who are included in 1 Cor 6:10. The point is that I, as a preacher and a Christian, do not have the authority to dismantle the Scripture so that sin is redefined and right is wrong and wrong is right. That’s why I say it is not about respect. It’s about Scripture.
You know what I am about here. It’s grace. But grace is not a license to continue in sin nor a license to redefine sin based on cultural phenomena or preference or because ‘we were born that way’. Sin is already defined and the Christian has no authority to challenge that definition as such. (Please spare me the OT examples of mixing materials and plants in our gardens or the NT examples of what sort of hair we should wear.) Generally speaking, we know inherently what is wrong and what is right. (See Romans where Paul says it is ‘written on the heart.’)
Finally, I slightly disagree that sanctification is a private matter between me and the Holy Spirit. We are to carry one another’s burdens as well as our own. And, to be sure, Paul does instruct the Church in Corinth to expel someone who was sinning sexually. This makes it a corporate issue. We work out our salvation in full view of the world not just inside where no one is but us and God. It’s called accountability. Even James wrote that we should ‘confess to one another.’
bowing deeply,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Jerry,
Well, OK, I’m all for accountibility, but this is an issue that has not been treated as a two-way street, at least from my experience. What message are churches largely sending homosexuals? Basically, don’t bother walking through the doors.
I guess it’s a matter of magnitude of sins. I don’t homosexuality in the top ten list of sins affecting churches. I see things like greed, gossip, lust, and materialism as much more dangerous than homosexuality. Let’s focus on getting our own house in order before worrying about others.
The main argument I hear against homosexuality doesn’t really seem to be out of care for them anyway. It seems that were more worried about us - about preserving our “American way of life” or “traditional family values”. Basically it comes down to protecting what we have. In reality we should be dying to save homosexuals. Once we do that, we’ll maybe have some credibility on the issue.
All I know is that if I were a homosexual, I probably would ignore most things Christians say.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Nathan,
You wrote:
I am not at liberty to discern what Hybels’ motives are. However, it is not crazy to assume anything even if it might be dangerous. We don’t know what he is thinking until he has told us. His future actions will demonstrate his purposes.
I am not worried about Macarthur either. I don’t think you should be since he hasn’t done anything like this and likely will not. And please don’t misread what I am saying. This is not about what anyone else does. And, to be sure, I am NOT saying that Hybels or Warren are doing something evil or wrong or dangerous or blasphemous. I am saying, that those who are trying to foist this ‘agenda’ on the Church in direct defiance of Scripture are doing the wrong thing. If Warren or Hybels aid and abet those actions, well…you be the judge.
Again, I refer to what Adam wrote above: “But i think there is a differences between a person who defends their sin vs a person who struggles with it but still acknowledges it as sin..”
This is the issue.
humbly,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Friends,
I hope to continue this conversation, but I have to go to the school for a couple of hours to work. I’ll hopefully see you back this afternoon. Phil, I will get back to your thoughts later.
not lifting my eyes,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Phil,
I say this preliminarily: I am a Christian and I ignore most things Christians say.
meekly,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I agree with Jerry and Andy here.
There is a huge difference between someone caught in the vice of sin - whether sexual or otherwise - who is cognizant that is it wrong and is struggling with it than someone who is actively engaged in promoting the lifestyle.
What would we think of a group called the National Association of Pedophiles or Fathers in Favor of Drunk Driving?
This group is travelling with a clear agenda to spread their message. They are not touring the US with the intent to discover the truth or seek out a way to repent for their lifestyle.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
More churches have been destroyed and/or continue to be unhealthy and abusive because of gossip, control, greed, anger than any sexual sin.
Sorry. It’s just the facts.
Sexual issues may be more dramatic, but they are representative of the sins that continually tear a church apart.
Intellectual assent to the idea that gossip is sin aside, people DO what they believe.
Considering the state of churches, we can assume that people really don’t believe that Gossip, control, etc. is sinful. They keep doing it while being all in favor of obsessing over the unknown sexual choices of people they hardly know.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:45 am
June 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Jerry said
I don’t want to make this a pile argument but Jerry, do you have any proof of that? I mean, probably these people were trying to convert Jesus.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
So Jesus only ate with people who were seeking out a way to repent for their lifestyle? That doesn’t seem to track with Scripture.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
But i think there is a differences between a person who defends their sin vs a person who struggles with it but still acknowledges it as sin..
completely agree. But then do we just shut down dialog completely, Bush style? I don’t see any good in cutting off all communication. If they were a part of my church… yes, I have the responsibility to do that. If they are just some random person or organization, I will use all my influence to help point them to Christ.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Phil - I don’t see how this is a strawman at all. I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that groups that promote a destructive lifestyle (ie homosexual agenda) are really off-base but because of our cultural climate, we in the church tend to follow what’s acceptable or not in mainstream.
If anything, nc’s comments about gossip and all of that is a strawman (9:42am comment). Sure, there are problems within the church. Some people will always be hypocrites and feel no way about it.
You have to consider the important fact that the homosexual agenda is the most methodical agenda out there. They have made amazing strides in social acceptance over the last couple of decades - one event after another.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I believe there are some activists, but I believe there a lot of homosexuals who don’t subscribe to a big, organized agenda.
Even so, Christians are called to fight in the opposite spirit. We don’t respond to a group with an agenda with an agenda of our own. Jesus says we’re too be willing to die for our enemies.
Let me ask you this - what is the worse that could happen if gay marriage is legalized? Our authority isn’t the government. It’s Christ.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“What would we think of a group called the National Association of Pedophiles or Fathers in Favor of Drunk Driving?”
Phil already addressed this, but let me add why. The reason homosexuality in today’s context is on a different playing field altogether with the above is because one is a mutually agreed upon relationship (like any marriage) and the other is nothing short of abuse. The pedophile and drunk driver care nothing about the sanctity of life or the rights of others. They are acting through their own selfish agenda. Homosexuals are not hurting anyone in their decision to be together. This is why Phil is right to call it a straw man.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am
:Let me ask you this - what is the worse that could happen if gay marriage is legalized? Our authority isn’t the government. It’s Christ.”
I think I heard Tony Perkins on the Daily Show the other day say that the reason we need to defend marriage between one man and one woman is because it is the foundation of a society to continue to flourish.
This reason is ludicrous. As if legalizing gay marriage would actually make people become gay and forsake a hetero relationship! It is akin to saying that if the government legalizes abortion men everywhere will be signing up for one.
I wish that if the evangelical right is going to dictate political positions they would at least make better arguments for them.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Nope. Do not believe it is a sin. Have prayed, researched, prayed, researched, ad infinitum. Not a sin. Sometimes you have to realize that conflating very specific prohibitions with biological things that neither Paul nor the OT writers knew anything about, is intellectually incoherent and morally bankrupt.
Actually, it’s just an attempt to find communion with fellow believers.
Translation: Paul has been broad enough that we can stick in any old thing we want and claim it’s covered under Paul’s prohibitions.
Not ALL Christians, mind you. Just the obnoxious ones. Haha.
Oh look, here’s one now!
Yeah, you’re so right, me meeting a man and falling in love with him and committing to spend my life with him is totally the same as the drunk driver who killed my best friend’s brother last summer and people (predominantly heterosexual, I might add) who rape defenseless children. I wish there was an internet emoticon for the gesture I’m giving the computer screen right now.
Yet again with the “destructive lifestyle” thing.
A. It’s not a lifestyle. I haven’t had sex in a while. STILL GAY.
B. Being gay is not destructive. Unsafe sex is destructive. Being told that you’re not good enough to go to heaven before you’ve even grappled with your sexual truth is destructive. Watching Christians lie about you in order to score political points is destructive.
Oh, no! Social acceptance in a secular country for people who are different from each other?! We must tear the Constitution to shreds immediately! (Because yes, it’s the Christian Right that does not understand the Constitution.)
That said, the homosexual agenda is readily available and it’s not a secret: full equality and nothing more.
All the other crap morons like Peter LaBarbera convince you to believe is just that: crap.
It would strengthen marriage for everyone, we wouldn’t have to fight with hospitals when our spouses are suddenly hurt in car accidents, just to be able to go back with them, our children would be protected…yes, only terrible things. Oh, and maybe we could move toward a society where ignorant hicks stop beating the crap out of/murdering gay kids.
Take away the cloak of God, and all you’re left with is the bigotry.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Chad,
You wrote:
“Homosexuals are not hurting anyone in their decision to be together. ”
First, the Biblical standard for judging sin is not whether or not it is perceived as hurting someone else.
Second, apparently you haven’t considered the “fruit” (adopted children) of these so-called marriages. Raising children in that atmosphere is spiritually and psychologically damaging, i.e., hurting someone else, because it normalizes sinful and unnatural behaviour and relationships.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Again, until the church does something about its divorce rate that is actually higher than the general public, it really doesn’t have much moral authority in this area. What’s worse, children growing up in divorced family, or with gay parents?
June 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Eric,
The comment was directed toward the awful analogy being made between homosexuals and pedophiles.
The argument that some moral mudslide will begin and sin will be relativized if the church open its doors to homosexuals is nonsensical. That is the point.
Your second point I find to be highly hypothetical and subjective.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Actually, Eric?
Lots of research has already been done. Children of gay parents fare no worse in ANY area than children of straight parents.
I deal in facts. You should, too.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Great point, Phil.
Eric, see Phil for my response on your second point. Forget what I said.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Phil,
Evan is respectful to those he agrees with, but tends to refer to those he disagrees with as a moron, idiot, etc. Numerous examples could be given. This is further evidenced by linking to his web page.
Evan,
I have prayed for you and will continue to do so. Your words are angry, hostile, unloving, uncharitable, and unchristian. I have visited your website. Your words are crude, vulgar and hate-filled. I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict you of your sin of homosexuality and will cleanse your vulgar mouth.
In Christ,
Eric
June 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Phil,
Apparently your advocating for the church to choose what is in your mind the lesser of two evils. Hardly the Biblical route.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
If you don’t like the mean words I say, don’t go to my blog.
I try to be pretty nice around here.
You’ll notice, I tend to add qualifying adjectives on my blog whenever I am making fun of religious people. You’ll never see me going after “all” evangelicals, “all” Christians, or anything like that. That said, there is a difference between reasoned debate and going after the fools who make careers out of lying about people like me to further a political agenda.
Also, interesting: the studies ALSO show that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay themselves, and since so many gay kids are adopted, that should throw a bone into the concept of environment having anything to do with anything.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Maybe for future use Ingrid could work up a chart of what type of sinner we’re allowed to eat with.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Certainly, Tim, and it would also be helpful to know what types of ethnic foods are most appropriate for those dinner parties.
Like, for instance, Mexican food is so fun and festive that you might forget to tell your dinnermates about how they’re going to hell, so you might want to stick with the prune family.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am
No, I’m just asking for it to be consistent. Right now, we pick sins to go after that tend not to affect us, or that we find threatening to our sub-culture.
I’m not saying we can’t call a sin a sin, but I think that we are always told to do it in love. It’s not to prove ourselves correct, or to win the culture wars. It’s in service to others.
All I’m asking for is for us to check our motivations.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Right now, we pick sins to go after that tend not to affect us, or that we find threatening to our sub-culture.”
Right now, we as a church spend so much time arguing over who is in and who is out (no pun intended) that we neglect our real calling and the millions of people who do not know they are loved by God in Christ.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:32 am
The “homosexuality is not a sin” debate all boils down to one’s view of Scripture. The theological gymnastics required for the “homosexual actions in committed relationships are not a sin” crowd requires such a low view of scripture that you might just as well forget the whole thing.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
The problem with many commenters on this blog is this: there is no consensus that homosexuality is indeed a sin. Therefore, there can be no agreement or consensus (or even fruitful discussion) on how to address this matter.
Break the Terror - no intent here to offend you, honestly. This is obviously a sore point with you. But the truth is the truth, and in the case of homosexuality it is very plain - it is sin. It is not the worst sin in the world, but it is sin.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Paul,
I would note that - on the nature of homosexual practice being sinful, the writers of this blog have been consistent in affirming this - along with divorce, greed, lying, envy, etc.
I think too often, though, homosexual practice gets conflated to homosexual temptation, as well, and takes precedence as some sort of “higher” level of sin than others which are more prevalent in the church. It’s pretty easy to castigate practitioners of a particular sin if there are none known in the audience…
My apologies, though, for not banning Evan and anyone else who disagrees with the writers of this site on the nature of homosexual practice as sinful…
June 6th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I would agree, generally, though I would distinguish the word “homosexuality” -
1) There is homosexual practice (which is clearly defined as sinful both in the OT and NT scriptures)
2) There is homosexual ‘orientation’ - the temptation toward members of the same sex. Unless it is acted upon or an object of lust, this is not a sin, in and of itself.
Unfortunately, many in the church have refused to distinguish between #1 and #2, lumping them all under the label of “homosexuality”
June 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
wowee lot of post ive been out so i will respond as i read them…
Phil i think your wrong when you compare sin’s..When i was in a bi relationship i was very aware that i was also causing someone else to sin as well as myself,where a lot of other sin’s are more individual
June 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Chris L,
I agree with your views on the “orientation” vs “actions” scenario. I don’t know all the circumstances surrounding RW’s luncheon with this group (i.e., purpose, agenda to be discussed if any, etc.). But on the surface, not knowing any of the details, to me it is an unbiblical move. I class homosexuality as a sexual sin (duh). If we start with the argument that homosexual activity (not orientation) is a choice and a sin then to meet with this group of admitted practitioners and activists would be like meeting with the local chapter of Husbands for Adultry and Promiscuity (apples to apples) and in this regard 1 Cor 5 11 is like the elephant in the room.
We can’t just ignore this scripture - an inconvenient truth? It may be man’s wisdom’s to “dialogue” with the un-repentant believing offender, but it is not God’s wisdom Who commands us to “separate.” And I will just have to trust that God knows how to bring His children to repentance if we follow His ways and not ours.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
My responds was purely to Evans post which said “that they’re meeting with fellow believers, but some peoples’ peaskulls can’t process that.”
I don’t agree that an active gay person who’s consciences doesnt convict them is a Christians,i’m sure that will pee people off but i really don’t..Someone who struggles with certain sins but acknowledges its a sin is different…
As much as we can say a sin’s a sin’s,surely there a differences between sin’s that involve others?..
As far as Rick meeting this group i don’t care thats between him and God its not my business…
As far as who would Jesus eat with,yes everyone
My little catch phase of late as been “Jesus is always with the people i hate most”
June 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Chris L,
Also, it is important to determine is the “shunning” to be redemptive or punative? I don’t see much of a redemptive attitude regarding this issue at SOL I am sorry to say. It should break our hearts to have to shun a brother in Christ. Not give us self-righteous glee.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
John H.
You said: “to meet with this group of admitted practitioners and activists would be like meeting with the local chapter of Husbands for Adultry and Promiscuity (apples to apples)”
I’m not so sure. Someone in a committed, mutual, loving, and monogomous homosexual relationship is not like meeting with an adulterer. The adulterer is breaking the bonds of a covenant relationship and in so doing devasting the life of one or other parties involved. That is sinful. The homosexual couple is not sinning in that same way. So I fail to see how it is comparing apples to apples. Perhaps you can clarify?
Thanks,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Well, that’s basically what I’m saying. We like to compare sins and have this little hierarchy of sins. We see things like homosexuality, drug dealing, and alcoholism as a big deal, and we tend to emphasis the sinfulness of them because they don’t affect a lot of church people.
Meanwhile we tend to ignore our own, comfortable sins.
All sin is destructive to someone. Jesus dealth with all of it on the cross, and the Holy Spirit will convict us as it’s needed. I need to worry about listening to Him talk to me about the sin in my life more than I need to tell others how to deal with the sin in theirs.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“Lord, who is the one who betrays you?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You, follow Me.”
- John 21:20-21.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m not saying being a liar is better then being gay or being unfaithful..
I’m just saying surely any sin that involves or encourages another to sin, brings with it some responsibility? Be that a gay or hetro relationship..
Let me be clear if a person continues in any sin and condones it, is clearly questionable not just a gay person…
My response was to Evan who clearly doesn’t see it as a sin
June 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Chad - in your view, a monogomous homosexual relationship is OK? Please be clear… is it, or is it not OK?
I am fascinated that what is so clear Biblically, can so easily get diluted and dissected when it simply doesn’t jive with our way of thinking.
We live in a time of such political correctness that anything plain and concrete has been reduced to shades of grey.
Some of you are missing the point in that JUST BECAUSE something doesn’t hurt another person, it doesn’t mean it is not destructive. Engaging in a sinful lifestyle (ie: drug abuse, homosexuality or extra-marital fornication) is destructive regardless of who is involved or who gives consent. Why? Because it is contrary to God.
Now, what makes the matter in this case worse is that people are actually touring the country PROMOTING and ENCOURAGING a destructive lifestyle. Why is this so hard to understand?
