Banging your head against a wall: being intolerant of the intolerant…
28 Sep 2007
Last week, my sister told me a story about what had been taught at the on-campus ministry she is a part of. The head-honcho of the group had spoken on the first night of the group and talked about truth. Well, it turned out that the “sermon” was about warning them about the emergent movement (and this is to be considered “truth,” apparently)! I couldn’t believe it when she told me—warning about the emergent movement! She went on to explain what he warned about—ironically, it was about being inclusive and loving towards *gasp* everyone (including gays and divorcees)!
After the initial shock of the topic, the discussion turned to what she should do about it. She is part of the leadership team and understood that by her being a part of the leadership and not saying anything to the higher-ups, she was supporting and representing what the leader spoke about. And the thought struck me: how tolerant should we be when it comes to others’ intolerant views? And more importantly, when those views are taught as truth? I understand that people have different views and beliefs about different aspects of the Bible and what it teaches, but what is disheartening is when the leader of a self-proclaimed non-denominational group openly bashed a whole church movement (which my sister has a sister (me!) and parents who are a part of it… if not her as well). And how many people in that audience have divorced parents? The percentage of church-going people who get divorced is just about the same as the non-church-going population.
But how does someone confront intolerance? The leader doesn’t have to agree with divorce or homosexuality, but is it right for him to preach about it when he has no idea of how is really sitting in his audience? If people attend a church where it is told and understood that those beliefs are taught and believed, that is one thing. But when college students are finding refuge in the group and all that is taught is intolerance, is that right? This is how the brainwashing begins! A man is standing up in front of his audience, most still searching and discovering what they really believe, telling them (or should I say shoving down their throats?) what they should believe.
I fully believe that my sister should confront the pastor, but is it possible to make any sort of impact? I know that he will feel bad (at least, I’d hope so) for offending her (and others) but in the long-run, will it change anything? Or is it just enough to stand up and confront intolerance that will eventually cause the change? I really like the description of change the reverend of the church my church meets in—his change is like hitting his head against the wall, knowing that with each hit, slight change is made and eventually, with the help of others and constant, deliberate action, anything be accomplished.
So is confronting intolerance one person at a time hitting the wall with your head? Or is it just slamming your head into a wall and only getting a big headache as a result? I would hope it is part of the small “dents” of change. It takes more and more people standing up for what they believe and confronting those who are not following the only real commandment that Jesus told us to follow—love others as you love yourself. LOVE! It doesn’t get simpler than that. You don’t have to agree with the person or their choices, but you should love them just the same. And not “loving the sinner, not the sin,” because everyone can sense when there’s still judgment in the relationship. Jesus didn’t agree with Mary Magdalene’s lifestyle choices (can’t get much “worse” than a prostitute…) but he loved her.
Stand up to intolerance. You don’t have to argue and fight about the difference in views or beliefs, but confront the offence that you or others might have gotten by the intolerance of whomever you are around. Bang your head against the wall and encourage others to join you—you never know what wall it is that you may cause to…
47 comments
Trackback
Comment by Geno Ford
4.50 pm on 28 Sep 2007
I loved this post. It’s really a relevant word for me right now. Even my small stands can make a change. If not now, eventually.
I just had one concern. Was Mary Magdalene really a prostitute or was that a profession later attributed to her by church tradition?
Comment by Paul
11.21 pm on 28 Sep 2007
i’m not sure it’s in the bible that Mary was a prostitute, i think it’s an inferance from church tradition… wiki covers it well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
Comment by Katie
6.53 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Thank you, Paul, for the link and the info! I had no idea that was even a disputed topic!
Comment by Paul
7.19 am on 4 Oct 2007
you’re welcome katie, i had no idea either until the divinci code came out – Dan Brown uses it as a more sinister cover up but maybe he hasn’t been around to hear sermons where the preacher gets carried a way just a tad :)
Comment by Katie
6.52 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Thank you, Geno Ford! It’s great to hear you’re taking small stands for the things you believe in! And I have no idea about Mary… that’s something I’d love to research.
