Over at Marshall Art's Dan asked a good question, to which I responded. To avoid going off topic I'm going to copy them here as a platform for future discussion if anyone is inclined.
Dan's question is as follows
And so, my question to you, Craig, is what do we do when two Christians disagree about an action? Do we disfellowship? Do we call names? Do we demonize? Or, do we live under God's grace, saying with Paul, "Who am I to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
My response was.
As to your second question, that is the crux of the matter isn't it. The answer is long, complicated and playing out in a number of denominations ("mine" included) across the country. I'll try for a short version so as not to go too far astray, and we can continue elsewhere if you want. Here goes.
If the basic nature of the disagreement is rooted in authority of scripture (as I believe this to be) then at some point is would be appropriate to go so far as to disassociate (officially) from a part of the Church. I'm not sure name calling and demonizing (not that anyone on your side would stoop so low) is productive, but at some point it is possible for a doctrine or teaching to go beyond the bounds of Christianity into heresy territory. So I think that it would be possible to label someone a heretic without it being considered simply name calling. So, I guess my answer would be maybe.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
Is a heretic someone who disagrees on Christian essentials? If the disagreement is "only" over the nature of a specific action (noting that this could be pretty significant), and the action in question is not a Christian essential, then the person is not a heretic, are they?
I understand you're saying that you're only advocating such when the nature of the disagreement is rooted in the "authority of scripture," still, probably nearly ALL Christian disagreements are over the authority of scripture and that explains why we have so much trouble getting along.
I think those who advocate warring are clearly violating/compromising the authority of scripture, I think those who are opposed to gay marriage are clearly violating/compromising the authority of scripture, I think those who advocate unfettered capitalism are clearly violating/compromising authority of scripture, and vice versa.
It's too easy to say, "Well, he's a Christian on all the essentials, but his view on sin X is violating the authority of scripture, so he's a heretic..." We'd ALL be heretics but our own little group of folk who agree if that were the bar that was set.
Fortunately for us, God sets the bar at grace, not some individual's particular interpretation of scripture on this sin or that action.
So, are you saying that there are no essentials? Or no essentials except grace?
If you will read what I wrote, it is fairly clear, I believe that, although there is room for latitude on a number of issues within the pale of orthodoxy, there is a line or fence if you will. Once one crosses that line it becomes heresy.
I would indeed agree that the nature of the authority of scripture is a significant component of most heresy.
I am aware that of your view on pacifism, however there is certainly ample scriptural support for those who would feel that war is not always wrong. This, I believe, is an area where orthodoxy can accommodate widely divergent views.
Without beating the gay horse, The overwhelming weight of historical Christian and Jewish (not to mention Islamic) teaching that would disagree with you. Even if you look at "modern" or "liberal" scholarship there is a component that agrees that there is no Biblical warrant for homosexuality being anything other than sin. Based on what I have read on both sides of the issue, including your earlier link, it seems that it becomes necessary to fold, spindle, twist, ignore, or reinterpret scripture to arrive at your conclusion. Bear in mind, I am not saying that this is always intentional. But that's what it looks like to me. When I see someone say in regards to Romans one, well Paul is really clear in 1:21, but boy in 1:26-27 he all of a sudden gets unclear, it smacks of imposing their preconceptions on the text rather than the other way around. So, while I would suggest that homosexual behavior (as opposed to homosexuality) is fairly clearly condemned. Additionally, there is no textural support in any of the "expanded canon" (NT, OT, Apocrypha, Torah, Talmud, Prophets, or Writings) nor in any of the early church councils or the writings of the church fathers. So, while you are free to believe what you choose, you cannot support your belief in scripture.
Now, does this constitute heresy, I would be inclined to say not, obviously others would disagree.
I would agree that as you phrase it the bar would be pretty low, I would certainly add some degree of intent to my definition of heresy.
I'd like you to expand on your last paragraph a little. Before I step into what could be a minefield.
I stole this, but thought it might be valuable in this discussion.
Essential Doctrines:
1. Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
2. Christ's Vicarious Atonement (The Penal Substitutionary View)
3. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ Jesus from the Dead
4. The Unique Deity (and Humanity) of Jesus Christ
Christ is fully divine and fully human. He has two complete natures.
5. The Trinity
Within the nature of the one eternal God there are three persons (Gk. prosopon, L. persona): the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit. They are coequal and coeternal. Moreover, they are of thesame substance or essence (i.e., their nature being divine), and share the same glory.
Cardinal Doctrines (Examples of):
1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
2. The Second Coming of Christ
3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
4. The Church
5. Sin
6. The Material World
Yes, those five essentials are generally accepted in most evangelical circles the essentials of Christian faith. My disagreeing with you and you with me about the nature of gay marriage simply does not fall within the purview of those five essentials.
The nature of any sin, so far as I can tell, would fall under the category of a non-essential doctrine.
If you think some sins cross an "essential" line, I'd like to suggest you provide a list of sins that you think fall under essential doctrine"? AND a biblical source for believing that list of "essential sins" are, in fact, essential.
I'd suggest that there is no biblical nor orthodox Christian reason for insisting that one need to agree about the nature of any specific action in order to be saved.
It's interesting that you neglect to mention if you find the five essentials essential. Your rather bland comment that most ... accept them says nothing.
I would agree with you that the NATURE of any given sin might not fall under those five essentials. However, what we are talking about is, does continuing to knowingly persist in an action that is sinful indicative of someone who is saved?
If I claim to be a Christian, yet continue to steal, would you not doubt my salvation. If I not only continued to steal, but attempted to demonstrate that "thou shalt not steal" really didn't mean steal, and tried to convince others that they should join me in theft, would it not be reasonable to doubt my salvation and question my teaching.
That is the impasse. Neither you, or Michael (from what I have read), have made an affirmative case that backs up your contention. It's kind of like in court The prosecution has to demonstrate that NOT ONLY can they SAY "He is guilty," they have to provide evidence. In this case you have said they're innocent but have provided no evidence. You have attacked the opposing case, and tried to show an alternate meaning. But you haven't put on your own case.
Ultimately, we are all sinners. I firmly believe that all sin is equal in weight. That's where grace comes in, but the first response to God's grace should be repentance.
Before we go too much further I'd really like you to answer some of my earlier questions. It really helps me not assume what you are thinking.
As I think about your last line, I can't help but think that if your only concern is "getting saved" that seems like setting the bar really low. I'd like to think that there is more to being a Christian than simply knowing what keeps you from being saved. That's as far as I'm going to go for now, because I'm still unsure of what you mean by some things and hope for explanations before I jump to conclusions.
Paul says,
"21Test everything. Hold on to the good."
John writes,
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
You expect us to just accept what you are claiming, why should we not test what you are claiming?
So Dan, by what standard do you test?
What was the testing process you went through in order to form your opinion?
Or you can answer here.
Craig said:
That is the impasse. Neither you, or Michael (from what I have read), have made an affirmative case that backs up your contention.
What you MEAN here is that we have not made a case that backs up our contention TO YOUR satisfaction. And, conversely, you have not made a negative case that backs up your contention TO OUR satisfaction.
You understand the difference? Just because you don't buy our case doesn't mean that reasonable people can't disagree.
* There is NOT ONE single spot in the Bible that addresses gay marriage, negatively or affirmatively. The matter is entirely silent in the Bible.
* There are only a handful of verses that even SEEM to talk about homosexuality.
* You have not made the case to our satisfaction that those five verses are talking about homosexuality in general.
THAT is the impasse and it goes both ways. What do we do with that, is my question.
I've answered your question, you on the other hand have not.
I will reiterate, no one that I have ever seen has made an affirmative case for homosexual activity being anything but condemned by the Bible. Since your folk, are that ones seeking to turn over 3000 years of Judeo-Christian understanding on it's head you would think it would not be too much to ask for one verse, one phrase, something, anything. But there is no case. Back to the court analogy. In court, the side looking to change the status quo (ie the prosecution, who wants to take a "innocent" person and prove them guilty) has the burden of proof. The defense of the status quo has to do nothing. In criminal proceedings the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. in civil proceedings it's preponderance of the evidence. I'm not asking for either of those. I'm asking for one. That's it one. Blithely dismissing what scripture says is not evidence, silence is not evidence, your satisfaction is not evidence. So, again, one.