June 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
PaulC -
My position is that a monogomous homosexual relationship is entirely different and not to be confused with an adulterous husband or a pedophile or a drunk driver.
Even if I or you wished to argue that all of the above violate God’s standard you cannot continue to make the claim that a person who justifies a monogomous homosexual relationship must also endorse pedophilia or adultery. That is just absurd. Wouldn’t you agree with at least that much?
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“We like to compare sins and have this little hierarchy of sins.”
And isn’t that exactly what Chad is doing, by saying if love is in the mix its not so bad???
June 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Andy, it’s OK to ask me
Far be it for me to belittle the role of love in anything. Love can make a world of difference in just about anything, don’t you think? Both Jesus and Paul seemed to think so.
But I am not trying to relativize sins or suggest that interjecting love into a sin makes it all better. What I am saying (and nothing more) is that there is a big difference between predatorial sins, those actions that seek to gratify the self at the destruction of another, are quite different from a committed homosexual relationship. My point is simple: It serves no purpose nor advances anyones cause to have homosexuality and pedophilia or polygamy or adultery or whatever in the same discussion. It’s a non-starter.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Actually, no. It’s more of a question of nuance, historical context, poetry vs how-to-manual, and list-of-laws vs message of love and grace.
Glad to see you put your cards on the table re: your low view of much of Christendom, though.
Actually, no. Falling back on “it’s truth” is not and never has been an argument-winner.
Haha, because that messes with message control!
The thing people always miss is that whether engaging in the “activity” or not, gay people are still gay. That’s why most of the arguments put forth by fundamentalists are so offensive. People are willfully refusing to acknowledge reality and creating some dichotomy between “temptation” and “practice.”
except that two gay people in a committed marriage are being neither adulterous nor promiscuous…
Yet again with the “active gay” thing. Such a strange way to phrase it. I’m still gay, but i haven’t been in a relationship in a long time, so I haven’t had sex in a while…does that make me a “dormant gay?” (Haha, Mount St. Gay…)
Um, but here’s the thing, and what many gay people of faith find so remarkably arrogant about the Conservative view: God convicts me of things ALL THE TIME! God convicts me when I’m not giving enough of myself and my time to people who need me. God convicts me when I’m not sharing my gifts and talents, but yet hiding them “under a bushel” so to speak. God convicts me when I need to have more patience with my parents. ETC. There is this strange thought process that says “well, if you’re gay, and you’re not being convicted of it, then obviously you’re lost.” Remarkably arrogant.
It’s like the American Idol tour, yet equally as gay!
You do realize the history of Mel White, who runs Soulforce, right?
You should read his book.
Regardless of your feelings about what is and what isn’t a sin, it might help you to see gay people as human beings rather than right-wing talking points.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Thank you.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I am confuse.
One question.
A homesexual couple in a monogamous relationship are not in sin?
June 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Were have to agree to disagree Evan
June 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Evan - why do people always reduce a view of homosexuality to politics (left or right wing) which speaks of an agenda? This is not the case at all here.
It seems to me that you are subjectively trying to defend a way of life that is not aligned with the word of God (or even nature).
There is no justification for a “monogomous homosexual” relationship just as there’s no justification for heterosexual fornication (ie: before marriage). It’s still a sin. A young man has temptations and it’s fully natural to desire sex, but to yield to it is a different situation altogether. You can’t justify the lifestyle because of certain drives.
Again, if we can’t come to a consensus as to whether it is a sin or not, this argument becomes rather useless.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Agreed, but my point is that homosexual activities by definition has to do with sex. The Bible defines many sexual sins, adultry, fornication, homosexuality, etc. So I categorize homosexual in the same Category as adultry, for fornication, but they are not the same actions obviously.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I actually agree with that statement.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
You’re disputing the fact that those who vehemently oppose the rights of gay people to live our lives under the same protections and rights as everyone else exist squarely in a certain corner of the Right Wing?
Yet again, What way of life? Trust me, my sexuality is but one small part of who I am. Also, it’s YOUR opinion that the word of God is out of alignment with my sexuality.
It is also your opinion that it’s against nature. Sadly, no! Homosexuality has been observed as a completely common, natural, and even necessary occurrence in over 1,500 species on earth so far. So shall the animals repent as well?
Why do you put that in quotes? Is it somehow not real to you? Are we ignoring reality? Because, it’s funny: Lesbians knock straight people out of the park when it comes to monogamy…but it’s never really about Lesbians, now, is it? Um. Many gay men, as well, are monogamously coupled, and the trend among my generation and those younger is that monogamous marriage is much more the expected path in life, now that society has moved beyond much of its stagnation on the issue of gay people.
As to this last part:
Consider something for me:
A young heterosexual man is tempted to be a man-slut, yet has a completely viable option for expressing his sexuality with a woman he’s committed to for life.
A young homosexual man is tempted to be a man-slut, yet has no viable option for expressing his sexuality? Because gay men aren’t attracted to women. At all. Never were. Never will be. This is pure biology. Studies have shown that, in men, the sexual response actually comes before the constructed sexual thought, brain-wise. As in, men react sexually before the actual “thought” of engaging in sex actually crosses our minds. As in, scientific confirmation/explanation of what we’ve always known to be true: men are stimulated visually. You can try all you want, but you’re never going to convince me that a consistent biological reaction is a temptation from Satan.
So, since we know that “ex-gay” ministries are money-sucking frauds (ask them for their numbers, seriously…they become dumbstruck), and we surely aren’t going to argue that ALL gay people are “called to a life of celibacy,” (because there are much more efficient ways for God to call people), then isn’t it possible that there’s more in play here than a simple blanket condemnation of a group of believers who happen to be gay seeking fellowship and understanding with a group of evangelicals?
I mean, look, the gay community bears the spiritual scars inflicted by the established Christian religion. What grace Soulforce is showing these people by reaching out to them!
June 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Break,
We obviously have a much different view on the veracity of Scripture and what is Truth so we a just not going to get there as this issue is very black and white in Scripture and to move it to a gray area removes so many underlying assumpts of Biblical interpretatoin that you might as well just forget the Bible and use the Koran. (but on second thought you certainly wouldn’t want to do that for this situation)
June 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Yes, but I believe we can all agree that in marriage, sex is but one small part of the equation. Believe me, those on the anti-gay side are much more fixated on gay sex than those on the pro-gay side.
I think this is part of the problem, too. Our marriages aren’t “activities.” They’re marriages, with all the good, bad, sickness, health, richer, poorer, and everything else!
June 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Oh believe me, it’s an incredibly gray area.
But yes, I’ll agree that I do view scripture differently. For one thing, when the beginning of a book of the Bible says “Paul’s letter to the Romans,” I read it as “Paul’s letter to the Romans,” rather than “Paul’s letter to the Romans and oh by the way everybody else who will ever live, too.”
June 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
When I hear the phrase “homosexual activities”, I think of things like antiquing , shopping for clothes , and going to the symphony. I could probably add a few more.
It’s just an odd phrase to me. It’s funny what Christians will say to avoid using the word “sex”.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“My point is simple: It serves no purpose nor advances anyones cause to have homosexuality and pedophilia or polygamy or adultery or whatever in the same discussion. It’s a non-starter.”
I agree comparing homosexuality to pedophila is no help,if someone did i missed it..
June 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
You forgot the ballet, interior design, figure skating, mixed drinks, attractive lighting, and using expensive hair products.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I have no problem saying sex Phil..In fact saying active as nothing to do with me being a Christian, if anything its a word from the UK gay scene..
June 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
To be honest Phil your exactly the person my gay friend says stabs me with a smile…Sometime you got to say where you stand , and then your piss Evan off ..
June 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
JohnH: “Agreed, but my point is that homosexual activities by definition has to do with sex. The Bible defines many sexual sins, adultry, fornication, homosexuality, etc. So I categorize homosexual in the same Category as adultry, for fornication, but they are not the same actions obviously.”
Chad: If you are referring to 1 Cor. 6:9ff let me just throw this out there. I am open to hear your response or others, as I readily admit to being on the fence with this.
1 Cor. 6:9 reads:…Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Now, one thing that jumps out to me is the company “homosexuals” has in this passage. All of these sins, it would seem, prey on another. They all damage relationships or the value of another being created in the image of God. But what is even more striking is that the term “homosexual” is can be rendered “calamite” which means a man who has a sexual relationship with a boy. One might call this pedophilia today.
As I understand Corinth, this was a seed bed of perverse sexual activity. There was no such thing as a monogomous homosexual relationship. In fact, one of the ways the Romans would pillage a town is to rape the men, thereby desecrating them completely and showing them who is in charge. Such actions would not only be unloving, they would be destructive and abusive to our fellow human.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Um, OK…I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to.
I was just being silly. Chill out, man. The funny thing is that most of stuff on Evan’s list is stuff I would enjoy as well. I’m actually do lighting design and engineering professionally, which I find kind of ironic.
Where I stand is this. I think it’s stupid for Christians to go around drawing lines in the sand when most of us don’t do anything to pull people out the sand they’re drowning in. And I don’t just mean by “preaching the Gospel” to them. I mean serving them, inviting them for dinner, becoming their friends, and see them as people, not a project.
If we see people instead of “issues” a lot of our theological arguments will fade away, I think, and we’ll be in a place where maybe God can actually work.
I think that a lot of what Christians fight about is done out of self-preservation, and it’s actually a lack of trust in God that drives it.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I mean serving them, inviting them for dinner, becoming their friends, and see them as people, not a project.
If we see people instead of “issues” a lot of our theological arguments will fade away, I think, and we’ll be in a place where maybe God can actually work.
Amen.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Oh, and Andy, don’t worry, I’ve pissed Evan off before. Plenty.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Its just that you remind me of a conversation Rob (flatmate) had when he went to the Alpha course here..I’m chilled
Rob But i’m Gay
Christian We love Gay people
Rob But i love men
Christian Yeah but Jesus loves Gays
Rob Is it a sin
Christians But God loves sinners
Rob IS IT A SIN
Christian We love you but sorry yes
Rob phewwwwwwwww thks for being so honest
June 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Sorry Phil i didn’t mean that to come across as rude as it sounded…
All i’m saying you can be as nice as possible, as loving as possible,but eventually someone as to bring up the elephant in the room,and when you do it will hurt as much as if you had done it at the begining..
June 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“and when you do it will hurt as much as if you had done it at the begining..”
Andy,
Do you really believe this? I would think that people, having established a relationship first, one that does not have an agenda other than to love the other, are far more free-er to then critique or point out areas of sin. The bullhorn guy shouting that you are a sinner stops the conversation before it even begins.
What would be hurtful is for my reaction to a person who I learn is gay to be, “Oh, so your one of those, huh. Well, you know your going to hell, right? Can you pass the gravy?”
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ive had friends who felt hoodwinked by Christians, they felt they were accepted and then bammm ..
I know Rob as no problems with a Christian being honest from the off,being honest doesn’t mean being cruel…
Of course that was in a contexts of a Alpha course, so he was expecting honesty
Also this is a Christian forum, and it seems to me some people here feel the need to be down with the kids rather then be honest
June 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
lol. Post 69 should read “CATAMITE” not “CALAMITE”
June 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Andy,
I have no doubt that is true. And the “hoodwinking” is just as wrong, IMO, as the issue they are seeking to rectify. I hate that we are guilty of doing that far too often.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Haha, Evan is thickskinned. So is Phil.
It’s all good.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Maybe i’m over reacting..My post above were more to do with this forum or a Christian course like Alpha,i just felt it odd they were at pains not go there, even when Rob wanted to..
“I get this forum”theres a lot of crappy Christians out there,but that doesn’t mean everytime a Christian comes here with scriptual truths their in their mold..
It erks me that they get called for basically speaking truth,while others don’t even raise a eyebrow for calling black white
June 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Mannnn you made me feel guilty now, so ive asked Rob…He said he totally agreed with me that he’d rather someone be honest with him up front,because he felt it was more hurtful coming later …
So go figure
June 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Chad, another thing that should stand out in those Pauline verses is the word “homosexual,” a word which wasn’t actually used before the 19th century. When one goes back to earlier translations, 10 times out of 10, one finds that the words that have been carelessly (and purposefully) rendered as “homosexual” have very little to do with the word as we understand it today.
This is why there were usually 2 similar words next to each other, one of which, these days is replaced by “homosexual” out of convenience. You’re also very correct that the words used by Paul writing to the specific churches in Rome and Corinth do very specifically allude to cultural practices in those places which were extremely commonplace: pederasty, temple prostitution, and, as you noted, the violent custom of raping defeated soldiers, which was EXTREMELY widespread at the time. (This has implications in the Sodom & Gomorrah story, too. It wasn’t really about sex…it was about power.) What’s interesting is that there WERE concepts in those days and in those cultures of same gender people in relationships that at least share closer parallels to the concept of homosexuality as we understand today, which would be understood by the people of the time, but which fly over the heads of English speaking readers in modern times. They’re not the same concepts Paul addresses.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
First seminary grad who uses the word “hermeneutics” in their reply because it’s the big word they learned in seminary gets a candygram.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
The other interesting thing is the assumption that conflating these specific terms with a modern understanding of homosexuality is valid because “this was homosexual practice (makes perfect!) as it manifested in those days.”
That would be logical, except that those specific prohibitions were NOT the only manifestations of homosexual practice (makes perfect!) in those times, nor before, nor after. There’s a lot of really interesting scholarly research out there on this, but you have to go to the “gay studies” section in Barnes & Noble to find the books.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The difference is, Jesus told the people he dined with point blank when they were in sin and that they needed to repent.
I will bet dimes to dollars Rick Warren, though he is a gracious host, would ever do so.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
BTT-
Thanks for adding that commentary.
Pastorboy: Not always. But when he did, let us not forget that Jesus is God in flesh. That is not to say we cannot name sin, but it does mean we need to recognize our limitations, ignorance and own sinfulness. The Holy Spirit is who convicts, not us.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Chad,
After reading this thread, it is depressing to think that in two centuries since Christ, we have watered down sin to the point that it seems all right to us. In the OT law, and in the NT, there is very clear teaching that homosexuality (and yes..adultery, hatred, robbery, and lying) are condemned by God.
Whoever said Rick Warren’s diner mates on that night are Christians are sadly mistaken. But since they call themselves that, Rick Warren, as a Pastor, ought to warn them about the fact that no adulterer, fornicator, homosexual offender will enter God’s kingdom. That is, if he truly loves them.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
BTT
If you use Biblical hermeneutics, you will understand that homosexuality is condemned both in the Old Testament and New Testament. It is also condemned today.
I like Chocolate, as far as candy goes.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Terror,
Here’s the last bit:
First, explain how there can be what you call communion between those who persist in calling something sin not sin and practicing it as if it were Scripturally acceptible? Paul did not even permit there to be communion between unmarried Christians and unmarried not-christians, that is, an unequal yoking in the bond of marriage.
Second, I think you are misrepresenting what I said about Paul’s use of the word being sufficiently broad enough. Paul himself defined the word in the second set of verses. I didn’t just ’stick any old thing in there’ that I wanted. It was already defined. And he actually uses two words to define the one word, and they all fall under the even broader category of ‘adikoi’, unrighteousness or ‘doing contrary to what is right’.
I think this is why the NIV translated the word here ‘homosexual offender’ instead of merely ‘homosexual.’ No one is saying that the non-practicing homsexual who struggles with temptation is disbarred from fellowship. But neither is Scripture saying that there is full fellowship in the body of Christ for those who persist in sin. We cannot just redefine things so they fit with our cultural sensitivities.
Now here’s what I’ll say in conclusion to this matter because you won’t be convinced, but to the point, I’m not trying to convince you. We are saved by the grace of God and we put our faith in that Grace and the work of Christ. I am neither your judge nor your mediator. If you have made the choice, whether freely (’persist in practice you know to be wrong’) or unfreely (’born that way’) then that is what you will do and it is decidedly the work of the Holy Spirit to clothe you with Christ, and your responsibility to cooperate with that work. If you have made up your mind and decided that homosexual activity is compatible with the Holy God and that He means not to change you and that you can inherit the Kingdom of God, then, well, you will ultimately have to justify that position to Him. I won’t have to justify you; I’ll have to justify my own position. Hopefully, we will both plead God’s grace.
However, that being said (and that is in no way an admission that homosexuality in practice is permissible in the church or in the life of a Christian), the church has only one rule of faith and practice: The Scripture. And the Scripture, despite the best twisting and turning and re-reading by the best homsexual activists, cannot be broken. We do not have a right to subvert it. Now please don’t set up the strawman that somehow the church has tolerated gossip, and lying, and heterosexual adultery because it hasn’t. Local churches deal with this stuff all the time through constant preaching and teaching on these subjects. (And I seriously, seriously doubt that ‘gossip’ has formed the foundation of any major denominational schism. We might justifiably say ’sin’ has done so, but see below.)