Comment by dan brown
5.48 pm on 28 Sep 2007
Dear Katie, I hope that God continues to put conflict on your heart and you have to deal with others in ways that cause mutual growth. Thank you for speaking from your heart and bringing up such a timely subject. Jesus constantly had to deal with conflict and the resolution of conflict. Just think of the Pharisees, Saducees, Harodians and others. He had to think about being authoritative vs. being authoritarian. And that has to do with speaking that is controling vs. being supportive. It also has to do with how we stay related to the author of language. If Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life then his interaction with others form the model for effective conflict resolution and better communications with others. The way we express these two postures determines the way others perceive us as being aloof, caring, interested in others, arrogant or even speakers of the truth as well as a myiard of attributes which either add to our growth in the image and mission of God or act as a detriment to the image. With all our technology today we are not learning communication skills well enough and especially about resolving conflict in language and action. The image of TV, e-mail and others media has increased our habit of viewing our relationships with others to a I-it level, we need to grow in the area of developing relationship to the I-Thou level. The I-Thou relationship is best developed in face to face communication. Keeping in mind that the presense of God should always precede proclamation. The church needs to become expert on achieving intimacy with others, building better partnerships and how to form healthy alliances. I hope your conversation with your sister and her conversation with the leader bear much fruit for the kingdom…Peace.
Comment by Katie
6.59 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Dan- Thank you so much for your comment. Jesus should be our model for everything, including conflict resolution. And great insight about modern relationships– we do need to be focusing more on others, not ourselves. Thank you for all of your insight!
Comment by David
6.30 pm on 28 Sep 2007
People sometimes amaze me.
And I know personally the feeling of frustration in situations similiar to this. My experience so far tells me that not much will change by confronting, but I agree Jason, that we should do it (as lovingly as possible) anyway.
Jesus confronted when necissary and I don’t think he based that decision on whether something would change or not. He did it because He saw a wrong and wanted to make it right.
I pray that there is change, and I believe that on a grand scale, change can happen in culture and in individuals. And it probably will take time. But revolutions were never sudden…especially peaceful ones.
Comment by Katie
7.02 pm on 2 Oct 2007
David- Thanks for your comment! And thanks for your insight about how Jesus changed things– he didn’t expect instant change, but confronted “wrong” whenever he saw it. Thanks for the inspiration to just confront things when we see wrong, not thinking about any sort of change that may come from it. Thanks!
Comment by Jonathan Brink
11.05 pm on 28 Sep 2007
Katie. Possibly invite her to turn the problem back to the leader. I would have her ask the leader how they are supposed to love, which is what Jesus asked us to do, while being intolerant. Allow the leader to answer the conundrum he’s created. It’s a way of being subversive in a respectful manner.
Comment by Katie
7.05 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Jonathan– Thanks for the advice! I will definitely tell her that! The hardest part for her is how to confront it without being disrespectful or rude. Which is also a problem with any sort of confront. The last thing you want to have happen is that you attack someone about their wrong-doing, and they just get defensive and mad. Thanks!
Comment by Paul
11.17 pm on 28 Sep 2007
Thanks Katie, i’m not sure i should ask how someone who is a gay divorcee would get treated? I think you ask a great Q about the audience – how do we challenge people but not condem them – it is a lot easier one on one rather than speaking to a crowd and making the mistake that you’re on safe turf.
And of course sharing our own stories of pain around commitment and sexuality might help make it less of a condeming of the few and pats on the back for the rest but a reflect about God’s desire to experience that which is better than good…
Comment by Katie
7.12 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Paul– Thanks for your comment! I think sharing your own struggles and short-comings is incredibly important. If a pastor can show his struggles, then those sitting and listening to him/her can relate so much more to the topic being presented. Unfortunately, my sister’s leader is one of the last people to admit he has any struggles or shortcomings. My sister made a good point when she was telling me the story the first time about when you speak, you should consider your audience first and foremost. If the leader did, he must believe that no Christian family has ever been divorced and no one in the audience is searching/struggling with homosexuality.
Comment by kv
11.19 pm on 28 Sep 2007
i think a lot of the so-called intolerance people have towards the emerging church stems from misunderstandings that may come from miscommunication. Honestly, i don’t think the emerging church has done a good job in articulating their stand on certain moral subjects. leaders like Mclaren have dodged direct questions about homosexuality rather than honestly engaging them. it is sad when people are intolerant towards others; yet could we do a better job in clearly articulating what we hold to be true?
