Sunflowers at Jeff St
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Goofy Baptists in the news, again.
The Southern Baptists have once again spent time getting right down to the heart of Christianity (he said, snarkily). This time, in North Carolina:
GREENSBORO, N.C. (BP)--The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina strengthened its membership criteria Nov. 14 to specify churches that do not support homosexuality and do not allow homosexuals to be members until they repent.
=====
They are free, of course, to make whatever rules their little hearts desire. My question is, are they taking this approach to every sin? Will all churches who allow the greedy to be members be ex-communicated as well? How about all churches who allow those who drink alcohol? Who watch R-rated movies? Look at the bra ads in JC Penney magazines? Who are bad tippers?
As those who regularly stop by here know, I disagree with the notion that homosexuality is a sin, biblically speaking. But even assuming that they were right on this point, what is it about that particular “sin” that causes such consternation amongst some? Why single out this ONE supposed sin as a litmus test as to whether or not you can be a Southern Baptist in good standing in North Carolina?
Is it because of all the time Jesus spent rebuking gays? Oh, wait. Jesus never talked about homosexuality.
Is it because of the way that homosexuality is condemned dozens of times throughout the Bible? Oh, wait. The idea of homosexuality as a sin only appears about five times in all the Bible.
Does anyone know why some folk spend so much time, money and energy focusing on this marginally biblical offense (according to them) to the exclusion of most others?
35 comments:
Knowing little of Southern Baptists or homosexuality, I can only observe that the latter predates the former by a few millenia. It's been said that the bible can be quoted for practically any point of view..the reptile handlers, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's witnessess
come to mind. Perhaps the answer to why some groups accentuate some evils lies in the range of Christian groups and their perceptions concerning what they
choose to believe? One wonders, but each is convinced they own the sole truth.
leviticus says that it's an abomination and they should be killed (or something like that) so of course it's of highest importance--even if we don't stone adulterers (sorry about my spelling), which is an option. and its ok for us to dismiss all those other rules found in leviticus but not this one because it's an abomination dan! an abomination!
that's the story i hear anyway.
i don't know dan. it's terribly distressing though. the anti-glbt rhetoric is stomache churning for sure.
next semester i'm taking a class on the bible and homosexuality--perhaps i'll get all your answers in there--ha!
>The idea of homosexuality as a sin only appears about five times in all the Bible.
How many times does it have to appear before it's a 'real' sin in your eyes?
I believe this is a serious issue because those churches that preach that it is not sin are denying the working of God (and working against Him as they preach this false doctrine - that's serious stuff) as He delivers people from this lifestyle which is evidenced in the reality of their transformation.
Do these churches believe Jesus is powerful enough to deliver someone from the homosexual lifestyle? Apparently not.
Do these churches believe the atonement of the Cross can cover homosexuality? Apparently not.
Therefore this issue is about who Jesus is: what He's capable of and what the Cross means. How much more weighty can the issue be?
"Therefore I testify and protest to you on this [our parting] day that I am clean and innocent and not responsible for the blood of any of you.
"For I never shrank or kept back or fell short from declaring to you the whole purpose and plan and counsel of God." Acts 20: 26-27
(AMP Version)
Paul did not have the Ryrie Study Bible (like I have) or any copy of the NT when he wrote this. He had the OT and his revelation of Christ. And I guarantee that he did not hesitate to mention that homosexuality was a sin.
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.
We all have struggles with sin, but none of us get a get-out-of jail pass for our sins. That's why we need Jesus.
Thanks for the comments, bb, hipchick.
Larry, Roger, I noticed that you had some thoughts, but no response to my questions. Are you encouraging kicking out churches that don't agree with you on other sins?
As to questions like these:
"Do these churches believe Jesus is powerful enough to deliver someone from the homosexual lifestyle?"
It's not that we think Jesus lacks any power at all, it's that we disagree that there's anything to be delivered from.
Dan,
I think you already know the answers to those questions.
you said:
>It's not that we think Jesus lacks any power at all, it's that we disagree that there's anything to be delivered from.
