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.