Let me first do some background. What is a homosexual? Can we use this definition as a starting point: Homosexuality refers to sexual interaction and/or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex?
I want to beg some leeway on this -- I am going to approach this from the more conservative side of the issue. I am going to begin this from the position that homosexual behavior is not approved of in the bible. I am going to cite these verses:
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
So, let us assume that the interpretation of the conservative church is not in grave error and homosexuality is a sin.
By correspondence, this would make the sentence read: Can a sinner become a Christian? If we also go by the conservative most popularly held beliefs, we would say that all are sinners and except for the Grace of God could not become Christians (let us define Christians as those who would confess an experience of salvation and would acknowledge the work of grace in their lives).
I think the answer to the primary question is "Yes". A homosexual can become a Christian. Now, we have made the assumption based on some biblical passages that homosexuality is a sin -- that is the practice of sexual relations with a member of the same sex is a sin. So, it would seem the next logical extension of the question would be could a practicing homosexual be Christian? If we refer back, we are acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin, yet all have sinned, some through homosexuality, some through other sins. In 1 Corinthians 6, we find that those who commit other sins will not inherit the kingdom of God -- namely drunkards, nor idolaters.
So, based on 1 Corinthians 6, the question posed could also be modified "Can a drunk become a Christian?" Correct? Both are called out, both are scripturally exempted from the inheritance. My point is, both are sins. We say that God does not tolerate sin, but, we then begin to classify sins into convenient little piles. I think in Roman Catholic doctrine there is even convenient little titles given such as venial sin, which is lesser sin. But, we say that God hates all sin. And don't even bring up the "hate the sin, love the sinner" -- that makes absolutely no sense outside of the church. You use that with an unbeliever; you might as well be saying "Hate purple, love purple unicorns."
So, can a drunkard become a Christian? I think most would say, “Surely!” God would welcome a drunkard into the kingdom and Grace is available freely to him. So, can a homosexual become a Christian? I think God would extend grace freely to him, but, would we recognize it? Or, have we defined some sins as worse than others. Are we hypocrites to decide that the sin in our life is forgivable, but, not in another’s? How about a child abuser? How about a thief? Who do we recognize as receiving grace and who do we want to exclude from our little social clubs? Sorry, we do not have that right. As grace has been extended to us, we must accept that all sin is forgivable (only blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is called out as unforgivable).
Now, for the heart of the matter – what if a homosexual becomes a Christian, but remains a homosexual? What if the drunkard or thief after professing the salvation experience does not change? Now, we get into the issue of repentant or non-repentant. Let’s look at it from another side. What if the sin was living in a lifestyle of wicked fornication? Our scriptures say fornicators are not going to inherit the kingdom. So, while a heterosexual lifestyle may not in itself be bad, improperly practiced, it is no different than homosexuality to God. So, what if a person who identifies themselves as homosexual, refrains from sexual intimacy with the same sex?
What bothers me most – maybe my way of avoiding the questions – is that we want to characterize sins. We all come to Christ as sinners. Only He was without sin. Why don’t we expend our energies in focusing on the example, instead of deciding who can or should be Christians. Ultimately, I think there are going to be some people in heaven that will surprise me, and who may be surprised by me.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Literalism and the Bible
Previously, I was a very strict literalist when it came to the bible. I used the slippery slope argument that if one part was not real and factual, we would end up having a pick and choose theology. However, my study of history and how people/events are passed down has shown me that in fact, while a particular may not be in itself truth, the whole can be. This fits very nicely with the "full inspiration" of the scripture -- and is why proof-texting is so weak.
In the matter of creation, we have stories that were orally passed from one generation to the next. It is a very convenient method to break creation into periods of "days" for the "rising" and the "setting" of the sun have always marked a period that could be recognized as a day. (For those true science-minded, I realize the sun neither rises nor sets, and that some portions of the earth might have the equivalent of six-month days...but, I hope you get my drift). Picking apart the language of the choice of the word day makes no sense. I will use another story as a backdrop for this:
Is the person in the Da Vinci's Last Supper painting a man or a woman? Is it John or Mary as some hypothesize. We could study the facial features, we could study the pose -- the result? Who cares. Da Vinci was not there! He is not an eye witness painting an artists sketch as in some courtroom. He frankly could have painted any features/details in that he wanted. What we see is how the artist pictured it in his mind.