That's the point. You don't believe there is anything to be delivered from yet God apparently does and He is delivering them! You have set yourself against God! What a fearful thought. That's nothing to boast about but rather something to repent of and fast!
from my point of view, jesus is very much able to account for ALL of our sins--none are excluded.
it always kills me that the anti-glbt people bring up leviticus (which is where all but 1 of the references to homosexuality are--i could be wrong). whereas we have essentially thrown out the rest of the book except those and somehow they have become prooftext.
in leviticus it never cites that a father should not have sexual relations with his daughter. it does prohibit a son from having sex with his father's wife though. does that mean it's just fine for fathers to molest their daughters? is that not a sin? why isn't it there? if that is the case then it would certainly explain the high numbers of father-daughter sexual abuse.
can you put homosexuality in context just as we do with the part of leviticus where it offers instructions about getting mold out of your house, and being sure to get it blessed afterwards? we certainly do not do that! in fact we sanction divorce when jesus clearly states that it is wrong! and yet jesus never says a word about homosexuality!
while, i do not believe that homosexual sex in a loving committed relationship (just as with straight couples) is a sin, i'll entertain the idea for now.
do you have the power of God to pick and choose who may come to worship and honor God? doesn't paul also tell us that NOTHING--no powers nor principalities, etc--can seperate us from the love of God? doesn't that include those of us in the church? doesn't that include the church? where do people or churches get off telling anyone for any reason that they are beyond redemption and hence not allowed to step foot through our church doors?
that's certainly not the way of the Christ i've read about in the Bible and dedicated my life to.
(sorry for the long rant dan...i imagine you understand)
Rant on, Sister.
Roger, I disagree with you. Okay.
Now, the question I'm asking is not so much about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, but rather what biblical basis is there for singling out one particular sin that is rarely apparently discussed in the Bible (assuming it's discussed at all) and making that one a litmus test for Christianity?
[Oh, by the way, Hipchick, there are
1. two Leviticus passages - 18 and 20 - that talk about "men laying with men,"
2. the Romans 1 passage that talks about not abandoning natural relationships, and
3. a few other NT passages (I Corinthians, I Timothy, maybe one or two others, depending upon translations) where there's a list of sins given that keep people out of the kingdom of God ("cheaters, the greedy, homosexual offenders...")
In all two or three of these occurences, the greek word being translated, Malakoi, literally means "soft" and translators are unsure of its meaning in context - that's why sometimes it's translated "homosexual offender," "effeminate," and "perverse."
That's it. The entire biblical argument in two OT passages and 4-ish NT passages, all of one of which they aren't sure of the meaning of the word.]
[A further, By the way:
To be sure, many will also point to any mention of Sodom as proof against homosexuality, but homosexuality is never tied to Sodom. All the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors there, and sexual perversity is often associated with Sodom, but then no one is disagreeing that sexual perversity and rape are wrong. We're disagreeing that committed, loving gay relationships are wrong.
Also, there are some mentions of "catamites," scattered here and there throughout the Bible, but that is a word for a boy pressed into prostitution. We'll agree, too, that prostitution is not part of the beauty of sexual relationships, but that's whether or not it's male or female - and certainly not boys!]
"Larry, Roger, I noticed that you had some thoughts, but no response to my questions. Are you encouraging kicking out churches that don't agree with you on other sins?"
To be honest, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina is only reitterating what the Bible says to do. Why they seem to think they need a new tenet to do this, I have no idea.
As for me, I would follow the mandates of Christ. First, I would get the sin out of my own eye as in Matthew 7: 1-5. Then,I would proceed according to Matthew 18:15-17.
The traditional church system doesn't handle sin very well. Nor will it ever.
If a person doesn't like a church and doesn't agree with its beliefs, he is able to walk down the street and find one more to his liking. Sin never has to be dealt with. Repentance never has to be made. And why is that?
Because the kingdom of God has not come into our churches as yet.
But when the kingdom of God comes, then we will have to change. Won't we?
Roger, that's too long. Please don't write such lengthy responses. Email me if you wish, but no one wants to read hundreds of words in a comments section of a blog (1600+ in that last comment).
Especially if you can't say anymore than you just did.