I haven’t seen, in my 14 years of preaching in the local church, a church make headlines because it is splitting due to gossip. I have seen the Anglican church torn in two by homosexual activists. My good friend here in town and his parish are likely to lose their property over this issue. JI Packer left the Canadian branch of the Anglican church over the issue and so have many others. It’s not a matter of tolerating homosexual practice because of a perceived toleration of gossip or lying or heterosexual adultery. None of it is right. None of it should be tolerated. And ultimately the church is going to be held responsible for her actions and I will be for what I have said about God and his Word.
Someone remarked above, I forget who, that this has something to do with a political agenda or with keeping America’s traditional values in place. It has nothing to do with either of those things. The homosexual agenda is working quite well in American Culture and in American Politics. But the church is not defined by American Culture or by American Politics or American traditional values. The church is defined by Jesus Christ and the Word of God. The problem we have in the church is that we are allowing the former to define the latter and we are assuming the latter is responsible for shaping the former; well we are weakening by reflecting American culture and not at all shaping it in any way. We lose on both counts.
I say, the Scripture teaches we are to be a counter-culture neither reflecting the one nor shaping the other. The Church is its own culture and salt and light everywhere else, reflecting only the Grace and glory of Christ.
Thanks for the conversation friends. Sorry this is so long.
unassumingly,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Pastorboy wins!
Flimsy argument, though.
Now look, don’t make the other kids feel bad by flaunting your candygram all over the place in front of all the losers who didn’t get one.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Then Jesus was a coward?? Living in a time with the most brutal punishment for Homsexualty,and he says ziltch???
Or the same scripture for the Woman about to be stoned stands for all sexual sin ?He his kind and shows love,but always finished it with go and sin no more…
I find it amazing that anyone can believe Jesus lived in that time, and didn’t say anything specific if he thought it wasn’t a sin
((PS Chad i wasnt advocating being so direct in a ordinary setting,my post was a reaction to a post where someone had clearly said it wasn’t a sin,or a course where my friend knew it should of cropped up….)))
June 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Lets not forget that 1 Corinthians 6:10 tells us that slanderers will not enter the Kingdom.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Yes, well Paul had lots of interesting views that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Perhaps it’s incumbent upon Evangelicals to look at the larger picture, realize that it just might not be a Christian’s job to point out peoples’ perceived sins (especially when there is legitimate disagreement over whether said thing is a “sin” or not, and especially when the Evangelical community seems to be particularly stubborn about thinking about the issue with a little nuance, and with eyes wide open to reality.)
Or perhaps you’re looking at a false construct here. Perhaps the point of adding the term “offender” is to be more consistent with the other condemnations regarding slutty practices that were predominantly heterosexual in nature. You’re adding an analysis to the scripture that’s without merit. To suggest that Paul uses two words here to clarify that he’s talking about homosexuals who “act out,” rather than are “tempted and yet do not act out,” is adding a modern conservative Christian spin to the passage, where none exists. In fact, if one looks at the culture, it makes a lot more sense to think that Paul used specific words that applied to specific parties to allude to specific practices that happened to be commonplace! Again, I would suggest that these temple practices, as well as the rape and pillage customs of the day would NOT have been Paul’s only exposure to the idea of same-gender sex. Therefore, if that was truly what he was talking about, then why was he so specific?
Like faux finishing?
As we all do, honestly.
Uh huh, back to the chimerical “homosexual activists with their agenda.” Yes, but we do have the right to look at it with clear eyes, and re-examine it for what we might have missed (a lot), when science and reality teach us more about God’s kingdom.
Not when it allows embracing gay people to split the church in two. Not salt and light anymore!
Ditto for Grace and Christ.
Churches really shouldn’t leave trails of blood, literally or figuratively, in their wake, honestly.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Well, it generally doesn’t make headlines, but I can assure you it happens. I known of congregations that have divided so many times that they make ameoba jealous.
I really don’t care that much about denominational schisms, as I don’t think denominations are very pleasing to God in the first place.
I guess my vote is always for local authority and the local congregation handling issues as they arise. What I don’t like is the need to have everything decided from some central authority. The reason is this - it’s very easy for a person with no investment in a place to issue an edict that he really doesn’t have to enforce. It’s much harder to deal with things on a local level. It’s messy. It’s time consuming. It’s frustrating. But I think that’s what we’re called to.
I guess it not so much the issue of what’s a sin and not. It’s how we deal with it. Can I say to a homosexual, “yes I believe there are things in your life that I think are sin, but that won’t stop me from spending time with you and getting to know you”?
June 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Neat, I love it when the interwebs allows people to examine the souls of those they’ve never met.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“After reading this thread, it is depressing to think that in two centuries since Christ, we have watered down sin to the point that it seems all right to us. ”
Pastorboy, are you equally depressed and troubled over the overweight pastor who rails against homosexuality and then heads to Cracker Barrel for a 9 course feast?
And if Warren “truly loves” them, than he should lay down his life for them. I have never understood this penchant by some to change the biblical definition of what real love it from being a servant willing to die to being someone who will point out their flaws.
peace,
Chad
June 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
It’s okay to say his name, Chad.
“John Hagee.”
June 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Cracker Barrel - now that’s something I wouldn’t mind being banned with a constitutional amendment…
My stomach starts churning at the very name.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
lol srsly and those hellacious shoppes in the front…
June 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
My parents have actually bought stuff from there. My hidden shame…
June 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
lol@break.
Phil - I gotta tell you though, that place was a life saver for us shortly after we returned from Ethiopia with our two adopted kids. We didn’t know what they might want to eat so we when to CB and let ‘em loose. Of course, one of them threw up in the van on the way home….but I’m sure it was just the back seat blues on a country road, right?
June 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
me 2
June 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
my parents actually considered opening a Cracker Barrel franchise.
i was like “vomit, no, i won’t claim you” and so they bought an RV instead.
at least it stays in its own garage far away from any of us.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I’m an idiot. I meant to say Golden Corral. I’m reading the comments on Cracker Barrel and was like, “huh? what store?” duh. I need a nap.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I don’t know Golden Corral.
It must not be present in my region.
Should I hate it?
June 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Probably.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Right on, I’ll put it on my list of things I rage against when I’m trying to fall asleep.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Dumb Ignorant english guy here i lovedddd Cracker Barrel when i was there…
But i swear i’ve never ate so well as i did last month in Montreal wowee
June 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Isn’t the Golden Corral one of those “feeding trough” style buffets? I mean I understand the allure of cheap food, but seeing some of the huge people at those things makes me kind of lose my appetite.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Sounds like that other place…what is it…
Ryan’s Family Steakhouse.
Oh, and we used to have Barnhill’s in Memphis. That was gross. This giant cavernous space with endless vats of Macaroni & Cheese. Occasionally my parents would force us to go there after church…every other week, we ate somewhere good, but then my mom would all of a sudden go “MMMMMMM Barnhills” and I would make up a scheduling conflict and run away after church.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
That’s it, Phil. All you can eat. The e-coli is free.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Gluttony is sin, but don’t change the subject.
The reason we can judge is that they call themselves Christian, yet they are flaunting a lifestyle of sin.
Whatever lifestyle of sin that they are flaunting (the GLBTA happens to be flaunting/promoting homosexual/transgender lifestyles) it must be confronted if they claim to be brothers and sisters and ‘its’ in Christ.
I don’t hear John Hagee shouting out the benefits of being overweight, BTW.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Considering that ODMs deliberately pursue a lifestyle of slander and nastiness, I wonder if you’ll be willing to pull out the log in your own eye first.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Tim, the log has been pulled out of my own eye. Its the hypocrites, the actors that need to pull the log out. Jesus is my log puller!
I am tired of people saying I have a log in my eye because they are trying to shove their lifestyle of sin down my throat and when they are called on it, they say I am the hypocrite!
So, Tim what you are saying is that when a person calls sin sin, they have a log in their eye? Jesus took the log out of my eye by being the payment for my sin. How about you?
June 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
This site needs to pull the log out, BTW
Our Mission
Jesus, the Messiah, once commented about the greatest commandment:
” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
With this in mind, we at CRN.Info seek first to love God in the following manner:
1. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command,” and so it is that first we seek to obey his commands and to teach others to do so. With many commands, this instruction on obedience is very clear, and so it is that we instruct others to follow in this clear teaching.
2. In many situations, we must make decisions based on scripture in which there are conflicting concepts at work, or unclear guidance - particularly when weighing literal meaning (ex. “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair…”) and underlying meaning (”Women should dress modestly, not in the manner of prostitutes”). In these situations, it is necessary to take the advice of Jude 3 and contend (”To strive in opposition or against difficulties; struggle”) for the faith and search for the appropriate meaning and application of scripture to these situations.
3. Jesus said that we are to worship God and serve Him only. As such, we believe it is also important that we see worship in all that we do in service to Him - not just confined to a short period of time one day per week. In this vein, we see that it is important that we give specific devotions and worship to Him in our writing, and that all of our writing would honor Him, even when it is not “devotional” in nature.
With the second greatest command, “love your neighbor as yourself”. In seeking a definition of love, we view Paul’s writing to the Corinthians:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Also, we see guidance in our loving treatment of brothers in Christ in Paul’s letter to the Galatians:
Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.
Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
1. Jesus said that we are to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” We believe this is best accomplished by individual believers and the local church ‘living the gospel’ and sharing it in relationships with others. As such, we believe that the medium of the internet is not best suited to this purpose, but rather to use scripture and the talents granted to us by God to equip Christians for ‘living the gospel’. Therefore, this site’s primary audience is a Christian one, in which we can offer encouragement and new ideas to individuals and churches seeking to evangelize, rather than being a principal tool of evangelism.
2. Jesus also taught us, through the thread of all scripture, to care for “the least of these” - the sick, the poor, the hungry, the prisoner, the widow, the orphan, the stranger among us - and that when we do so, we are doing it for him, as well. However, our words cannot fill stomachs. Our sentences cannot heal the sick. Our graphics cannot bring the poor out of poverty. Again, as with evangelism, we can, through God’s help, equip individual believers to care for the ‘least of these’ and encourage all of us to be more “missional” in our outlook to the world around us.
3. For all of its advances, the internet has enabled the spirits of gossip, slander, deception and divisiveness to enter the sheepfold under the guise of “discernment”, attacking those whom are already saved in a dying world. This spirit of “discernment” elevates personal piety to new heights while completely missing the greater gifts of justice, mercy and faithfulness. This “discernment” is of the same spirit of the Pharisees of old to whom Jesus spoke:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
This “discernment” is of the same spirit which sought to slam the doors to the kingdom of God in the faces of those who sought to enter it, while denying that this kingdom even has begun its existence here on earth. This “discernment” spirit has sought to disrespect, disavow, discourage and disenfranchise individuals and entire groups of brothers and sisters in Christ as part of its elevation of external preferences and its adherence to systematic doctrines of men. With the tool of the internet, this spirit of “discernment” has pulled together its aberrant views and narrow, twisted “theology” has sought to do harm to the bride of Christ. And so, it is with this tool, the internet, that we believe that God has given us the time, the tools and the talents to battle this spirit within this present darkness. It is with this tool that we believe God has empowered us to focus on the lowliest of the tasks listed here.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
BTT,
you wrote:
Yes, well Paul had lots of interesting views that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
This comment alone clearly makes my point that this is really about the authority of the Scripture and the unwillingness of many to submit to its judgment and scrutiny. You picked on a lot of my words, but did you really read the entire many paragraphs I wrote. I was very gracious.
You write as if you are suggesting that because there was also heterosexual sin that somehow homosexual sin is justifiable. I just don’t understand this.
And finally, for the last time, I am not saying that homosexual people cannot be ‘embraced’ in the church. That same Corinthian passage says we ARE to associate with the ’sexually immoral’ among whom are included homosexuals (and he uses two words to define homosexuals too). Seriously, what I am saying is the same thing Adam said in the third reponse. There is a difference between those who acknowledge sin and struggle with temptation and those who flaunt it and try to make ‘right be wrong’ and ‘wrong be right.’
Science and ‘reality’ do not set the stage or define the standard of conduct and holiness in the Church. God does through Scripture. We really have no other options. Sorry.
with lowered eyes,
jerry
June 6th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
PB,
You have accused me of sin, yet shown no proof… yet you continue to accuse me of being a heretic and things like that… like having “squishy” theology”///
meanwhile I have pointed out that you seem to overlook that you view your faith relative to your own theology and refuse to give answer to which truth I am supposed to bow to… meaning out of all of you ODM’s who disagree on many points accuse people like me of sinning for not having a clear statement of faith… yet if I was to write out all of your and theirs combined it would be a huge contradicting mess…
Again, realize you see truth through the filter of your own theology and just might be wrong on somethings… and in that have some humility for a change. God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud.
So, what sin have I committed that you still accuse me of?
iggy
June 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Wow, PB, are you really saying that just because we’re Christians, we’re able to see everyone else’s sin and call them out on it perfectly? That’s pretty astounding stuff right there.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Jerry - I have to agree with you here. If you’re not going to agree on the authority of scripture, then anything goes.
PB - Why the hate, dude? I’ve not heard any of the writers here say that homosexual sex is not sinful, just that it be treated the same as other sin. As for logs, I think you might want to check the mirror again…
June 7th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Please acknowledge that you’ve just created the most hilarious bumper sticker ever and get to mass-producing it promptly.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:29 am
That’s what that entire passage was about!
Let he among you without sin be the first to condemn.
HELLO!
Not exactly. What I’m suggesting is that if we are to look for true consistency in scripture, and interpret scripture with all the tools God gave us (our brains, our powers of observation, etc.), then it is inconsistent with reality and scientific revelation (because that’s what science is) that an entire sexual orientation, which occurs commonly and normally across species and is a biological response, would be flatly condemned in the eyes of God. Now, granted, when I read scripture, I decidedly do NOT simply take it in at face value, because, as I’ve learned over the years, doing so would require me to abandon the brain God gave me, and I really don’t think God wants me to do that. What I’m suggesting is that, based on what we now understand, it is much more consistent with the entire biblical account, and with Jesus specifically, that there is indeed a holy framework for all sexual expression, regardless of sexual orientation, and that God simply wouldn’t create people to express themselves sexually in ways that run contrary to their own personal biological make-up! That just doesn’t sound like God.
Always two! Give me one good reason why he does this, if his true meaning is “homosexuals” as we understand it today. Seriously.
And see, this is where we’ll never see eye to eye. I hold science in the highest esteem. I’m sorry, but when science contradicts an established view of scripture, it’s the established view of scripture that needs to get with the programme, even if it takes 500 years like it did with Galileo.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:28 am
PB said -
I see a very real “escape clause” for heterosexuals concerning this issue. Adultery happens to be one of the Ten Commandments and is often mentioned in the New Testament writings. However heterosexuals can practice it and reap its “benefits” and eventually “repent” of it while carrying its “benefits” with them.
Pastor Hagee is a prime example who committed adultery with a woman in his church in Texas (Trinity Church) and subsequently divorced his first wife, she was awarded custody, and married his partner in adultery and continued preaching.
Now in some sordid way, that is reaping the “benefits” of commiting adultery because you have taken out a written license from the government that says it is now OK to have relations with her because in the government’s eyes you are married. Monday it is adultery and by Tuesday “magically” you are now righteous in your actions, all because the government said you are now divorced and remarried.
See, you can continue your adultery and even be blessed by God in it as long as you clerically maneuver your civil status. Now we accept the government’s view of this but reject their view on abortion and homosexuality. We are shocked and militantly against same sex marriage but we hypocritically receive their blessing on adultery. And not only can your affair be blessed by God, you can still preach and rail against others for their sin. It is a Disneyland of our own creation.
This is the hypocrisy. This man still sleeps with the same woman but now he calls it blessed by God because he jumped through the civil hoops, but the homosexual must give up his sin before he can be received into fellowship. Pastor Hagee would not receive two practicing homosexuals into his church even though he has slept with his mistress for two decades and continues to do it. In Hagee’s case repentance means making is secularly legal - like abortion.
And back to PB’s point. Hagee shouts the benefits of his adultery in front of the congregation when he and his mistress tout their wonderful marriage and the blessing of the offspring of that relationship. All because of a $100 license from Babylon.
Rank hypocrisy.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:21 am
And all this is like a man who steals money from the church treasury, and after he is caught he is sorry but he keeps the money and buys a new car and shows it off to the church. But when others desire to come to Christ they must give up all their stolen money first, and in fact, this same man preaches against their theft because they stole money in a different way than did he.
He stole money from a woman and they stole from a man.(metaphorically) Oh the nuances of self righteousness mixed with hypocrisy. Thou that scolds a man not to steal, do you steal? You that preaches against sexual sin, do you practice sexual sin?
“Not any more, I’m legal now”.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I didn’t realize that about Mr Haggee thats very sad all round,reminds me of the David story a little with Jermiah(?)
