RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Politicizing confession
A group called Changing the Face of Christianity is launching a new campaign to encourage Christians to confess their shortcomings.
There’s a lot in that sentence, isn’t there? Confession is a blessed thing when done rightly. When we confess our sins, the Scriptures tell us, God is faithful to forgive them. One cannot be a Christian, in fact, without confession. It’s a sad commentary on the state of modern Christianity that a group has to urge people who call themselves Christians to confess their sins.
But there’s an underlying element of ideology to the campaign that calls into question its intent. The group’s leader, R. Brad White, shares that his confession is homophobia, which by his definition includes the orthodox Christian understanding of marriage and homosexuality. In other words, his confession is a sideswipe at Christian dogma itself. I suspect some of the other confessions garnered by this project will likewise blend the personal with the political.
What’s more, it’s not even a confession, at least not as I understand it. Having held, presumably, to the dogma of the Church, White at some point in the past publicly repudiated it, and threw in with a group dedicated to representing the Christian understanding of marriage and homosexuality as wicked.
Further, White isn’t even confessing to having done something to uphold the Christian dogma he now rejects. Instead, he “allowed” Christian leaders who uphold this dogma to represent him without opposition.
In other words, White’s confession is really about someone else’s “sin.” And this “sin” is in fact an historically grounded understanding of Christian dogma that remained undisputed until Bishop Spong and the dilettantes of the Jesus Seminar emerged to make 2 + 2 = 5 in the eyes of a reconstructed God.
This has more affinity with the devil than with the Creator. It’s the devil, after all, who comes to God denouncing the legal violations of other creatures. It’s the devil who wraps himself in legality and slippery interpretations of Scriptures, all with the intent not of bowing his own knee, but entrapping all mankind who fall short of the glory of God.
So by all means, confess. You confess your black heart and I will confess mine. Our own sins, the sins of intention and evasion, of commission and omission, of subtlety and brazenness—these are enough to occupy all our time before God, don’t you think?
back to top115 Comments to “Politicizing confession”
R. Brad White, needs to repent and turn back to Christ,
Report comment to moderator
Scripture God abominated homosexuals, but:
1.) His rants expressed personal aversions more than 19 centuries ago,
2.) He did not directly command Christians to abominate homosexuals, and
3.) there’s no ethical reason — under heaven — to abominate homosexuals.
These circumstances put Evangelicals in a quandry. On the one hand, confessing homophobia makes God look irrational, and an angry God will incinerate you. On the other hand, confessing homophobia helps God save face, and a pleased God will reward you in heaven.
Your call.
Report comment to moderator
When did phobias become hates rather than fears? There seems to be a lot of redefining going on. Is “confession” the next word to be given a new definition? I suspect it is not for refined understanding but for agenda manipulation. There certainly are existing words, with established definitions, to describe unBiblical attitudes and behavior. Perhaps those seeking to redefine some words simply do not understand the issues well enough to use established definitions.
Report comment to moderator
Homophobia means an irrational fear of sameness. That sounds like a mental disorder rather than a sin.
If “homophobia” is now being redefined to mean disagreeing with a certain left-wing political agenda, then it is in the realm of politics, and again, not a sin.
I have met many evangelical Christians in my life who disagree with that agenda, but not one of them has ever expressed hatred of homosexuals. Indeed, to the contrary, the uniform message I’ve heard has been love for homosexuals, but simply disagreeing with a certain type of sexual conduct. (As for wackos that seek media attention by going around the country with ridiculous funeral protests, I have fortunately never met them, and I do not consider them to show any evidence of possessing a genuine Christian belief system).
Report comment to moderator
We could be as loving and perfect as humanly possible but unless we embrace the world’s view of homosexuality, abortion and universalism we will still be viewed negatively by them.
Report comment to moderator
That’s what it comes down to, what KBells said. It’s that simple.
Report comment to moderator
Respectfully, Pastor Roy, did you read Tony’s final paragraph?
Our priest recently said he sometimes says to people, during confession, “Okay, now you’ve confessed their sin, are you ready to confess yours?” I often find that as I prepare my confession I have to re-word things, because I try to justify my sin by including theirs in what I’m going to say. Lord have mercy.
Report comment to moderator
The homosexual practitioner, like the fornicator practitioner, simply needs to become a new creation in Christ, and be taught of God.
Then learn to walk in the Spirit..
..deliverance from homosexual, and fornicator, thinking, affection and behaviour.
“[This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.” (Ga 5:16)
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1Jo 1:9)
N/C for that.
Report comment to moderator
When you hear the word, “homophobia”, simply disregard.
It has no value, is N/A to anything, and null and void.
Next subject.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.” (Joh 6:63)
Report comment to moderator
You guys crack me up. Fewer than 10 comments and the point is completely tossed out the window. Stop focusing on the sins of others. You have plenty of your own to confess. As do I, forgive me.
Report comment to moderator
What might help R. Brad Wright is to give time to Bible study.
Preach and teach the glories of Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, etc.
Then little “homo” talks will fall away by the way aside.
This includes delivered homosexuals who become faithful followers of the Lamb, and put away their nonsense behaviour.
Time to get some depth.
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.” (Heb 6:1-3)
Report comment to moderator
“Our priest”??
what’s that?
——
Lots of priests around here…
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)
But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (1Pe 2:9)
No need for the 3 little rooms with the guy in the middle, with the tinted, sliding, plastic mini-doors.
Report comment to moderator
“Confession is a blessed thing when done rightly.”
Very simply agreeing with God as to what is sin. It doesn’t require a mediator (other than Christ) nor a sensational public forum.
Report comment to moderator
#1. I have this image in my mind of Pastor Roy standing in front of a congregation, urging them to REPENT and seeing a bunch of blank faces.
Anyway, it seems that you guys don’t do this any better than anybody else. Generally you wait ’til someone catches you, then comes a tearful non-confession confession, followed at a decent interval by a claim of renewed faith and claim of redemption. Of course, the devil is always handy as an excuse, too.
I have Jim Baker and Ted Haggard in mind as exemplars; I’m sure you will think of others.
Actually, I have considerable respect for the Catholic ritual of confession. Guilt can be a terrible burden, even for non-believers, and having someone to confess to, without enduring horrible consequences can redeem some lives. I guess shrinks serve the same purpose for the “unchurched”.
I wonder if confession is less popular among protestants because you don’t trust your preachers as much as the Catholics? Or maybe your god is just fiercer.
Report comment to moderator
#14 ARCADIA
“I wonder if confession is less popular among protestants because you don’t trust your preachers as much as the Catholics? Or maybe your god is just fiercer.”
No, Arcadia, we just are called to confess our sins and repent whenever we pray, whenever the Spirit jogs us, whenever a bother in Christ confronts us. We are called to confess whenever we see our sins. A difference is that we confess our sins directly to God, not necessarily our preacher or pastor.
You see, we us Protestants, confession should be a regular, maybe daily, thing. It is what we do!
Report comment to moderator
I also object to the word homophobia. There is such a thing as hatred of homosexuals, but I have seen it much, much more often among non-Christians who simply find homosexuality distasteful than among Christians. In fact, a Christian cannot hate somebody and truly be following Christ.
The worst locker room jokes and insults I ever heard against homosexual people were from people who were far, far, far from following Christ.
The concept of homophobia is based on an assumption that “straight” people hate “gay” people either because (1) they fear them or (2) they fear that they themselves might be gay, too. I think that it’s a false assumption, although I am sure that there have been people who claimed to hate homosexuals because they were covering the fact that they themselves were struggling with their sexual identity or their sexual attraction.
Now, if there are Christians who hate homosexual people, then, yes, they need to repent. They need to repent on their own behalf for their own sins.
Since I do not hate homosexual people, I have no need to confess that particular sin, and I won’t. I also know that I cannot do it for anyone else, because if they are not willing to repent–to turn away from their sin–it is less than useless for me to confess their sins.
Report comment to moderator
Lots of priests around here…No need for the 3 little rooms with the guy in the middle, with the tinted, sliding, plastic mini-doors.
Sorry, I should have used the word “presbyter” (you call him a “pastor” or “elder,” same Greek word as presbyter, it got shortened to “priest” somewhere in time. It’s a different noun, though, than the type of priest in the verses you quoted). And we have no plastic sliding doors — I sit right next to our priest in full view, and pray/talk directly to God. Our priest is a silent witness. Perhaps you have me confused with a Roman Catholic? (And perhaps you don’t realize how condescending you come across to someone who practices their Christian faith differently than you?)
Actually, I have considerable respect for the Catholic ritual of confession. Guilt can be a terrible burden, even for non-believers, and having someone to confess to, without enduring horrible consequences can redeem some lives.