I think, like you think about me, that you are preaching a sin and calling it a good. You are driving people from the church and disagree with you for doing so.
We disagree, as I've pointed out so many times and as is obvious.
So, if you'd like to comment further here, keep it on topic. The standing question to you is: Where do churches get off treating homosexuality as some kind of special sin?
Dan, Where do you get off preaching that homosexuality is not a sin. A better source than you says it is and although it is just one in amongst a lot of sins, your problem is in justifying it. No Christian harbors hate in their hearts toward a homosexual, but neither do we want them to perish because of it. Your reasoning to condone it would require turning off common sense. Wake up, before you have an awakening.
Dan,
The apostle Paul pointed out that we are not to keep company with sexually immoral believers and with a few others also. We are not even to eat with them. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
So, I would have to say that Paul thought homosexuality was a special type of sin. Wouldn't you?
"Where do you get off preaching that homosexuality is not a sin."
Mom2, we disagree. Understand?
You think one thing and I think another. I don't think that those handful of passages indicate anything about a loving gay relationship. You do.
It's a disagreement.
You want to answer the question or just repeat the obvious, that we disagree? The question is: Why would you isolate that one particular sin as a litmus test?
And here's a related question: Suppose you're correct and I'm wrong, do you think that it absolutely vital that we not be wrong about any sins? How many sins are there in your universe? 1000? Is it absolutely required in your religion that every person agree on every one of those sins in order to be saved?
"So, I would have to say that Paul thought homosexuality was a special type of sin. Wouldn't you?"
Larry, how many times do I have to say it: I DON'T agree with you that Paul, or Jesus or anyone in the Bible or the God of the Bible thinks homosexuality is a sin.
Y'all all keep talking like, "But the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, so why do you keep condoning it?" when I don't agree with your premise, and so it's more like you're talking to yourselves than to me. It's a bit strange...
Roger....Dan disagrees with you. He must be right since he disagrees with you.
"...biblically speaking."
Yeah...right, Dan..."biblically speaking...hmph...har-har-har!
Deceptive...deluded...in the name of Jesus.
Dead church...absolutely refusing to acknowledge the REAL commission of the church (hey...the REAL commission was delivered to us IN RED LETTERS!
I wonder how such a "biblical adherent" could just dismiss the Red Letters of Christ.
I wonder...until I realize that a pattern of biblical obstructionism as at the heart of the Jeff-Street cult.
Evidenced by the writings of Jeff-Street's most passionate promoter, that is.
These yahoos don't bow to Christ...they bow to the leftist political agenda.
BTW, Dan...for someone who has told his readers that he ignores my comments, you sure spend a lot of time and energy commenting on my posts.
Of course...the fact that you ignore my points has long been apparent to anyone who reads our exchanges.
You guys are so interesting. Sock puppets left and right, it's a regualr Punch and Judy show.
I'm afraid Roger's exegesis is all to correct, the word arsen means 'male' in a sexual and biological sense. No escaping what it and its derivatives mean.
If you've read Dan for a while, you know that he does not claim to take every passage in the Bible as ... well ...er... Gospel. I'm still on standby on this, trying to figure out the criteria for deciding which parts are essential and from the heart of God and which are to be dismissed lightly. Maybe I need an upgraded sock puppet, but I am so fond of the one I have.
How-some-ever, Dan has brought up a point that hasn't yet been answered by the homophobes: If the few scant passages in the Bible about homosexuality (and that IS what they are about) would exclude someone from church or even your associating with them, what about the other sins.
Say ... I dunno .... gluttony. If a homosexual can't be a member of the church until he repents, then logically wouldn't we say that an obese person can't join the church until they lose weight?
While we are at it, addressing homosexuality that is, let's get those marriage definitions put in our state constitutions ... only let's make them actually biblical. Marriage is defined as the relationship between one man and one woman ....... FOR LIFE.
Yes ineeed, let's see how fast the pews clear out with that one.
Dan said: >Roger, that's too long. Please don't write such lengthy responses. Email me if you wish, but no one wants to read hundreds of words in a comments section of a blog (1600+ in that last comment).