While you're at it you have quite a backlog of questions to answer, and I know how important you think it is for people to answer questions.
I will reiterate, no one that I have ever seen has made an affirmative case for homosexual activity being anything but condemned by the Bible.
And I will reiterate: No one has ever made a case that the maybe five verses in ALL of the Bbile that maybe SEEM to be talking about homosexual behavior of some sort are, in fact, talking about ALL homosexual behavior.
We could do that all day, brother. You have not made a case sufficient to convince me nor I you.
Now what?
And what questions do you want answered? I have stated repeatedly that I am an orthodox Christian when it comes to essentials. I agree with those five essentials you listed.
You asked:
If I not only continued to steal, but attempted to demonstrate that "thou shalt not steal" really didn't mean steal, and tried to convince others that they should join me in theft, would it not be reasonable to doubt my salvation and question my teaching.
Yes, I think we can make the case that stealing is wrong and folk would have a hard time making a case that they did not understand stealing to be wrong. Then again, there are consistent and clear teachings on theft in the Bible. There are no such consistent or clear teachings on homosexuality.
Additionally, what of someone who steals to save lives - to feed the dying poor? He understands that it's wrong in normal circumstances but he can't believe that it's ALWAYS wrong and so, I can see that person being saved. Again, that is a different circumstance that is not covered in the Bible.
Gay marriage is not covered in the Bible. Homosexuality itself is not clearly covered in the Bible. It just isn't.
Craig said:
As I think about your last line, I can't help but think that if your only concern is "getting saved" that seems like setting the bar really low.
Do I seem like the kind of guy that "only" is concerned about getting people saved? Nearly everything I write about on my blog and most of my comments at more conservative places are related to right-living.
And when I say "setting the bar low," I should be clear: Our salvation is precious and dear and comes at a high price. I'm NOT talking about cheap grace. I'm not talking about grace so that we might keep on sinning.
This is why I write condemning war and violence. I find it hard to believe that Christians can actually believe that participating in war is not a great evil. I think the Bible is clear on our role and our actions when it comes to enemies. And so, I write and pray and reason and preach - precisely because our actions DO matter.
All I mean by that is what I have said: We are saved by grace, not by works. We are saved to follow Christ to the best of our ability and to try to seek God's will. AND, if our best understanding of God's Will is that action A is good and moral, then we cannot let the opinion of others sway us, I'm sure you would agree.
But ultimately we are saved by God's grace and I think that is part of the Path that we are to walk on and embrace: To show that same grace to fellow believers that was shown to us.
You expect us to just accept what you are claiming, why should we not test what you are claiming?
You should. You should listen to what I say with grace (and I, you) and weigh it against the Bible's teachings - through the lens of the teachings of Jesus - and against logic and morality as best we understand it.
So Dan, by what standard do you test?
Bible. Jesus' teachings. Logic. God's Word written on our hearts. All of creation. Tradition. Reason.
What was the testing process you went through in order to form your opinion?
I went through a fairly lengthy explanation of this on my blog before, weren't you there?
Briefly, I held your position for the first 25-30 years of my life (and the first ~20 years of my Christian life). Someone challenged me to honestly look at what the Bible has to say. I did.
As it turns out, the Bible just doesn't say that much about homosexuality. I think it clear that in about 4-5 verses, the Bible appears to talk about some form of homosexuality, but in each of those, it appears to be talking about some more specific and oppressive sexuality - male prostitution, catamites, temple worship of false gods.
Those verses just don't seem to be talking about all of homosexuality. Therefore, the topic of gay marriage - like the topic of stealing bread to feed the dying poor - is not covered in the Bible. From there, I used logic and God's Word upon my heart to come to the conclusion that marriage is a good thing for gays or straights. Faithful, committed, loving, wholesome marriage.
What is there to argue against that?
I think the problem with my old way of looking at the gay issue and your current way is that it relies upon a flat reading of Scripture. "If it says X, then it must mean X in every circumstance and situation."
Now, you don't do this in every circumstance (I don't think anyone does), but many of us do/did on the topic of homosexuality.
Why don't we look at an example?
In Leviticus, we read:
When one of your fellow countrymen is reduced to poverty and is unable to hold out beside you, extend to him the privileges of an alien or a tenant, so that he may continue to live with you.
Do not exact interest from your countryman either in money or in kind, but out of fear of God let him live with you.
You are to lend him neither money at interest nor food at a profit.
A flat reading of that tells us we must never charge interest or sell food at a profit to the poor in our country.
This notion is backed up in the NT, where Jesus says, flatly, "Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."
Period. A flat interpretation of these sorts of passages would have us either giving to the needy (and indeed, ANYONE who asks of us, according to a flat reading of Jesus' words) totally for free or at least with no interest and just at cost (no profit). Period. That is the one and only way to read these passages IF you're reading them flatly. That is, without taking into consideration the intent, the circumstances, the context, etc, etc.
From there, anyone who chooses NOT to read those passages flatly can be accused of heresy, by your measure. Am I right thus far?
Now, what I'm suggesting is that we ought not read passages flatly, without regard to context, intent or circumstances. This is, of course, standard orthodox hermeneutics, and for the most part, no one disagrees with this. UNTIL we come to some topics like homosexuality.
But then, when there is no cost to us and we don't really know anyone involved, then it is easier for us to assume that we ought to just take the flat reading, rather than a richer, more considered opinion. That is certainly the case in my situation. I had no reason or desire to read any more on the homosexuality issue because I didn't know anyone who was gay (or so I thought) and all I knew about gay people I learned from grossly unfair caricatures of them and so, why not read those handful of passages flatly?
Why not? Because it's a poor way to study the Bible if you're serious about God's Word.
Dan,
If you can honestly say that no one has ever made an affirmative case for the plain reading of your "maybe 5 texts" then you have never looked. I would suggest you start with Robert Gagnon. Even so that burden is still on you to make the case to change 3000 plus years on understanding.
I didn't think so, but couldn't tell from that. Thanks for clarification. I am also not saying that salvation is not precious, just that is the first step, and to "settle" for salvation when there is so much more seems to be setting the bar low.
As to your last, I find it fascinating how you can make that argument about homosexual behavior, yet can be so woodenly literal when it comes to other things.
Again, I could cut and paste Gagnon's material, but why don't you go check it out for yourself. Fair is fair.
If you can honestly say that no one has ever made an affirmative case for the plain reading of your "maybe 5 texts" then you have never looked.
Excuse me if I didn't make myself plain. No one has ever made an affirmative case that I found convincing. I've read and heard many, many people trying to defend your position. Ultimately, I find them lacking and must strive to follow God, not men.
And to be clear, I HAVE read Gagnon, and find him unconvincing.
Dan,
Let me try this a different way when you test something you test it against a standard. You say that you came to the conclusion that all of the verses spoke to some specific form of homosexual behavior, yet all of the verses about marriage and sexual relationships speak of heterosexuality. You ignore this. You also chose to ignore the fact that even people on your side of the discussion are able to admit that there is no support for assuming that the Bible is anything but negative about homosexual behavior.
I'll ask again, and expand your options. Pick from any of my previous list of options and provide one verse that gives you any hint that homosexual behavior is in any way approved. Just one.
Perhaps if I find time sometime, I'll try to write an essay: Why I disagree with Gagnon. I just looked up one of his pieces and will point to a few problems in his interpretation here. Gagnon says:
The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”) to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and woman.
? Adam was "sexually undifferentiated?" Says who? The Bible doesn't say this. This appears to be purely grabbed from thin air, so far as I can see.
Gagnon goes on:
This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts.
Again, says who? The only biblical reason given is that Adam was lonesome and needed a helper. Here's what God said (as opposed to Gagnon):
"It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
No mention of sexuality there at all. It appears - unless I'm missing something - that Gagnon is making conjecture out of thin air. "This is what I WOULD LIKE FOR the Bible to say," or something like that.
Gagnon continues:
A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements.
