boy singing in church. ain't no homo going to heaven.
Here is the link to the an article & video from CNN's page that shows a small kid singing a song & he comes to a line "Ain't no Homo going to heaven". The church erupts with a standing ovation, you can hear the father yell, "that's my boy", and then the Pastor & the church want an encore, but just of that one line. So he sings it again to wild cheers.
A month ago there was the pastor from North Carolina saying we need to put them all in an electric fence. Here is that link.
The North Carolina Pastor Who wants gays inside an electric fence
Ya just put the gays in one fence. The Lesbians in another. We'll drop in food but eventually they will die out & we can purge ourselves of them.
THEN there was a Kansas preacher, Pastor Curtis Knapp, who waded in. Here is the link to that.
pastor curtis knapp and a summary of many things like this
Pastor Knapp actually said in a sermon that the government should kill all the Gays & Lesbians. He goes on to say that he hopes for their salvation and not their death & that he "loves" them.
So there are really many issues here. It's complicated. Everything Gay doesn't just fit into one conversation that comes out black or white.
First, there is the issue of what one thinks of homosexuality. ie: is it right or wrong.
Second, there is the issue of how we should treat them & speak of them IF we think its wrong.
Third, there is the issue of gay marriage. Obviously if you think being Gay is okay then you are more likely to not have an issue with gay marriage. But would it be okay to think gay marriage is okay IF you thought Homosexuality was wrong? That, I think, is a VERY interesting question :-)
Fourth, how do we read the bible. Are we being to literal sometimes. Are we missing some things because we have been always taught to think from a certain perspective. Pastor Knapp reads from Leviticus and says the Government should kill them. Leviticus was what the guys were quoting to Jesus when the woman was caught in Adultery & yet his response was let him without sin cast the first stone. Seems as though Pastor Knapp might be upset with Jesus?!
Finally, how do we react to these seemingly crazy people, churches & situations. Obviously, or I should saying hopefully, most churches wouldn't allow these things to be said. But we can't control everyone. We can only control ourselves. So no matter what we think about this being right or wrong, there is allot to think about & allot of responsibility I think on those who really want to follow Christ.
I have not yet arrived at any solid opinion or answer overall. But I'm sure upset by all this.
I think I'll leave this post at this. Please respond on here so we can get some comments on the blog & pass it along to your friends. What do you think??
This issue is painfully complex. I really think the main issue here is that many Christians are unable to extend the hand of fellowship to homosexuals because they feel that by doing so--by asking openly gay individuals to be a part of their faith community--they are somehow condoning the practice of homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteWould I struggle to worship next to an openly homosexual individual? Not at all. But the questions one must address (though uncomfortable), are:
*Is living a homosexual lifestyle (acting on homosexual tendencies) a sin (is it called a sin in the bible, etc.)?
*If it is, do Christians have a responsibility to treat it as such? What does that look like?
*Are Christians negligent in not addressing the issue for fear of running people off? Would we address the issue if it was substance abuse or infidelity or dishonesty? Is homosexuality different than those things (if indeed it is a sin) because it is involves an individual's sexual identity...something so innately personal and defining?
I am disgusted by the intolerance and the hate speech, and I think situations like the ones you describe are the reason why "thinking Christians" hesitate to ask the tough questions or discuss the topic in the first place--no one wants to be labeled a bigot or lumped in with the crazies you mentioned.
You're right on. And I think that is why we are on track by starting this. I know there are other conversations around the internet & maybe we can join those too but within our circles even if we start small I think we have to start at least talking about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to be upset if someone totally disagrees with me. Which is one thing I think we have to learn as faith communities. Are we cookie cutter christians or individuals in a family? I think there is allot of room for differing theologies & different ideas and still fit under Christ. In fact the older I get the more theologies I find with truth, the more methodologies I find helpful to connect with Christ and the more I find that Sin is Sin.