Dan, we're all adults here. If we're approaching this seriously (and we are, correct?), then reading a few words is nothing too laborious - especially for a topic as serious as this one. Rather than dismiss what I said, you have to deal with the reality of the truth. Jesus said it would be better for you to have a millstone around your neck than to mislead believers. Was He joking? No! That's serious stuff. He also said if you denied the tranforming power of God in people's lives that you were not working for Him but against Him. Again, He is serious. You are currently denying His working in the life of Dennis Jernigan. That's evidence that I don't even need to point to scripture for. Your own actions right here and now have proved the point. I know those words of Jesus make you uncomfortable and it's a tough truth to swallow - but it's easier now when you can change your attitude and actions than after you die when it's too late.
Eleutheros said:>How-some-ever, Dan has brought up a point that hasn't yet been answered by the homophobes: If the few scant passages in the Bible about homosexuality (and that IS what they are about) would exclude someone from church or even your associating with them, what about the other sins.
>Say ... I dunno .... gluttony. If a homosexual can't be a member of the church until he repents, then logically wouldn't we say that an obese person can't join the church until they lose weight?
This is not about excluding people. It's about a false doctrine of preaching that some sins are not indeed sins.
I'm not aware of churches preaching gluttony as a virtue.
Dan said: >Where do churches get off treating homosexuality as some kind of special sin?
I'm not sure if gluttony leads to a denying of God's power in people's lives. I'm not sure if gluttony leads to a willful ignorance of God's word. I'm not sure if gluttony leads to a distorted view of God's nature and His will for our lives. Yes, sin is sin, but not all sins have the same consequences.
Eleutheros said: >You guys are so interesting. Sock puppets left and right, it's a regualr Punch and Judy show.
You know, it would be a lot better if this was a puppet show. We could go to sleep at night knowing that 'all is well' and that there are no 'real' consequences to what we're doing here. Instead, the reality is human souls are at stake. Eternity is at stake. What if after we die we realize we made the wrong choice and that everything in us wants to go back and make it right? Sadly, it'll be too late. The decisions we make in this life determine our eternal destination. How long is eternity? FOREVER. I've never laid down my life for anyone. But God in the flesh did that so we may know the truth and that we may be saved from the error of our ways. That must mean that He cares a great deal about us and that there is a lot at stake in life.
Eleutheros said, in his ever-so-charming manner:
"If you've read Dan for a while, you know that he does not claim to take every passage in the Bible as ... well ...er... Gospel. I'm still on standby on this, trying to figure out the criteria for deciding which parts are essential and from the heart of God and which are to be dismissed lightly."
And I'd just have to point out that none of us - no one - takes the Bible literally literally. No one is saying that we must lop off our hands, gouge out our eyes or kill disrespectful children, even though those are all direct statements from the Bible.
We ALL interpret it based upon some criteria. It's just that some of us willingly admit that this is the case and others will say that, "I take the Bible literally!" and when asked about hand-lopping, they'll answer, "That part isn't MEANT to be taken literally!"
"Which means then that you don't take the Bible literally?" one might then ask them. To which they'll respond, "Of course, I do. I never said anything differently!" And on it goes.
So, if we don't take it literally and yet many of us DO take it seriously, how do we sift out the wheat from the chaff? Very carefully, using the whole of the Bible along with a heaping helping of God-given reason.
But isn't that sort of loose and subjective? You bet. And yet, that's what we all do.
Roger:"Eternity is at stake."
Indeed? Then I see your eternity and raise you two infinities.
As to eternity being forever, the NT never says so, there's no promise that you live forever. The NT in every instance (but one, if memory recalls) the phrase is eis ton aiona (or minor variation of it) which means 'into the age' ... not forever.
Roger:"What if after we die we realize we made the wrong choice and that everything in us wants to go back and make it right?"
'Where do you go when you die?' sort of thing, is it?
Alas GAT and NAFTA are really erroding our American values becaue when I reached for my Jehovah sock puppet to find out what I think, er, what God says about this, I accidently got one of those cheap import boot socks instead, one labeled 'Made in India'. Before I could get the silly thing off my hand, it reminded me that the notion of 'forever' is a western concept, not old enough yet to have even made it into the Bible (except in translation).