Once again, says who??
PERHAPS, if one thought that marriage was solely about procreation and naught else, one might make that guess. But that's rather an animalistic view of marriage, not very spiritual or holistic, seems to me.
Gagnon continues:
By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception.
??? Again, SAYS WHO?
You see my problem with Gagnon. I'm just going line by line down the first column of his that I came across and he's just making crap up.
I'll see if I can't find one of his pieces about the Bible and homosexuality. The views in this essay are surely pretty wack, and that's what I recall his other biblical arguments being.
So, you've demonstrated that you won't be convinced, now what. Why not get back to the original question, what to do.
This will be difficult to discuss, because of our differing views. However, may I suggest a few "ground rules" so we don't spend a lot of time on tangents. Feel free to suggest modifications or changes. I don't want to limit as much as focus, without going off on tangents.
1. While I agree with the fact that we are a part of the big C Church. As things sit right now most matters of this sort are decided at a denominational level. Without getting into the issue of denominations good or bad, can we agree to assume that those structures and their polity will shape any possible response?
2. Can we agree that the "pro gay" side is trying to change 3000 plus years of Judeo-christian thought, understanding and practice. Leaving aside, for now, the rightness or wrongness of said thought understanding or practice?
3. Can we agree that there are different expectations or standards for people in different roles within the church?
Or you can,
I'll ask again, and expand your options. Pick from any of my previous list of options and provide one verse that gives you any hint that homosexual behavior is in any way approved. Just one.
Re Gagnon, I have not read the column you reference, and since we are talking about Biblical authority and justification it might make more sense to address his work in that area.
I will note, that your friend Michael certainly is not innocent of imposing his bias on the text from what I have read. While I won't go so far as to accuse him of making stuff up he seems to suggest that the relationship of Ruth and Naomi could have been sexual (or at the least not rule it out). Which if nothing else is leaving the door open to using an incestuous relationship to legitimize a homosexual one. Not made up, but waaaaaaay out on the skinny end of a weak branch.
I might also suggest Douglas Groothuis as someone who has done some work on this topic.
Work calls, so I'm off.
While I won't go so far as to accuse him of making stuff up he seems to suggest that the relationship of Ruth and Naomi could have been sexual (or at the least not rule it out).
Actually, as I recall, Michael says that SOME people raise the question of whether Ruth and Naomi may have been lesbian, but he doesn't think we can go so far as to say they were, that it is indeed, speculation and naught else.
Here's the Gagnon piece I was referencing. Later on in the essay, he gets to some biblical reasoning, but I was just pointing out the problems with his first few paragraphs, as that's all I had read today.
Pick from any of my previous list of options and provide one verse that gives you any hint that homosexual behavior is in any way approved. Just one.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "previous list of options," but I'll tackle what I think you're asking...
As I have repeatedly noted, gay marriage is a silent issue in the Bible, just as stealing for the purpose of feeding the poor. So, I can't point to a single verse that explicitly supports gay marriage any more than you can point to a single verse that opposes same. Not one.
Not only that, but neither can you point to any verse that suggests that any and all homosexual behavior is always condemned. UNLESS, that is, you think we ought to have a flat hermeneutic.
Do you? That is, do you think it okay for a Christian to charge interest or to make a profit off the poor? Do you think we ought to always and in every situation give to the person who asks?
Not sure what happened to that link, let me try it again:
robgagnon.net
Gagnon on Romans:
In his letter to the Romans, Paul cites two prime examples of humans suppressing the truth about God evident in creation/nature: idolatry and same-sex intercourse...
Idolatry and same-sex intercourse constitute a frontal assault on the work of the Creator in nature. Those who suppressed the truth about God transparent in creation were more likely to suppress the truth about the complementarity of the sexes transparent in nature, choosing instead to gratify contrary innate impulses.
That is what Gagnon reads when he reads Romans. But, WE MUST NOT MISTAKE Gagnon's interpretation as being equal to God's Word.
When I and my community read Romans, we see Paul talking about idol worshipers and historically, we know that some idol worshipers engaged in sexual rites as part of their religious practice. So, when we read Romans, we think this is an obvious reference to such practices and, once again, NOT talking about gay marriage at all.
For our part, we AGREE completely that worshiping idols and having sex orgies as part of religious practice is not a wholesome expression of sexuality. To that end, we agree with what Paul had to say on THAT topic. But Paul is not talking about gay marriage or homosexuality in general.
Just because Gagnon (or Craig or Billy Graham or Jabba the Hut) reads something in a passage does not mean that everyone else agrees with them. We are responsible to God, not humans, to discern God's Will and obey it as best we understand it.
Again, I am sure you agree on this point.
Craig said:
you've demonstrated that you won't be convinced, now what.
Don't misunderstand, please. It's not that I "WON'T" be convinced. I'm always open to listening to other's opinions and changing my view IF they make a compelling argument - it's how I got from believing as you do to believing as I do, after all. No, I CAN be convinced IF the evidence supports it. It's that I'm NOT convinced, not that I "won't" be convinced.
An important distinction.
Now, here are some more problems with Gagnon and scripture...
Gagnon
says:
Jesus predicated marital twoness—the restriction of the number of persons in a sexual union to two, whether concurrently (no polygamy) or serially (no cycle of divorce and remarriage) —on the fact that “from the beginning of creation, ‘male and female He made them’ [Gen 1:27] and ‘for this reason a man … will be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]” (Mark 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-9). In other words, the fact that God had designed two (and only two) primary sexes for complementary sexual pairing was Jesus’ basis for a rigorous monogamy position.
The Bible says:
Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."
But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
So, Biblically-speaking, what Jesus was doing here is answering a question about divorce.
1. At the time, there was no such thing as gay marriage. Therefore, why would Jesus address gay marriage?
2. He is saying, rather, for this reason (ie, to be together and stay together - not "because they were male and female") people get married. I think to suggest the one and only interpretation of that is to assume that Jesus is saying, "For this reason," to mean, "because they are male and female" is not backed up by scripture. The more reasonable interpretation, it seems to me from what it plainly is saying and the context it is being spoken is that "For this reason" is talking about "to stay together in love."
So, once again, I'm not convinced that Gagnon has much of anything to say. He's making leaps that logic nor the text call for. So far as I can see in the text that I've referenced.
Should I continue?
Man, once you start, it's hard to stop. In just about every line, Gagnon is making bad assumptions and using poor logic and making statements that simply aren't supported logically or biblically.
In the same source, Gagnon goes on to say:
There are many other arguments that one can cite as evidence of Jesus’ rejection of homosexual practice
?? Jesus DIDN'T "reject homosexual practice." Jesus does not address homosexuality!
When teachers are making false statements and false assumptions over and over to back up their argument, it becomes very hard to take them seriously. I mean, I'm no genius but even I can see that this guy's arguments are full of holes, without even hardly looking I can see that.
Come now, surely you can agree that a more reasonable thing for Gagnon to say (if he's going to go down this road) would be, "There are many other arguments that one can cite as evidence of Jesus’ silence on the topic of homosexuality and his only citing 'male/female' in a marital context."
THAT statement is debatable, but at least not an outright false statement.
Dan,
You've had your say, and I'm not going down that road with you any more. It's not worth my time and effort to repeat myself. You keep insisting that Jesus was unaware of homosexual activity, which is why he didn't address it. You argue from silence, there is no response to silence. So can we move on?
In that vein, your comments do raise some questions/clarification.
1. Would it be safe to say that you would agree that homosexual sexual activity outside of "gay marriage" would be sinful?
2. Now that you have opened the definition of marriage (which despite your protestations is clearly defined Biblicly) to same sex couples what other permutations of marriage would you accept?
3. If you would not accept any other permutations of marriage, why not?
4. Do you see that the Bible has placed any limits on human sexuality and/or marriage?
Now, please can we get back to the topic.
So, you've demonstrated that you won't be convinced, now what. Why not get back to the original question, what to do.
This will be difficult to discuss, because of our differing views. However, may I suggest a few "ground rules" so we don't spend a lot of time on tangents. Feel free to suggest modifications or changes. I don't want to limit as much as focus, without going off on tangents.