I hope i’m, not coming across as someone who see’s the gay issue as a “speical”..I agree with Chris L pastor who made the clear distintion that all sexual sin was the same,i got the impression he wasn’t saying all sin was the same,because the consequences were so different for sexual sin, it hurts so many people etc wives husbands partners etc…
I really don’t know where i stand as far as two people who are in a open sexual relationship,and want to join a church…I would think you should allow them to come ,but surely there is a space of time when you would expect some acknowledgement from them that they need to change??
June 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am
It seems to me an unmovable Doctrine eventually clashes with an unmovable Lifesytle = a split?
June 7th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Their lifestyle of sin doesn’t justify your lifestyle of sin.
Can you go a single post without questioning someone’s salvation?
Also, I’d point out that you’ve embraced a totally works based theology at this point. You’re as pelagian as Pelagius.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Rick
I am not a John Hagee fan.
I didn’t know all that about him, of course that disqualifies him from preaching, writing, etc.
Tim,
I am a sinner saved by Grace. The only good that is in me is Christ. I can do nothing to earn salvation. I can do nothing good in myself. God has changed me, now his commandments are not a burden. Though I still slip up, I am thankful everyday for his grace.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Those words are in direct contradiction to almost everything you’ve written on this thread.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Tim,
Now who is the one without a log that can see clearly into my life?
You are a hypocrite****
****not satire
June 7th, 2008 at 7:32 am
PB-
This isn’t a matter of logs *sigh*
What you said in your last post contradicts all your judgments against others in everything else you have written. It’s not a matter of “see[ing] clearly into [your] life” it’s a simple matter of reading comprehension.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:33 am
pastorboy,
I don’t have to see into your life, I see in your blog. I see you slandering brothers in Christ, I see you allying with those who slander brothers in Christ and you don’t do a thing to call them to repentance.
While I’m sure I am a hypocrite, on this particular issue I am not. By your own standards you are bound for hell. Thank God your standards don’t count for anything, because no one would be a part of the kingdom.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:37 am
*chuckle*
*still chuckling*
*going to the grocery store now*
June 7th, 2008 at 7:40 am
1. People who deny scripture and promote heresy are not Brothers in Christ.
2. You obviously don’t understand slander. Slander is lying about somebody and dragging their name through the mud. Slander is not quoting people directly from their writings and assessing what it means in light of scripture.
3. I am not bound for Hell. Jesus has paid my penalty.
4. I am a sinner saved by grace alone in Christ alone.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:42 am
While you do occasionally quote someone’s writings you might as well just make up quotes since you twist a tiny portion of what they’ve written to turn them into boogiemen to justify your “watching”. This has been pointed out to you many many times.
While points 3 and 4 are something I agree with, your words these past few days are in direct contradiction with them.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:45 am
PB -
1. Homosexuals do not “deny scripture.” They interpret it differently than you.
2. If you say so.
3. Yet you still continue to judge others as though you were at the right hand of God? You do this despite fellow brothers and sisters in Christ calling you to repent. But, like the homosexual issue, you see this differently. And of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong. You are right, it is a good thing Jesus has paid the penalty or this would disqualify you. Much like homosexuality.
4. I hear homosexuals claiming the same truth. For there is now no condemnation for those who are in Chrsit Jesus.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Chad,
Are you gay? You tow the homosexual party line pretty well.
Are you saying that you can continue in sin so that grace can abound? You are saying this is an honest interpretation issue? huh?
Those who can proudly walk in sin are not converted. They are not new creatures in Christ. No interpretation needed.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Slander: What the Christian Right has been doing to the gay community for years.
Homosexual Party Line: Conga, just like everyone else, lol srsly.
Fellowship: Something gay people don’t want with Christians like you, PB, so don’t worry about it.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Pastorboy,
I can’t speak for Chad, but I seem to see things from a similar perspective as him, although I might be a bit more conservative.
I don’t doubt that homosexual sex is sin. I think that all sex outside of marriage is sin.
That being said, I think this is an issue that the church has seriously dropped the ball on. The reason we have made it more about the issue instead of the person. We can’t simultaneously love people and fight an agenda (which I believe is largely a strawman). If we would focus on loving people the way we should, I really believe everything else would fall into place.
I for one am sick of people comparing themselves to the Apostle Paul. Sure Paul did have to take a hard line at times for the health of the local church, but he also endured beating and stonings for these same churches. Until I see pastors getting beat up for defending gay people, I don’t see much hope for the church really reaching them.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:07 am
By the way, Pastorboy’s thought processes are strengthened by the fact that he doesn’t personally know any gay Christians.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:08 am
And for the time being, it’s the Christian right that turns a blind eye when a gay kid gets murdered at school.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:10 am
PB: “Are you gay? You tow the homosexual party line pretty well. ”
Not that I or my wife knows of. Are you? If memory serves me correctly, Ted Haggard towed the other party line pretty well.
And thank God I am not : the lack of grace shown by Christians towards them would never have shown me the God who is pure grace and love.
Again, you are taking a grey area and making black and white interpretations based on your supposedly objective viewpoint. The person who is converted is a new creature in Christ not because Saturday they were gay and Sunday they are not (or Sat. they got drunk but Sunday they never drink again, etc.) They are a new creature in Christ because the curse of Adam has been defeated and the same power that raised Christ to life is now in you to continue the work of salvation that was first begun Easter morning. Salvation is a life long process, PB, not something you can point your finger to and say, “that’s it.”
I don’t know if those who proudly walk in their sin are converted or not. But God does. If they continue to confess Christ and lean on Christ alone to save them, who am I to damn them?
June 7th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Phil, I think we see eye to eye on this and much more.
I readily confess this is an issue I struggle with. As a United Methodist pastor, this is an issue that always comes up in our annual conferences (ours will be held this coming week). There was a time not too long ago that I would be giving pastorboy a high-5.
BTT makes a great observation. What we think we have sewn up in nice, neat little doctrinal packages can quickly be deflated in the context of real life, real human interaction and relationship. I wonder if pastorboy has ever sat down and had a talk with a gay Christian. I have, and it convicted me. In fact, it made me question my own lack of faith in many ways. I found myself thinking, “wow, I wish I had trust in Jesus Christ like this person.” Sadly, I rely so often on my own righteousness and how well I have extracted this or that practice out of my own life. Though I claim the grace of Christ I find myself often disbelieving that can really be true by the way I try to uphold the law.
There are certain lifestyle practices I am confident in declaring as inompatible with a life that is seeking to become more like Christ. Abuse, whether on self or others, selfishness, greed, pride, idolatry, hate, grudges, and more - these are things that are not congruent with our Savior. Yet, when we come to Christ we often find that these behaviors and patterns take a lifetime to be eradicated from us (if they even are, fully). But as Christians we have the greater hope that one day they will, when God completes the work God has begun. Till then, I have to trust in that.
As I get closer to God I realize more and more that what I once did not think was sin really is. I discover that there are things in my life that God is always at work redeeming. It is possible that homosexuality is such a thing, but I am open to the possibility that it is not. I just don’t know. I do not believe, however, that this is the bar. I do not believe that a homosexual who has put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation will one day stand before God and be told, “sorry, you scored great on every area but this one. You should have been smarter about what is doctrinally correct.”
So if I seem like I straddle the fence, good. I do not want to be the gatekeeper to God’s grace,nor do I want to say anything goes. I can only point to the one who promises to draw all unto himself should he be lifted up.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Hold on a second Chad just because someone as the views i have,doesnt mean we have no gay friends, or have never been involved in a gay lifestyle,also it doesn’t mean that all gay people agree with the gay people you’ve met!…
Of course it suits your arguement to hint to a homophopic attitudes on our part,besides the point i had various bi relationships…
June 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Something I would add to this. I would suggest that gay people who were raised in devoutly Christian homes actually dig a lot deeper into Scripture on these issues, merely because it’s personal. When you’re a gay kid/teen, yet you hear from a very young age from people you’re raised to respect that YOU, as you know you are, whether you’ve processed/accepted the implications of that or not, are “unclean” and shut off from God, it’s nothing short of spiritual torture. This is one reason it is phenomenally offensive to gay people when certain Christians throw out three or four of the “clobber passages,” as we call them, state “It’s the truth,” and assure us that they’re praying for us. It’s like, Oh You Arrogant Fool, You Think I Haven’t Spent Countless Hours With This?
June 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Ok and as i said on the other thread this can go round in circles, but i just wanted to reply to Chads hints…GB
June 7th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Andy, I didn’t catch the hints from Chad that you’re referring to, but I can personally attest to the fact that there is no middle ground between openly gay and “used to be openly GLBT yet now think it’s sinful.” From a psychological perspective, it’s utterly unsurprising that the only “success stories” in the “ex-gay” business tend to become rabidly conservative, theologically AND politically, and tend to become spokespeople for the ex-gay “ministries.” The rest of the people who go through their programmes tend to fall back into self-hatred, some commit suicide, and others are lucky enough to find themselves on the other side as ex-”ex-gays,” who join support groups to deal with the scars inflicted by the Christian church.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Andy,
I didn’t say that. All I was saying (which wasn’t much) is that most people who rail against this issue in the way pastorboy is doing have never actually sat down and had a discussion or a relationship with a gay christian. I did not say that all people who hold his view simply have never met a gay person. My comment was more to reflect my own prior bias as a way of testimony than it was an indictment against you or others.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 8:56 am
He doesn’t know PB from a hole in the ground,but its so very easy to throw out “I wonder if PB as ever sat down with a gay person”
To imply of course you haven’t, the likes of you would never do that,to imply PB beliefs were formed in a vacuum and he never ever sees the pain they cause on people or he would change them…
He doesn’t know who PB knows!!!
………………………………………….
I’m not a conserative i’m a member of the UK socialist party (guess i’m a contradiction)
June 7th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Andy,
Thus the “I wonder” in my comments. Please note I did not say, “PB has never known a gay Christian.”
I would be delighted to hear that PB has had a relationship with a gay Christian and to hear about what he learned from that experience.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 9:04 am
If thats what you meant sorry..
But to me it come across as one of them Prosecutor throwing out a line, thats too late to stike from the jury
……………………………………………………
anyhow circles GB all
June 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I’m going to make a wild guess here and suggest that if PB has met a gay person of any stripe, their interaction probably sent said gay person running for the door.
This isn’t a unique situation. It’s like when you hear certain Americans railing against “Moose-lems,” certain things they say are very obvious “tells,” that say:
A. I’m parroting what my pundits/ministers have written/said.
B. I have no Muslim friends.
A lot of it comes down to terminology. People who know gay people as human beings don’t use stupid phrases like “homosexual party line” or “homosexual agenda.”
June 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
No worries, Andy.
When I confess that I am on the fence with this issue I really mean it. I have heard in the last few years great arguments for both sides of the issue. And BOTH sides have a very high view of scripture and take it very seriously (it does no good to attack someone who disgrees with you as simply not taking scripture seriously).
What I will say is this: I do believe there is room in God’s kingdom for homosexuals. Just as there is room for me and everyone else here. Heck, I have a hard enough time reigning in my anger at other people (i.e. committing murder in God’s sight) or reeling in my own selfish ambitions when it comes to dealing with my 4 kids and my wife. I am reminded of my own sinfulness every Sunday that I break the bread and share the wine with my congregation. God forbid that I forbid them the same grace God gives me daily.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Since this is a relatively new phenomenon, let us proceed with love and prayer and introspection. Meeting with gays who profess Christ may give someone a more accurate spiritual perspective.
The only criticism you’ll face is with those who already criticize you. I received a warm e-mail from Tony Campalo expressing apppreciation for my post “An Inconvenient Truth” about showing grace to gays.
See, and I have big issues with him but about gays I am closer to him than to the opposite evangelical culture.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Rick: You are an enigma to me
I like that.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Your a contradiction your self Evan haha..
From 15 i left Christ i wandered into bi lifestyle, bahai,Sufi,Islam, and back to Christ…I reverted to Islam for a year,at regents park Mosque Ali of true religion org was my witness..
Ive read your defense of Islamic People on this site a few times,which strikes me as odd considering SOME would pull a wall down on you
June 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am
haha, you haven’t seen the half of it, Chad.
Rick= conundrums built on enigmas built on one-liners.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Yes, but I’m also quite aware that countless millions would NOT.
Also, I have Muslim friends.
But look, an equal portion of Christendom would pull a wall down on me, and the only reason they don’t is because they have more money and don’t have to get their hands dirty. So, it would be equally unreasonable of me to blame Christendom for American bigots as it is to blame the entire Muslim diaspora for the radicalism of a few.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Chad - I refuse to tow anyone’s party line. I am a Scriptural fundamentalist but a liberal grace believer. I speak stringly against what I consider heresy but I speak even more strongly against believers criticizing unbelievers and the personal sins of brothers and sisters in Christ.
There is too much intrenchment in several camps. I have come to believe the Jesus Camp has moving parts from many different camps which are held together by His grace.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Really Evan???? In a year of looking at joining to a year as one I NEVER MET a Muslim who didn’t think it deserved the most extreame punishment..
June 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Rick: “I speak even more strongly against believers criticizing unbelievers and the personal sins of brothers and sisters in Christ.”
Amen.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Muslims are no worse sinners than John MacArthur…or…me. I love the categorization of sinners.
All sinners = equal
Do the math!
June 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Yes, well, the United Kingdom is a particular hotbed of Islamic radicalism these days, whereas in the United States, this is not quite the case. Most of the Muslims I’ve been friends with have been private school Muslims, with parents who are doctors and lawyers. Yet most of them were born outside the United States. One is Pakistani and has family in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Granted, the Muslim world is behind the West on the gay issue, but different nations are making progress at different rates. There will always be the blatant human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but then again, there’s also Dubai, and that, not America or Britain, is what young Middle Eastern and Persian Muslims aspire to more and more these days.
So.
As with most things, it is an issue chock-full of nuance, a concept which is ever-elusive for some people, usually on the radical ends of either faith.
Anyway, back to teh gay…
June 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Homosexuals, Heterosexuals, Christians = Gentiles = neighbors.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I didn’t say they were different…
I just find Evan a contradiction thats all ,i should of sent him it privately…
I digressed as usual
June 7th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Yep.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Plus Ahmadinejad said there are no gay people in Iran.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
“Plus Ahmadinejad said there are no gay people in Iran.”
That is based on no parades.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Which was SO funny.
The funny thing about the gay issue in many Muslim nations is that there is a common yet unspoken cultural idea that “women are for procreation, men are for pleasure.” What they tend to rebel against is gay people living their lives as gay people, which kind of drives a Mack Truck through that convenient little arrangement.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:55 am
My wife being Iranian I can tell you for a fact that there are gays in Iran.
When the Columbia interview happened I was watching it with my Father-in-law and his family. They all spit out their tea when he said that. LOL
Most Iranians (particularly college age) want change in their country and it is coming, slow, but coming nonetheless.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:58 am
PB,
This is good PB, except when someone showed you how you misrepresented that other persons writings… and then you continue to slander him… When showed a clear quote you still took one sentence out of context of two whole pages of disclaimer and explanation and twisted it to say what you wanted so it make that person be what you wanted.
Truth does nto need to be twisted to fit you or your views… I pray for you.
I just see instead of a repentant heart you continue to justify your sin and then condemn others instead of facing your own… that seems typical ODM practice.
iggy
June 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I’m sorry what did i start,i just meant Evan and me seem to be contradictions in different ways ….
Ironically i did watch a film recently on Iran, its legal to have a sex change in Iran it was a interesting documentary…
June 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Yep, and shaking sticks at their government doesn’t help.
I know a woman here who’s from Iran originally, and she tells the most interesting stories about what a quiet subversive culture the college students and young professionals have developed over there. She mentioned something about how people don’t tend to go out for fun in Tehran, because of the restrictive laws, but instead people have parties, and the first stop the girls make when they get to somebody’s house is a mad communal rush to the bathroom where they throw off the regulated dress, and replace it with high fashion and Western make-up. Then they’re ready.
I would never have guessed!
June 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“My wife being Iranian I can tell you for a fact that there are gays in Iran.”
Thank goodness!
Ahmadinejad looks like the kid that used to get beat up in high school. I had a friend who dealt drugs who looked like him.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
OMG speaking of, and tying the two subjects together, if you haven’t seen the digital short Saturday Night Live (Andy Samberg) did after Mahmoud said that, you MUST find it. It’s called “I Ran,” and it is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a LONG time.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Never mind, found it for you.
There is something insanely funny about two Jewish guys, Andy Samberg and Adam Levine (Maroon 5) singing to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Iran so far away
June 7th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Chad,
A gay Christian is an oxymoron. So is an adulterous Christian. Therefore, I have never known a gay or adulterous or lying (all of the above as a lifestyle) Christian. I have known homosexuals (and adulterers, and liars, and fornicators) who have claimed Christ, but the fruit of their life proved otherwise.