Comment by Katie
7.18 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Kv– Very good point. Misunderstanding is a big part of the “warning” against the emergent church. One question, though– it is my understanding that the emergent church is open and does not claim certain beliefs, instead, lets people make up their own minds about whatever they believe. If that is true, can anyone make a stand for what the emergent church believes? Or could the answer be as simple as, “we believe and act in love because that’s what Jesus told us to do.” If there are core beliefs, my question then is, why NOT articulate what we believe?
Anyone got any answers for this?
Comment by dorsey
7.04 am on 29 Sep 2007
Gays and divorcees?!?!?!
Oh, dear Lord, what next, DEMOCRATS??????????
Comment by Katie
7.20 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Dorsey- My thoughts exactly! Heaven forbid anyone in the church is a democrat! :-) I can’t imagine what kind of teachings would come out of that!
Comment by joe
11.35 pm on 30 Sep 2007
i wonder if sometimes people mistake the love for tolerance. maybe there is a skewed view of what love is.
Comment by Katie
7.25 pm on 2 Oct 2007
I think people believe God doesn’t love those people (esp. homosexuals) so they don’t have to love them either. Why else would they teach that certain groups of people are automatically going to hell with no grace? I think people forget that grace comes with love. You can’t have one without the other. But I think some people get away with teaching one or the other on thier own so they can be prejudiced and intolerant towards certain groups of people. Even if you believe something is a sin, aren’t we ALL sinners, so one sin is not greater than another. And everyone’s sin would send them to hell if it weren’t for the LOVE and GRACE that Jesus gave us on the cross!
Comment by linky
9.09 am on 1 Oct 2007
Thanks for this Katie, I’m a bit new to the emerging movement – could you tell me what its position is on homosexuality?
Comment by Katie
7.33 pm on 2 Oct 2007
Linky– After much research, talking, reading, praying, and debating I have come to my conclusion. I would encourage everyone to take the time to come to their own conclusions because that’s the beauty of the emergent church– believe what you want, no one’s going to condemn you. And you’re bound to find those who agree and disagree with. If you happen to disagree with someone, awesome discussions/debates will arise and you’ll learn even more about what you believe and what others believe. (And yes, I do know that I didn’t really answer the question…) But I will say, I don’t think the topic of homosexuality should be such a focus of people’s beliefs and debates. Why isn’t anyone arguing about people’s pride? or lustfulness? Because they don’t matter to everyone! Someone else’s life/salvation does not have any bearing on yours!
Comment by linky
4.38 pm on 3 Oct 2007
Thanks for this comment Katie. My question would be where does the bible’s teaching come into “believe what you want”? I completely agree that we are all sinners and are all in need of love and grace, however, once receiving that grace does not Paul say “and that is what you were…” (1 Cor 6.11) when he refers to the past behaviour of the Corinthian church – the point is that many of them lived in ways contary to God’s laws in the past but their lives had now changed through the power of God’s transforming Spirit. I agree that we should love everyone, but that is not the same as condoning everyone’s behaviour, the bible does not leave that option for us. I also agree that pride, adultery, lying, gossiping are also dreadful sins, but the reason people are not arguing about them is because everyone accepts them as being inherantly wrong – even those who do not source their moral teaching from the bible.
From the above passage in Corinthians you should also understand that the bible doesn’t automatically condemn anybody for their lifestyle. Paul makes it clear that some who used to practise a homosexual lifestyle were among God’s elect – because he refers to them being justified, washed and sanctified in the next verse. But that is dependent upon them repenting and asking for fogiveness from their old way of life – like we all have to. There is no difference for any of us, if we truely want to continue in our obediance to Jesus and his teachings we must all renounce our previous lifestyles and our particular brand of sin. I also recognise that none of us are perfect and we need daily cleansing and forgiveness.
I’m disappointed to see you don’t answer the question, homosexuality is an important discussion point because what we say about it goes to the heart of what we believe about the bible – the question is: is it our only source for living and teaching, or do we soften what it says to be more acceptable to our 21st century Western audience, thus denying its true authority?
I should say that I have known a couple of people who practised this lifestyle over the years. I tried to love them and treat them as I treat all my friends and seek to show them the love of Christ in my actions and attitudes.