That pastor quoted about the killing of homosexuals from Leviticus. Well if we are going to start to take EVERYTHING from Leviticus for today we are going to have to kill allot more people than the homosexuals. For some reason we are picking on this issue.
Thoughts anyone else or Julie?
Mr. Byrne, the following is a more general response to the posts I found on your blog:
ReplyDelete1. I sympathize greatly with some of the problems that those who claim to be “emerging” or “emergent” point out in regards to the abuses in 19th and 20th century Anglo-American Evangelicalism. The individualistic mindset, the political expediency, the lack of community, the lack of historical rootedness, the selling out to popular culture etc…all are indeed problems that have plagued the Western church. I also agree that there has been and continues to be a worldview shift in regards to western culture as a whole, from the modernity of the late 18th to mid 20th century, to a “postmodern” worldview, which has a variety of different manifestations and definitions. The criticisms of the excesses of modernity, both within and outside the church, are good things.
2. This being said, the solution for the church is NOT to then claim that we don’t know what orthodoxy is, or that we should be “journeying into something new”, or that the church “should change with the times.” To argue that this somehow equates to “Reformation” misses the Reformers point. If Reformation means “Let’s have something new and journey together,” one’s theology and practical Christian living will change as a result. However, if Reformation means “trimming the fat,” and simply reducing excess, there will not be anything new. On the contrary, it is merely stating what has always been received in the church, or as the Augsburg Confession puts it “"That in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic." To argue that deconstructing equates to Reformation reads a late modern literary phenomenon into the past.
3. Related to this, a better solution is “paleo-orthodoxy” or as Thomas Oden sometimes says, “post-critical orthodoxy.” This view advocates for the classical Christian faith, based on the received teachings of the church in the first few hundred years, received by Christians everywhere. This means those teachers that have been ecumenically received, the ancient Creeds and councils, the ancient liturgies, and the like. This grounds one in the historic church, fosters a sense of community (including those who are now alive in Christ and no longer here on earth, a true community of saints), and prevents against error. In the words of Vincent of Lerins, “that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” My statement of faith reflects this approach, and can be found here:
http://hayesworldview.wordpress.com/statement-of-faith/
4. This means that when one does theology, one starts with the Scriptures, and then looks at what has always been taught about those passages, which has received in the church. In the case of homosexual behavior, it is quite clear that the Scriptures view homosexual behavior as intrinsically sinful, and the church as confirmed this virtually unanimously for almost 2,000 years (if you want some quotes from the fathers, just ask). It is only recently that this has been questioned. If the job of the Christian is to defend and advance the faith once received, (I Peter 3:15, II Thessalonians 2:15 etc…), it is not our job to invent new theologies, or to change what has always been taught. Such a view is inherently arrogant, and presumes that we somehow have new revelation, or a more enlightened mindset that those who went before us who had the Holy Spirit did. It is a better goal to “make no new contributions to theology.”
Hey thanks for taking the time to even read my blog. I'm not sure if you are responding to just this one or all 4 that I've done. Seems like all 4 but oh well that if fine too.
DeleteI suppose I can kind of try to respond one by one :-) numbered according to yours.
1. Well I guess there is no problem on that one!
2. I don't think the Reformers trimmed the fat, I think they created a new religion not just a a bunch of new theologies. I have deconstructed some but I think I'm in the reconstructing phase. My main ministry job is one thing. My personal mission as I speak in Evangelical circles is to get them to re-think that people & community come first. I think the Theology of Jesus from Luke 4 proves this.
3 & 4. I actually have been reading guys that are before allot of that. Like Origen and pre Constantine Church Fathers. It appears that when Constantine made Christianity the official legal religion that theology changed greatly. Some buried conveniently.
In 622 after Islam began Theology again to a shift & in some ways quite new. Those theologies led to Crusades.
In 1054 When the East & West Churches split there was a whole huge theological schism which caused it to change.