1. While I agree with the fact that we are a part of the big C Church. As things sit right now most matters of this sort are decided at a denominational level. Without getting into the issue of denominations good or bad, can we agree to assume that those structures and their polity will shape any possible response?
2. Can we agree that the "pro gay" side is trying to change 3000 plus years of Judeo-christian thought, understanding and practice. Leaving aside, for now, the rightness or wrongness of said thought understanding or practice?
3. Can we agree that there are different expectations or standards for people in different roles within the church?
I'm not sure I understand your point. You've been hounding me, I thought, to deal with the Logically and Biblically Astute Gagnon, and so I did. I was prepared to schluff off those discussions because we had already covered them, but because you kept bringing it up, I've dealt with it.
But by all means, let's move on.
Then let's move on, although you can respond the the questions in the last comment if you want.
I am copying these from earlier to see if we can start here. I hope it might save some confusion later.
his will be difficult to discuss, because of our differing views. However, may I suggest a few "ground rules" so we don't spend a lot of time on tangents. Feel free to suggest modifications or changes. I don't want to limit as much as focus, without going off on tangents.
1. While I agree with the fact that we are a part of the big C Church. As things sit right now most matters of this sort are decided at a denominational level. Without getting into the issue of denominations good or bad, can we agree to assume that those structures and their polity will shape any possible response?
2. Can we agree that the "pro gay" side is trying to change 3000 plus years of Judeo-christian thought, understanding and practice. Leaving aside, for now, the rightness or wrongness of said thought understanding or practice?
3. Can we agree that there are different expectations or standards for people in different roles within the church?
1. Sorta being non-denominational (sorta), I'm not sure how much it would affect churches like mine. Also, coming from the anabaptist/baptist tradition which honors (in theory) the autonomy of the local church, it may have less impact on churches like outs.
But certainly our traditions and communities have an affect on our theologies - including our thoughts on gay marriage. If that's what you're asking.
2. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to change anything or anyone. That's God's role. I've just been explaining that we are Christians who have a difference of opinion on this topic.
Having said that, yes, I/we would like to see other churches led by God in ways that are more accepting of our gay brothers and sisters.
3. In general, yes, I suppose there are different standards held for leaders in churches, as opposed to those not in leadership roles. I'm not sure what that has to do with theology and gay marriage, but yes, there are different roles and expectations in churches.
To answer your four earlier questions:
1. Yes, I generally think that marriage (committed, monogamous and healthy) is the best context for sexual expression.
2. I don't think I have opened the definition of marriage. It is a committed relationship between two people. I think that UNHEALTHY, oppressive, non-consensual marriages ought not be encouraged/allowed.
To that end, a marriage between a person and an animal (not healthy, oppressive towards the animal, who has no choice), children shouldn't be allowed/forced to marry. Incestual marriages ought not be allowed. I don't agree with polygamy. Now that last one is more of a cultural thing (the Bible certainly had its share of polygamists) and I'm not sure it fits the definition of unhealthy or oppressive, but I'm opposed to it nonetheless.
3. I don't accept the permutations that are unhealthy, oppressive or non-consensual because they are unhealthy, oppressive and/or non-consensual.
4. I think the Bible is rather all over the place on marriage. Still, overall, I think its teachings are opposed to any relationships (marriages included) that are unhealthy, oppressive and/or non-consensual.
Now, could you address a few questions/notes of mine? Where you said:
you've demonstrated that you won't be convincedYou DO understand the difference between someone who WON'T be convinced and someone who ISN'T convinced? And that I am able to be convinced if the evidence is there, but I'm not convinced by the anti-gay marriage arguments?
Also, do you think we ought to have a flat hermeneutic.
Do you think it okay for a Christian to charge interest or to make a profit off the poor? Do you think we ought to always and in every situation give to the person who asks?
That is, do you think that just because the Bible says something is wrong means that that action is always wrong in any possible context? Or do you recognize that context matters, circumstances matter, culture matters?
Dan,
Quick answers
1. yes I understand the difference between can't and won't. Given the way you respond it seems as though you say I CAN be convinced, but your standard is so high as to indicate that you WON'T.
2. I am not sure what you mean by "flat hermeneutic", if you mean that it we should look at things in context I would say yes. However for that to work you cannot take one text in a wooden literal way, then take others of the same type in a figural way. There must also be some kind of guideline that informs your hermeneutic.
3. I think that there are certain situations where a Christian could charge interest to the poor. For example, if a poor person were to pay for a new TV on credit, then interest would be charged. However if a poor person went to XYZ food pantry, or needed help from a church to pay rent then no. The fact that I work for an organization that does no interest mortgages should really answer that question for you. No I don't think we (individually) are required to give to everyone who asks. Corporately, maybe.
4. If God (and as we agreed earlier, He gets to make the rules. The Bible just records them) says stealing or murder or sex outside of marriage is wrong then it's wrong. So context may matter to us, but I don't think it matters to God. The flip side is that since we all sin, we can repent, and ask forgiveness.
I think it interesting that you impose the extra biblical concept of oppressive, non consensual, and unhealthy. Interesting that you would seem to be trying to impose your definition of those things on others relationships. I wonder if the people in those kinds of relationships would agree with you. Obviously some would, but that could be said for any relationship, but I bet you could find a significant number who would insist that they are in healthy, non oppressive, voluntary relationships. But nonetheless, you make my point, you do draw a line, you just draw it somewhere else.
Gotta go.
Yes, of course I draw lines. Never said otherwise. Just as you draw lines with not having a flat hermeneutic (ie, you don't give money to everyone that asks you, despite Jesus' quite clear and precise command), as I knew you do.
The difference in our lines is (it seems to me) your line on gay marriage is at the flat hermeneutic level (ie, if the Bible says "men who lay with men are wrong, then any and every instance of homosexuality must be wrong") whereas I strive for reason in my biblical exegesis.
That is, the Bible is clearly against oppression, against harmful, unhealthy actions AND the Bible speaks positively of marriage (albeit in many contexts), therefore, reasonable assumption to me is that our marriage guidelines ought to, at a minimum, include that there not be oppression, coercion or unhealthiness.
So, while my position may be strictly extrabiblical, it is exceedingly biblical in logic. I'm sure you agree (that is, I'm sure you agree that marriages ought not be oppressive, coerced or unhealthy and that it is no stretch of biblical reasoning to decide this).
If God (and as we agreed earlier, He gets to make the rules. The Bible just records them) says stealing or murder or sex outside of marriage is wrong then it's wrong. So context may matter to us, but I don't think it matters to God.And this gets back to what I'm talking about when I say a flat hermeneutic. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" may make for a cute bumper sticker, but it's poor exegesis.
The Bible says MANY things, we both can agree, but not every line is equally valid is a moral measure of how we ought to behave today.
Are you saying that if someone with no other options steals bread (say from a questionably legal corporation that acquired its bread by immoral, if legal, means and which plans to just throw it away - to exaggerate the point) in order to feed someone who otherwise would die, that THAT theft is morally wrong?
I would disagree.
Craig noted:
Given the way you respond it seems as though you say I CAN be convinced, but your standard is so high as to indicate that you WON'T.Well, if we've studied a subject extensively and prayed on it and considered it and are fairly convinced of the rightness of our position, it probably makes sense that it would be difficult to convince us otherwise, right?
I mean, if you had asked me 20 years ago if I could EVER be convinced that gay marriage was a good thing, I would have sounded just as adamant about thinking, "No Way!" and just as stubborn to change. But enough evidence convinced me otherwise.
The problem with my former position was that it was well-studied, but only had listened to one side of the topic. Or, in fact, not all that well-studied, as it turns out. If one is familiar with only one side of the story, how can one be all that well-studied?
Again, I'm sure you agree we ought not to just flap in the wind, easily changing our mind on topics we think we have studied fairly well?
Dan,
So much so little time.