Comment by Katie
6.26 pm on 4 Oct 2007
I don’t think it is an issue that needs to be debated. But if I must say something, I will say this: it all comes down to interpretation and the fact that I do not believe it is a sin, there is nothing for God to take away. If we use our lives and positions in life to glorify God, that’s what He’s called us to. I think that because of the differences in how the Bible can be interpreted (since english is not the language the Bible was written in, the words that are used aren’t always 100% accurate in their portrayal of the ideas/concepts they’re portraying), it can be interpreted differently for different people. People can throw verses back and forth and history and “truth” back and forth, but there is still going to be differences in how people interpret the Bible and what message it is giving. (That’s where the differences in church denominations came from.) But one thing that is consistent, but not always taught or carried out the same way, is that Jesus’ message is about love. There is enough evidence for both sides of the issue and it doesnt seem that anyone will ever come to an agreed position. The emergent is much more inclusive and open in their ideas, so whatever you think or believe is okay in the emergent church. I hope you discover what you believe and continue talking to people and researching on your own. The great thing is, once you’ve made up your mind, no one will condemn you for your position, no matter what it is. Good luck with your search! And welcome to the emergent church!
Comment by Dan Stone
6.23 am on 4 Oct 2007
There is a fundamental problem in asking what does the “emergent church” believe about the issue of “homosexuality,” and this is the same reason that people like Brian McLaren have decided not to take a strong stand on the issue.
The problem is that this is such a loaded question. there is such a broad view within Christendom about the “issue” of “homosexuality.”
Many people would like a quick responce that it is a sin and those that feel some sort of homosexual impulse are fallen and don’t know Jesus.
But as recent incidents of prominant evangelical christian falling for homosexual impusles, we are confronted that this may be more than a mere choice.
However, to characterize an entire movement that has less to do with homosexuality, and more to do with understanding how Christians will respond to the world around them, is to do a dis-service.
Just like the evangelical movement and the question of free-will, the question of sexual orrientation and how it is determined is a distant secondary issue.
The emregent church is more concerned about people haveing a saving experience with the true Christ, and not having to accept the secondary theological, or political line before recognizing that God imparts grace through Jesus Christ.
Katie is right that we have a tolerance to others who believe different than us (and Us i mean me), because I understnad that I will not be fully sanctified till the here after.
Thus, why try to determine who is in and out in regards to homosexuality, abortion, calvinism, praise music, the enjoyment of the music of nine inch nails, but rather try to be the encompassing grace that Christ gave us on the cross.
Comment by linky
9.59 am on 4 Oct 2007
Thanks for replying Dan. I can understand your point and agree that this is a secondary issue. The only reason I asked is that it is mentioned in the initial article and I’m trying to learn more about the emerging church and how it differs from the mainstream church. I’m starting to appreciate that it seems to be more about promoting inclusion and empathy than a certain theological position. Would this be fair?
Comment by Katie
6.27 pm on 4 Oct 2007
I would definitely say that that is a good description of the emergent church– no real answers, but a heck of a lot of questions and differing views on every subject!
Comment by Katie
6.14 pm on 4 Oct 2007
Thanks, Dan for your comment! Very good information. I totally agree about your comment about it not being people’s job to decide who is “in” or “out.” Homosexuality definitely is a secondary issue, like you said. Thanks for all of your insight!
Comment by James Prescott
8.54 am on 3 Oct 2007
I guess we should be amazed at reactions of people to emerging theology or the lengths people will go to to advocate their point of view, being Christians, but of course in reality we’re never suprised. I’ve lost count of the number of people who have called the emerging church a heresy and emerging church leaders people who speak the devil’s words and such like.
It can be easy for us to be intolerant of groups in the church that we disagree with so we need to be careful. None of us are called to judge, only to love, give and serve – be like Jesus.
Personally I think I can get a bit intolerant of the tradtional church denominations and how they behave, or of the religous right or extremeists. Or of people who put tradition and legalism above the basic truths of living like Jesus. But again, its not my place to judge which makes it hard. We all need more grace.
Comment by Katie
6.30 pm on 4 Oct 2007
Well said! We ALL need to have and give more grace! That’s the true way to live like Jesus. But talking with grace and love about differing views is what is important. And like a comment before, to help others understand the emergent church more and have better communication would definitely help in the misunderstandings that people believe about the emergent church. Thanks for your fabulous insight!