The sock said that we are under three grand illusions:
Time
Space
Self
None of which exists. They are only false illusions of the true reality.
If that happens to be so, and the sock was quite insistant that it was, then let's look at the quintessential Christian question:
Where do we go when we die?
If there is no space, there is no 'where'.
If there is no time, there is no 'when'.
And if there is no self, there is no 'you'.
It becomes a silly question.
Well, it seems that Blogger is being more cooperative this morning.
This might be a little off-topic, but it's interesting to me that the same "reasoning" is used to defend the inerrancy of the scripture as is used to defend the infallibility of the pope.
Argument: It was men who wrote the scriptures, not the finger of a god, so it's safe to assume that there are screw-ups.
Defense: God wrote the scriptures directly through men, the men were possessed by God at the time, so the original writings are therefore inerrant.
Argument: The pope is a man, therefore he's subject to being wrong, just like the rest of humankind.
Defense: When the pope speaks ex cathedra, it's God speaking directly through him, so he can't possibly be wrong under those circumstances. He can be an a**hole all the rest of the time, but as soon as he plonks his butt in The Chair to speak ex cathedra, you can be sure you're listening to the very voice of God.
The funny thing is that the conservative protestant types who use that argument for scripture reject it out of hand when catholics apply it to the old man in the chair. Then it's laughable.
Just odd.
Madcap, one thing worth noting is that Jesus seemed to affirm the inerrancy of scripture, clearly in my opinion, when He said that not one iota would pass away until all was fulfilled.
The only place that claim appears is in the very text that is under dispute, the Bible. You have to believe the text in order to believe the claim. I've read it through many a time, but I don't think the text is God-breathed or inerrant. Useful, sometimes, fascinating, often, but not something I choose to honour above my conscience or common sense.
By the way, Dan, I thought I'd give you an update. We've had same-sex marriage in Canada for a while now, and the whole difference it's made in our society is ....
0.
I was assured that the very foundations of my marriage would be shaken, but so far no measurable impact.
Course, the talking heads assured us that the family would be torn asunder when gays were allowed to adopt, too, but it's been what? 25 years? And the worst that happened was that a few more kids were raised by families rather than youth workers and group homes.
It almost makes me doubt these sages and their sources.
I'd almost have to agree with you...
As I said, Madcap, if Jesus was who He claimed to be, that changes the equation of inerrancy. Do I presume too much in concluding that you deny the Incarnation and Resurrection?
The trustworthiness of the central claim of Christianity is a subject far outside the scope of this one, but it suffices to say this: if one believes that Jesus is the Christ, God Incarnate who was crucified and rose from the dead, it's extremely difficult to reason away the doctrine of scriptural infallibility. If one questions Matthew's gospel, it's hard to know how one can know anything about what Jesus taught and did; besides, the claim of the Messiah is one of fulfilling Jewish prophecy, which presumes that Jewish scripture is a divine revelation.
But: 25 years? I believe the social against redefining marriage is stronger than proponents admit, but a quarter century?
"Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999."
It appears the earliest you could argue is that it goes as far back as 1999, which is hardly the early Eighties.
Mea culpa: I confused redefining marriage with gay adoption.
...if Jesus was who He claimed to be...
I say we have no idea what Jesus claimed, because the texts are unreliable as historical record and are certainly not divinely written historical record. Even the person "Jesus" doesn't have a lot of references outside Christian scripture, to set him into history.
I "doubt" the text being divinely inspired, all of it. I think it's a compilation of human wisdom and writings, some of them centering on a figure they call Jesus, rather like the compilation of legends about Beowulf. Do I "doubt" that Beowulf literally tore the arm off Grendl? I suppose if someone asked me to believe that God wrote it and it literally happened, I would "doubt" it. Otherwise I think it's a legend that speaks to the inmost parts. As such it's a very good thing. As a literal handbook for life it leads down some very strange and sometimes destructive paths.