Jesus will say to many who say to him LORD LORD that he never knew them, because the PRACTICED lawlessness. In other words, they were in a pattern, a lifestyle, that characterized their lives more than Christ did.
Do people sin? YES. Christians fall into sin, they don’t plan it, or dive into it. They certainly do not say repeatedly that it is not sin.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Pastorboy,
Quick question. What about racist Christians? Is that an oxymoron?
Anti-semitic? Is Luther in heaven?
June 7th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Or what about drunk, gluttoness, or prideful Christians? I would suspect PB’s heaven is pretty empty.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
ta-da, it must be e-mail time at the Adult Daycare again.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Wasn’t he yelling at religious people when he said that?
June 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
If I hadn’t seen you on video, I would harbor strong suspicions that you’re, in fact, a writer for The Onion on a long, long, extended assignment…
June 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
BTT LoL!!
But I don’t know satire….
Phil,
You are doing what you accuse me of. Thats not what the Bible says or I say. Paul makes the distinction..”.and that is what some of you WERE”….in other words, when people repent and trust the Savior, he changes them. We become new Creatures, with new desires.
The road is narrow, so God’s heaven is pretty empty. I am sure glad he loved me enough to take a wretched sinner like me and create in me a new heart
June 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
And the road to works based salvation is complete.
BTW, you can’t even meet your own standard.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
No duh, Tim….
Thats why God paid the penalty for me.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Ingrid said it so well, after quoting God’s Word…
“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
–I Corinthians 5:11-13
So on what basis is it OK to eat with a “Christian” gay group whose express purpose for being at Saddleback, by their own words, is to change the way Christians view sodomy? How is that loving? Does God’s Word mean anything at all?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Wow, what a neat God you serve! Gimme some-a that, in a size 12, please.
Now, PB, don’t lie, it’s not just you; you know the sweepstakes rules said you could pick two kids from your class to go to heaven with you too!
June 7th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
PB,
The only problem with your logic is that your heaven is completely empty.
We all have blindspots in our lives, those pockets of sin that we don’t know about and we don’t confess.
As the years go on, every generation is able to identify the sins of those who have gone before it, all while demonstrating its own weaknesses.
Just think of the hundreds of years where Christians have demonstrated anti-semitism, racism, violence, and oppression.
Are none of those believers in heaven? Is Luther in heaven? Calvin?
June 7th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
The man in Corinth who was committing a sin not even mentioned among the Gentiles was saved. Seems as if he was not only practicing that sin, he was accomplishing it.
I never knew anyone who I actually knew was saved. I am not sure I have ever met someone who claimed to be a Christian who wasn’t a liar on some level.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Yes, well, Rick, he yet again reduces gay people, human beings he obviously knows absolutely nothing about, to a simple “choice of sin,” knows nothing about our very real struggles, and cannot see the mack truck truth in front of his face that it is Christians precisely like him who made me reject fellowship with other believers and with God for ten years, and my story is but one in a pile of ever-growing millions.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The sad thing is that scattered throughout those millions are those who couldn’t break free of the shame, abandonment, disapproval, and yes, hatred inflicted by people like Pastorboy, claiming to be a conduit for the holy God, and thus showing not God’s love, but God’s rejection, to innocent kids, yes, scattered throughout those millions are those who, in their human weakness, couldn’t stomach the fight, and thus, chose to end the fight pre-emptively, and now they are known as “statistics.”
I believe God asks more of me than to cash in a get out of hell free card, so that I may pursue life from the top of a self-constructed pedestal of self-gratifying perceived “holiness,” while clinging to the deniability of a bastardization of grace.
The words of Jesus from one end of the gospels to the other lead me to believe that Jesus would be utterly appalled and offended that anyone would dare use his name to justify treating people, not as people, but as mere faces to be preached at with the same tired script, again and again, who, if they do not immediately surrender to stale arguments and their accompanying Church Lady glares of condemnation, may be merely crossed off the list as less than people, as cold-called customers who really were eating dinner right now, thank you, goodbye, so that the pastor may inflict his wordhole on the next unsuspecting victim.
And pre-emptively, I’ll just let you know, PB, that it is I who will be praying for you this evening.
OK.
THX.
BYE.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Wow, i was re-reading this thread, and I hadn’t caught the “brothers and sisters and ‘its’” thing…
You are such a transparent bigot, it’s like…stunning. Fifty years ago we know what you would’ve used wood and matches for…
June 8th, 2008 at 1:00 am
It’s the barriors that I cannot reconcile in my heart and mind. Jesus Himself urged us to lift Him up and He would draw men to Himself. Paul says to the jailor to “believe” without any caveats. We’ve even made the word “repent” mean the act of giving up sins before a sinner can believe on Christ.
Some suggest that a sinner must be absolutely convinced of the depth of his sin before he can be saved, and yet my own conversion experience contradicts that theology. I believed on Christ because I became convinced He was God in the flesh and that He was the only way to eternal life.
Honestly, the night I got saved I never gave my sin a thought. Sitting on top of Garrett Mountain overlooking the Manhatan skyline I believed on Jesus as my Savior without taking inventory of my sins which were many.
So if a person must identify their sins, recognize their depth, and turn from them then it must be all sins. There is more Scripture for that than culling out certain sins. If a man has left his wife and he now lives with his pregnant mistress, and he is not yet divorced, must he return to his wife before he can get saved?
Oh you say, he must be willing. OK, what if a man who has been married for 20 years and has been faithful to his wife, and you are witnessing to him in his living room and he desires to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but he hates his mother. Does he have to completely forgive his mother who molested him before he can get saved? What if he paid for the house in which he lives with embezzled funds?
These barriors to salvation are unscriptural or all or nothing. What if a man has had a sex change from a man to a woman, can he get saved before he changes back? Or does he have to be willing to have reversal surgery? I sincerely believe we severely limit God’s grace by making our own Christian Talmuds with our own rules because we cannot trust God to work in a person’s life, we must add things to the gospel.
It is such a miracle that at least 3000 people on Pentecost left their sinful lives completely on that day and were saved. And today, the sin that is mentioned only a few times, is the one which we demand a complete forsaking before they can be a candidate for salvation. Very strange.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Rick, the responses you leave, especially when they’re longer…it’s so obvious that you actually think out what you say, and you make an effort to show compassion to people, regardless.
We don’t agree on everything, but I appreciate that.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:18 am
On the same basis that its ok to eat with groups of Christians who’s express purpose for being on the web is to slander and accuse the saints of sin, ala Chris L and Chris P.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Its not my heaven, it is God’s
And it was Jesus who said in Matthew 7 that the road is narrow.
Rick, I agree with you, but in all your illustrations you are speaking of the repentance and trust I am speaking about. These are people that come to an end of themselves and desire to turn to God from their sin. And in your own life, as you described it, that turning to God has generated more holiness, a likeness of Christ in you.
My understanding of Salvation is that it is a judicial act (one time) where you are declard not guilty. Then it is a process by which God conforms you to the image of his Son. Sounds like thats happening.
This Gay group wants to conform us to a Jesus of their understanding, where they can deny their sin is sin, and conform us to their image. You cannot say that you do not see the difference? Your illustrations are of humbled sinners realizing their need for Christ on his terms, the GLBTA want Jesus on their terms and call all of us who say that it is not scriptural intolerant and judgemental.
I don’t want to be in their place on judgement day, nor do I want to be the pastor who coddled them in their sin.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:32 am
You are in your place, and you are a coddling pastor. Just replace homosexuality with slander.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Then quit telling us who’s in and who’s out!
I would love to hear your exegesis of this passage.
Couldn’t agree more.
Certainly that is one view.
Then let the process happen and quit trying to delineate who’s in and who’s out based on outward appearance or action. Per you statement. Salvation is a one time judicial act. Sanctification is a much longer, slower, process that doesn’t have a road map or time line.
Conjecture.
See Tim’s quote above.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Would you eat with Roman Catholics who wish to conform us to their doctrine? Mormons? At the very least a pastor could share his heart and Biblical truth in a way which could be used of the Spirit in their lives. I mean he isn’t allowing them pulpit time, just a meal.
Your “humbled sinners” template is extremely myopic. I wasn’t even aware of my sin, and yes a sanctification process began which continues today. On the day of Pentecost Peter presented Christ as the Messiah without any thesis on sin. It is interesting that Peter doesn’t go through the Ten Commandments even though on that day he still had to learn complete grace. The atonement itself speaks of sin, but I fail to see the New Testament command to abandon sin before you believe.
And if a gay person believes on Christ and does not change, and you conclude it reveals he isn’t saved, so what? And what if he really didn’t get saved, so what? I know I have baptized people who I think later really were not saved, but I cannot see their heart, I can only hear their voice.
Are we afraid of false converts? We have them already, and what harm does it do for a sinner to come and hear us teach the Word? Christ commanded us to spread the seed on all ground which only LATER would reveal some signs of its spiritual health.
If a gay couple is faithful to come and listen on Sunday but they never leave their lifestyle, at what point must they leave? At what point must the people who are not gay but continue in hedonism or praylessness or unforgiveness or continue to drink excessively, at what point are they asked to leave?
The Corinthian Church was filled with all kinds of sin. They were gossips, idolaters, haters, greedy, divisive, drunken, and Paul even mentions being gay (effeminate), but Paul only instructs them to break fellowship with one man, and HE was a heterosexual. Was Paul a coddler?
I believe it is hypicritical for a church to single out people with a real attraction to the opposite sex, while this church has borrowed obscene amounts of money to construct an edifice which requires obscene amounts of money to maintain, and the Word Is CLEAR that is a sin. The glass houses principle applies directly here.
Notice I didn’t even mention the many choir members who are divorced and remarried, some with their mistress. The church has become a club for cultural Pharisees who judge the ever growing number of gays but without the compassion to even have a few nightly prayer meetings for their own wayward children, much less someone else’s.
Five years ago I started what I called “Children of Promise” which was a group of believers who had children who either were not saved or were living a wrong lifestyle. We got together (25 to 80) once a month for brokenness and prayer. Some parents had gay children After several months the pastor disbanded us in favor of the Celebrate Recovery ministry by Saddleback.
That same pastor preached against gays. The church is 25 million dollars in debt and yet does not entertain one night of prayer a week or a month. They are symbolic of the American Masonic Hall club church. Let us lay down our philacteries and admit we need a massive revival ourselves, but until then we will make spiritual assessments with our carnal and religious mindsets.
I do not believe that eating with such a group once to speak to them and listen as well indicates a close fellowship. And just to be sure, don’t serve steak, just serve bologna so they know we are serious!
June 8th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Tim,
I have not slandered. Slander is not when we disagree. Just because I disagree with your view does not mean I am slandering you or the people I write about.
And if it is slander, I challenge those who I have supposedly slandered to take me to court and sue me.
Until then, Tim, you saying that I have slandered is slander and you need to repent.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Rick,
I guess you and I have differing views on the purpose of church. Church (to me) is a place where regenerate people meet to be built up and equipped and for biblical fellowship. This is so they can go out and be the church to thier unregenerate friends.
I am suggesting that Rick and Bill having lunch with these folks is not wrong in itself. I am indicating that if they do not take their responsibility as Pastors (high profile ones at that) to warn these unregenerate people. Bill and Rick have the habit of eating with these different groups and only speaking to them about where they agree, which is a tacit approval of their chosen political/ethical stance.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
PB,
The you would just say they are not real Christians… so please just stop slandering people…
If two or more witnesses come to you with a sin against a brother, just maybe you should look at yourself a bit.
I pointed out a couple times you have slanders Doug Pagitt… yet you just ignore and justify and seem to keep on rationalizing you sin. To me that is no different that a homosexual who rationalizes his sin.
SO you are in the same book as a homosexual who does not face his own sin and seek God’s better way.
How about trying that for a change.
Now don’t go all, “why don’t you try it iggy” on me as I face my sin every day… your own words condemn you not me.
I mean, answer honestly PB, have you ever gone through a single day without sinning?
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 9:28 am
PB,
You have slandered… repent.
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 9:29 am
PB,
Hope you don’t partake in the Lord’s Supper today… you have many odds against many brothers you need to clear up…
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Everytime you write that Rob Bell is a universalist you’ve slandered him. Everytime you write an entry and twist and pervert what a great many people have written to make them into heretics for you to hunt you slander them.
Everytime you call Chris L and his wife liars by claiming the satirical piece he wrote was meant seriously you slander.
The pages of this blog are filled with testimonies of your slander.
So now you want a secular court deciding what sin is.
Repent pastorboy.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Again conjecture with no real proof.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“Again conjecture with no real proof.”
But on the other hand, because they haven’t publicly said otherwise, we could also say that you offer a defense for them as conjecture with no real proof to the contrary.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am
PB-
The gospel lesson for today (if you use lectionary) that I just preached from has a radically different view of what the church ought to be.
Matthew 9, Jesus calls Matthew, a tax collector, the scum of the earth as far as Jews are concerned, and has a big party with him and all his tax collecting and sinning friends. It is so outrageous that the relgious people of the day who think that the church is all about having a holy huddle of regenerates (like you claim) point their fingers at them and ask the disciples, “why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” They are incredulous towards Jesus and his “church” for their actions.
The church, if it is anything, should be an open table invitation to all the tax collectors and sinners on God’s good earth.
I find your characterization of the church to be against everything Jesus stood for.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The problem is, PB, most of your targets take Jesus’ message a bit more seriously than you appear to, and wouldn’t sue you because you are a brother in Christ, and we are told we shouldn’t sue you - even if you slander us…
June 8th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I never worry about slanderous lies about me, I just hope they don’t get a hold of the truth!
June 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Ken,
“But on the other hand, because they haven’t publicly said otherwise, we could also say that you offer a defense for them as conjecture with no real proof to the contrary.”
Defending the practice of painting an opponent’s actions in the least flattering light possible, and then arguing it’s justified because your opponent hasn’t specifically denied it, seems to me like an open invitation to engage in gossip, rumor-mongering, and fruitless divisiveness.
It’s a pretty simple idea: In the absence of information, it’s not a “defense,” per se, to counter an attack. It’s just the wisdom of knowing that without all the information, sometimes it’s just best to keep your mouth shut.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
It’s actually in the same spirit as the push-pollers who called South Carolina Republican primary voters in 2000 and asked, “If you knew that John McCain had fathered a black baby out of wedlock, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him?”
It fosters discord and preys on the most ignorant among us.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
The gospel lesson for today (if you use lectionary) that I just preached from has a radically different view of what the church ought to be.
Matthew 9, Jesus calls Matthew, a tax collector, the scum of the earth as far as Jews are concerned, and has a big party with him and all his tax collecting and sinning friends. It is so outrageous that the relgious people of the day who think that the church is all about having a holy huddle of regenerates
But they changedddddddddd that is the flipping point of all the post here, some people are saying people don’t need too and thats plainly not right..
The truth of the matter Chad you do not think a gay person needs to change,you’ve bent over backwards to make their lifestyle acceptable, and even posted to imply the bible wasn’t even about them…
June 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I have been deeply affected by this issue in the last six months. I watched a documentary last night titled “Anyone and Everyone” and this morning my heart through my pen wrote this:
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/06/insulated-from-human-stories-w-e-as.html
June 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I have written a post called “Insulated From Human Stories” which can be found by clicking on my name. (the link is being moderated because of the abundance of curse words).
June 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“we can reach out with compassion and understanding without surrendering any basic Biblical teachings”
Can you really do this Rick without falling on either its ok or its wrong?? I really dont know how you can…
Can compassion be honest
June 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Everytime ive tried to be compassionate but honest ive been called a c*&*
June 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Can sin and redemption ever hold hands? And can there be enough grace to facilitate that connection? If not, then redemption is not forgiveness, it’s change, and the gospel is a glorified AA meeting.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Wowee Rick its a hard tightrope to walk compassionate but honest huh?
Maybe i’m being cynical or the people i know are, but they would say there is no way you can be compassionate while deny my being
June 8th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I am not sure what you are saying, Andy.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ok obviously i’m not saying we shouldn’t be compassionate,just not sure if it will ever be received as compassionate when were honest..
June 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
If I offered acceptance and love, unconditionally, but the gay person knew I felt the Bible did not condone that activity, and because of that he refused my overtures of friendship, then what else could I do?
June 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I agree 100% with your post, i was just saying in my crappy way, that i would think its nearly impossible to be preceived as compassionate when your being honest about a persons lifestle (any lifestyle)
I agree 100% if your directing this towards people you meet in life…
Would you say “i offer acceptance unconditionally” to a person who continues in sin (any) who was a member of your church?
June 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Well, the practice of painting an opponent’s actions in the best light possible, and then arguing it’s justified because your opponent hasn’t specifically denied it, seems to me like an open invitation to engage in gossip, rumor-mongering, and fruitless divisiveness.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It seems to me we have two groups of people here, one that want to concentrate on the fact that Jesus ate with sinners,and those who want to concentrate on the fact he told them to sin no more..