Comment by James Prescott
11.40 am on 5 Oct 2007
Critics of the emerging church and emerging church leaders don’t seem realise that following Jesus isn’t about religion, docterine or tradtion – its about truth, love, mercy, community, serving, blessing and sacrifice. The church is a living body with different parts. Its important to question and probe the scriptures in their original context to find out how that translates today. Getting legalistic and caught up in tradition and doctrinal stuff starts to make us more like the Phraisees – and we know what Jesus thought of them.
The Bible never says that church is to be an institution associated with the establishment, but a body, living and active in the world – and it has to be relevant. The way to tell people about Jesus is not telling them how evil they are and how if they don’t get fogiveness they are doomed to hell, but to live out through our example, as churches and individuals, the life that Jesus modelled for us – not saying that we’re perfect, but we just have different values which govern our lives. Show them Jesus, and then they see Him for who He is.
We can’t be judging anyone, yet alone fellow beleivers. If all people see is Chrisitans divided, exactly how is that going to make people think Jesus is the right model of how to live. People do read and see what is said by Christians of non-Christians (often in a patronising way) and each other, judging each other’s theology.
We have to move past that. We have to model Jesus. Get to the heart of the gospel. Loving each other no matter what theological differences we have, and not attacking or insulting each other. Respecting alternative views and having the humility to learn and sometimes admit we’re wrong. Willingness to grow. Understanding.
That’s what Jesus wants from us. Not division, not legalism, not tradition. He wants us to model Him to others and to each other. How else is the image of the church going to improve?
Comment by Katie
5.12 pm on 5 Oct 2007
Well said! I agree with everything you said! If we are divided, we cannot show the world who Jesus is. If all people see is judgement, they will only see judgement, not love or grace. I really liked your insight! Thanks!
Comment by Glenn
6.58 am on 7 Oct 2007
Hmmm. We are not supposed to judge someones actions, yet in Pauls letter to the believers in Corinth (1 Cor 5:9-13) he tells us NOT to keep company with those in the church who persist in certain types of behavior. We have to judge behavior even though we cannot judge the heart.Paul also states that those OUTSIDE the church (unbelievers) are not to be expected to adhere to biblical morality. I must admit that the emergent church is exempt from taking a stand on ANYTHING since there is no defined belief except seemingly love, love, love. But love is not letting someone make his own mind up about what is right and wrong but asking God to reveal to them the sin that keeps them (and of course me) from fellowship with Him. Otherwise how can there be repentance? If someone is told that their particular sin is not sin since they don’t think it is then we allow them to continue on until death believing that they have no reason to see themselves as sinners. I have read soooo many comments that the emergent church is not about doctrine but truth and love…that the original languages are too archaic to interpret properly so then we must all make up our own minds to know what truth is. Too bad we have a God who can’t seem to be able to clearly speak to us across the centuries and leaves it to us to figure out just what is truth.
Comment by Jonathan Brink
7.46 am on 7 Oct 2007
Glenn,
You have the emerging church mixed up with a postmodern interpretation of the church. Don’t misinterpret the questions that ensue amongst emc voices to mean they don’t accept truth. That’s just missing the boat.
Comment by linky
9.05 am on 8 Oct 2007
Now I am confused…please explain how Katie’s answer to my question above fits into your comment?
Comment by Jonathan Brink
4.56 pm on 8 Oct 2007
You said, “I must admit that the emergent church is exempt from taking a stand on ANYTHING since there is no defined belief except seemingly love, love, love.” This is just not true.
Love goes a long way towards defining action but sees it less about a moral code (law) and more about restoration and freedom (grace). The reason the emerging church preaches love is because this was the central message of Jesus. Love was the fullest expression of our make-up. It was the fullest measure of our freedom.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Katie
7.21 pm on 9 Oct 2007
I would agree, Jonathan. Love determines the rest of our actions and thoughts. If we were to love like Jesus did, we would be perfect, just like He was. If we take every thought and action and filter it through love, we will be one step closer to following Jesus’ command: “love others as you love yourself.” Love encompasses everything.
Reply here
Comment by James Prescott
10.04 am on 8 Oct 2007
I don’t necessarily affiliate or label myself as anything, but a lot of what the emerging church is saying reflects what I think. This idea that there is no truth whatsover and its all what we make it doesn’t sit right with me. There are fundamental truths, but the way we interpret them needs to be in a way which reflects the context in which they were taught, applied today in a modern context.