In 1440 when the printing press came about theologies shifted again. Now new thoughts & ideas could be published in a way & distributed to a wider audience. New Theologies emerged.
In 1517 Luther changed everything when he nailed the 95 thesis to the door. As a result they even started taking books out of the bible. Luther even wanted to take out Revelation & James. A major new theology of grace emerged. Of course this reformation was pretty big & actually spawned hundreds of new theologies, many of which are behind the denominations today. Many of our churches today have VERY different theologies.
In the early 1600's Galileo began to show that the world was not the center, but rather the sun. The church vehemently held on to this as if you would go to hell if you believed the earth revolved around the sun. The church was proved wrong by science and found that THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO READ THE BIBLE ...... NOT ALL GOOD :-)
I think the Civil War with the Southern Baptist denomination starting because they used scripture to back slaves while northern baptists used scripture to say what they were doing was wrong.
Finally when the Colonies won the Revolutionary war & there was now a real place for all the different theologies that began to grow after the Reformation. Finally the United States became the fertile soil for THOUSANDS of new theologies to form, blossom, flourish in freedom.
5. For a good article on why Christians should oppose same-sex “marriage,” see the following article, found in Touchstone Magazine, a journal that includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical Protestants:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
Also see this paper on “What is Marriage?”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
6. To “organize around people instead of theology” is an inherently theological statement, namely one of ecclesiology. It is impossible to be an a-theological Christian.
7. For an interview of a more orthodox Christian response to the crisis of modernity, check out this:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/back-fathers.html
They did have the Holy Spirit back when Galileo was alive but that didn't help them read the Bible right. Modernity & Science helped us learn to read the bible better. That is awesome to me!
DeleteMy big thing now really isn't the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality as a Christian & within the Christian Religion. My big thing is how we are treating people, are we known by our love and if people who lie, steal, gossip, are alcoholics, adulterers, porn problems are ALL allowed to be called christians while they deal with these issues. We all know Aunt Bertha that plays the organ is a gossip but she gets a pass, we pray for her & when we hear sermons on gossip we hope she is paying attention :-)
Let me just give two final thoughts:
1. So then why can't Homosexuals who want to follow Christ come in & have the same chance to learn, worship & be discipled as ALL those people who are living together. We condone all that so much we even let them where white dresses to weddings. What if its following Christ & worshiping him & having a loving faith community that speaks to his brokenness & brings radical change to his life. Have we not gotten the cart before the horse. Its not tolerance, its called community & love.
2. It should be possible for Christians who feel that homosexuality is a sin to fight for gay rights & believe that Gay marriage is okay. I believe how we treat people & how we love is more important than issues. Plus Christians seem to try to be doing what the Muslims are doing in other countries. We seem to be trying to impose Christian Sharia law. In a democracy if we're not doing the hard work of winning souls & healing brokenness but rather gambling with politics then the majority will rule. We don't have to be made about the majority of people if they want Gay Marriage. Just keep loving them.
So as you closed with that its a better goal to "make no new contributions to theology" ..... I'm not sure anyone in history has listened to that advice. And there is no evidence that there is any 2000 year consensus on Homo Sexuality. They never talked about it. But many of them were still homosexual.
Plus I prefer to trust the Holy Spirit to guide. We don't have to feel the pressure to defend anything. Truth is truth as they found out in Galileo's time.
And sorry i can't resist saying gays aren't wrecking marriage. White heterosexual men are doing quite well at that. & the biggest consumer of pornography & buying prostitutes are white evangelical heterosexual married men. And that means they are taking part in Sex Trafficking too at times.
We have no moral high ground. We are all sinners. Our faith communities should reflect this. Any who want to follow Jesus should be allowed to. After all Jesus let Judas come along & be in his faith community.
I know there are many quotes over the years against it. But there is not even overall 2000 year consensus. Jesus didn't even say anything about it.