So, back to creation. The story of creation was passed down orally for many generations before it was written. So, to make the account more easily committed to memory and able to be retold, a certain poetic license had to be exercised. Which came first light or darkness? I contend light -- look at the sun, darkness occurs when the sun is obscured. Without something to obscure the sun from view, we would naturally have light... But, I digress. Man was created on the first day? Ummm, no. The second? Again no, so frankly how do we know if God created the heavens or the earth first? Well, only because as the story was passed down, it was determined that it was significant to place them in that order... Let's assume it was how God related it to Adam, and how he related it to his descendants -- it is important not how it was done, but, how it was recorded -- that is the truth we are to take away.
Did it really take God six days? Why not six seconds? Well, there was no truly accurate measurement for a second (maybe they used 1-Mississippi or something). So, it became a definable period of time for the story -- 1 day (later determined to be one revolution of the earth -- funny, when it was discovered that the earth rotated around its own axis as well as the sun, math did not change, but was confirmed! -- this contradicts those who say that science would fall if the earth was discovered to not be old).
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that we must recognize the bible as a record. It is accurate in that it was meant to record the relationship between God and man. The interesting thing is that many have through the years doubted the bible. Some would hold up certain passages and say, "See not true." It might be verses about a place or an event. Yet, discoveries are made that consistently show the bible to be an accurate record of a people.
Do I have a point? Not sure. I have journeyed from literalism to a deeper view of the bible. Is it simply a photograph that catches the sun and the figures represented? Or, is it a beautiful poem that captures the heart of God and his yearning to be closer to us -- his creation? James Thomas Flexner wrote in "Washington: The Indispensable Man" that once the myth of Washington was removed, we would more fully appreciate the man that Washington was and his true greatness. How much more so this is true of God!
When we see how God has so jealously sought to have a relationship with us -- with me; I am awed that the creator of the universe has so sought my worship! When I realize that the story of the bible is not man struggling to be close to God, but, God seeking his creation's fellowship -- I understand that the story is so much deeper than did the earth come into being in 144 hours, or was it for me to fall to my knees upon to worship My Creator
In the matter of creation, we have stories that were orally passed from one generation to the next. It is a very convenient method to break creation into periods of "days" for the "rising" and the "setting" of the sun have always marked a period that could be recognized as a day. (For those true science-minded, I realize the sun neither rises nor sets, and that some portions of the earth might have the equivalent of six-month days...but, I hope you get my drift). Picking apart the language of the choice of the word day makes no sense. I will use another story as a backdrop for this:
Is the person in the Da Vinci's Last Supper painting a man or a woman? Is it John or Mary as some hypothesize. We could study the facial features, we could study the pose -- the result? Who cares. Da Vinci was not there! He is not an eye witness painting an artists sketch as in some courtroom. He frankly could have painted any features/details in that he wanted. What we see is how the artist pictured it in his mind.
So, back to creation. The story of creation was passed down orally for many generations before it was written. So, to make the account more easily committed to memory and able to be retold, a certain poetic license had to be exercised. Which came first light or darkness? I contend light -- look at the sun, darkness occurs when the sun is obscured. Without something to obscure the sun from view, we would naturally have light... But, I digress. Man was created on the first day? Ummm, no. The second? Again no, so frankly how do we know if God created the heavens or the earth first? Well, only because as the story was passed down, it was determined that it was significant to place them in that order... Let's assume it was how God related it to Adam, and how he related it to his descendants -- it is important not how it was done, but, how it was recorded -- that is the truth we are to take away.
Did it really take God six days? Why not six seconds? Well, there was no truly accurate measurement for a second (maybe they used 1-Mississippi or something). So, it became a definable period of time for the story -- 1 day (later determined to be one revolution of the earth -- funny, when it was discovered that the earth rotated around its own axis as well as the sun, math did not change, but was confirmed! -- this contradicts those who say that science would fall if the earth was discovered to not be old).