We are called to live like Jesus lived – do what He did, think how He did and submit and be obedient like He did. To love and serve as He did. Jesus spoke against tradition and legalism – He constantly attacks Pharisees. The the thing I like about the Emerging church is that it seems a way of saying that Christianity and church isn’t about a set of rules, but an attempt to get to the heart of Jesus message in its proper context and live like Him – and not to be afraid to engage with and try to gain a better understanding of what it really means and how we can live it out.
That’s anything but vague and wishy washy.
I’ve heard there is a least a minority of the emerging church who deny Jesus is the only way to God. If that is the case, that’s certainly nothing like what I beleive – the Bible makes that pretty clear.
There are fundamental truths, its how we live them out that has changed, and as we learn more about what these truths really mean and what they looked like then and then re-apply it today, we grow as Christians.
Comment by Katie
6.49 pm on 9 Oct 2007
I believe there are fundamental truths, but they have nothing to do with legalism, the old law, or hatred. Homosexuality, amount of time to pray a day, etc are not fundamental truths, and so are open to interpretation about how one goes about doing/believing those things. Jesus taught love– love your neighbors as yourself– that’s a fundamental truth. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus was raised from the dead after dying on the cross for EVERYONE’s sin. God is the creator of heaven and earth. No one is going to debate that with you (well, at least not in the Christian church). All the other ideas, even including all of Jesus’ parables, are open to your own interpretation which is also based on your own experiences. I would also include the fact that some people do not believe Jesus is not the only way to God. That’s a matter of interpretation as well. There are verses that support that Jesus is the only way to God, but there are also verses that support that there are other ways– like seeing God through nature and the world. The differences are in the little things and the importance people place on different ideas or principles. Church is all about open interpretation. We wouldn’t have different denominations, philosophies, theological ideas, and debates if it weren’t for people reading the Bible and interpreting it differently. The emergent church is not about forcing a doctrine on you, but allowing you to explore God and Jesus and the Bible and make it your own. Being spoon-fed a religion is not as deep as an individual faith that you have explored, questioned, and researched to know exactly what it is you believe. That’s what the emergent church wants– to have a group of people that share a basis of beliefs but happen to all have a faith that is their own.
Comment by James Prescott
8.03 pm on 9 Oct 2007
I agree with a lot of what you say. It is important to have your own faith lived out in your own way according to your interpretation of scripture, most definitely. The more you explore and ask questions of God and of scripture the more you discover, and that’s a lot better than being spoon-fed for certain.
I agree that fundamental truths are not about hatred, about legalism and tradition or the old law. But they are about us getting God’s best for us. God wants what is best for us. There are things that are true about Jesus/God, and things which are written in scripture which don’t change – only the practical interpretation changes.
I agree you can see glimpses of God in things like creation – I certainly do – you can see it when people live out their faith.
But what I am saying is that the only route to have a full relationship with God is through Jesus. Its not that you can’t see God through other things, but Jesus is the only route to having direct relationship with Him – you see the glory of God through creation, but you can’t engage in the same way or appreciate God through creation in the same way without knowing the creator.
I agree that stuff about quiet times or number of times you pray, none of that is set out. There’s a lot open to interpretation.
Homosexuality is not one of these things though. God loves all people and wants all people in relationship with Him, but homosexual sex – as opposed to having a homosexual tendency – is against how we were orginially created to be and is condemned in the Old Testament. Now I know it says there is no codemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but that’s not the point. The point is its against what God has said is His best for us and His orginial plan for us.
Jesus makes it clear to that sexual relationships are to be a man and a woman in a lifetime committment. Nothing else is even hinted at. Its not the attraction to the opposite sex God is necessarily against – as he’s not against hetrosexual attraction – but the act of homosexual sex, homosexual lust and homosexual marriage.
The only time sex is talked about in the Bible in a positive way is between one man and one woman within marriage.
I’m definitely not one of these people who thinks homosexuals are evil and will burn in hell. God loves everyone no matter what they do, there is nothing that can seperate us from His love, and there is mercy and forgiveness for everyone. We certainly have no right to judge and condemn. Its no different to any other sin.