Interesting that our friend Arcadia seems to get it more than some of the Christians I speak with (why confession with a priest — ours is Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, and there’s a different approach to confession in the eastern church — is a helpful thing in the life of a Christian). The sacrament is properly named Repentance, by the way, confessing is just a part of it. Our priest is a fellow-sojourner who witnesses my confession, offers advice and insight, and thanks God with me for forgiveness. And I can tell you that sins/bitterness/weaknesses/anger that I struggled with, unsuccessfully, for more than 20 years as a protestant are now things that are changing, little by little, in large part due to regular confession.
You see, we us Protestants, confession should be a regular, maybe daily, thing. It is what we do!
Do you? Really? Because when I was protestant, neither I or any of the Christians I knew confessed very much at all. We’d know there were things to confess, we’d THINK about confessing, we’d be thankful that when we confessed we were forgiven, but actually sitting down in prayer — with a list, written or otherwise — and doing it? Huh-uh. It was easier to let it go with the ever-present thought, “God is gracious, I’m fine.”
Report comment to moderator
NW Juliana: I’m curious as to why, having direct access to the Father, you found it so difficult to confess your sins as a Protestant?
Report comment to moderator
And given that there is helpful and even healing power in confessing our sins to one another as well (Js 5:16), did you not have the kind of trust relationships that fostered that kind of confession?
(These aren’t meant to be judgmental questions – just wondering what was instrumental in your move to Orthodoxy and why.)
Report comment to moderator
#10 I think you missed the point of the post. This post was not about confession it was about POLITICIZING confession. I went to the site Tony referenced and I perused 2 or 3 articles from different sections. In every one there was at least 1 non-negative reference (sometimes more) to another site called ‘thinkatheist’. The article I read on christian hypocrisy held up a man with a Bible clutched to his chest, talking about God all the time, as the stereotypical ‘hypocrite’. This is just another leftist junk site like Sojourner.
Report comment to moderator
‘Homophobia’ is not hate, it’s not hate speech, it’s not a sin. The term is a tool of political and emotional manipulation wielded by those who want to redefine marriage, to re-create it in their own image. And they have multiple websites and propaganda campaigns with which to attempt to do it.
As far as confession goes, it is not bad to have someone to confess to after you’ve confessed to God (or before), especially if it helps hold you accountable. But if that’s all the confessing one is doing….well, it wouldn’t be sufficient for me.
Report comment to moderator
Juliana, your comments about Protestants also seem a bit condescending. Many Protestants view confession as keeping short accounts. Confession should be moment by moment as the need arises; not saved up.
Report comment to moderator
There are no “gays”.
It’s a nonsense word.
Dictionary writers got sucker-punched, due to justification for salary perpetuity.
There is “gay clothing”.
A homosexual practitioner, or other human being, may or may not wear “gay clothing” on any given day..
“And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:” (Jas 2:3)
Hope that helps.
Not sure about “gayclothingphobia”. This would require department store, clip-boarded researchers marking check boxes as to which aisles people use.
There may be a church support group that may get bogged down in it someday, but I can’t know everything.
Report comment to moderator
“Our priest is a silent witness.”
————–
One for every visitor?
Staff payroll would seem quite elevated.
“Rejoice in the Lord alway: [and] again I say, Rejoice.” (Php 4:4)
Report comment to moderator
‘gayclothingphobia’? That’s a new take. I confess I had never heard it. Am I forgiven? :–)
Report comment to moderator
arcadia,
AFTER you become one of the gloriously “purchased”, growing as a Christian will begin to take place, and Heavenly moral commentary will begin to become possible.
“In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the PURCHASED possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (Eph 1:13-14)
Take up the challenge.
The Lamb awaits your call.
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
Whatever you do, don’t tell the pharmaceutical industry.
They’ll step-it-up with the propaganda on “GCP_MoodSupportElevation”, and the investors will run for the sign-up sheets.
And you think the Big-Mart clothing aisles are busy now?!?
Don’t go on a Saturday.
Report comment to moderator
Juliana, I admit that hearing presybters called “priests” as some sort of abbreviation caught me a bit off guard–whoever came up with that one, it’s creative. I do think confession is biblical (”Confess your faults one to another, that you may be healed”), but neither my pastor nor I would feel it proper for him to be the main person who heard my confession. Both because of the priesthood of the believer and because he’s a married man and I’m a single woman. I do confess to women friends, not in a formal weekly session but as part of life.
Ovet the past couple of years I’ve pondered the idea that someone once mentioned on here, that God “protecting” His church from the gates of hell and preserving it pure applied only to the Orthodox church and it is the only true church, with all others having wandered away from that divine protection. It doesn’t sound right, but then, neither is the wide range of Protestantism (with some branches being overtly heretical) a good idea, so I didn’t want to refuse the possibility that I myself was under deception. (Clearly, minimally, those in other denominations who are true believers are part of Christ’s body, the church; the Orthodox church cannot declare who isn’t or isn’t part of Christ’s bride, and the man on a deserted island who reads the Bible, accepts Christ, but dies before joining any church is still a part of the church, as is a member of other denominations.)
I know this wasn’t your intention, but your words about priests helped settle the question for me. Because it is remotely possible that tradition does authoritatively formalize scriptural truth (as, say, we formally recognize the doctrine of the Trinity, brought together in greater detail by church councils). But it is unquestionably true that anything that contradicts Scripture cannot be acceptable, even if church bodies (e.g., the Vatican or a denomination board) proclaim it. Does the Orthodox church proclaim any doctrine that clearly contradicts Scripture? was then my question, and I’ve looked from time to time at that question to try to answer it.
The question of sola Scriptura does seem to be on the side of Protestants, not the Orthodox, but then, I am Protestant and see things through a Protestant grid, so I held off on letting that be conclusive though it does seem biblical. Icons seem to me problematic, but I’m not sure I can prove by Scripture that they’re forbidden, nor do I see that Orthodoxy requires their use. The way the Russian Orthodox have persecuted believers whom they believe to be “outside the church” is deeply troubling, but again I’m looking from the outside. So none of these is conclusive.
A few weeks ago I looked at a site discussing Orthodox beliefs, to see what some of the doctrinal distinctives are. (I should mention that I had no thought of “converting” and leaving my church–I think doing so would be wrong based on my commitment to my church and the fact that in worst case it isn’t heretical. But in such questions, being persuaded could mean going to a new church if I were to move, or had to leave my church for other reasons–I did that in my “switch” to being Reformed, waited till I moved out of town to change churches.)
I found a site that named some doctrines, and critiqued them, and I found one listing of a doctrine that wasn’t critiqued but was deeply problematic, and one good analysis of a doctrine that effectively proved it to be unbiblical. The first doctrine was the idea of their being seven sacraments. One of those was marriage, which cannot really be called a sacrament for at least two reasons–one, unbelievers partake too, with God’s blessing, and two, some believers (like me) do not. I can’t argue for or against the other additional ones, but I do know marriage isn’t a sacrament.
The point that the site critiqued was this: the prayers to the dead. (It did point out that the Orthodox are not praying to the dead, but asking for their prayers–but still speaking to the dead, at any rate.) The article then effectively showed that every single place in Scripture that makes mention of contacting the dead, it is explicitly forbidden and seen as witchcraft, and also that Jesus is our only mediator in heaven and the only one who is omniscient and omnipresent and guaranteed to be able even to hear our prayers. So this is indeed one of those places where Orthodox doctrine isn’t adding to or clarifying Scripture, but is actually contradicting Scripture. (Thus, the argument that God protects the Orthodox Church from all error is voided.)
But second, this morning after reading Scripture I got thinking about the “priest” question. On one level, perhaps it doesn’t matter what a pastor/presbyter/elder is called . . . except that the word “priest” already has a very definite meaning, and it doesn’t mean the person who leads Christian worship! There actually are three categories of priests in Scripture: the Aaaronic priesthood, the Melchizedek priesthood (I just read that passage in Hebrews this morning), and the priesthood of all believers. A priest-as-Christian-pastor category is simply not in there, so that would seem to be a fairly serious error (though not, as far as I can see, in the sense of “reason to leave a church”–but certainly on the level of “reason not to join a church in the first place, if one is considering it”). The praying to the dead one is actually stronger than that one, but to me that makes a minimum of two ideas that are directly contrary to Scripture, with “marriage as sacrament” being arguably a third.
I know this is long, and you may not read this thread again anyway, and I hope it isn’t the public arguing you dislike . . . but since you’re one of the people who first made me think about these issues, it seemed fair to come back and tell you what I’ve concluded. (You’re literally the first Orthodox believer I’ve ever “met”–reason enough to believe the Church is now “bigger” than its Orthodox branch. And yes, I do believe that you’re a Christian and a member of the true church. I just don’t believe that “the true church” is any one branch of it. For reasons known only to God, He has allowed it to divide, and sometimes go off into error–some error in ALL branches, much error in some–as helpful or unhelpful as that might seem to us.)