Then, madcap, my point about the inerrancy of Scripture is one that applies to Dan and other Christians, for those who already grant certain things about who Jesus is (including, it goes without saying, His existence in history): it's hard for us to deny inerrancy without unraveling the whole ball of string.
Briefly, it is not that the gospels are "divinely written historical record(s)", it is that they are divinely inspired historical records written by humans. I believe that the record for the existence of the man named Jesus is quite good when compared to other historical claims, and that record includes non-Christian writers like Josephus and Tacitus.
(Granted, not as many as, say, Caesar, but Jesus commanded no earthly army or government.)
And I believe that there is a conundrum in the near-instantaneous arrival of Christianity, of a new religion established by Jews who changed the very fundamentals of their faith, including introducing new rites and changing the weekly worship schedule. These earliest Christians did all this in the absence of a historical Jesus? That's hardly likely: more likely is that a man named Jesus existed and that Jesus' followers believed him to be the Messiah promised in Jewish Scripture.
And it appears that the earliest Christian leaders -- the Apostles, those who knew Jesus personally -- were willing to give up everything for no readily apparent earthly gain to preach without apology the resurrection of Jesus.
Is it likely that they would knowingly die for a lie? Again, I don't believe so. If one does not bring into the analysis the biased presumption against the miraculous, one might believe the best explanation we have for the behavior of the very earliest Christian church is the historicity of the Resurrection.
If the Resurrection is historical, and I believe it is, it changes everything.
...the biased presumption against the miraculous..
Do you mean me? That would be a presumption.
I reiterate:
"If one does not bring into the analysis the biased presumption against the miraculous, one might believe the best explanation we have for the behavior of the very earliest Christian church is the historicity of the Resurrection."
If I meant you specifically, I would have referred to you specifically. I believe that many who deny the historicity of the Resurrection presume that miracles are impossible (a form of circular reasoning or question begging) but I did not and do not know whether the same can be said for you, so I deliberately avoided making such an insinuation.
On that note, have a good Thanksgiving.
One might, if one was an American. But one is a Canadian, and one has one's Thanksgiving at the right time, in October, when one isn't already busy with one's Christmas preparations.
I'm not sure. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe that divorce for reasons beyond infidelity, premarital sex, pornography, etc... are sins as well. Why they choose to focus on a man sleeping with a man and not a man sleeping with anyone who is not his wife, I'm not so sure.
There are certain ministries online that deal with sexual sin. And it's not from a point that they say, "this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong,". They state scripture, but their focus is on helping people deal with their sins, not simply talking about how wrong it is.
On the literal interpretation of scripture: the only places that aren't literal are where poetic forms are used, and in prophecy where symbolism is used to hide actual events. Of course Christians believe that stoning children for being ill-behaved or chopping off the hands if necessary are literal requirements. Those of us who have read enough of the Bible know, however, that those are from a part of the book that has been "set aside", as the scriptures tell us. Those requirements have been invalidated by a later covenant, brought in by Jesus. Bible students know this. Unless it's in a poem (like David's being surrounded by the "bulls of Bashan") or in prophecy (like the "sun moon and stars" being turned to "blood"), it's literal. Therefore, when one tries to make homosexuality "ok" by claiming the scriptures lack literalism, such is simply an unwillingness to submit to what God tells us to do.
On the requirement to cease being a homosexual in order to receive church membership: Homosexuality is defined by what one does, not what one is. I am not an adulterer if I think my neighbor's wife is a hottie (assuming I'm not lusting), but only if I go do something about it. Churches that refuse to accept members who are actively, publicly, and unashamedly acting on their sinful desires are simply looking out for the spiritual well-being of their memberships. Homosexuality isn't being singled out, just that homosexuals are the only ones who expect to be able to publicly profess ongoing sin and be accepted in spite of it.
Thanks for the thoughts, Jeff. A question. You said:
"On the literal interpretation of scripture: the only places that aren't literal are where poetic forms are used, and in prophecy where symbolism is used to hide actual events."
Says who? Where in the Bible does it say, "Only take the poems and prophecies herein as symbolic but everything else, take literally?" Or at what point and in what manner did God communicate that message to us?
Post a Comment