But the Bible to me (and we’re talking about interpretation again) is pretty clear on God’s values and ideal in sexual relationships.
I’m not denying that the love expressed between two people of the same sex isn’t love and doesn’t add something good to the world, or that it can’t be a blessing to people. But homosexual sex isn’t how God made us to be. That’s all.
Comment by Katie
8.26 pm on 9 Oct 2007
I would have to agree that homosexual tendencies are not how we were originally created, but that all changed the instant Adam and Eve took a bite of that apple. Men in the old testament had multiples wives– not how we were intended to live, but they did it none the less. I think it is important to look at the cultural references that are talked about in the new testament about homosexuality (I’m not as familiar with all of that so I’m not going to try). In the old testament, all of those laws are OLD! They no longer apply. Take a look at your clothing tags– if the material is mixed, you are also against the old law. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s the old law. We are not going against God by wearing a cotton/polyester mixed shirt. So when Jesus came, he took away the old law and brought new life and taught that people no longer needed to live their lives under the old laws.
I do not think it is clear about homosexuality at all. That is where research and study comes in– to find the cultural meanings behind what the Bible says about homosexuality. If you study and find it is still against it, then that is a fair stance. But there’s a reason it’s debated, as I said before– there are good arguments on both sides and people are interpreting and finding different things. So I do agree homosexual sex is not what God created, but he didn’t initially create/intend to have divorce or even clothing for that matter (it was only after “the fall” that Adam and Eve clothed themselves). Some things were not the original plan, but we can do the best we can with the state we are in now. And the argument must be made, if people are born homosexual, what are they supposed to do when they are taught it is “evil” and cannot marry and if sex is supposed to stay within marriage, how are they supposed to keep it sacred when they are not allowed to marry? I would have to make the statement that although God did not originally intend for people of the same sex to marry, He can still bless a union between them now. If they are truly in love and respect and honor each other, why would God be against it? Especially, in the very rare case, that the couple is a Christian gay/lesbian couple (there’s an oxymoron for you!), would God still work through their lives just because it’s not what he originally intended when he made creation? I think He would. Imagine the outreach opportunity they would have to their fellow GLBT friends and community to spread the love of God to them, something the church has withheld for centuries.
Comment by James Prescott
8.52 pm on 9 Oct 2007
Understand your point totally, and I understand your point about how some of the old law has been abolished. But you also can’t ignore the Old Testament. Its a matter of interpretation and context. Jesus talks about sex within the context of one man and woman in a lifetime committment. Even if you ignore the old law, Jesus there sets the standard. He permits divorce in certain circumatances, but I never hear him say that marriage and sex includes people of the same sex.
I know that sounds legalistic, and I’m the last person who likes that. But our calling as Christians is to as much as possible live according to God’s standards – to live like Jesus lived.
I agree there are a lot of positives that can come from homosexual Christians in a loving relationship. Its not necessarily that I disagree with. Its the physical part of it and the marriage part – which Jesus does define quite clearly – which I don’t agree with. Jesus does talk about a man and a woman in one relationship for life as the ideal. This is not a perfect world, its not ideal. But Jesus shows us what we should be aiming for.
Some people are born with homosexual tendencies, that’s true. That’s down to the fallen nature our world. But does that mean that they have to have homosexual sex or marriage, which Jesus doesn’t mention or agree with once?
I beleive God loves all people and there is grace and mercy for all people, and wherever love is present we see a glimpse of God. I believe homosexuals have a place in the church, a very real role to play. They should be welocomed – Jesus died for them after all and loves everyone. So should we.
Does God bless gay/lesbian marriages? I don’t know. If I say no I sound legalistic and religous, which I’m not. If I say yes I feel like I’ve done something wrong and contradicted one of Jesus’ teachings.
God doesn’t want to limit us or be cruel to us, God wants His best for us. He wants us to be free.
Jesus makes out clearly what that is. Anything else may not be evil and might even be used by God, but its not what His best for us is. Physically it’s not how we were made and still isn’t.
Can someone see the love of God through a homosexual relationship? Yes, if its genuine love and committment. But is it part of what God really wants for us? I don’t know. Homosexual non-physical relationships? Maybe. But homosexual intercourse and marriage? I find that hard to accept.