1. First, since you still haven't defined the term "flat hermeneutic" I still don't know what you mean. You keep accusing me of having one, with no real evidence. To use your example. No I don't give to everyone in need for several reasons. A. I am unaware where Jesus commands each of us individually to give to everyone in need. B. I don't know everyone in need. C. I can be reasonably generous with some or I can be less generous with many. D. I give to the needy in different ways. For example, I could give $17.00 to some guy on the street (who might or might not be needy) and he could buy 2-4 meals depending on what choices he made. Or I could give $17.00 to Feed My Starving Children an they could feed one child for over 2 months or about 100 children one meal. So, I try to give in a way that leverages my resources in the most effective way. E. Making snide comments about what you know, is just a stones throw away from name calling, slander, and all those things you get so ticked about.
Again, please don't twist my words. I did not say that because the Bible says "men who lay with men are wrong, then any and every instance of homosexuality must be wrong". What I said was that God defines sin, and what he defines as sin is recorded in the Bible. I also quite clearly pointed out (in a positive comment about Michael's post) that there is a difference between sexual acts between people of the same sex (Homosexual acts, HA going forward), Homosexuality (a fairly recent term describing a "state of mind" or an attraction to those of the same sex, HO going forward), and Gay marriage (a fairly generic to the point of meaningless term, GM going forward). So while I would contend that the underlying act (HA) is sinful, the attraction that leads to it is not. To your point, Since the Bible does not list a set of circumstances under which HA are acceptable, then I will go with the plain reading.
Please, tell me what are the "many contexts" of marriage the Bible speaks so positively about.
As to your contention about "oppression et al" I would suggest that you have 2 problems imposing your standard. 1. People in those types of relationships may not think that their relationship meets your criteria. 2. This then militates against your earlier contention that these things are decided by culture. You may have heard that P-BO (while personally disagreeing with it, defended the right of Turkmenistan to pass a law allowing husbands to rape their wives. His reasoning was that we cannot impose our cultural norms on others.
(2nd post)
The short answer is unless you can show me an exemption from the 8th commandment, then stealing is wrong. So you think, what a mean person Craig is he won't let poor people steal a loaf of bread. My response would be that while I personally (and what I would recommend to others)would extend mercy to the thieves (and in fact would probably behave much like the bishop in Les Miserables), even to the extent of giving them more than they took. Your binary situation leaves out too many options and variables for me. Summary-theft is always wrong, mercy is almost always right.
(3rd post)
I really have no way of knowing what you studied that changed your mind, or how committed you were to your previous commitment. I will hope that you would agree that objectively HA are either sin or not, and that our opinion does not change the sinful (or not) nature of the act.
So, can we move forward or are we still not ready yet?
Craig said:
First, since you still haven't defined the term "flat hermeneutic" I still don't know what you mean. You keep accusing me of having one, with no real evidence.Flat hermeneutic, meaning one and only one interpretation of a line. Jesus said, flatly, "IF someone asks of you, GIVE to them." Period. There is no wiggle room in a flat hermeneutic/flat interpretation of that passage. We are either giving to everyone who asks us or we are living in unrepentant sin.
However, a richer, fuller interpretation of that passage would consider the context and everything else the Bible has to say about the topic of giving or helping others.
Considering the whole of the Bible, we can reasonably conclude that Jesus' intent here was that we are to be concerned about the needs of the poor, of those in need. That we aren't necessarily to give to each and every person who asks of us, but we are to be concerned about those in need.
Similarly, for "men laying with men=bad" is a flat hermeneutic. We need to consider all the rest of the Bible on that topic. Unfortunately, there just isn't that much and what is there is not definitively saying, "ALL instances of homosexuality are bad." That just isn't there.
And so, a flat hermeneutic has us taking "men laying with men = bad," and a more expansive reading of ALL (ie, 4-6?) passages on the topic, we aren't given much more info, nothing definitive.
What we have then is a topic on which the Bible does not spell out for us a final conclusive answer to the question, "What sorts of homosexuality are bad," so we have to use our reasoning. Which gets me back to the those acts which are harmful, oppressive or non-consensual.
Craig said:
Making snide comments about what you know, is just a stones throw away from name calling, slander, and all those things you get so ticked about.I'm not sure what you're talking about here. What snide comments?
As to your contention about "oppression et al" I would suggest that you have 2 problems imposing your standard. 1. People in those types of relationships may not think that their relationship meets your criteria.
The man who wants to marry a dog may not think it's an oppressive or non-consensual relationship, but the dog clearly can't consent to the marriage. Same is true for child marriage or forced marriages.
No problem.
2. This then militates against your earlier contention that these things are decided by culture.Some matters may have cultural morality. Polygamy was accepted in OT as normal and okay. Not so here today. This in no way militates against being opposed to oppressive, harmful and/or non-consensual acts.
No problem.
I really have no way of knowing what you studied that changed your mind, or how committed you were to your previous commitment.The Bible. Very.
That is, I studied the Bible - and heard a bit of background about the context of the times and that and prayer and nothing else changed my mind.
And I was the conservative's conservative when it came to homosexuality (and most other positions) back in the day. NOTHING short of God's own voice could change my mind, no way, no how, not gonna happen, I would have told you at the time.
I will hope that you would agree that objectively HA are either sin or not, and that our opinion does not change the sinful (or not) nature of the act.Any act is objectively a sin or not, most likely as far as I can tell. And I will suggest that an action is a sin (or not) NOT because God says it is but because it is harmful, wrong, wrong for us or is otherwise missing the mark of goodness and God, being a loving God, does not want us to do those things which are wrong or bad for us or others.
I don't think the Bible teaches us that God arbitrarily goes around creating lists, ("I don't want you to do this, or this, or this,") just making up stuff. Rather, some actions are wrong, harmful, oppressive or otherwise missing the mark and THOSE actions, God does not want us to do.
As for an example of an action that might have cultural reasons for being a sin or not, I am thinking that the example of meat in the Bible. Paul writes about how, if that action (eating meat) would cause your brother to stumble, don't do it.
It wasn't that the action itself was even wrong, just that it might be harmful for others who were weaker in faith and had cultural/misplaced religious reasons for not eating the meat.
Fair enough?
Please, tell me what are the "many contexts" of marriage the Bible speaks so positively about. The Bible speaks of arranged marriages, of polygamy, of kidnapping the girls of the enemy and making them your wife. We have polygamy with dozens/hundreds of wives AND with concubines on the side.
We have marrying and remarrying an unfaithful wife who is a prostitute. We have Divorce as forbidden, we have divorce as maybe sometimes acceptable. And, of course, we have a fairly traditional, man/woman marriage, albeit with the woman not having much of a voice or any legal rights to speak of.
Those are most of the permutations I can recall.
Those are spoken of either positively or at least neutrally, and so IF you have a fairly flat hermeneutic and don't consider context or greater teachings, one would probably have to allow that at least in some circumstances, all of those have been considered legitimate ways of doing marriage.
Oh! Of course, for those who have a flat hermeneutic and take the creation story literally, we have incest, since Adam's children had to have sex with someone to get us where we are today.
There may be other examples of incestuous or semi-incestuous relationships there, if I were to think on it some more.
We also have children entering in marriage, I believe.
Dan,
I would really like to move on to what you wanted to discuss, so after a couple of clarifications can we do so.
1. You continue to accuse me of having a flat hermeneutic, and insisting that I base me view on one verse. Leaving aside the fact that that is one more verse than you can cite. Your continued repeating of these statement demonstrates that either you do not read what I have written, or you choose not to believe me. So I will reiterate, that I have NOT come to my stance based on one verse. I have looked at the totality of scripture (what it says not what it doesn't say, silence anyone). I looked at what the Bible says concerning various aspects of human sexual expression. You don't agree, let's move on.
2. You however do seem to have an interesting hermeneutic that allows you to treat all mentions of various "marriage situations" as equally valid. While the Bible does mention various marital arrangements, it does not treat them all the same. I went through this back in December (I think) and you have brought it back now. Let's move on.
To the point of this thread. A few statements. To start.
1. Christianity has doctrinal limits. Once you go beyond those limits one is not a Christian.
2. If one denies certain doctrines (the 5 essentials we agreed on earlier to start), then it is reasonable to refer to their teaching as heresy.
3. If a person, group of people, or a church is actively promoting anti Biblical teachings, then it is perfectly acceptable to cease to be "connected" with them.