Report comment to moderator
Yep, that WAS long–I can’t see length in “column inches” as I write something!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: May all your column inches come true.
Ovet the past couple of years I’ve pondered the idea that someone once mentioned on here, that God “protecting” His church from the gates of hell and preserving it pure applied only to the Orthodox church and it is the only true church, with all others having wandered away from that divine protection. It doesn’t sound right, but then, neither is the wide range of Protestantism (with some branches being overtly heretical) a good idea
Why would any church teach that some other church would be protected? Isn’t the object of the exercise to get as close to, and comply as well as possible with the wishes of your god?
And if you are teaching that you are doing that better than any other church, why suggest that some other church across the stret is equally or more worhty of a god’s protection?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, I have no interest in dialoguing with you about why various denominations can all be under God’s protection to the extent to which they obey Him. You reject the Word of God, the very grounds of discussion, and today I have neither the time nor the interest to start with foundational beliefs with someone who rejects them.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Perhaps you’ve already read these articles in your searching, but in case not, here they are.
Just Say No
An Evangelical Assessment of Eastern Apophaticism
COMING HOME?
Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox
It’s been years since I wrestled with these issues and, therefore, years since I read them, but I do remember them being helpful resources.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus, because it’s easier to not pray to a spiritual being than to not meet with a physical person in a scheduled meeting. Once there, having prayerfully prepared and sitting with my list in hand, confession of all the sins I have noted and can remember happens, and more importantly our pastor can then also function as a guide as I learn to repent. Spiritual laziness — getting away with doing bare minimums in the practice of my faith — is a big problem for me, and for most of the Christians I know. I bet if I emailed all the Christians I know right now and asked who has really, truly confessed all their sins to God in the last week (focused prayer, not just thinking about it with a feeling of regret) I’d get a lower than 5% positive reply.
Hopesprings, I did re-read my comments after I posted them and saw they came across that way, and for that I ask forgiveness. It does get wearying, as you might imagine, that oftentimes when I post something of my faith and how we practice it that comments that seem to be directed at Roman Catholicism come in. It might be interesting to note that for the eastern Orthodox, Catholicism and Protestantism seem seem to share more theological characteristics than RC/EO (those both being a form of Western Christianity, having developed under that same “umbrella”).
Cheryl, I appreciate you taking the time to write. I’ve always appreciated your thoughtful, friendly comments. I do hope you realize that within Orthodoxy we of course do NOT see ourselves as being a part of anything that contradicts Scripture, including asking the departed saints for their intercessions. You probably saw this as you did your research, if you included articles written by Orthodox folks. We love and honor Scripture deeply in our faith, which is evident when you attend our services; in the Divine Liturgy, the entire first part of the service is devoted to honoring and reading the Scriptures. The issue of course is whose interpretation we follow, and in Orthodoxy we follow the interpretations of the early church, not ones that came to pass some 1500+ years later. (I don’t mean that condescendingly, so I apologize if it comes across that way; I merely mean it as chronological comment.) This seems natural to us, since it’s the only faith that existed at one point, but realize that not everyone at this point in time will agree.
Report comment to moderator
And with my saying “the only faith that existed at one point” I’m not playing the “our church is better than your church” game; again it’s just a factual statement based on chronology — there was only one church for quite some time, and from that foundation the great schism in A.D. 1054 resulted in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism then becoming separate).
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, !
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, if you’re interested in dialoguing by email, my address is nwjuliana (at) yahoo (dot) com. Please know I offer that not with the hopes of converting you, but just to be available to answer questions since you said I was the first (and maybe only?) Orthodox person you “know.” Internet research is good to a point, but talking with real practitioners can add another useful dimension to that research.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Juliana.
Report comment to moderator
Juliana, after weeks with no paid work, this week I have four projects (one down, three to go), so I’m hit or miss on “contact” right now, but I may well e-mail you another time. Thank you for your graciousness. Yes, I do understand that the Orthodox church does not see anything at odds with Scripture, and attempts to base all teaching on the early days of the church; I do believe that the idea of inerrancy of tradition is undermined by serious theological errors, but I also believe my own tradition has theological erros as well (undoubtedly some of them seeming “right” to me). (Yes, BTW, I have read some on both sides, not extensively, but some on both sides, and was actually looking for a listing of Orthodox beliefs written by Orthodox believers when I found, instead, a list from the “critique” standpoint.)
Ree, thanks, I’ll check those out later. I should be able to “breathe” again by later next week, when I’ll be back down to one project.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, not so much the interpretations of the early church as a whole, but the interpretation of a specific set of early(ish) Greek fathers.
Yes, and from the perspective of Roman Catholic assumptions, it’s Protestants and EO’s who have more in common with one another than either have with themselves. But one thing I came to realize in my research is that all those are correct. In some senses, RCs and EOs have things in common contrary to Protestants. In others, it’s RCs and Protestants. And in still others, it’s EOs and Protestants that are more alike.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, not so much the interpretations of the early church as a whole, but the interpretation of a specific set of early(ish) Greek fathers.
Perhaps that’s your perspective, Ree, but that’s not what I meant when I wrote the words. I did mean the early church as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
Juliana, I understand what you are saying and what you mean. I grew up near a large Greek community and having studied church history (not necessarily theology) but the actual historical dates and events of the church understand what you are saying about the ‘holy catholic and apostalic’ church that existed before the Great Schism of 1054.
In my own tradition we have a service of the Reconciliation of the Sinner (confession). It isn’t something used frequently but I have visited with my priest and we have gone through it. A minister, priest, pastor, or whatever you choose to call him is “set aside” and held to a higher standard. There is something about having a “man of God” act as God’s representative and receive your repentence. I myself had prayed and prayed about the issue and just couldn’t move forward until I had told the priest and he repeated the words “your sins are forgiven”.
Report comment to moderator
And in church history, Martin Luther did not nail the 95 thesis to the door to start a protestant church. He did it to correct the wrongs in the existing church. (Mainly, like so much it was all about money and the improper use of it.)
Report comment to moderator
I know what you meant, but I’m disputing it. It’s difficult for me to comprehend how EO Christians can fail to acknowledge the specifically Greek flavor of their theology and their lopsided appeal to almost exclusively Greek fathers for their traditions.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry I’ve joined the party late, but I just found out about this post. Hi, my name is R. Brad White, founder of Changing the Face of Christianity, whom this article originally started talking about.
Just to clarify a few things referenced by Tony in the original post. Contrary to what has been suggested here, I DO affirm that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. And yes, I bow my knee before Christ daily. (e.g. I and my organization are not of the devil). I confess I don’t read the Bible daily. But I have read the entire Bible (OT and NT) several times and continue to read it and study it regularly (yes, I confess I miss a few days here and there.).
I’ll also re-affirm a position I’ve had to repeat often…homosexuality IS a sin. I agree with the Bible 100%.
Shall you stand in judgment of me for saying it is but one of many sins that God hates? Shall you put a laser focus on that one sin, while ignoring the many sins we heterosexuals commit every day? Homosexuals live in sin, just as we live in sin in other ways. None of the sins I or any of you commit are to be condoned. But, ignoring our own sins while standing in judgment of another’s sin is unbiblical. And so yes…we must confess (that was the point and intent of our organization’s http://www.myconfession.org campaign that Tony picked up on. And whether you do that through a priest (and God hears you either way) or directly to God matters little. You simply must confess and keep on confessing. God knows your heart even if you never speak the words.
Our myconfession.org campaign is aimed at a public reversal of hatred and distrust of Christians in the world, and seeks to help Christians BE more like Jesus Christ. (yes, I know the verses about how we will always be hated by the world…spare me, I get that). What I hate is not that we are hated by the world. I hate that we are hated for being the opposite of what we say we are, and hated for being hypocrites who don’t practice what we preach. We are to love our neighbor (e.g. not just fellow Christians). We are to love our enemies. We are not to harbor hate or bitterneess toward our fellow man. And yet, here we are…NOT loving our neighbor, NOT loving our enemies, and NOT loving our fellow man.
Why would a non-believer want to join a our Christian community (yes, being saved is THE reason), when we so often don’t live out our beliefs. I would confidently say that there are millions of “cHRISTIANS” (lowercase c intentional) who have said the simple alter call confession “Lord I accept you as my savior”, who spend the rest of their lives NOT living any differently, not seeking after God, and not growing, maturing, or attempting to Transform into Christ-likeness. There is a biblical basis for saying those millions of christians will join the unbelievers in Hell (”You call me Lord, Lord, but I say truly that I never knew you”).