Maybe i come across as the latter, i’m sorry if i do…
grace and truth its a truly nice mix
June 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I think the underlying assumption here (as usual) is that gay Christians aren’t changed by grace. There wouldn’t BE so many gay Christians if they weren’t changed by it. They wouldn’t form congregations and Christian networks to replace those they had been kicked out of. Surely no one is fool enough to argue that all of these people are “fake Christians.” (Yes, I know several are fool enough, but that’s not the point.)
That’s what’s such a joke about this entire argument…people who hold a certain view are unwilling or unable to accept the fact that prayer and careful deep research into six obscure passages out of the entire Bible leads many people to a different view of what the Bible actually says.
Part of it comes from an unwillingness/inability to understand exactly what homosexuality is and what it isn’t, and an unwillingness/inability to take off the blinders of modern preconceived notions of what said verses say or don’t say, in a true spirit of searching, rather than in a petulant determination to be right.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Andy:But they changedddddddddd that is the flipping point of all the post here, some people are saying people don’t need too and thats plainly not right..
The truth of the matter Chad you do not think a gay person needs to change,you’ve bent over backwards to make their lifestyle acceptable, and even posted to imply the bible wasn’t even about them…
Chad: Andy, I’m not sure why you seem to insist find me so disagreeable.
First, at least as far as Matt. 9 is concerned, we don’t know that anyone changed. All we know is that Jesus ate with this group.
Second, we can infer that they may have changed, but that isn’t the point. The point is that whether they did or did not, Jesus had fellowship with them.
Third, if they did change, it could just have possibly been from being in the presence of love embodied rather than from any specific argument Jesus made.
Finally, I am not “bending over backwards to make their lifestyle acceptable.” I am, however, bending over backwards to extend grace to sinners like myself.
peace,
Chad
June 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Rick, I think the feeling among some is that friendship with those who disagree should involve a deal-breaker at some point, wherein the one who holds a different doctrinal view should have to give in or have the door shut in their faces, or that somehow it is incumbent upon those who hold said doctrinal view to, repeatedly, remind those who differ of how they’re “wrong.”
What’s really funny is that, ya know, I’m completely aware that most commenters here disagree with me on these six verses, even when we’re not talking about these subjects, and it’s okay. With something as ancient and subject to interpretation as Scripture that’s been handed down and retranslated 78 gazillion times, there are going to be differences. Big deal.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Andy, I’m not sure why you seem to insist find me so disagreeable.
I don’t
In fact you would fine me the weirdest fundies in real life,in fact i’m very much a Dolphus Raymond character in real life…
What i find a joke about this thread is the fact that Rick,Iggy,Phil and a few others do think its a sin,but there rather slam PB for saying it (i agree said slightly harshly) then they would confront the fact that you tried to make the bible suit your ideas, for the sake of being “compassionate” which is a pointless exercise on this forum where the cards are on the table!! I see that as fundamentally dishonest ..
June 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
BTT - the issue of tha act itself is not what I am addressing. I must come to understand some do not see it as wrong and those like you must understand the same. My post was exploring the possibility of some inetersect apart from that point.
Both “sides” must be particpants on that level or they cannot be friends. It will take some maturity and some acceptance beyond the ingredient of agreement.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Ken,
Can you show me a passage where Jesus is sitting with homosexuals and tells them that they are in sin?
Show me one verse… ok?
In fact show me one verse where Jesus states anything against any “sinner”. (even as you have redefined the word sin.)
Now then I can show you whole gospels where Jesus speaks out against religious leaders who are self righteous… and that is not conjecture.
Jesus did state an interesting thing though…
Now, if Jesus does not even condemn others (including sinners) as you have Rick Warren and others in this thread… are you better than Jesus?
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Now, if Jesus does not even condemn others (including sinners)
He didn’t have to, as he said earlier were all condemed already,thats the benchmark before we even move
June 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Oh, I know where you’re coming from, Rick. All I’m pointing out is that people act like this is some giant heretical issue or something, when in reality, we’re talking about 6 far-flung passages which many scholars make a strong case have less than zilch to do with gay people as we understand things today. It’s like, come on, priorities, people.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
What I find especially upsetting is the completely lack of either pathos for these people, or even the ones who reject any meeting they do it with such self righteousness and void of any desire to find some bridge to reach them.
Mrs. Schlueter recalls the inconvenience of the traffic jams she has to suffer when the gays have their parades in her town. That should give you a pristine revelation of the egocentric Christianity that passes for following Jesus. If they affect my comfort zone, that is part of the evidence against them.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
What I find especially upsetting is the completely lack of either pathos for these people, or even the ones who reject any meeting they do it with such self righteousness and void of any desire to find some bridge to reach them.
I don’t think anyones advocating not meeting anyone here though are they?
June 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
No, it’s on other blogs.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Ok i want to be really clear, if i’ve upset anyone i apologise ..
My only point about this thread is that there is dividing line in this all conversation…
Firstly how we interact with people who arn’t Christians, which is obviously how we would want them to treat us…
Then secondly how far our compassion stretches with how ANYYYYYYYY person chooses to live their life after their saved…
A lot of people have implied the reactions in this thread are just because its about the Gay Issue well 1) its the subject matter of the thread and 2) if it was another equivalent issue i would feel the same
June 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Actually the point really isn’t how people interact with non-Christians.
It’s how people interact with other Christians who disagree with them.
Until people get that straight, there will be no reconciliation or understanding.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Actually, the overriding principle which must be pursued is how can Christians discipline their own views to come into unilateral alignment with mine.
Until then, there can be only partial reconciliation. Study guides upon request.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
haha
June 8th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Actually the point really isn’t how people interact with non-Christians.
It’s how people interact with other Christians who disagree with them.
Until people get that straight, there will be no reconciliation or understanding.
……………………………………………………………..
Which is a two way street ,which this forum on the whole does well ,people have different views and they seem to get on
June 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
True, and it also illuminates the fact that, rather than an issue all unto itself, this controversy is merely another chapter in the long history of Christian family infighting.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Andy,
Now don’t jump ahead of class! LOL!
That is my point… we are all sinners… so how can someone like PB condemn another sinner when he stands condemned without Jesus also!
This subtle twist of doctrine many believe and sickly practice promotes a sort of elite class of sinners who can condemn other sinners “by grace”… and how sick is that!?!?!?!
I see this as missing the point completely as to the mission of Jesus. He came to condemn SIN in man… not man in sin… Romans 8 3-4 states this…
These men like PB, preach the ministry of death and condemnation… as Paul stated this is not OUR message.
They still serve the Law and attack those who seek to bring reconciliation to those Jesus forgave.
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Iguess there is a comment in the spam filter… I answered andy… so it will be up a bit.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Prove to me Rob Bell is not a Universalist, Tim. Prove to me that Doug Pagitt is not one. You cannot, and therefore Iggy, Tim, et.al., you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Doug and Rob have visited my Blog, Doug has commented on it. They do not deny what I have written. If they could they would accuse me of Slander. They have not. So why do you?
June 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
PB,
I did, but you then still justified your own version of reality instead of faced the truth.
SO all I can say is… repent.
You confuse universal atonement meaning all men are forgiven with Universalism meaning all men are saved…
But you don’t listen… you just keep standing against the truth in your pride.
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Doug teaches people can lose their salvation as he is arminian… so you can’t have him teaching all are saved and some can lose their salvation at the same time…
Think about that for a bit… the repent and confess and apologize to a lot of people.
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Yeah Doug does not deny it.. he just says…
“Oh brother!”
iggy
June 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I guess his own word (in multiple sermons and speeches on multiple occasions) isn’t good enough for you. I didn’t realize that the onus of proving one has not sinned is on the sinner, but rather it is upon the accuser, which you have utterly failed at doing in any sort of honest way.
Shennanigans - Bell doesn’t read about himself on the web - a purposeful decision. If he’s not commented there, then you have no evidence of this.
Wow - even the pagans have more integrity than you, PB.
Hands down.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Haha, I love it when people call Shenanigans.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Iggy - If all people are saved without faith, with what scenario would it be possible for these people to lose it.
1. An American Christian
2. A Muslim
3. An atheist
4. A scientologist
I have heard Doug Pagitt say that after death a Muslim will have a chance to be saved even if he dies without believing in Christ. That doesn’t sound like he dies already saved.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Rick,
Who said people are saved without faith?
I sure did not…
June 9th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I have not heard Doug say this… but I have heard him say that if he served Jesus, though not knowing the name specific “Jesus” then that person be them of another religion will be saved.
We are saved not by the surname Jesus, but by the Name that Jesus represented… The Name of God is bigger than “Joshua” or “Jesus” or “Yeshua”…
The sheep were just as surprised they got into “heaven” as the goats who did not. The difference is that the sheep heard the Shepherds voice and obeyed it.
Jesus stated in
when the Bible states at the Name of Jesus every knee will bow, it is not the surname, but all that God did in the Person of Jesus that the “Name” represents.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hi Iggy i’m online now i didn’t see your reply,but if i was rude i’m sorry..
I think i let myself get drawn into something and lost my cool…
It goes without saying i’m very happy to be pursuaded on anything i say,i would like to think i’m humble enough to admit i was wrong on everything
anyhow GB
June 9th, 2008 at 7:32 am
“but I have heard him say that if he served Jesus, though not knowing the name specific “Jesus” then that person be them of another religion will be saved.”
That is not substantiated by Scripture, it is works theology, and it completely undermines the great commission. You desconstruct the name of God which He alone has the authority to present. The Word says “Jesus”, not any reasonable facimile.
What you presented is certainly not what the New Testament teaches. Neither is there salvation in any other. How can they believe if THEY HAVEN’T HEARD. If you will believe in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead you shall be saved.
You have suggested that men can be saved WITHOUT THE GOSPEL. You are free to believe that, but you cannot make the New Testament say that salvation can be earned by SERVING some unnamed deity without FAITH IN THE GOSPEL.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:42 am
In addition to what Chris L wrote I noticed you dropped entirely the fact that you have slandered Chris L and Zan multiple times with accusations of lying.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Whos that to Tim?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Wild guess: Pastorboy.
That said, what you’re talking about, Iggy, is quite interesting, especially when you consider the idea that:
Jesus is God, therefore the message of Jesus is the message of God
and
The mountains and seas, etc., proclaim the truth of God, no “names” necessary.
and
People of all religions, established or non, live out the message of Jesus. Christianity definitely doesn’t have a lock on the “Christian message.”
That doesn’t seem to be “works-based” to me, unless you’re talking about keeping a literal tab of “good works done” vs. “bad works.”
Seems to me to be more of a mindset or an outlook than anything else.
It also knocks out the ludicrous notion that a loving God would condemn one who hadn’t ever heard (or had any tangible reason to listen to, due to culture, background, preconceived notions due to the behaviour of Christians) the “Gospel” as we understand it.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:22 am
It also makes more sense in light of the passages that say things like “judge not, lest ye, be judged” and “Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
June 9th, 2008 at 8:22 am
“Christianity definitely doesn’t have a lock on the “Christian message.””
Which illuminates a distinct misunderstanding of what the “Christian message” is. The gospel is the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Incarnate God whose name is Jesus - “God is salvation”. Everyone is free to toss around opinions but the Scriptures, IF TRUE, exculsivize Jesus which is exactly the reason for the Great Commission.
The veiw that people can be saved by living good lives without believing on Jesus is a form of universalism and works salvation. The blood of Jesus is counted for nothing if we can live lives so good they deserve eternal redemption.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:25 am
It makes more sense to say Jesus saved everyone (Chad) than to say people who “serve Jesus” without knowing Him are awarded salvation because of their good works.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I agree, Rick. The ‘message of Jesus’ isn’t just a way of living - otherwise it is salvation by works.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Getting back to the point of the original post, I think that the comments here have been a great object lesson as to why people thought it was so scandalous for Jesus to eat with the wrong people. Evidently things haven’t changed a lot in the last 2,000 years.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I see more nuance in it than “serving Jesus=good works.”
“Good works” are relative, and people can disagree all day as to what they are. However, Jesus’s message was one of service and actively loving each other, regardless of deeds, one of “stop trying to keep track of obeying laws and just love people. Serve people.”
So that’s what I mean when I say that people who have never heard Jesus’s name or the traditional gospel message are, indeed, serving Jesus by the way they live their lives. It’s not about a record of rights vs. wrongs. Jesus made clear that all fall short. He also seemed to say “that’s not the point.”
This also could shed new light on what he said about “many of you will come to me that day and say didn’t we heal, prophecy, etc., in your name and I will say ‘away from me, evildoers, I never knew you.”
I would suggest that God is bigger and has a further reach than needing to hear code words and see doctrinal beliefs in order to work through and know people.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Rick,
Don’t look now but you just left the door open for atonement descriptors other than penal substitutionary atonement.
Rick = Emergent! OH GNOS!!!!
June 9th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Getting back to the point of the original post, I think that the comments here have been a great object lesson as to why people thought it was so scandalous for Jesus to eat with the wrong people. Evidently things haven’t changed a lot in the last 2,000 years.
………………………………………………………..
I disagree,i for one wasn’t scandalised by this meeting,i don’t thing anyone was (other then maybe PB) My post were entirely a reaction to the idea that a person could stay as Jesus finds them,and more so say the bible confirms there lifestyle..
I have no problem at all, with people meeting anyone…
June 9th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Trust me if i was scandalised by this meeting, i couldnt meet with 99.9% of my friends..
June 9th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Agreed, Phil - I’m just waiting to hear the complaints about whether or not Rick Warren
mentioned Jesus name in the prayerwashed his hands correctly before the meal…I think the question, Andy, really becomes - how quickly must a person be convicted of specific sins and repent of them - and how quickly must that repentance be worked out (going back to my polygamy example, for a more stark instance)?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Andy,
I wasn’t referring to your comments at all, actually. I should have been more clear. Mainly it’s reactions like PB’s that I was referring to.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:11 am
This may apply to the thread…Maybe.
Righteousness in the greek is DIKE (dee Kay)
In the passage “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added unto you” Matthew 6:33
The word righteousness in this passage is from the greek DIKAIOSYNE (deek kay soo nay) which is translated “Justice”. Which is actually derived from the Greek goddess of Justice and Righteousness. (Was Jesus expousing Greek goddess worship?)
With this understanding how would the “righteousness” of God impact our interaction with Gays?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I think the question, Andy, really becomes - how quickly must a person be convicted of specific sins and repent of them - and how quickly must that repentance be worked out (going back to my polygamy example, for a more stark instance)?
I agree totally,i’m not saying as Christian we meet somone,they say a magic little prayer and Bam their no longer sining..Its a process,but its a process that needs some kind of acceptance of your position, if your going to makes steps in the right direction? I sin constantly i’m not saying i’m any better then anyone..
June 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Phil i agree a lot of the groups out their are over reacting,if Rick met a group of disabled people there would be people looking at the angles..
…………………………………………………….
As a side note i got my friend Rob to read some of the post..He said tongue in cheek sod gays getting into church what about disabled people getting in..
He was telling me a horror story of going to a church years back,and he had to be taking in through the kitchen,pass all the kitchen staff, because there were no ramps..Luckly things have changed in that area lol
June 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Well, what do you do in that situation? It seems to me if someone really has a position that what they’re doing isn’t sin, there isn’t much we can do but pray for them. Obviously, if they’re doing something that’s clearly harming themselves and/or others we should intervene, but other than that what can you do?
I wouldn’t want a person in church leadership if he held a view I thought was really wrong, but I don’t know that I would exclude him from being involved in all aspects of a church. I think at some point we just have to trust the Holy Spirit to change hearts and minds.
By the way, Andy, if you highlight the text you want to quote and hit the little box above the area where you type your comments that says “B-quote” it will offset the text you want to quote. It just makes it easier to follow things.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Tim - please expand that for me before my card gets recalled.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Chris you really are the voice of reason!!
The bottom line is about how we interact with people “With this understanding how would the “righteousness” of God impact our interaction with Gays”
I’d hate to come across as this,Rob was at a party last month and spoke to a woman and she eventually said “oh wowee your so nice ,your disabled but your really normal arn’t you”
Rob “hummmm thks”
I know that’s the main issue here, we don’t allow what someone is,change the way we love them, or God forbid as an excuse to stop loving them at all
June 9th, 2008 at 9:32 am
oops thks for the tip Phil
June 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Phil i really don’t know the answers..
I will be discreet here,but a friend over there, her best friend is having an affair with a married guy in their Church,and my friends pleaded with her to stop,but the girls deluded “hes leaving his wive, he loves me” etc etc.
I asked her what she going to do and she said “you dumbass,i’m going to love her and pick up the peices when’s its finished”
June 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Andy - the church will deal with that much differently than if she was having an affair with a never married single WOMAN. They will show her restoration while if she was a lesbian she would be crucified.
