Posted by Dave Mead on December 05, 1999 at 15:47:37:
In Reply to: DAVE MEAD? WHERE ARE YOU? posted by Steven on December 04, 1999 at 12:45:07:
: : : : If you have been giving this issue thought, here is an article you should read:
: : : : http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html
: : : : You can just click on the link below:
: : : Steve:
: : : Thanks for throwing out something for folks to think about.
: : : I certainly agreed with Walter's comments about the couple at the end of the essay. Ofcourse I do not agree with every point Walter made, but then again, I don't agree with every point I've ever made. The article made some good points about divorce and homosexuality. And that focused my thinking on why we Americans 'freak out' so much about homosexuality. I guess we need a dark foe to make ourselves look better as Christians. Well, if that's the case our faith is weak. Christ did not go around renouncing every sinner. What Christ renounced was religious bigotry and hypocrisy. Christ was magnetically drawn to sinners who were likewise responding to Grace. I think what Walter shared is valuable for two reasons: 1)he exposed the hypocrisy of Christians in their attitude to Scripture. They declared it ALL AUTHORITATIVE and then they played pick and choose, depending on what sins they were or were not accepting during any given era. 2) he is saying that we are free to disagree and must do so, but with charity between parties. This was refreshing to me. I am saying this because two issues are at stake in my life personally. One, I have been very confused about my own sexuality for years. If I denied my own struggle, and tried to push it down, I would be putting a strange burden on my conscience. Similarly, I feel that one does damage to himself by settling for the straight or gay category(grabbing for easy identities) but bypassing really working through an issue, especially issues that grab at the core of one's being. That I am working through questions and feelings does not make me dishonor scripture or throw my faith in Christ away (though it may make me suspect in the eyes of others) , but it helps me to find my identity not in sexual orientations but in Christ. This is no easy path and I dare say that i do not always tread it well. Second, it throws into light the whole question of authority and asks how we determine what is authentically Christian. Here is a can of worms that needs to be opened. Not so we can throw off legitimate authority but so that we can learn to identify and obey it in a spirit of kindness and love. Not so we can start throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but so that we can honestly seek answers and arrive at the truth. Thanks again for posting Walter's viewpoint on this site. Thanks for allowing his small voice to be heard and doug Pinnick's too.
: : : NOTE FOR CONCERNED READERS-By saying the above I have not asked anyone to lower their tolerance or moral positions, only to allow those of differing viewpoints the same freedom to grow in their understanding of God and God's truth. Remember, God's kindness calls us to repentance. Let's thank God that he has called us and not stifle his voice for others. And, by the way, all of us are in this together. None of us is above reproach. Let us also pray for light and truth. That we may know Jesus Christ, who is the Light and the Truth.
: : : David Morrison has dealt with the same topic as Walter, and offers his own testimony. Feel free to read it and glean any nuggets of truth that may be hidden there as well. Thanks, Bill
: : EXCELLENT POINTS, BILL. Your 2 points above clearly summarize why most thinking, intelligent, reflective, philosophical people want nothing at all to do with organized religion.
: : The mysterious revelation of God is arbitrarily interpreted in whatever way a church desires, and then (in that form) declared to be GOD'S literal and unquestionable standard and/or authoritative command. It's no wonder that thinking people often feel that the church's doctrines are founded on nothing God-inspired whatsoever, but rather that they are all the creation of men. Unfortunately, they are largely correct.
: : On the other hand, if these thinking people have enough rational integrity to try to reason, discuss, investigate, understand, or question these suspect stances that the church holds, they are immediately condemned as heretics and rebels who are seeking to disprove God.
: : Conclusions:
: : Thinking people, rational people, and people with enough integrity to question what they are told make very poor Christians indeed (according to what the church accepts as "Christian").
: : Christians who are kind enough, mature enough, and strong enough in their faith to entertain the difficult questions of thinking people are often branded as "liberal" or "lukewarm," having a weak, insincere, and polluted faith.
: : How sick and distressed the church is today! More and more those who really seek to know God in His mystery and seek to love ALL people are not to be found in the "conservative" church; there is rapidly becoming no place for them there. I used to think of "liberal" Christianity as heretical, faithless, and inferior. Today, however, I am much more comfortable being called a liberal Christian than a conservative one. Maybe we can be "Liberal Orthodox Mystics." (Then everyone will think we're satan.) :-)
: DAVE MEAD? WHERE ARE YOU? JUMP RIGHT ON IN, BRO... :-)
I'm here. I agree, Steve. I've given this whole issue no small bit of thought, and I have to say that, theologically, I've experienced a marked drift leftward.
Once we come to the place of admitting to ourselves that the bible cannot be inerrant, as conservative evangelical Christendom has always understood it to be, then we are free to deal honestly with the text (I hope I'm not getting too controversial for anyone). This is the key to getting through the sludge that is the issue of homosexuality in the Church; the fundamental disagreement is about how we should view the bible. Someone who holds to the inerrancy of scripture cannot come to any conclusion other than that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Therefore, before we can have any meaningful dialogue on this issue, we must agree about the inspiration of scripture.
That said, I think Wink's essay deals powerfully with the Pauline proscription against homosexual practice, found in Romans. This is where Wink's argument is strongest. There is no way Paul could've known that sexual orientation is innate. Once we understand that some people simply are gay, and that sexual orientation is not something that can, in most cases, be changed, we have to ask ourselves how Jesus would have us treat those among us who have a same-sex orientation. Most of us would agree, I'm sure, that sexual promiscuity, whether hetero- or homo-, is wrong because it treats people as objects that are there for our gratification. But what about homosexuals who love God and who are living in committed, monogamous relationships? Would Jesus subject these to a life of involuntary celibacy simply because of the way they are? This is the question we must address.