Changing the Face of Christianity (www.changingthefaceofchristianity.com) is about bringing these folks back into a true relationship with Christ, where actions are consistent with beliefs, where we truly DO love our neighbor and our enemies, and are truly seeking after Christ-like transformation through the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives. I confess I personally fail each day in this area…but I am working at it. How many Christians do you know that aren’t even trying?
And so, non-believers perceive us as hypocritical, judgmental, homophobic, intolerant, pridefull, self-righteous, etc. We encourage people to confess publically (as well as directly to a Christian brother or sister who can pray for you) so that non-believers will eventually see us as not prideful, but humble, not self-righteous, but no better than any other human. Our God is perfect, but we should confess our lowness and our spiritual poverty and failings as God calls us to.
Now to the politicization argument. I agree with the Bible that homosexuality is immoral. I also affirm God’s truth that God ordained marriage is for one man and one women. Some “progressive” churches attempt to twist the Bible to sanction homosexuality or to say it’s not talking about what WE call homosexuality. That progressive argument is not defensible in my opinion. It’s a load of BS.
Now here is where I believe my position is unpopular among fundamental Christians, yet not in itself unbiblical. And I’m a teachable kind of guy, so hear what I have to say and correct me if you feel I’m wrong.
Although I agree with the Biblical definition of marriage as one man and one women, and I agree with this definition being consistent with God’s character and essence, and I agree that “God ordained” marriage is one man and one women…I look at the USA government (e.g. Political, state, legal system) sanctioned discrimination against homosexual marriage as a different issue. Although the Bible and I agree that homosexuality is immoral, I see no biblical basis for using our political majority and power to unnecessarily discriminate against or oppress homosexuals in the area of government/state sanctioned marriages. If you know of a verse that does, please share it with me. And if you disagree, I would call this a disagreement of the non-essentials….which demands our grace with one another.
Report comment to moderator
Welcome Brad,
Let’s cut to the chase: I read enough of your site to know that you’re accusing Christians who don’t agree with you of ‘homophobia’ (a term with no other value than pejorative with the intent to manipulate ) and you’re openly advocating that our country embrace an un-Biblical stance on marriage [not to mention a foolish one from a secular point of view]. As far as I’m concerned that makes you a tool of evil—either knowingly or unknowingly. Been there, done that; not interested in a repeat.
But welcome to the blog anyway! I look forward to hearing the dialogue. Gotta run out for a bit.:–)
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Brad, we are all sinners and homosexuality is but one sin among many. We’ve discussed this here before. We’ve also discussed that there are no groups making excuses for the sins of murder or rape or gluttony or alcoholism, no groups promoting these things as acceptable.
Using your logic, you must see no reason for laws against drunk driving or rape or murder because we wouldn’t want to discriminate against murderers or rapists or alcoholics, right?
Report comment to moderator
Brad,
I think I agree with most of your comments. But, you are correct that I have trouble with your last paragraph.
How is your position that Christians should be okay with the secular/legal right of homosexuals to marry different from saying that we should be okay with the secular/legal right of women to abort their babies?
It seems to me that the fundamental argument is not the secular/legal right but the spiritual beliefs underpinning the law.
And, isn’t it a fundamental principle of our government that it is the right of citizens to seek to legally influence the laws of our land.
I agree that we Christians very often act un-Christ-like, and ought to confess and change those sinful attitudes and behaviors. I do not understand why our confession demands that we endorse those who call good what we believe God calls evil. Just because it is very difficult to both love people and tell them of their sin does not mean we are not accountable to do so.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, choose your standard. If you’re a Christian and you believe in what the Bible says, that’s one standard. But if you are merely an American who wants to follow the lesser constitutional standard, at least admit it.
You cannot serve God and mammon, remember? And that’s what you want to do. You want to infect Christianity with the Constitution. You can’t serve two masters.
Report comment to moderator
And as Neil notes, Christians have a right to be in the political arena. You aren’t choosing to advocate for God’s Word. You are advocating to abandon it.
Report comment to moderator
Brad, On your last paragraph; do you believe it would be a sin for a Christian to celebrate a same sex marriage? Many Christians sincerely believe to do so would violate their conscience. If same sex marriage were legal than these Christians would not be able to own a catering business, a photography studio, a match making service or an adoption agency without eventually getting slapped with a discrimination suit. Churches would no longer be able to rent their property to non-members for weddings without the risk of a law suit. It would not be a matter of live and let live. It would be a matter of endorse or pay the price.
Report comment to moderator
He wants to endorse the sin without being honest about it. That’s what he wants. And he doesn’t care about the price. He cares about being socially relevant.
Report comment to moderator
Brad, thanks for coming and for presenting your position directly in your own words.
In our experience on this blog, you will be branded as homophobic yourself, because you acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and because you believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You said almost the same things that all of us have said here for years. We do not hate anybody, but we do feel a conviction to uphold the truth of God’s word.
Your goal is noble enough, but I think it is quixotic. Christians, as a whole, do love their neighbors, but certain non-Christians still brand us as hateful. It is not a sincere belief on their part. It is a political tactic. So, no matter how much you confess, you will not persuade them that Christianity is true or that Christians are nice people. In fact, the confession emboldens them, because they will see it as Christians backing down in the face of their strong-arm tactics.
The comments above this one address the secular-sacred divide that you believe in. The Bible does not teach that there is such a divide. Our spiritual life influences our life in the world, and that would include the political arena.
There are logical prolems with calling a ban on same-sex marriage “discrimination,” and there are secular reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. If you want to read any of them, let me know. Even so, as a Christian you should be following Christ in every move that you make, including in how you vote and in what laws you support.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for all the feedback. Honestly. I’ll consider each of your points, and respond as I can individually.
#45 Debra, It doesn’t appear you have in fact read enough of my site. No where do I directly or indirectly accuse those who don’t agree with me of homophobia.
But if you interpreted something I said on my site that gave you that “if you disagree, you are…” sense, please reply back with the specific page and quote and if I can make it clearer, I’d be happy to do so.
Report comment to moderator
ChristianFace,
You reference ‘Christian homophobia’ several times. In your second article under ‘Homophobia’, you said ” Christian homophobia is shown when we treat gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, cross-dressers, transvestites, and transgendered peoples as immoral.”
In fact, the term ‘homophobia’ is nothing more than a term of political manipulation for those who seek to redefine marriage and normalize perverted and immoral behaviors by claiming that those who disagree are either themselves abnormal or immoral ––in other words, ‘homophobic’. You apparently are not opposed to participating in this agenda. I am.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, you left off the ending to the sentence in that quote. Here it is in full: “Christian homophobia is shown when we treat gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, cross-dressers, transvestites, and transgendered peoples as immoral and most especially worse than us.”
In my own “other words”. WE aren’t any more moral than them. We are immoral/moral in different areas, but not MORE moral. And we should treat them with Christ’s love…not with condemnation.
So, I’m really talking about how we approach the homosexual community and how we treat them.
One of the quotes (and it’s just the tip of the iceberg) from a cross dresser in that article said: “…Are you personally familiar with what it feels like to have people follow you around shouting rude things, throwing empty coffee cups at you, or cornering you with the intention of goading you into a fight?”
Is that Christian? If we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that that kind of hatred doesn’t happen…we are only making the problem worse.
The article also asks and makes a few other points:
3) how can we honor and defend our beliefs in the political arena without limiting the freedoms of fellow human beings?
That would be a topic worth discussion at length. I don’t pretend to have the answers. But maybe you guys do?
Lastly, what if I just stopped using the term homophobia (so I’m not part of any group’s political agenda as you suggest). Does anything change?
Don’t we still end up with a situation where we Christians are inadequately engaging with the homosexual community, and failing to share Christ’s love, at the same time pushing them farther and farther away from Christ because of our self-righteous attitudes and condemnation of them as people?
Report comment to moderator
Brad: I’m not sure you know whom you are dealing with, here. There is no way for many of these folks to engage politically without limiting the freedoms of other human beings. Just as in abortion where they dodge the issue of killing living women and mothers by staking out the bizarre claim that anything from a sperm cell in close proximity to an egg is a human being. And that effort is in support of a moral position with far less biblical support that opposing homosexuality.
When there are US “Christian” evangelical missionaries encouraging countries like Uganda to pass laws prescribing the death penalty for homosexuals and there is at least one website in this country demanding the death penalty for our civil servants for failing to prosecute homosexuals, can you really expect them to “engage” constructively with any regard for anyone else’s rights?
The same “people of god” who discern rights in blobs of protoplasm discern NO rights in pregnant women and homosexuals.