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that we must recognize the bible as a record. It is accurate in that it was meant to record the relationship between God and man. The interesting thing is that many have through the years doubted the bible. Some would hold up certain passages and say, "See not true." It might be verses about a place or an event. Yet, discoveries are made that consistently show the bible to be an accurate record of a people.
Do I have a point? Not sure. I have journeyed from literalism to a deeper view of the bible. Is it simply a photograph that catches the sun and the figures represented? Or, is it a beautiful poem that captures the heart of God and his yearning to be closer to us -- his creation? James Thomas Flexner wrote in "Washington: The Indispensable Man" that once the myth of Washington was removed, we would more fully appreciate the man that Washington was and his true greatness. How much more so this is true of God!
When we see how God has so jealously sought to have a relationship with us -- with me; I am awed that the creator of the universe has so sought my worship! When I realize that the story of the bible is not man struggling to be close to God, but, God seeking his creation's fellowship -- I understand that the story is so much deeper than did the earth come into being in 144 hours, or was it for me to fall to my knees upon to worship My Creator
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Was Christ ever Angry?
I have also been interested in what is said, and what is written. Many times people will point to these verses and say that Jesus was angry. I really don't get that impression (and boy, did I ever use these verses myself to justify my own right to be angry sometimes).
Here are the verses in particular:
So lets investigate it a little more:
Verse 12 simply reports the facts of the event. We read the word anger or angry in the actions, but they are not in the prose. We assume that if Christ did those things, it would have been in anger why? Because we would have done it in anger. So we transfer our emotion to Christ and give it that intepretation. For the record, the Greek words there have two different connotations -- one implies with anger, the other implies without -- I am not a Greek scholar, so I don't really understand which context it was in -- but, the possibility of without anger does exist in the specific Greek root word being used.
Verse 13 records Jesus' words -- pretty strong words...but, are they really? He was quoting scripture!
Mark records the act with a slightly different passage:
Here it says not only was he quoting scripture, but, did so as he taught them! Think for second...how many teachers begin with an angry tirade would ever get your attention!
To read anger into the actions, you must assume he rampaged through the temple, stopped, calmed himself and people sat to listen to him teach, then irritated the chief priests by evening! That would be a tall order for a man. If he scattered the people in a rage from the temple, how many do you think would have welcomed his teaching? And the Chief Priests and teachers began to conspire against him not because he rampaged through the temple -- but, because of his teaching. Which one would really inspire more hatred?
Was Jesus ever angry? Not sure. What my intention was is to divorce ourselves from our own interpretation based on our feelings -- and really investigate Christ for who/what he is. Quit reading with tradition, and really look at what is written -- those stories are far richer!
Here are the verses in particular:
| Quote: |
| 12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He said to them, "It is written,'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN." 14And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant |
So lets investigate it a little more:
Verse 12 simply reports the facts of the event. We read the word anger or angry in the actions, but they are not in the prose. We assume that if Christ did those things, it would have been in anger why? Because we would have done it in anger. So we transfer our emotion to Christ and give it that intepretation. For the record, the Greek words there have two different connotations -- one implies with anger, the other implies without -- I am not a Greek scholar, so I don't really understand which context it was in -- but, the possibility of without anger does exist in the specific Greek root word being used.
Verse 13 records Jesus' words -- pretty strong words...but, are they really? He was quoting scripture!
Mark records the act with a slightly different passage:
| Quote: |
| On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: " 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" 18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. 19When evening came, they went out of the city. |
Here it says not only was he quoting scripture, but, did so as he taught them! Think for second...how many teachers begin with an angry tirade would ever get your attention!
To read anger into the actions, you must assume he rampaged through the temple, stopped, calmed himself and people sat to listen to him teach, then irritated the chief priests by evening! That would be a tall order for a man. If he scattered the people in a rage from the temple, how many do you think would have welcomed his teaching? And the Chief Priests and teachers began to conspire against him not because he rampaged through the temple -- but, because of his teaching. Which one would really inspire more hatred?
Was Jesus ever angry? Not sure. What my intention was is to divorce ourselves from our own interpretation based on our feelings -- and really investigate Christ for who/what he is. Quit reading with tradition, and really look at what is written -- those stories are far richer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)