Can we as the church bear their burden in a way that continues to show compassionate Biblical guidance as well as not placing legalistic expectations that take ungracious inventory to a much greater degree than we do on non-gay believers?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Andy,
Well, that’s a good example. I think in that case, I would think the guy needs to be confronted as well, and his wife needs to know if she doesn’t. Obviously, though, there is not guarantee they will listen to anyone.
But Rick is right, there is a much higher probability that this guy and girl will be welcomed back into the church than if it were a single man admitting to a homosexual relationship.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Well to be honest she called me a dumbass ’cause i approached the idea of speaking to the pastor and church displine and she said my best friend,i’m praying and loving her and will be there for in the end..
I guess you guys are right,i was maybe hoping they wouldn’t treat them differently if it was a lesbian affair,but i guess thats naive of me
But saying that your both Pastors so maybe things are changing???
June 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“so maybe things are changing???”
Yes, but slowly and in some unhealthy ways. Some remain entrenched, some are considering change, some are pioneering change, and then some have completely left Scripture.
So there is change, but it’s like releasing the cattle with some sections of the fence broken down. We need preachers to spend some time in prayer and the Word and see where our attitudes need change.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Rick,
This statement does not describe the atonement, it only is a statement of how the atonement takes place. This leaves it open to be described in a number of ways (including SPA, but also in other ways).
June 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
andy it was comment 242 I think..
and you were not rude…
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“This statement does not describe the atonement, it only is a statement of how the atonement takes place.”
How the atonement took place IS the atonement. Tim, sometimes your sentences give me LSD flashbacks, which isn’t always a bad thing!
June 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
BTW, I find the parallels to this group that Rick Warren is meeting with and Pastorboy to be startling similar. Though both engage in lifestyles that are clearly Biblically wrong, both justify it by scripture in various ways. The difference is, of course, that pastorboy claims that grace cannot cover this situation. Which leaves him in quite the quandary.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“BTW, I find the parallels to this group that Rick Warren is meeting with and Pastorboy to be startling similar.”
And then you come up with absolute gems like this. Was Mandy coaching you?
June 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Rick,
The the author of Hebrews lied… and as well Moses when he wrote of Abraham…
But really i think you should read Hebrews 11:
God saved them just as he does today… by Grace through faith… and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever…
BTW there is no deconstruct of the Name of God… He is not just Jesus… He is the Triune God…
He is Father Son and Holy Spirit… and not just Jesus… You are defending modalism… I am teaching,
Just for good measure, what Name did man begin to call on in Genisis… was it Jesus?
Be careful as that is what the Kabbalist did. They made God’s Name which is sacred into a magical thing and desecrated it. IF you are correct we are all damned. Jesus real name is Joshua… so we better be calling on the Name of Joshua to be saved and preaching in the Name of Joshua so that others will be saved…
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Andy,
To take literal the understanding of most ODM’s would me anyone that goes to work and does a days work for anyone other than a “Christian” business who does business with only “christian” businesses is unequally yokes to unbelievers and is in sin.
So if you work and honest days work and get paid and they are not Christian, you have bowed at the table of Manna…
I am sure not one of the Apostles taught that, unless it was directly connected to emperor worship….
But then if you are a ODM you most likely do not have a real day job so can sit and condemn all that do.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 11:02 am
That’s funny you say that. Every week after service there’s an older guy that comes up to Mandy and tells her “you did a great job on the sermon this week kiddo”. Are you guys trading notes or what?
June 9th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Iggy i am starting to get a handle on what you mean…I just picked up a copy of Waking the Dead by John Eldredge,for a friend to say you shouldn’t read that hes a heritic, sheesh its getting to be a very narrow rd…
June 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Iggy - there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New. Paul tells the Athenians that before Jesus men were ignorant and that God “winked” at such ignorance, but now God calls all men to repent of that ignrance and believe on Jesus because,
Adam did not know YHWH, Moses dod not know Yeshua, but now God has fully revealed Himself
Without the gospel now, in these last days, there is no salvation. The orthodox Jews who do not believe in Jesus as their Savior but believe in Jehovah, they are not saved because of unbelief they have been broken off that those of us by fath may be grafted in.
There is no salvation apart from living faith in the living gospel of Jesus Christ, not some shadow without the gospel.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Rev 2:20 - ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. ‘And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. ”
Rev. 3: 14-19 - “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.”
Matt 11:21-24 - 21 - Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago insackcloth and ashes. “Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. “Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
Just to name a few.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
John,
The only problem is that Jesus isn’t really speaking to pagans in any of those portions of Scripture. In Revelation, He’s talking to churches. A church, by definition, is a collection of Christians.
In the passage in Matthew, Jesus is talking about Jewish towns, not Roman ones. These were towns where the chosen people lived. Isn’t it odd that he specifically warns that the chosen people are in more danger of judgement than sinful pagan towns?
June 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
In fact, that’s where he seems to direct his consternation throughout the Gospels…religious people.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
In fact, if you read the verses directly before the Matthew text, he’s on a theme about judgmental, inhospitable religious people.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
The type of “Jezebel” mentioned in Revelation was certainly not a saved person as the Scriptures do not use such imagery for saved people. All of the “sinners” that Jesus was so “nice to” (e.g., the woman caught in adultery, the tax collectors, etc.) were a part of Jewish towns so they would have been included in the general warning to Chorazin, et. al. unless you are saying he was only addressing the “religious” in those towns.
I am very grateful that Jesus is a friend of sinners or none of us would be here. It is a wonderful thing. Further, as judgment begins in the House of God we should hold believers to a higher standard of love. And although I agree that Jesus did reserve the greater condemnation for religious hypocrites the concept that Jesus voiced condemnation ONLY for this one group does not pass muster in light of a full inspection of Scripture. “Repent, believe or burn” to put it crudely, was a universal proclamation of our Lord. He is never soft on sin, but full of grace and mercy as we should be as His children.
BBT I truly feel for you and can’t imagine the life journey you have had to experience to date and it seems very trite for me to tell you, as I have not walked in your shoes and experienced what you have experienced in life, that I sincerely believe you are wrong in your assessments regarding the homosexual issue. But the inherent bent to homosexuality you and others experience, though I agree may be biological, is not a result of how God made you and therefore a “good” thing, but is a result of the Fall and the cursed creation. It is cliché (and on a personal level undoubtedly somewhat crass and hurtful to say) that homosexuality is a defect, but that is what I believe it is – again, a product of the Fall just as any other birth “defect”. I sincerely apologize as I am sure you have heard this before and it is very hurtful. Again, I am truly sorry. But I also believe that like any other physical calamity in life God has a purpose and a redemptive plan and that you and others like you are made in His image and just like anyone else and deserving of unconditional love. You have your cross, I have mine. Yours appears heavier and I appreciate that, but I must remain true to what I see Scripture clearly teaches on the matter and if I really care I can’t afford to tell you “I’m OK / You’re OK when none of us are for various reasons.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“Universalism is a religion and theology that generally holds all persons and creatures are related to God or the divine and will be reconciled to God. A church that calls itself Universalist may emphasize the universal principles of most religions and accept other religions in an inclusive manner, believing in a universal reconciliation between humanity and the divine. Other religions may have Universalist theology as one of their tenets and principles, including Christianity, Hinduism, and some of the New Age religions. ”
Doug Pagitt says he is not a Universalist. Yet he says all people, whether they be buddhists muslims etc. will be reconciled and restored and welcomed into the kingdom of God.
Iggy,
“but I have heard him say that if he served Jesus, though not knowing the name specific “Jesus” then that person be them of another religion will be saved.
We are saved not by the surname Jesus, but by the Name that Jesus represented… The Name of God is bigger than “Joshua” or “Jesus” or “Yeshua”…”
and that isn’t heresy? That sounds like Oprah saying that if it brings them to the same point that it brings you it does not matter if they called it God along the way or not”
There is salvation in no other name, Iggy.
Tim,
Chris L is a big boy. He can defend himself. But to that I say that it still is not satire IMHO, it was a clear ad-hominem attack. But he is not the only one guilty, you do quite well in attacking me. I bet you wish you could cuss me out!
June 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“and that isn’t heresy?”
Yes, John, it is. Of course people can call Jesus by another name in their own tongue, but what Iggy seemed to be suggesting is that Allah can be another name for Jesus. That is not Christianity, and that is a form of universalism.
I still say it is more plausable, but not Biblical, to say Christ died for everyone and in the end everyone will be saved. Even though that doesn’t stand up to Scripture, I can see where they are going with it. But to say that some people in other religions can be so righteous in their lives as they serve another god that God honors that with salvation, well, that is just wrong on all levels.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
BTW - all the fringe statements like “I bet you wish you could cuss me out” just detract from what should be legitimate dialogue concerning truth.
Regardless of how deep the disagreements, Chris, Tim, and even Joe are brothers in Christ by grace alone. Our enemy is not each other, it is the devil who sometimes disguises himself as us. My problems with anyone here pale to the problems I have sometimes with myself!
June 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Well, that settles that. Bet you feel bad now, huh Tim?
June 9th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Ah yes, the cry of the watchdog - authorial intent makes no difference, whatsoever, even when affirmed - only the
agendainterpretation of the reader.At least the mode of slander is consistent, whether it’s against me or Rob Bell, etc.
And they accuse emerging/emergent folk of postmodernist ideology gone amok? How can we expect from them any reasonable exegesis of Scripture written thousands of years ago when they can’t even make a reasonable exegesis of the works of living authors, when assisted in interpreting them?
June 9th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
If I wished I could cuss you out, I would cuss you out.
Pastorboy, there is zero difference between you and the homosexuals that Rick Warren is meeting with. You are both unrepentantly engaging in lifestyles that are Biblically condemned.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
PB and Rick,
Both of you should be ashamed at how you are twisting what I am saying… and return to your bibles and study more…
Show me where Abraham knew Jesus’ Name and was saved.
Show me where we are just saved by Jesus and not also by the Father and the Spirit.
Allah is not a god, but a false god. I one serves him he is lost.
If a Muslim serves the One True God and Jesus but lives as a Muslim he will be saved by God through Jesus as you and I will be.
Both of you are leaving out that the Holy Spirit will lead the true believer to Jesus… yet seem fixated in that one surname…that is the error of the JW’s
Are JW’s saved becuase they have the most accurate “Name”? (Which they don’t but if they did?)
God is our salvation and salvation comes through Jesus, so in that there is no other Name to be saved. We are saved in the Name of God through Jesus who embodied the whole of God in Himself.
Again, both of you now are moving into TD Jakes territory and are denying the Trinity and how God all works toward our salvation.
So if there is heresy afoot it is in your denial and misunderstanding of the Triune God and and His Name.
He saves us for His Names sake. It seems you do not understand the idea what “Name” means in the bible.
Here is a great resource to start to begin to understand what I am stating.
Even Spurgeon understood this…
Again, it is not the “surname” that saves us but the Person. When Peter stated
Peter was not saying the name Jesus saves us, but that the Person named Jesus, the One from Nazareth is the only person that saves us. It is in Jesus the Person salvation comes to all men.
Yet, then if you get into the Greek if you take this as literal as you both are, you are not saved! You call him Jesus… his true surname is Yeshua… to state then it is Jesus and claim as you both are that this “surname” saves us… negates your own salvation because you do not use that name!
So, which is it… convert to Yeshua for that is the only Name by which we are saved? Or stay dead in your sins! LOL! Of course that is silly but that is what you are insisting.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You ADM’s bore me.
And at the same time, I am strangely addicted to your meanderings.
None the less, only God can judge your authorial intent. But remember the law of love, as you have caused me offense in the manner in which you have written about brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether you meant it as satire or not, I personally received it (as did they) as an ad-hominem attack.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I love this forum everyone post enough crap in their post,that we don’t have to confront their real point haha
June 9th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Iggy - I was not twisting your words, although I now admit I am having a difficult time understanding and piecing together all you have said.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Igs - I have to agree with Rick here - I’m a little baffled by your most recent comment - How can you be both Muslim and Christian - or are you considering Muslim to be a cultural moniker, not a religious one?
June 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
It seems to me that the law of love would require a charitable reading of a brother’s words, then - particularly when given a clarification as to the meaning and intent. So, while only God can truly judge the intent of an author, it behooves Christians to accept the word of brothers when intent is given and backed up.
Thus, my giving the clarification that I was not making a serious attack (which, like many of the articles on your site, CR?N, Slice, etc., would be ad homenim), but that I was not being serious, but rather satirical - thus making it clear that no such attack was intended. The reaction, though, demonstrated the hypocrisy present in the ODM’s across the board, far better than a modernist exposition of ODM methodology could have…
June 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Pastorboy,
99% of your writing fails to live up to this. Including the phrase you began with in your last comment:
Speck, plank etc.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
If a Muslim serves the One True God and Jesus but lives as a Muslim he will be saved by God through Jesus as you and I will be.
What does that mean Iggy,how you can you live as a Muslim while believing in Jesus thats impossible… A Muslim is not a cultural moniker,it as zero to do with where you live
Confused
June 9th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Chris L,
There are many “Christians” in Muslim nations where is is illegal to convert. So they are “Christian” as they believe in Jesus, yet are “Muslim” and attend mosque. Mostly this is out of survival. Yet, by stating that they cannot do so would mean instant death to them.
That is one example.
If you ever have time to listen to Samir Selmanovic’s testimony, his mother was Christian but practices Islam to stay alive. Which is how Samir became a Christian… he caught his mother praying to Jesus and had to decide to have her killed or look at what she believed in so much as to risk her own life in doing so.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Ok Iggy i see what your saying..
June 9th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Did Pastorboy just encourage others to love?
That’s kinda like David Duke reading the “I Have A Dream” speech while striking matches in the front yard…
June 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
You said a lot up there, and your heart seems to be in the right place, but your response does show that you don’t quite understand homosexuality, what it is, and more important, what it isn’t, and you must remember, saying that you think something is scripturally clear doesn’t necessarily mean you have the correct interpretation, nor does it mean you’ve really done the necessary research, which involves a lot more than translating a few Greek and Hebrew words and pointing “there.” Remember, gay Christians have spent countless hours (probably more than their accusers) delving into these passages, not out of an agenda, but out of a fear that says, “Are the things they say really true?” Luckily, it’s only six passages out of the entire Bible, and it’s six passages that have been used to summarily clobber a segment of the population, carelessly, I might add.
It’s curious to me that those with the “traditional” interpretation stand so firm on their theological understanding considering the fact that one of the words Paul uses in those passages isn’t really understood by anyone, since Paul was the first recorded to have used it, and the other word Paul used described lots of people…and much of the time it described a specifically heterosexual man! The first word being arsenokoitai and the second being malakoi.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
That said, and I’m just being honest here, but when people say things like this:
…you are right to assume that it is trivial and hurtful, but more importantly, it shows a lack of willingness to confront the reality of homosexuality, again, what it is, and what it isn’t. I must admit, though, that I’m suspect of a worldview that simply casts everything, even biology and natural phenomena, as a result of “the Fall,” since it has been proven over and over that, regardless of whether we’ve been here millions or thousands of years, there were people here LONG before the “fall” occurred in the Garden of Eden story. The Sumerians had an entire society 1,000 years before that, for goodness sake.
It’s not meant to be taken quite as literally as some do, since it hits many of the same notes as the multitudes of other creation myths, all of them reflective of a societies trying to explain where they came from, why they’re here, and what that means. It’s oral tradition, and all ancient faiths have it.
I know I’m crashing up against a worldview here, but it seems to make much more sense that “sin” is, in fact, just part of the imperfection of humanity, but it seems quite a stretch to attribute that and any other ill or perceived ill that might befall the world to a singular event that reads, again, like any other creation myth.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Iggy - your example clears it up because some converted Jews struggle with “coming out”. If a Muslim believes on Christ and yet has a real struggle with how to transition publicly, well, we can understand that.
Some of what you said seemed to imply that people could be serving Jesus without knowing it, because the name of god they were serving was really Jesus. I also said that Yeshua, YHWH, Jehovah, Jesus, and many other names in other languages refer to the same person.
But no one can believe in that person and his gospel and not know it.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Hey Tim,
Take that plank and shove it. No really, i mean it. No satire. Straight up. I am sick and tired of your false accusations. Be a man and quit attacking me over the computer with your ignorant side comments. You don’t know me! I pray that you get born-again and find out what real love is. “OH PB, you don’t know what real love is” Whatever. If I have a log, yours is a redwood.