You haven’t been around here much, but just about the only way to account for those two disparate positions is that Christianity (and many other religions) are pretty much all about sex. Who is allowed to have it and when and what consequences ensue pretty much dominates what passes for social dialogue in today’s evangelical church.
And when you consider that several Christo-political groups are boycotting this year’s CPAC convention, because the caterer is gay owned, the depth of this hysteria becomes very clear. Homophobia is a terribly mild word to describe how they feel.
Report comment to moderator
#46, NJLawyer states “Using your logic, you must see no reason for laws against drunk driving or rape or murder because we wouldn’t want to discriminate against murderers or rapists or alcoholics, right?”
Wrong.
Let’s use logic shall we? Can you logically compare homosexual relationships between consenting adults, to drunk driving, rape, and murder? I would give on your comparison to alcoholism if that alcoholic didn’t get behind the wheel and then kill innocent victims. Rape, someone forcing sex on another person against their will, along with the usually battery that goes along with rape? Murder, someone killing another person for sport? I can’t logically make those comparisons can you? Abortion, killing a unborn baby?
Laws that protect ME from YOU are good (and visa versa)? Laws that protect the unprotected (such as unborn babies) seem to be good. What protection do YOU need from a homosexual or from a homosexual relationship?
I would assume NJLawyer, that since you religiously serve only one master and you take the non-compromising position that if the Bible says it’s wrong, there should be a law against it, what other laws would you suggest be put in place (so as to not contaminate the Bible with our constitution)?
Should there be a law against looking at the opposite sex with lust? Should there be a law against envy of your neighbor? Should there be a law against any hatred (in your heart) of someone else (even if it doesn’t lead to murder or another crime)? Should there be a law against not submitting to your wife? Or not submitting to your husband? Should there be a law against thinking of yourself as someone not in need of God (self-sufficiency?) All of these things (and I could go on and on), are sins according to God and the Bible. To be completely pure in your standard, wouldn’t those need to be in the constitution (or at least on the law books?). Do you want a theocracy? That’s what you would have to have to apply your pure standard.
If there was a law for every sin in the Bible, trust me, we would all be in jail.
Report comment to moderator
#47 (Neil) and #49 (NJLawyer)… I agree completely that we can and should be engaged in the political arena. It’s every citizens right. When OUR rights are infringed, we should be protesting and fighting back, just as our country’s forefathers did with merry old England.
We are in the majority, which is a nice position to be in. But with that majority comes incredible responsibility. God call us to care for the needy and come to the aid of the outcasts of society. How well do we do that?
Maybe a better question would be: what should the Christian response be to those whose rights ARE being infringed? And try not to think too selfishly here for a moment. Who should come to the aid of those who ARE being oppressed?
There will come a day when we won’t be in the majority. (read some history, look at every country that has ever existed). The current minority will have a memory. Do you want them to treat future generations of Christians the way we treat them?
Report comment to moderator
#50 kBells
You asked, “Do you believe it would be a sin for a Christian to celebrate a same sex marriage? Many Christians sincerely believe to do so would violate their conscience. If same sex marriage were legal than these Christians would not be able to own a catering business, a photography studio, a match making service or an adoption agency without eventually getting slapped with a discrimination suit. Churches would no longer be able to rent their property to non-members for weddings without the risk of a law suit. It would not be a matter of live and let live. It would be a matter of endorse or pay the price.”
By celebrate, I assume you mean to go to the wedding, enjoy the festivities, partake in the food and drink as an invited guest? And I’ll go ahead and go to that area you really want me to address…celebrate the Union of two same-sex folks that are deeply in love.
For that assumption, I would have to also assume that you are good friends with the same-sex individuals (otherwise you wouldn’t be invited). Would I be able to go and celebrate it in good conscious with my friend? Yes. Because LOVE for my friend trumps the differences in our beliefs. I CAN love them without agreeing with them. Give that Christian concept a try.
You (not me) can stay home in good conscience, as a form of protest against an immoral or sinful relationship. But God is relational. Would you be doing more good or more harm to the relationship by staying home in protest…from the wedding of a dear friend?
And when asked why you didn’t go, would you be honest (”I didn’t go because to do so would violate my conscience against your immoral and sinful relationship.”) Or would you lie through your teeth, skirting the conditional love issue you have with your friend, and instead just say “I wasn’t feeling well.”
And to your point and question about the potential to have lawsuits against those businesses which refuse to service a same-sex wedding because of their religious beliefs, and I assume the potential closing of those businesses because of the same, let’s look at it Biblicaly as well.
James 1:2 (NIV)
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds…”
Acts 5:41 (NIV)
41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.
If you ask me, if lawsuits and business closings came, and it was ALL because the business stood up and said “Because of Christ, I must not do this.”… wouldn’t God glorify you for suffering (and paying the price) in His name? Or would you prefer to not have to face that test, lest you should fail?
Report comment to moderator
Christian Face,
I wouldn’t go to the “wedding.” Nor would I lie about the reason (I wouldn’t necessarily volunteer my reason, but would give it if asked), nor would I be unkind about it. For the record, I also wouldn’t attend the wedding of someone who was marrying a person with whom he had been in an adulterous relationship while he was married to someone else; attending a wedding is standing with the people getting married, and saying you are witnesses to their vows, you agree with their right to make such vows, and you may even hold them accountable should they break such vows. If they cannot even make the vows without sin, then I won’t be there, because I won’t pretend I support the false marriage. (The marriage started in adultery, I will treat them as married after they are, but I won’t “support” the sinful marriage by attending, and up till the wedding day I’ll be praying they change their minds.)
Why do you assume that the cross-dresser and others are being treated with such contempt by Christians? That probably isn’t the case. Still, it’s a little weird to dress in a way designed to provoke and be offended if people act like they’re provoked. If a person doesn’t want to have people look at him funny, then it makes sense that he should dress in a way that doesn’t needlessly cause offense. A person who chooses to be nude in public might get some negative responses too.
There is a line between loving a person and condoning the sin. Alol of us are sinners, but hopefully we don’t choose to support a person IN sin. I may have someone in my church who uses pornography or has a drinking problem; it wouldn’t be loving to know about the sin and pretend it isn’t a problem. If the person is an unbeliever, the lines are a little different–the particular sin isn’t the real issue–but I still have to come short of supporting the actual sin (attending the wedding, in this case, or bringing a case of beer to the alcoholic, for example).
Report comment to moderator
You (not me) can stay home in good conscience, as a form of protest against an immoral or sinful relationship. But God is relational. Would you be doing more good or more harm to the relationship by staying home in protest…from the wedding of a dear friend?
I’m aware of someone dealing with the results of this type of decision right now. She chose not to go to her own sister’s wedding (didn’t say why, but that a personal conviction didn’t allow for it) a couple of years ago. More recently, that sister is in the hospital with kidney failure and might die — and the sister who didn’t attend the wedding hass been asked not to come to the hospital. I understand that she’s sad and hurt and frustrated, and I feel for her. But she made a decision based on “personal conviction” and there are consequences to that. I think love, as described, would have allowed for her to attend without it meaning she condoned whatever the sin was.
I hear what you’re saying Brad, and I can agree with the bottom line statement you are making: that homosexuality is no worse a sin than me eating too many sweets today after lunch (a normal occurrence, characteristic of gluttony), or speaking bitter words to my husband or being annoyed with him. That the church (and therefore the cause of Christ) would fare far better if Christians would focus on their own hearts/sins/need for repentance rather than focus on the actions/sins of others is unequivocally true.
Report comment to moderator
“If you ask me, if lawsuits and business closings came, and it was ALL because the business stood up and said “Because of Christ, I must not do this.”… wouldn’t God glorify you for suffering (and paying the price) in His name? Or would you prefer to not have to face that test, lest you should fail?”
Then why not do that now? Why not say now, “Because of Christ I will not vote for this. Won’t God glorify us for the suffering that come from that?
Report comment to moderator
Christian_Face, #55
I left out the last clause of the sentence because it’s not necessary or relevant to the point I was making. The whole conversation we’re having on a national level is whether or not homosexuality is just another lifestyle or whether there is something wrong with it. Before you can even get to the conversation of whether it’s worse than another behavior, you at least have to agree that it’s immoral. Do you? That sentence I quoted makes you seem conflicted to me.
A couple of sentences later, you say: ”Christian homophobia is also declared when Christians stand in direct opposition to gay marriage, which opposition is viewed as an attempt by a dominate majority (Christians) to control and limit the equal freedoms of a minority (LGBTs).” Is this your view? From the article, it seems to be. Changing the Biblical and traditional definition of marriage to normalize and mainstream unproductive, damaging, deviant behaviors in areas that are fundamental to the building blocks of our society is decidedly UN-Christian and irresponsible, and it is not a violation of anyone’s rights to refuse to do so on a political level.