4. It is perfectly acceptable for individual denominations to set standards for membership, leadership, and ordination.
1. Christianity has doctrinal limits. Once you go beyond those limits one is not a Christian.Organized religion has doctrinal limits, yes. Once you have gone beyond the limits of the essential doctrines of a given religion, then yes, it is reasonable to assume one is not part of that religion.
2. If one denies certain doctrines (the 5 essentials we agreed on earlier to start), then it is reasonable to refer to their teaching as heresy.Sure.
3. If a person, group of people, or a church is actively promoting anti Biblical teachings, then it is perfectly acceptable to cease to be "connected" with them.Hold on, there. WHO is going to define "anti Biblical teachings"? Do I get to and since your teachings on gay marriage enter into anti-Biblical teachings then you are a heretic and ought not be associated with?
Within most Christian denominations, I believe, if one goes beyond the essentials, members of that church may rightly choose to disfellowship. That is not the same as saying the much more vague "anti-Biblical teachings" standard. That teaching, itself, would be extrabiblical and perhaps anti-biblical.
4. It is perfectly acceptable for individual denominations to set standards for membership, leadership, and ordination.If they wish. It may not be Christian of them, but it's a free world, they can set whatever standards they want. They can have rules about what races can be part of their club, or what genders can do which roles, or whatever rules they want to make up.
If you're asking if denominations can make rules, roles based on their best biblical understanding, I'm okay with that. I'm just not sure how biblical that is. I'd have to see what rules you're talking about.
You however do seem to have an interesting hermeneutic that allows you to treat all mentions of various "marriage situations" as equally valid.To be clear, that's not what I said. I pointed out that many various takes on marriage are found within the pages of the Bible. Obviously, I don't think they're all morally or culturally valid. For instance, I absolutely reject as horrifying the notion of kidnapping the orphaned girls of your destroyed enemy to make them your wife.
Just to be clear - just because it shows up in the Bible does not make it morally or logically valid.
Dan,
Maybe anti Biblical was the wrong term. An example of what I am thinking of would be a pastor in a church identified as christian, who teaches the Christ did not exist would obvioulsy be beyond the bounds of Biblical teaching. I am not saying that they shouldn't be able to teach what they want, just that it should not be labled christian. Am I making myself clearer?
As far as denominational rules. It seems as though we agree that denominations can make their own rules. So let's look at the concept of fellowship. I would like to use the PCUSA as my example for two reasons. 1. I am most familiar with it and it's polity. 2. This kind of discussion is going on right now.
As we speak there is a denomination wide vote on ordination standards. As it stand right now the (sexual if you will) standard for ordination is "fidelity within marriage, chastity within singleness" This is obvioulsy a concept that is Biblically supported, and yet there is a constant move to over turn it. In your opinion is this a reasonable standard that a denomination could hold (not that youwould necessarily agree), and still be considered withion the pale of orthodoxy?
Would you agree that it is reasonable to expect those ordained as leaders to be held to a different/higher standard than members, and that members(believers), would be held to a higher standard than guests(non believers)?
Would you consider it reasonable that if a congregation was to openly violate one of the standards of the denomination for some sort of disafilation to happen?
That's enough for now.
As it stand right now the (sexual if you will) standard for ordination is "fidelity within marriage, chastity within singleness" This is obvioulsy a concept that is Biblically supported, and yet there is a constant move to over turn it. In your opinion is this a reasonable standard that a denomination could hold (not that you would necessarily agree), and still be considered within the pale of orthodoxy?Could a denomination hold that ordination should be for married or chaste folk and still be orthodox? Sure, in as much as it doesn't conflict with any essential Christian doctrines.
Could a denomination hold that ordination should not be limited to the married or chaste and still be orthodox? Sure, in as much as it doesn't conflict with any essential Christian doctrines.
Does that answer your question?
Would you agree that it is reasonable to expect those ordained as leaders to be held to a different/higher standard than members, and that members (believers), would be held to a higher standard than guests(non believers)?
Sure.
Would you consider it reasonable that if a congregation was to openly violate one of the standards of the denomination for some sort of disaffiliation to happen?
What standards? If you're asking if a congregation had a different opinion about a sin, then no, generally I don't think a disaffiliation is in order. We're going to disagree about sins.
But keep in mind that I come from the baptist/anabaptist tradition which has a strong belief in the autonomy of the local church.
Now, I guess if it were radical enough position on a blatant enough sin (ie, someone believed that Christians ought to take part in war and slaughter all of their enemies except for the virgin girls, which can be kidnapped and taken home to be wives), yes, at some point I think you could make the case.
But most sins we disagree upon are not nearly as clear-cut as that. As a rule, I'd say that unless there is a line where Jesus clearly says, "THIS IS WRONG, you can't do it and follow me," then I lean towards grace in disagreements with fellow Christians on a specific sin.
So, for instance, no matter how wrong I think you are on the topic of gay marriage, I would not disfellowship with you.
Does that answer that question?
Dan,
2 quick questions.
As far as your married/chaste comment, sorry don;t buy it. You have even less scriptural support for that than for your GM position.
Could you define disfellowship.
Sorry, three.
When you say "Jesus said..." are you denying that Jesus is part of the Godhead?
As far as your married/chaste comment, sorry don;t buy it. You have even less scriptural support for that than for your GM position.So, it's your position that someone can be a heretic for non-essential beliefs? This is what I'm trying to get at: Is someone (in your opinion) a heretic for a whole list of sins on which they possibly hold the wrong position or is it because they disagree with essential doctrine?
Disfellowship in some denominations. Shunning in the anabaptist tradition. Excommunication in the Catholic church. The practice of discontinuing fellowship with a church member who does not agree with essential doctrine.
I'm not sure what you're asking about on your third question. Yes, Jesus is God, if that's what you're asking.
Craig, if you would, I would really like to hear what made you say this:
When you say "Jesus said..." are you denying that Jesus is part of the Godhead?As that's the kind of thing that seems to happen sometimes, where I said something that suggested something to you and I just can't even begin to see where you're coming from and how you got there.
Thanks.
Dan,
I'm not sure that I would label someone a heretic for beliefs on non essentials. I might say that at some point it might be possible to disagree on such a large quantity of non essentials that it could end up as heresy. But not in general.
Thanks for the clarification on disfellowshipping. Interesting that your tradition has this as a part of it. I don't know if I would "disfellowship" a person, unless they were so adamant/obnoxious about their beliefs that they in effect disfellowship themselves.
I guess I am coming at it from a different direction. The PCUSA is considered connectional. Where this causes problems is when two congregations/pastors teach things that are diametrically opposed to each other. How is it possible to maintain this connection when there is no middle ground. So where I would have a problem is one of two situations (which are happening) 1. Attempting to push through a change which goes against all history and polity that have defined Reformed theology since Calvin. (not saying that this is the same as scripture, but we are working within the structure of the historic reformed theology) 2. Preventing congregations that wish to disaffiliate, and move to a correspondent reformed denomination. Given this, and coming at it from an outsider position, what would be your thoughts.
As far as the Jesus is God thing. My point is, that if you accept the premise that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, then it becomes difficult to make a dichotomy between the "Thus says the Lord" in the OT, and "Jesus said" in the NT. I didn't mean it the way you took it, sorry.
Dan,
Sorry if the last comment was a little incoherent. Can I summarize? Thanks.
Since you are part of a tradition that practices the concept of disfellowship, then I assume you agree that there is a place for it.
Tell me what how you would respond to this hypothetical.
Anabaptist preacher all of a sudden renounces pacifism. Would you agree that he could still be considered within the pale of orthodoxy for Christianity, yet be outside the theological bounds of Anabaptism (sorry if that's the wrong term). So would you suggest that maybe he should find a home in another denomination that might be more in line with his views?
That is what we are seeing in the PCUSA. A number of pastors who are attempting to significantly change what it means theologically to be Presbyterian. Now, I would not necessarily say that they are heretics in terms of the "Big C" Church, but that to call themselves Presbyterian is false advertising. Agree or disagree?
That's enough for now.