I’m open to learn and understand more though, I wish I knew my Bible better and had a better grasp of what the scriptures really say about this, what the heart of this message is. And you can’t just write off the Old Testament.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by linky
9.48 am on 10 Oct 2007
thanks for this James – a really well-thought out explanation
Comment by Katie
7.55 pm on 10 Oct 2007
I don’t write off the Old Testament completely, but I do not believe that we can use the laws as the basis of our beliefs and new laws for today. We can use them as guidelines– the 10 Commandments for example– but we will not be punished (meaning sent to hell) for going against the laws of the Old Testament. Jesus used it in his teachings, and I understand that. But he never beat people down with the laws. That there are ideals, yes, but I’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who is living completely within God’s ideals… that would mean perfection. The discussion of homosexuality and other topics like it are interesting and worth talking about and researching. Through discussion and research we might be able to at least come to some sort of understanding of each other, even if we don’t always agree with one another. The Bible is still alive and well, as well as very dynamic and full of different messages and interperations. It has been and will continue to be discussed and debated for years to come!
Reply here
Comment by linky
7.52 pm on 9 Oct 2007
Hi Katie,
I’m interested to know what you would say to someone who said the resurrection never happened?
Comment by Katie
8.31 pm on 9 Oct 2007
I would have to ask the person why the believe it. If they have scripture/other credible resource to prove their stance, then I would have to tell them that I appreciate their view, but I don’t necessarily believe it. If that is what they believe and are secure in the fact that it did not happen, how am I going to convince them otherwise. It would give me something to think about, but I don’t necessarily have to agree with that person. If they are just spouting off an argument they heard “somewhere from some guy,” I might have a harder time believing them or at least taking them seriously. But I have all the respect in the world for people who may have differing views (even as monumentally different like saying the resurrection never happened) and have done the research and study of it to come to that view.
Let me ask you, what would you say? Anyone else?
Comment by linky
9.45 am on 10 Oct 2007
The reason I ask is that I’m interested in your thoughts on how we come to formulate belief in the really core truths, we’ve chatted a lot about homosexuality but this is really a red herring. Its an important but secondary issue. The interesting thing is how we come to know what the bible says and believe it as truth. Some people talk about a “leap of faith” that you just have to take and its not important to back up or explain your beliefs – that our beliefs don’t have to be rational or logical; other people try and reason their way to belief, as if reason alone could convince people of the truths of Christianity.
From your answer to the issue of homosexuality above it sounded like you were saying we couldn’t be sure of anything as the bible was written in another language in another culture a long time ago and there are different interpretations. That might satisfy you for these peripheral issues but if that is the case how can we rely on anything the bible says, including Jesus being the Son of God and his resurrection?
Assuming it was a genuine question from someone wanting to know more I would think about mentioning some of the following: 1) how reliable the NT documents are (thousands of copies, written within a short time frame), 2) the reliability of the eye witness testimonies, 3) the evidence for Jesus being a real historical person (from external historians) 4) evidence for Jesus being really dead and not just fainting 5) evidence for and against the disciples stealing the body 6) personal testimony to the truth in my own experience of becoming a Christian and that of millions of other Christians throughout the centuries, 7) a challenge to them to ask God to show you if the resurrection really happened and Jesus is alive.
My point in all of the above is that we can know an awful lot about what the bible teaches and the evidence will take us so far, but at the end of the day people must take that final step of faith that is required for a personal belief and trust in Christ.
Comment by Katie
7.48 pm on 10 Oct 2007
I would have to agree with you. Faith does have take its place in our lives if we want to follow God, or any other religion for that matter. I would say to study and research as much as you can about different issues. What if the disciples stole the body? Is there enough evidence to support it? It reminds me of the entire debate that surrounded “The Divinci Code.” It shook people’s beliefs and made them really look into what they believe and why they believe it. If you look into it and it requires faith or you feel confident enough to say “the Bible says it, so I believe it” then that’s fine too. Taking “a leap of faith” is the only real way to have faith. There are spiritual and unknown aspects to every religion that cannot be definitively answered, so people must trust in the higher power/being that what they believe is true. I believe it is wise and beneficial to research and really study what one believes, but that isn’t for all people. Trust and faith is what makes religion and following God that mind-blowing and adventurous!
Comments are now closed.