‘Homophobia’ is a pejorative that is part of the arsenal of the political left for the most part. If you don’t want to be mistaken for someone who supports that agenda, I wouldn’t use it. But then again, I wouldn’t go around making broad implications that Christians treat homosexuals indecently on the basis of a few exceptions either. Doing so might make you popular with the ‘thinkathiest’ crowd, but it’s hard to see how you would be doing them any favors, and I doubt it will enhance your conversation with Christians in general.
Report comment to moderator
NW Juliana, you say, “I hear what you’re saying Brad, and I can agree with the bottom line statement you are making: that homosexuality is no worse a sin than me eating too many sweets today after lunch (a normal occurrence, characteristic of gluttony), or speaking bitter words to my husband or being annoyed with him.”
Biblically this simply is not supportable. It’s debatable whether “eating too many sweets” is a sin at all, and certainly it’s a bit of a gray area–eating one piece of candy is not a sin, so if there’s any problem at all here it’s a good thing taken to excess, not a clear “two is OK, three is sin.” Homosexuality (and other sexual sins) is crossing a very clear line of “Thou shalt not,” and arguably homosexual sin is a step worse than fornication. (Fornication is taking a good thing too soon; homosexuality is a perversion of the very design of marriage and the human body.)
Biblically it cannot be said that sins are all “equal.” God gave the death penalty for murder, for example; so I think we can very definitely say he takes it extremely seriously, more seriously than eating an extra piece of candy. And sexual sins violate the order God established and are an act of rebellion–forgiveable, but worse sins than, say, a “white lie.”
Your church can, and should, excommunicate you if you are caught in adultery and do not repent. A church that excommunicates someone for an extra piece of candy is acting inappropriately. (Now, a church may need to deal with a person who is destroying himself and his family with gluttony–say a person who is now so heavy he cannot work–but that’s a different scenario.)
Report comment to moderator
BTW, the person who didn’t want the sister at her hospital bed–is it certain that was only because of the wedding? Sometimes these things are far more complicated. And yes, sometimes you simply need to do the right thing (refuse to attend the wedding, if you are convicted that is the right thing) and accept any consequences that may come of that. But if my sister left her husband and children and married someone else, I would indeed not attend the wedding–she would not do such a thing, and I know her well enough to know she’d be pleased to hear me say that.
Report comment to moderator
I am not sure if this fits the definition of irony, but civil marriage has been nothing more than a contract to have kids that are legally recognized in society as heirs for over 2000 years. It is nothing more than a legal contract to have kids for inheritance and care purposes. Look at ancient greece. Though homosexuality was embraced, (so was pedophilia and other sexual practices) marriage was never redefined, because civil marriage is not a legal recognition of two people who love each other. Significance for homosexual and pedophilia relationships was drawn from religion, not the government. The same goes for heterosexual unions, as the idea of loving the person whom you have kids with came out of Judaism. Frankly speaking, redefining a contract to have kids to incorporate people of the same sex sound like a delusion, since they can’t make a kid. The idea that civil marriage is a recognition of two people “in love” is a falsehood, as civil marriage has never been that.
Report comment to moderator
Continuing my last post:
The only reason that the redefinition of marriage holds ground in this country is because many in this nation see marriage as the union of two people who love each other more than all others. This idea of marriage being so comes from this nation’s Christian roots, such that civil and religious views of marriage have been blended. But the fact remains that from a civil perspective, marriage is simply the vehicle used to create and raise children who will not be a burden on society. The idea that one should love the one you marry is (interestingly enough) philosophical and religious in origin. If civil marriage was a union of two people who love each other, or in this nation usually infatuated with each other, then under the law there could be no discrimination accordingly. However since it is a contract to procreate with the approval of society (traditionally speaking) in order to determine who is responsible for your care when you are old and who gets your stuff when you die, the redefinition crowd do not have a leg to stand on. Interestingly enough, in order to bring their argument forth in a “justified” manner, those who argue for redefining marriage are seeking to blend a religious idea with government, something I used to think those on the left were against. Now I realize most people (of all four corners of the political spectrum) just pick and choose based off of what they feel instead of thinking with their feet on the ground.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I think what you meant concerning sin is that not all sins have the same immediate consequences in this life, but the penalty in the next is equal for all. No sin is greater or lesser than another in God’s eyes, but to say they have the same consequences on those around us and to ourselves is false. Me giving into gluttony has different consequences than me going on a rampage with a m60. Something tells me it would affect those around me differently as well.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 1 16
Wow! That is the absolute best reasoning I have seen about what is wrong with “Homosexual Marriage.” I will see if I can’t remember and use it in the future. I am going to copy and paste and save it.
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Nope, Rom116, no, I really am not talking about consequences for sin–I’m talking about some sins being more serious in God’s eyes. I can think of three that are treated with extra seriousness in Scripture: Murder slays one made in the image of God, and is uniquely heinous. Pride is pitting oneself against God, and the root of many other sins (including the first one in heaven and the first one on earth–the desire to usurp God). And Paul says sexual sin is wrong in a unique way, because it joins the temple of God to another inappropriately; “all other sins are outside the body,” but this one is a different sort of sin. That’s rather unusual to think of that way in our culture, in which fornication isn’t seen as a sin at all (though adultery is still seen as a bit problematic), but it is the way the apostle Paul put it.
I honestly don’t know where “all sins are equally bad” came from, since as far as I know nothing in Scripture even hints of such a thing, but I hear it said all the time.
Perhaps part of the issue is that some actions actually contain multiple sins, or multiple layers of sin. Fornication, for example, includes covetousness and theft, and it dishonors marriage, and it risks conceiving a child who may be raised outside the covenant of marriage, and it dishonors not only the partner in sin but that person’s entire family, and so forth. And drunkenness is bad, but drunk driving is even worse because it “multiplies” the sin by endangering others.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, the point I think I’m trying to make (along with Brad) doesn’t have to do with consequences either here in this life or in the next one, nor with how our sins affect others necessarily. The point is why are we as a Christian society so focused on the sins of others, when we have puh-lenty of repentance in our own daily lives that should be taking our time and effort to deal with? I don’t have time to campaign against homosexual marriage, or even give it much thought — God has me dealing with things in me: the anger I react out of, the overconsumption of food (gluttony) that I’ve dealt with my entire adult life (you would call me “thin” but I know), the laziness that overcomes me in my daily duties, etc. These things MUST be taken care of — they can’t be set aside. Not if I want to follow “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” I do love Him, I need to obey what He commands in MY life — and let those around me do the same with the same freedom I have to mess up.
Report comment to moderator
{wonky italics apology}
Report comment to moderator
Some people may view their political activities as part of loving their neighbor. Nothing could be easier than for me to sit quietly and work on my own sins and my own life while my government mandates that my neighborhood schools will use my tax dollars to indoctrinate my neighbor’s child in the belief that ‘Heather has two mommies’ is simply another socially acceptable lifestyle–no better or worse than any other. In fact, I have done just that. But it was not a very loving thing for me to do.
Anyone who believes that confessing their sins together on a website is productive for them, is free to do so. But when they spend so much time talking about other people, ‘Christian homophobia’ and the church’s perceived failings in ‘intolerance’ and hipocricy in others, they are no longer confessing their own sins; they’re trying to confess what they think other people’s sins are. And when you do so in the well-known language of the political left, such ‘confessing’ may legitimately be seen as a form of political activism. The only label you need to use in confessing your sin, is your own name. There’s no reason to confess the ’sin’ of ‘homophobia’ in the name of Christians who are not you. If you do, don’t be surprised when those Christians are skeptical of your motives.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Bob. I realized a while back that in order to figure out what marriage was outside of any given religion, specifically only in the civil realm, I had to remove all the value that Christianity adds to it and look at it solely as the civil contract it has been for the past several thousand years. Granted as believers we are taught by the Word that marriage is far far more than that, and that we should not look for romantic or sexual fulfillment outside of it, but that is not what a civil marriage is.
Report comment to moderator
Christian_Face, I am not COMPARING homosexuality to rape or murder in the way you are thinking. CONSENT has nothing to do with sin, so it is NOT a mitigating factor on the sin scale — to which you obviously subscribe. We like to think that there’s a sin scale, so we can always say we’re better than the next guy who we think did a worse sin. Gluttony for one might very well be the thing that God wants the person to overcome, so don’t minimize it. That’s what you’re engaging in.
There are specific sins outlined in the Bible. Murder is one of them. So is homosexuality. The goal is to be part of the Kingdom, is it not? Well, engaging in homosexual acts is clearly proscribed. It’s beaten out by drinking, but it’s there. Paul says so.