Iggy,
I am sorry, but isn’t that a sort of compromise like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to make? How about Peter, Paul, and all the other great Christian Martyrs. They would NEVER be seen dead in a mosque worshipping just to save their lives. I pray I would not either. And anyone who would host a universalist love in between Muslims, Christians, and Jews as some sort of buffet line of religions is compromising radically. The muslims and Jews I am friends with are offended at such a thought. I would think that true Born-again Christians would be offended as well. But, since it is supported by EV, SS is some sort of hero of the universalist, all god accepting religions. No self respecting Muslim would come into a Christian church in a ‘christian’ nation (of course, unless its Catholic, and Fr. Junipero Serra, or the Jesuits,he wouldn’t have to convert or die)
Oh, and the Tim thing? All satire.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
BTT
The Sumarians were children of Adam and Eve, as we all are. Get the story straight. And we are all born with a tendency to sin, with a wretched, evil heart. Your ‘bent’ is just one of many sinful lifestyles of choice we all make as a result of the fall. Mine happens to be that, except for Grace, I would be a dog hunting any piece of tail I could find. Thats why we need the Savior. But, until you humble yourself, you cannot find Him. I pray that you do.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Rick,
Jesus seems to be saying that some who profess Him as Lord will not be saved in the end… (so much for Lordship Salvation!)
Yet, those that do the will of the Father will be saved… Abraham did not know the name “Jesus”… but he had faith in God to save him at the Resurrection. Salvation is of and from God. I see that the “atonement” works whether we know Jesus name or not. God alone has the power to save.
The Righteous will live by faith. Is that not truth? If so will God deny one who has never heard of the surname Jesus yet does the will of the Father?
I believe though one might not know the surname, they will know the Person of Jesus as God reveals Him to that person. When will that be? I do not know. I see that we die then we are judged… yet how are we judged? By what we do or not do with Jesus. If we may not know that “name” now, but God reveals Jesus at the Judgement and we respond then that is up to God… if it is already written too late, that is up to God.
I will not be presumptuous to state who will and will not be saved, that is up to God. I am called only to tell of the reconciliation that Jesus brought to us by the will of God.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
PB,
Spoken like an arrogant secure American… LOL! And just as consistent in compassion as usual.
I guess that you want all the converted Christians in Saudi Arabia and other countries beheaded? that is sure easy for you to decide while you are at home in you house in a nation that allows you the freedom to change religions.
I guess you don’t know the brutality that comes with believing in Jesus that happens in some nations. Women who convert are disowned and raped as they are no longer “humans” as they are no longer Muslim… Men are tortured, stoned, hacked slowly to pieces… yet you wish that on them I guess.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Iggy,
Get a commentary, get a dictionary, read the Greek, and a Translation other than the Message or the TNIV and read it in context.
Or is this satire?
You must be joking- you are way too smart! Who was Jesus speaking to? (self-righteous pharisees)What was the context of the conversation?
(wide vs. narrow road, good vs. bad fruit) It wasn’t even about Lordship salvation, it was about people who continued walking unrighteously despite their good works. Jesus was condemning those who practice lawlessness-
John, you’re twisting my words
No I am not. You must know Jesus in right relationship to place your faith in the sacrifice he made, because of the will of the Father who sent Him. Muslims must place their full trust in Christ, not in their works. Hindus must be saved by the same grace, or they will face judgment.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
PB: “How about Peter, Paul, and all the other great Christian Martyrs. They would NEVER be seen dead in a mosque worshipping just to save their lives. I pray I would not either. And anyone who would host a universalist love in between Muslims, Christians, and Jews as some sort of buffet line of religions is compromising radically. ”
Not really.
Now Peter and John went up together to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.
Acts 3:1
June 9th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I do not wish that on them, but it is wicked men who would do such things. If I must die for Christ, I will. I pray I will not be a coward when the time comes (and it is coming)
None of you emergents will notice, I guess. I mean, you won’t say anything that is the least bit truthful if it is perceived to hurt somebody, like a gay or adulterous person living in sin. I know of Christian brothers in Canada who are in prison for preaching Romans 1:18-32, and not just for the homosexuality portions, but for the other sins listed as well, because it offended someone.
I pray for the persecuted church overseas, I support VOM, I have dear friends who are missionaries in Muslim lands who are ready to die for the cause of Christ. Don’t insult their Holy Spirit Boldness by insinuating that they must go to mosque to fit in~ they won’t and they don’t.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Iggy-
Good posts.
I might even push a little further and suggest (contra Rick) that people in various parts of the world who are following the Way of Jesus yet do not know the name of Jesus are being led by the one true God who promises to draw all men unto himself.
When I hear scripture that talks about calling upon the name of Jesus and you will be saved I hear reassurance being given to the minority group of outcasts who are questioning whether they really are on the right path. Jesus assures them again and again - I am the way, the truth and the life. I hear this as inclusive, not exclusive.
peace,
Chad
June 9th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
PB,
I think you missed the point of that passage completely!
Yes it is to the religious leaders… who did such evil things like cast out demons in Jesus Name.
Yet you miss that these still used Jesus name as some sort of “magic” thing. These were believers in Jesus who still did it their own way. That is lawlessness as you stated, but this is deeper than you are going. It is like someone who claims to love Jesus but hates his brother and slanders them in the Name of Jesus… it is when someone attacks their sisters and brothers as if they are better than they are, then claims “Grace!” upon themselves.
It is about religious people who seem to think their works mean anything and that they can defend and do God’s will their own way…
You also miss that it is not OUR FRUIT but God’s Fruit… we bear it not produce it… Jim Bublitz teaches we produce it… and it seems you believe that lie of Satan also.
It sort of sounds like many ODM’s to me.
iggy
June 9th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Chad,
out of context, not really part of the discussion.
When Paul went to synagogue, He preached Christ.
When Peter and John went up to the temple, they healed someone, were jailed, beaten, and told not to preach Christ and Peter said we must obey God rather than men.
So is the Muslim woman that is hiding preaching Christ in the mosque?
No, says Iggy, she is doing so to save her own skin. And then Iggy accuses me of wanting her to die. Nope. I want her to follow Jesus whatever the cost. I pray I would have the grace to do the same.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
43″No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
PB,
Not so. Not only does the biblical evidence suggest it, but historical evidence as well, that the early Christians were often found worshipping in the Temple. Yes, they began having house churches as they grew, but there was no restriction to worshipping in the Temple. John and Peter didnt just go there to witness, they went to pray.
Until you have walked in the shoes of the woman Iggy describes, you have no right to cast judgment on her or her intentions.
There are many ways to proclaim Christ to the world and not all of them involve getting martyred or even using words.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Tim’s log is a tourist attraction in California?!?!?!
Tim, can I bring my dog and have pictures taken of us next to your log, like, pointing up at it with big “WOW” expressions on our faces?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
That reminds me of all the other children I know who were born at least a thousand years before their parents.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
lol BTT. Tim, I promise when I visit I won’t bring my golden retreiver. She’ll pee on your redwood. That stings worse than Visine. Not that I know…I’ve heard.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Haha, Iggy. *snaps* to you.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
That’s telling.
It’s the fringe fundamentalist meme that dupes Christians into believing that any day now they’re going to start rounding up the Christians, despite the fact that Christians have an inordinate amount of influence in this country.
Yep, they’re comin’ to get ya.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
WHO is in jail in Canada for preaching, PB, WHO?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I received an e-mail from a Joseph Campano who is the head of Grassroots Films in New York City inviting me to view the coming film “The Human Experience”. Somehow he had come across my blog and identified with my post “Insulated From Human Stories”.
Here is the trailer, it looks good.
http://grassrootsfilms.com/
June 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Pastorboy,
If you truly believed Tim was just another sinner in need of a Savior, I doubt you would have reacted as you did.
Instead, you reacted in anger and hatred. Whatever disagreement you may have with Tim, I would encourage you to forsake hatred. That path will only lead to ruin.
M.G.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
PB - perhaps you should identify the target of your satire (the object being satirized), as you really do seem to be demonstrating a unique ignorance of the term…
For example, I tried to be quite clear what it was I was satirizing in my post a few weeks back (the writing style and ad homenim tactics of Ingrid, specifically) and laid out how it mapped 1:1.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Correction. His name is Joseph Campo. I look forward to seeing this film.
http://grassrootsfilms.com/
June 9th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I let it slide before, but 1,652,394 replies ago in this same thread, this very exchange occurred:
True, he does not. The Onion is a satirical newspaper, yes, but my comment was NOT satire, but a direct dig.
*grin*
June 9th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
The thread that will not die.
Maybe we can martyr this thread and prove that it is really a follower of Christ.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
gotta love it. paranoia.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
the arrogance! also. I love that you think Tim should “find out what real love is,” if you have this “real love” - I want none of it.
Christian Brothers like these… who needs enemies? Come on, PB. Get ahold of yourself.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“I’m a Christian in America! I am a persecuted minority! They are coming to get me!!! This is why every presidential candidate has to have a pissing contest to prove how Christian they are to be taken seriously! This is why every Republican candidate has to pay penance to the so-called pro-family lobby! Because we are persecuted for our faith! They are coming to get us! I am a persecuted Christian in America! Just because mean judges sometimes remind me that the free exercise of my religion doesn’t include imposing it on others! Run away! They’re coming! To get us! Now! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!”
June 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Won’t someone take 2 minutes and view the trailer for this film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahLem-krZe4
June 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Temper, temper. You really look like Jesus in that comment John. Well Done.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Rick,
I’d be interested in seeing the film - or at least looking more into it, just based on the trailer.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
John,
In seriousness, I’m ashamed to think that people will think you and I serve the same God. Your vitriol is disgusting. Maybe you feel it’s OK to become angry and write stupid stuff like “shove it” because you just can’t get through to these “emergents” or whatever label you want to slap on us but that juvenile display is pathetic.
I’m curious, would you say that from your pulpit? What would your district supervisor say if he read what you wrote? Do you really think God is happy with what you wrote?
June 9th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I have done some preliminary research and the man is a Roman Catholic however his films are non-denominational. I was challenged by what seems to be the direction of the film and the emphasis on human misery.
I was moved…I’ll keep you posted.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Here is another trailer to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC06ryq7zpE&feature=related
June 9th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Tim quoting those scriptures must be satire! Coming from his lips. HA
Mandy, quit judging me. I feel persecuted.
I will just do what Chris L did, and point you to the bottom of my post which says “This is satire”
Joe, My district superintendent would ask me some questions, and I would show him the entirety of what you and other CRN authors have written, and then he might pat me on the back. BTW, what kind of supervision is your pastor under?
No, really. My purpose in that post was satire. I was just mimiking all the hate filled sarcastic vitriol that Tim has pointed towards me. I would rather if he would just do what he does on other boards and simply cuss me out and make sexual references about my mother. Thats why I said It wasn’t satire and then I said it was at the bottom. See how clever I am?
I love you all. Really.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Joe,
I would say the same, but that would not be speech seasoned with salt. But since you cannot obviously understand what was written at the bottom…”This is satire” allow me to give you the definition:
Satire is strictly a literary genre, but it is also found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.
Apparently, my satire came off as angry. I was just mimiking back to Tim (and others) what his posts about me felt like, in hopes of bringing about improvement.
I am sorry, genuinely, if this offended you, or if you didn’t get it. If my satire fell short of its intended mark, I willingly and humbly apologize.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
how. many. times. are you going to bring this up? honestly. you look foolish.
you are mean.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Mandy,
Quit judging me. Or is this Tim using Mandy’s SN?
Satire:Satire is strictly a literary genre, but it is also found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I was shown greater grace and mercy by the non-Christians who I actually sinned against who forgave me when I apologized and never brought it up again. Its a shame that those who don’t follow Christ look a whole lot more like Christ than someone who goes by the name “pastorboy”.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Also thank you for demonstrating, yet again, why the presence or absence of words that the world has deemed naughty has absolutely nothing in common with the commands of scripture to avoid unwholesome talk.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I am very sad that you have to go to non-Christians to get your love, Tim. Could it be that you look a lot like them? Show a little of that grace this way, Timmy. You are downright mean. I don;t really need it though…I get plenty in the fellowship of the church and from those real, flesh and bone people who I am in relationship with.
BTW, love isn’t acceptance of bad behavior. Love also corrects and warns, sometimes using satire.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
re: 355
Yep. Thats it. Justify cussing. That helps. Not all unwholesome talk is cussing, yes. But all cussing is unwholesome talk.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
PB - you bring utter cluelessness to unimagined heights… Perhaps you should stick to straight-on exposition, rather than attempting literary forms you have no clue of, apart from parroting simple definitions that you apparently don’t comprehend - including the wordS “Christian Love”, apparently…
June 10th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Which is exactly why this site exists.*
*-and why we try to understand the literary forms we use, so that they are used correctly, rather than just tossing them about and looking like an ass in the process…
June 10th, 2008 at 1:07 am
PB,
She is… but then youyou would just ignore that part of the bible also so I will not cast pearls before swine…
iggy
June 10th, 2008 at 1:11 am
PB,
Hey Tim,
You accuse others of “cussing” and justifying it… then you do this? This is just as bad as cussing in my house if not worse.
You are very sad John.
I have decided to have nothing to do with you from now on. You are a divisive and mean spirited person who hates their brother and sister in the Name of Jesus. That is sick and blasphemous. I really do not like to hang with people who knowing sin and justify it.
My prayers are with you.
iggy
June 10th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I do believe thread deterioration has entered into an official art form. At some point James says the atmosphere becomes filled with the stench of smoke. As adolescent as the back and forth got, the referencing again of some past sin heralded a cameo by the Accuser himself.
Satan deals in sin while Christ deals in redemption.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Is this something we can find at the Guggenheim?
June 10th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Yes, the wing that the George Costanza designed!
June 10th, 2008 at 3:02 am
I think the missing key is that Tim is mature enough that he understands, from experience, that the religious label next to one’s name doesn’t necessarily correlate with their expression of grace or love. One has to be a grown-up to get these things, granted…
“My satire”…Who’s using loose language now?
“Do you want to ride on my yellow school bus?”
“Your ‘yellow school bus’ is an ice cream van with blacked out windows.”
“OH, so we’re judging now.”
What if somebody is from New Jersey?
June 10th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Iggy:
I will have nothing to do with you
My prayers will be with you
Is that satire?
LOL!
I am glad, because I was looking for a way to go 1 Corinthians 5 with you and with Tim. I shouldn’t be dining with you, must less blogging with you.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:58 am
You are an embarrassment to the cross you claim you proclaim on the streets. Shame on you. Your actions on this thread are not Christ like. They are not seasoned with salt. They are childish, and immature. To bring this up after it has been rehashed numerous times and forgiveness has been secured is despicable. Your actions on this thread are not those of a Christ follower or Christian or what ever label you want. How can you claim to follow the way of Jesus and act this way? Perhaps you should find some alone time today where you can compare your actions to Scripture.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:00 am
BTT
That is very insensitive. Are you saying people from New Jersey cuss?
=) LOL!
June 10th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Okay Joe,
I will do that this morning in my Bible time.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:08 am
I do not believe God would direct someone to participate in Christian dialogue solely to be thorn and without sincere viewpoints, and mean satire is much different than good natured satire.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:42 am
PB,
You just slandered me… prove I am sleeping with my mother… sicko…
You just laid some heavy accusations against me… without any reason.
repent you evil doer. Slanderers will not enter the Kingdom of God.
You fruit shows who you serve and you lie against me… so you serve the father of lies.
Repent John Chisham… repent.
I earnestly seek you to return to Jesus and make Him your first love.
iggy
June 10th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I for one think it is time to heavily moderate John Chisham if he is going to cast such evil accusations at people for no reason. I see this man as a man of sin without remorse or conscience. His hatred toward other brothers and sisters in Christ is repugnant.
iggy
June 10th, 2008 at 6:50 am
John Chisham,
Give your proof that I am guilty of any of these things… and if you have none apologize and repent…
I refused to sit and meet with you as you are a slanderer… I and others have shown you your wrong and you continue in your sin with zeal. Now you continue to accuse me and others of even more things without any proof or care to the truth. I see that in that the truth is not in you and you may not even know Jesus as your Savior. For that is what the Scripture teaches of people who act as you have in the threads here on this site.
iggy
June 10th, 2008 at 7:06 am
*play by play guy from the booth*
THERES A FLAG ON THE PLAY!
June 10th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Funny Chris.
This thread has now been officially identified as a Rembrandt!
June 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am
John,
The Jesus that you proclaim is not the Jesus of the Bible.
I also forgive you, just as Christ has forgiven me.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Hey,
I know this is unsolicited advice, but I’d shut the thread down, let everyone think, pray, and breathe for a bit, and then let final responses from interested parties be posted.
As of right now, there are a lot of “spiritual” words flying around, and very little love. Somehow things got pretty personal.
And I say that about everyone involved.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Yep.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I agree with MG
Especially after Iggy started twisting my words.
I’ll see yall laterz.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I was there late last night, but decided to at least sleep on it.
Shut-down of thread commencing in 3…2…1…
June 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
[...] Recently I went to that apostate site CRN.info as I heard Ken Silva was teaching mightilythere. I also heard that Pastor John Chishamalso known as Pastorboy was there beating the holy tarout of those emerging Warrenites! I was gleeful at first until I came across an accusations by Tim Reed who stated that Pastorboy had told someone to “Take their plank and shove it.” [...]