If a pastor of a peace church were to suddenly become a war advocate, that would be grounds for that church to dismiss the pastor, letting him/her find a job elsewhere where his beliefs fit in with the congregation's. We would not disfellowship with the pastor, though, acting as though he weren't a Christian.
He/she would merely be, instead, one who believed differently than we did on a particular behavior. There is a difference (at least in my circles) between firing a pastor because they didn't believe as the majority of the church did on a significant issue and shunning.
Shunning would be for disagreeing on essentials.
(That is, in MY circles. I believe it is entirely true that there are some more "conservative" Amish types who would shun over many unessentials - wearing a one belt suspender instead of a two belt suspender, that kind of thing. But that is not in my circle of progressive anabaptist types).
Any comments on the rest of my ramblings.
I might say that at some point it might be possible to disagree on such a large quantity of non essentials that it could end up as heresy. But not in general.
I tend to think that one should be considered a heretic only when one does not believe in essentials, or perhaps even more directly, when one actively disagrees with essentials.
The PCUSA is considered connectional. Where this causes problems is when two congregations/pastors teach things that are diametrically opposed to each other. How is it possible to maintain this connection when there is no middle ground.
Easy enough for churches that come from the tradition of believing in the autonomy of the local church and the priesthood of the believer.
You disagree with me on a non-essential question? Okay, we disagree. THAT is the middle ground. It's okay to have differences of opinion on whether action A is a sin or not.
Does someone think smoking cigarettes is a sin? I disagree, I think it's unhealthy and don't advise it, but I wouldn't call it a sin.
Does someone think smoking pot is a sin? I disagree. But that's okay, we have a difference of opinion on an action that is not covered directly in the bible.
I think those who actively oppose gay marriage are engaging in sinful, hurtful conduct. You disagree? That's okay. I think you're wrong and vice versa. No need to call one another heretics over the matter.
Now, I probably would not attend a local church where the majority thought that opposing gay marriage was right or where they say the pledge of allegiance to a US flag which stands in front of their church, or where they supported the war in Iraq or the Contra war. Those are some significant differences and I would not care to be a part of such a local congregation and they probably wouldn't want me there.
But I wouldn't go so far as to call them heretics.
OK, we've established that there are very limited circumstances where you would do much in the face of disagreement.
But, how would you respond if folks were actively acting in opposition of denominational polity? Should they be disciplined? Should there be church discipline? Should those in power misuse polity punitively, against those who disagree with them?
RE: what you consider sin. I could care less about smoking. If some moron wants to kill themselves that's their decision. I would, however argue that the admonition to treat your body as a temple would seem to indicate that something as damaging as smoking would not be something God would encourage. I would also look to the Biblical cautions/prohibitions against altering your mental state as applying universally.
I think it interesting that you take such a strong position on war as an issue you would divide over despite that Biblical and traditional support for the opposite position. I personally don't have a flat hermeneutic on the issue as you seem to, but at least I would acknowledge that those who believe as you do can make a reasonable Biblical case, and that this is am issue where there is room for a wide degree of variance. I would have a harder time labeling as sin something of which you claim the Bible doesn't speak. It seems strange for you to argue that the Bible's silence supports your argument on the one side, without acknowledging that Biblical silence, actually supports both sides equally, or not at all.
You seem to be focusing on calling people heretics rather than how to coexist with those with we disagree. I'm not sure if your point is that heresy doesn't exist, or that in your opinion nothing rises to the level of heresy. It also seems that you are missing part of my point. While not rising to the level of heresy, actively "breaking church law" is a problem.
It does seem as though we disagree that there is room for people of differing opinions on these things should be able to have some degree of choice regarding who they choose to worship with.
Dan,
Some clarification. Since you obviously have a few things you consider sinful and worthy of immediate repentance, it might be helpful to see what you think.
In your opinion could you answer the following.
What is sin?
Why is sin bad?
What are the consequences of sin?
What are some things you consider to be sin?
How do you determine what sin is?
If one sins, who is/are the injured party/ies?
If you were/are engaging in some sinful practice, would you not be grateful for someone pointing out your sin?
What does repentance look like?
Easy enough, I reckon...
What is sin?
I believe the greek term is translated "missing the mark," as in an arrow not reaching a bulls-eye. What mark? Living the way we were created. We were not created to hurt others, to kill innocent people, to hate, to lie, to cheat, etc. We were made to live reasonably.
Another way of looking at it is that sin is that which is bad for us. That which causes us or others pain. Because God loves us, God does not want us to do that which causes us or others ill-caused pain.
Why is sin bad?
See my last paragraph. Sin is bad because it is that which is bad for us. It is living a way that we weren't made to live.
What are the consequences of sin?
There are natural consequences (if I steal, I may go to jail; if I'm rude, someone may beat me up; If I beat up someone, someone may retaliate... natural consequences) and there are relational consequences. A relationship in some way is broken or harmed by sin. Our relationship towards others, our relationship with ourselves, our relationship with God.
What are some things you consider to be sin?
That which is bad for us.
War.
Envy.
Pollution.
Endangering others (by our driving, by our behavior, by irresponsibility, etc).
Lying.
Cheating.
Especially cheating or otherwise oppressing the poor, is a common biblical sin.
Same stuff as you believe, generally.
In general, not living as we were made to live. Which is one logic-based reason why I support gay marriage. Gay folk were born to love folk of the same gender. To try to force them to live in a way other than how they were made to live is wrong. It misses the mark of God's creation.
How do you determine what sin is?
We can get answers to this in the Bible, to some degree. But ultimately, we can see it when it is happening and causing undue pain to others. Now, I'm not talking about the pain of arresting a criminal - there certainly is pain in that for the criminal, but it is pain he has brought on himself and he must bear the consequences.
I'm talking about pain caused to others for no reason.
Like everyone else, I reason out what is sin based on many sources and ultimately, our own logic.
The problem with saying, "The Bible," (which I suspect is the answer you're looking for) is that there are many claims in the Bible and not all hold up as sin and some behaviors that aren't condemned clearly are sin. for instance, the Bible condemns eating shrimp as an abomination, but clearly, eating shrimp itself is not a sin. We have to reason our way through the Bible and beyond using our logic to cipher out which actions in the Bible are sins and which ones aren't.
If one sins, who is/are the injured party/ies?
The sinner, primarily. But also, the sinner's community (for instance, a polluter harms more people than just themselves, the drunk or speeding driver may cause harm to more than just themselves).
Also, I believe our sins grieve God.
If you were/are engaging in some sinful practice, would you not be grateful for someone pointing out your sin?
Yes.
What does repentance look like?
Turning around and going the other way. Zaccheus, who took money that didn't belong to him, repented by returning that which he'd stolen and more. He changed direction.
For the most part, my answers are most likely not that different than yours (with the exception of how much emphases we might place on the Bible, which we both believe to be a source of information about sin, but I would acknowledge that we need to reason our way through the Bible and not rely upon a flat, literal reading - "The Bible says that wearing tattoos is a sin, or that wearing polyester is a sin, so it's a sin. Period!").
Dan,
Now I'm beginning to understand why this is so hard.
What is sin?
Sin is what separates us from God. While people are certainly impacted, positively and negatively by our sin. It is foremost our rebellion against God. It is us declaring our independence from God if you will.
Why is sin bad?
Sin is bad because it separates us from God. While we or others may be hurt by our sin, ultimately the biggest consequence is our separation from God.
What are the consequences of sin?
First, it puts us in opposition to God, which may or may not have reasonably immediate consequences. Second, it damages our relationships with others in various ways.
What are things you consider to be sin.
I would start with the Decalogue. It seems to me that all sin really flows from those ten. Then I would consider the higher standard that Jesus taught. "you have heard it said...murder. But I say...has committed murder in his heart." etc. I do however think that there are behaviors (drinking comes to mind), that may not be sinful for everyone. However they may be sinful for some.
How do you determine what sin is?
I start with the above, then I go from there. My personal preference is to err on the side of not engaging in a behavior if I have a question about it's sinfulness. I do think that it is possible to extrapolate from what scripture says to determine how things not specifically mentioned should be considered.