We are now back to a Biblical standard. You will now be showing me where Jesus said, “this group of sins, bad; this group of sins, not so much.”
Report comment to moderator
I have absolutely no control over the laws of man except through voting for my representative with the hope that he/she is likeminded.
Report comment to moderator
When it comes to “rights” — no one wants homosexuals to be discriminated against when it comes to jobs or housing — they need to eat and need a place to live. But what you want when it comes to homosexual marriage is a complete redefinition of what marriage is. It is NOT discriminatory to continue to define marriage as between men and women. Two men or two women simply cannot perform the physical, sexual acts of marriage, nor do they provide the different emotional perspectives necessary to raise children in the ideal setting. There is more to marriage than your soppy “they love each other so why not let them marry.”
If “love” is all it takes, then marriages means NOTHING. Evidently, a healthy society is not your goal, just one that gets by.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Juliana.
Campaigning against homosexual marriage is not my calling. But then, as a woman, and as a behind-the-scenes person, I don’t think any overt political or public sphere stuff is my “calling.” That doesn’t mean it isn’t someone else’s. For sure the church needs those who have spoken out against slavery, abortion, the Holocaust, and more in the terms of “sins of others.” Sometimes it actually IS the church’s calling, in other words.
Also, I think that framing it in terms of “the sins of others” that aren’t relevant to our own Christian lives isn’t necessarily the right side from which to look at it. For one thing, we are our brother’s keeper, and all of society suffers when marriage suffers. Also, we don’t exactly “care” in one sense if people choose to commit the sin of homosexuality; it’s the public acceptance (and public exposure of our children to it) that is a problem. Finally, I think that Christians tend to think of it in terms of being FOR true, honorable marriage and thus opposed to anything that weakens it (whether easy divorce, public acceptance of fornication and adultery, rewriting the definition of marriage, etc.).
I do understand what you’re saying, but I also think that different people have different callings and this may be one of those areas. (For sure we CAN’T see it as part of ouor Christian calling to begin confessing that the church is homophobic!)
BTW, as a woman who is thin to the point of being borderline underweight, and who can get away with eating anything and everything because it doesn’t show on my waistline, I identify with your dilemma. My temptation is chocolate. But I see it as more of a potential health issue than a sin–eating too much broccoli isn’t a sin, and I can do that one too. In other words, if the “reason” too much chocolate is problematic whereas too much broccoli isn’t, then it isn’t necessarily a matter of gluttony but of proper use of the temple. I actually NEED the calories, and so eating a lot is a good idea and not a bad one. (Right now I’m trying to regain some weight I lost with some health difficulties in the fall, so that isn’t an “excuse,” it’s reality. Also, every year I lose my appetite in the summer and regain it in the winter, so if I’m hungry I figure I really do need food.) But the question is what is the best way to get those calories, and clearly sitting down and eating a whole box of chocolates isn’t it. (But then again, I’ve never been tempted to do that. I may sometimes eat “too much,” but I’m not the whole-bag-of-Oreos type.) Anyway, I “identify,” because I regularly get the question “How do you stay so thin?” and the answer is genetics, not “better self-control” than the person asking the question.
Report comment to moderator
God’s law and man’s law are two very different things. I will repeat again that you have to choose the stanard by which you will live.
If I were a minister and the State came in and said I had to marry homosexuals, I would not be a minister. The same with photography. I would no longer do ANY weddings. That might mean that I have to take pictures of the sky and the trees, but it’s a living. There are alternatives. The only people who would be oppressed in these situations are those who cannot freely refuse not to comply based on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116No sin is greater or lesser than another in God’s eyes, but to say they have the same consequences on those around us and to ourselves is false. Me giving into gluttony has different consequences than me going on a rampage with a m60. Something tells me it would affect those around me differently as well.
So how does homosexuality, or for that matter bestiality, or even consensual sado-masochism affect those around you? It seems to me that these are virtually harmless sins by your own definition.
Whereas, to really stretch this point a bit, gluttony does affect others by depriving others of some portion of the food supply and arguably making you less productive, unhealthier, and more likely to die earlier and possibly cost everybody else money for your health care.
There is definitely something else which contributes to the violent evangelical reaction to this particular sin.
BTW, if you want to look for your god’s reaction to gluttony, you might look at Amos, where the gluttonous women of Bashan (and later, their greedy menfolk) meet rather unpleasant ends.
2nd BTW: Adultery has carried with it the threat of criminal punishment since the beginning of the republic. Some of those laws are still on the books, albeit rarely enforced. And there certainly are civil penalties for it.
Report comment to moderator
What this really comes down to, Christian_Face, is you trying to get around the fact that homosexual acts are sinful acts. You want Christians to endorse them because golly, gee whiz, who gets hurt?
God outlined the ideal way to live. You want to circumvent that. I like to circumvent that with brownies, but the truth is, there’s always a price to pay. My brownie eating may cause illness, which has an impact on me personally and on my family and on my society at large. Get enough brownie eaters together and we could run up some real debt and real problems. So it is with circumventing the proscriptions on homosexuality. You are destroying the ideal. And I get it. You feel more accepted in society. You want to go along to get along.
Societies come and go from WITHIN.
Report comment to moderator
And just so you know, this lawyer believes in “mens rea” — when it comes to man’s law and God’s law. With man’s law, you get a public trial. Lot’s of the time, with God’s law, the “guilty mind” is known only to the “perp.” Doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences.
Report comment to moderator
“What protection do YOU need from a homosexual or from a homosexual relationship?”
Society as a whole is destroyed through advocating this immorality. I am a member of society. I don’t want to live in a morally filthy society. I don’t want to live in a society that says evil is good and good evil. There’s always that slippery slope, too — today we accept homosexuality, tomorrow we go for incest, the next day we decide infants can be killed after they are born (some keep trying to justify that one even on this board), and the following day we’ll kill the elderly, then the next day the infirm. And we will do that because we killed the family first.
Report comment to moderator
Where does the Bible say you will suffer more for killing with a m60 than for eating too many brownies? Where does God say that?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, saying those sins are harmless is not what I said, those in question, like bestiality, are harmful to you, not so much to those around you.
NJ, I am not talking about how much suffering someone in sin goes through, what I meant was that I would cause greater suffering to those around me through murder than through gluttony, though no doubt gluttony would hurt those who love and care for me (as well as those who would need that food). The m60 rampage would simply cause many, many more to suffer as well.
Also Arcadia, I still have yet to see born-again evangelicals (and fundamentalists for that matter) condoning violence towards homosexuals in this country, or for that matter every country I have been in.
Report comment to moderator
Time to clarify what I was getting at, NJL and Cheryl, in the eyes of God all sin is sin, there is no hierarchy of sins. But sins do not have all the same consequences. Indeed they all have the consequence of eternal damnation, but to say that all consequences are the same for each sin is untrue. That is all I meant with my previous hyperbole usage. I will do my best to just keep stuff to the point.
Report comment to moderator
Rom116, I wasn’t taking aim at you. I was taking aim at Christian_Face.
But I will let you know that none of us is wise enough to say that sins do not have all the same consequences. I tried to illustrate that with the brownie example. We are not capable of knowing all the ways things interconnect. Only God can see that.
Report comment to moderator
Just so you know though, I don’t suffer eating brownies.
Report comment to moderator
I’m pretty sure it came from a misunderstanding of the principle that all sins separate us from God. From that Biblical principle, people have extrapolated the notion that God regards all sins the same.
Report comment to moderator
“So how does homosexuality, or for that matter bestiality, or even consensual sado-masochism affect those around you? It seems to me that these are virtually harmless sins by your own definition.”
It depends on how hard the practitioners of these are trying to force everyone else to affirm and condone them.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116, post 86: “Time to clarify what I was getting at, NJL and Cheryl, in the eyes of God all sin is sin, there is no hierarchy of sins.”
It might be a secondary point to you, but I’m truly not “arguing for the sake of arguing.” You and others have said all sin is alike in God’s eyes, and I asked for Scripture. You come back and say “in the eyes of God.” Based on what Scripture?
I am not a theologian, but I have read the Bible cover to cover multiple times, have graduated from Bible college, have been in church nearly every Sunday for more than 40 years. And I simply cannot think of any place in the Bible that even hints “all sin is equally bad in God’s eyes.” I have in fact listed three sins that are given unique prominence in Scripture as “especially bad,” and others may be able to give a different list. (I recently heard a preacher say sins of the heart are uniquely heinous, I think because we can feed them and others won’t know.)
Again, I’m not playing a game or trying to win an argument–I may have overlooked something that does say that. But I have never heard scriptural evidence for this argument, yet I have heard it given many times. If it isn’t biblical, I would like to challenge those who are using it to stop saying it, but if it is biblical, I would like to know that myself. Does Scripture back this statement or not? If not, we can’t say “in the eyes of God,” because the only way we humans can know that is through Scripture. We can’t get upset at homosexuals for misquoting Scripture unless we can back up our own assertions–and on this one I admit I can sometimes be as bad as anyone else, with a fuzzy “sense” that something is true or untrue, but never having studied it to discover whether Scripture actually says it.
Report comment to moderator
Where is there a hierarchy of sin in the Bible, Cheryl, unless you are staying the Big Ten are “worse” than the others.
Report comment to moderator
You can’t cite Chapter and Verse if there is no Chapter and Verse.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, see my posts 64 and 70 for all that I have time to say now on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. has provided a good accounting on the matter, but even if her examples did not exist (which they certainly do, and should be acknowledged), the unforgivable sin indicates a difference in degree among sins.
Report comment to moderator
Juliana, I see what you’re saying. I think that sometimes the Christian world comes down hard on particular sins like immorality, murder, stealing, etc. However, there are certain sins that seem almost to be given a pass such as gossip, gluttony, pride, evil speaking, etc.
Report comment to moderator
NJL (all of the above comments directed at me)… how many times must I say “homosexuality is a sin” before you will understand that I DO indeed think “homosexuality is a sin”. It is. It truly is. If I was trying to go along to get along, I would just keep my mouth shut, and eat a few brownies and call it a day.
Did I mention that I do indeed believe that homosexuality is a sin???
As far as the verse(s) on all sin being equal, there are many verses which touch on the essence of this teaching. And just like many issues we’ve discussed here, picking one verse out without considering the overwhelming context of the entire OT and NT is unwise. In the verse below, pay attention to the continual use of the terms “ALL” and “EVERY”.
Here is just a sampling of the verses I think are highly relevant:
Matthew 12:31-32 (NIV) and the comparative verse in Mark 3:29)
31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
This points out that Jesus covers ALL sin, except the ONE sin that is not forgiven (aka the “unforgivable sin”), being the consistent, rebellious, unrepentant, willful denial of the Holy Spirit.
Here are some more:
Romans 3:9-10 (NIV)
9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
Romans 6:23 (NIV)
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 John 1:7 (NIV)
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
1 John 2:2 (NIV)
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 3:4 (NIV)
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
Matthew 5:21-22 (NIV)
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
But probably the best is:
James 2:8-10 (NIV)
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.
9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
I think God in his infinite wisdom was careful to not create a hierarchy of sin…lest we should be falsely proud of our sins because they aren’t as sinful as someone else’s. Because when we think of ourselves as less sinful than another person, a whole host of additional sins in ourselves is the result.
Report comment to moderator
Christian Face, actually, seeing pride as one of the worst of sins covers the sense of seeing ourselves as better than others because we haven’t committed “the big ones.” If we’re proud of that, then we HAVE.
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t follow that Christ’s covering all sins means all sins are equal.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, what I mean by all sin being equal in God’s eyes is that no matter what sin you commit, you cannot enter heaven without someone else paying the price. Any and all sins are more than enough to prevent any of us from reaching the glory of God, as all of us sin and all fall short, no matter which sin we usually commit.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, but that’s different from “all sins are equal.” All sins are damning, how about that.
Report comment to moderator
“NJL (all of the above comments directed at me)… how many times must I say “homosexuality is a sin” before you will understand that I DO indeed think “homosexuality is a sin”.”
How many times? Until you stop making excused for it.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t attack homosexuals in public, none of us do. We don’t hate them, but I also don’t plan to embrace what they do and put my stamp of approval on it. The Bible makes it clear that we are not to be unequally yoked.
Report comment to moderator
CHRISTIAN_FACE,
Is there a denomination, church, or substantial Christian movement you can point to that demonstrates the kind of anti-homosexual fervor among Christians you describe in #55? A couple folks asked about that, but I don’t think you responded.
Report comment to moderator
Westboro Baptist. And I’ve never met anyone who didn’t they are a major headcase and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed, NJLaywer. And part of the reason everybody knows about Westboro Baptist is because their aren’t a bunch of other Westboro Baptists out there. I wonder if Christian_Face can somehow quantify how great a problem the homosexual bashing among Christians is. So we have Westboro Baptist. OK; who else?
Report comment to moderator
“I look at the USA government (e.g. Political, state, legal system) sanctioned discrimination against homosexual marriage as a different issue.’
Thank you for taking the time to interact. Your heart is certainly in the right place. Your thinking, however, is muddled.
Homophobia is a madeup word intended to put defenders of Christian truth on the defensive. Its use connotes a mental illness that expresses itself in hatred. It does not describe the Christian attitude toward sin or sinners. To use it is to traffic in falsehood.
So, too, is the spurious claim of discrimination against homosexual marriage. Marriage has always been understood as a union of heterosexuals. Marriage in the United States is equally avaialble to all persons, regardless of their sexual preferences. Anyone, of sufficient age and independence, not already married, can marry someone else of the other sex who is not too closely related. Our marriage laws are no more discriminatory against self identified “gays” than a law that restricts free borrowing of books from Chicago libraries to citizens of Chicago discriminates against people who prefer to live in Topeka.
There can be no discussion of discrimination unless we first assume that the defintion of marriage is no longer limited to heterosexual unions, the very point under debate. Assuming an unlike thing to be identical is begging the question. Such presuppositions are to honest argument what theft is to labor.
While it is important to be as winsome as possible to avoid driving people away from the church where they have an opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel, the price of conceding falsehood is too steep. We need to be humble, and put the lie to accusations against us, but we must be prepared for the unjust accusations that will continue to be leveled against followers of Jesus Christ, even as they were leveled agaisnt Him. Ultimately, sinners who reject grace will also reject Christians, and impute their own self condemnation on those who don’t share in their particular sin.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Ken (107), you said very well what I have been thinking but not been able to put into words. I too, sense that Christian Face’s heart is in the right place.
Report comment to moderator
How is his heart in the right place? If his heart were in the right place, instead of trying to get us to embrace and accommodate sin, he’d be explaining salvation to the homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
#105
Westborrow Baptest appears to be 6 point calvinists constructing derivative, psuedo-scaffoldings of reasonings that result in an imaginary Acts, chapters 29-39.
These can result from too much sun, experienced long after Paul completed his message, “..in the midst of Mars’ hill..”.
“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Ac 17:30-31)
Report comment to moderator
Put Homosexuals To The Sword
——————————————————————————–
By Jim Rudd
——————————————————————————–
The Covenant News ~ June 7, 2006
——————————————————————————–
Civil officials have a God ordained duty to execute sodomites.
The word of God commands, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Lev.20:13)…
I’ve watched this site for a couple of years. As they have Google banner ads, I have frequently found mainstream organizations, including Navvy recruiters and SMU sponsoring this kind of blinding hatred.
Report comment to moderator
Sea also:
http://www.armyofgod.com/Leviticus4.html
Report comment to moderator
Let us be clear about one other thing. The words homosexual and heteroseuxal are words that can describe a number of things, but they cannot really describe people if used properly.
There can be homosexual and heterosexual behavior, which means sexual behavior between people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex, respectively. But it is kind of strange to speak of homosexual people and heterosexual people as if we are created in two different flavors.
There are not two different “types” of people–the homosexual type and the heterosexual type. There are simply people who are equally worthwhile because they are equally made in the image of God. They are also equally plagued by sin, because all have sinned.
When Christians condemn the sin of homosexuality, it is not a statement about the value of any person or of the person’s relative value compared to ourselves or to anyone else. (We are not claiming to be morally superior, in other words!) A person who engages in homosexual sin is no worse or better than any other person in the eyes of God. He loves such a person as much as He loves everone else.
It is possible that in the eyes of God a person who commits homosexual acts is closer to God than a person who attends church every Sunday and prays three hours every day. That doesn’t mean that God accepts or excuses that behavior. It doesn’t mean that we can ignore the Bible’s declaration that it is a sin. If said person truly loves God and wants to follow Christ, he will pray for the power to stop engaging in that sinful behavior.
Report comment to moderator
” If said person truly loves God and wants to follow Christ, he will pray for the power to stop engaging in that sinful behavior.”
Yes, he or she will do that. But that’s not what they’re after. They are after changing Christianity so that Christians will not follow Christ but rather their political goals.
Report comment to moderator
I think it is appropriate to respond differently to a movement (homosexual agenda) than to an individual (neighbor, family member, friend) involved in sinful behavior. Perhaps we appear to be focusing our energy on opposing the movement and people do not see us (or we are not doing as well as we should) ministering truth and grace to the individuals near us.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!