If one sins, who is/are the injured party(ies)?
First, sin is an offense against God, and therefore he is the primary offended party. Second, is man. Whether it be ourselves or others.
What does repentance look like?
Two parts; acknowledging our failure/rebellion, turning away from the behavior.
While you might see our answers as similar, I see a fairly significant divergence. I'm not sure where to go from there.
And I can agree with every single line that you've said there, I think. None of them are in conflict with what I've said.
Sin IS missing the mark and sin DOES break relationships - with each other and with God and with our own wholeness.
Is it okay if I'm not tied down to one single answer on a topic as large as sin?
Dan,
You have shown a remarkable ability to avoid being tied down to one answer on any topic, why should this be different.
It certainly seems that you have a homocentric view of sin, instead of a theocentric view of sin. In that you define sin foremost in terms of how it impacts people.
But, given that, how would you deal, in a Church sense, with someone who consistently persisted without repentance in engaging in activity which the church has historically defined as sin. Would you allow them to attend, to become a member, to teach, to take a leadership position. For that matter would you agree that if a particular denomination/church has decided that a certain action is a sin, that those who claim to adhere to the teachings of that church, should not engage in that particular activity.
You have shown a remarkable ability to avoid being tied down to one answer on any topic, why should this be different.
Okay Craig, I must say that now you're being silly. I can't have more than one answer about sin??
According to one preacher I know...
Sin is...
(1) lawlessness, in other words breaking the law of God.
(2) Sin is iniquity which springs forth from man's own corrupt nature.
(3) Sin is also missing the mark; falling short of the goal God has set.
(4) Sin is a form of trespass. It is the intrusion of self-will into the sphere of divine authority; the preference of self instead of God.
(5) And finally sin is unbelief that rejects the Word of God and refuses Christ as Savior.
That preacher must be a confused hard to tie down guy, refusing to stick to one answer.
The preacher? Billy Graham.
It certainly seems that you have a homocentric view of sin, instead of a theocentric view of sin. In that you define sin foremost in terms of how it impacts people.
My answers that I've given:
What are consequences of sin?
"A relationship in some way is broken or harmed by sin. Our relationship towards others, our relationship with ourselves, our relationship with God."
Who are injured parties?
"The sinner, primarily. But also, the sinner's community...
Also, I believe our sins grieve God."
Sin effects us, the people around us and our relationship with God and others. Do you disagree with my points?
Again, I think at this point you're being just a little silly and nitpicky.
Dan,
My point is, that if you look at how you phrase your answers, and your list of sins, you put man first. I may be reading too much into it but, that's what I see.
Given your respect for Billy Graham I'd be interested if you would agree with his position on the sinfulness of homosexual acts. It's also interesting that Graham's list basically says exactly what I said when I answered the questions. It is also telling that he consistently addresses sin as breaking our relationship with God, he never mentions what you lead with, people. His list also addresses you problem with children being innocent (wherever you were having that argument)"(2) Sin is iniquity which springs forth from man's own corrupt nature." Calvin would have said total depravity, while others refer to it as original sin, the fact remains that in terms of our relationship to God we are born guilty.
But, now that I understand where you are coming from how about you deal with the stuff I've posted and questions I've asked about the topic at hand.
Are you amongst those who claim that newborns are depraved?
The Bible uses some metaphorical language that suggests an inherent sin nature that we all have, but we ought not confuse that more poetic, metaphoric language for the suggestion that newborns are actually guilty of something.
That defies logic and reality. As I noted elsewhere: If the way you're reading the Bible defies logic and evidence, then there may well be something wrong with the way you're reading the Bible.
My point is, that if you look at how you phrase your answers, and your list of sins, you put man first. I may be reading too much into it but, that's what I see.
You are reading too much into it. I begin with humanity in my answers because that is the portion of the equation I'm most familiar with, being part of humanity and not being God.
And again, I will note, that there is nothing wrong with my answers - sin DOES separate us from one another and from God. Sin DOES harm us, others and God.
It would not matter if I said, "Sin DOES harm God, us and others," it's the same sentence with the same meaning and all quite orthodox.
Dan,
Yes, I (along with Billy Graham apparently) believe that we are all born with a sin nature. Therefore I will stand with Graham, Calvin and numerous others who would say the same.
When I read things like "for all have sinned" I strangely assume that actually means all. Or, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned", I guess you could look at the all as metaphorical, but I'm not sure there is any warrant for doing so. Or, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature." again I guess you could somehow take the term "sin nature" as metaphorical, but why would you. I would also suggest that there is considerable additional Biblical support for the concept of original sin, which is inherited as part of our humanity. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "children" are "innocent". Certainly they are legally innocent. But, I'm not sure there is support for children being innocent of a sin nature. Obviously, the RC would disagree with you on this given their position that infant baptism covers original sin.
As to your notion of an "age of accountability" this is actually a Jewish tradition that has been accepted and modified by many christians. The primary distinctive to the christian version is not that there is a specific age where sin begins to count or where we start sinning, rather it is a notion that when a child dies that God engages in mercy rather than justice. It is similar to the concept of positional righteousness as opposed to practical righteousness. I'm not sure how a plain reading of the text, in context, "defies...yada, yada ,yada". But I'm sure you think it does, but I'm not going to impugn your reasoning abilities just because your opinion is what it is.
But, could you actually address some of the volumes about what we actually started with. Please.
Dan,
On a completely different tack. I was thinking the other night (after breathing a fair amount of forklift exhaust) that, evolutionary theory can't be kind to homosexuality. I've never heard anyone address this, and may be out of my mind, but it seems to be an interesting beginning of a thought. I will probably do a separate post on this when I have time, so we can keep to the topic at hand here.
Craig,
This is the only means I have of hollering at you, sorry to be off topic for this thread. I just wanted to let you know that I followed the discussion you had with Aric pertaining to Ramsey, finances, and the Bible. You are right, he is wrong, end of discusssion!
Okay, first I have to applaud you two for such dedication to such exhaustive and respectful virtual discussion of your positions.
I accidently got here from Craig's brief appearance at Marshall Art's... and I will not be returning for my presence will only disrupt a good thing.
But in reading your exchange, permit me to put in two cents only on the fictional basis that having spent the time reading this thread, I can be allowed to interject the following lines only:
Craig said the following: "I will reiterate, no one that I have ever seen has made an affirmative case for homosexual activity being anything but condemned by the Bible. Since your folk, are that ones seeking to turn over 3000 years of Judeo-Christian understanding on it's head you would think it would not be too much to ask for one verse, one phrase, something, anything. But there is no case."
As is usual for me, slavery serves as a template for the evidence of how all of human history can egregiously miss so seemingly clear a moral value. All of human history, that is, except for the last few seventeen decades or so. Such a small span when considering.
So, Craig, it seems to me we would have an agreed precedent for overturning at least twelve thousand years of documented concession to slavery of various kinds.
And the Christian church was at the forefront of exonerating the powers of enslavement, and some times leading in the violence. Paul, himself, did not help the institution when he encourages women and slaves to fulfill their social rank for the sake of witness. Perhaps what he could not understand was that he and a very few others could have the moral standing to ask them to do so. After martyrdom was over, Christian men had very little to sacrifice in comparison.
Paul did offer a spiritual focus for women and slaves from which to frame a faith that liberates even while the life remains imprisoned:
In Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave or free, no male or female.
History has now realized the humanist truth to these spiritual visions.
We've overturned tens of thousands of years of intellectually defending these kinds of divisions.
There is at least one more to go. And I find that the spiritual vision of no male or female to provide enough theological matter to consider sexuality within it. Just as the institution of the African slave trade, so peculiar from all others, so unprecedented in numbers, and with so much redemption still possible in a diverse, peaceful, and integrated society... just at this dynamic can now so naturally be seen in the gospel truth that there is no slave or free -- not something obviously applicable but made applicable by long reasoning...
... so gay and straight will be dissolved by the same combination of enlightened faiths working with enlightened humanism.
Thanks for the space.
Take care, both of you.
Dan's an idiot.
That's the extent of Mark's critical thinking capacity.
Post a Comment