DeleteAnd with Theologies you seem to be thinking that there is one theology to defend when there are thousands. The older I get the more theologies I think are great. Sometimes theologies are to blame for our lack of love. Sometimes we have good theology but just don't love anyway :-)
THANKS again so much for your interaction. I LOVE IT. Be blessed my friend!!
Oh & no more Mr. Byrne ...... geesh, Logen is fine. That kind of title either means you are giving me respect (which i don't want or deserve) or its the opposite which I'm assuming with you it was the former :-)
1. I would say that the initial Reformers (The Lutherans and Anglicans in particular) did attempt to trim the fat and say nothing new. It is true however, that after the Reformation hundreds of new theologies arose. This is a weakness of the heritage of the Reformation, not a strength. The idea that the theology of grace (and its accompanying views on the atonement found in Luther and Calvin) was new is to ignore many of the teachings found in Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, and Anselm, to name a few. The idea that thousands of new theologies are “flourishing” is not a good thing, but rather one of the reasons Christianity is in such poor shape in the west.
ReplyDelete2. Deconstruction can be Deconstructed. The process itself is self-defeating.
3. The Constantine is a boogeyman idea overstates his role greatly. In fact, those fathers received by the church as orthodox, such as Athanasius, were exiled by Constantine and many of his successors. He in fact was baptized late in his life by an Arian, so to somehow say that Constantine’s legalization and promotion of Christianity changed everything is giving him far too much credit, and the church far too little. The book “Defending Constantine” by Peter Leithart is a good read on this. Before Constantine, figures such as Cyprian of Carthage, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian (who in spite of his later Montanist leanings, was thoroughly orthodox, even providing a Trinitarian formula well before Nicea) are recognized as authoritative articulators of the classical Christian faith. As you well know, Origen was and is admired, but much of his speculations and his followers were condemned by the church in the 500’s and before, with ecumenically received teachers such as Jerome and Epaphanius leading the way.
4. The end of the Patristic era usually is assigned to the figure of John of Damascus and the 7th council, which coincides with the rise of Islam. The Classical Christian method uses later medieval and Reformation sources inasmuch as they agree with the classical Christian consensus. Modern interpreters are the least important. See this pyramid of sources for the general idea:
http://hayesworldview.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/sources-pyramid.gif (from Thomas Oden’s Classical Christianity)
5. The Galileo incident is also woefully misunderstood. Thomas Woods’ “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” has an excellent chapter on this. To put it succinctly, it has much more to do with personality conflicts than anything else.
6. The question of why Christians should oppose same-sex marriage was answered in the two links I posted. Do you have a response to those?
7. The principal of Classical Christianity argues that there is a central Christian tradition received. Are there variances in history? Of course, but they were not received ecumenically in the history of the church. For example, the Trinity is a doctrine that has been taught and received , vetted by history, and still claimed as one of the foundational beliefs of the church. It has also been received by lay consent, not just by top down theologians and teachers. Teaching on homosexuality would also fit in this category.
8. It is true however that the church has become lax when it comes to church discipline. This being said, as I said earlier, repentant individuals who are trying to overcome their sin is much different than people actively practicing a lifestyle intrinsically sinful. If a homosexual comes to church wanting God’s forgiveness and the community to help them resist homosexual temptation, then fantastic! But if one comes saying “you need to accept me for who I am” we have a problem.
Great stuff. Constantine may not be the boogey man but government sponsored religion was. He does get blamed for too much but its the crux of the time frame of when Christianity was accepted that politics & corruption became out of control.
ReplyDeleteOrigen I believe was falsely accused. I think this was much like politics. MANY before Constantine for example thought that some form of Ultimate Reconciliation was either true or they were hopeful. There is just as much biblical evidence for as against. This was one of his things & its where Purgatory morphed from. The thought that people could be saved after death was also mentioned when Paul talked about people being baptized for the dead. REALLY hard to prove anything either way but it does make for some fun thinking.
I did like your article on why Christians should oppose same sex marriage but again we are in a democracy. As Americans we can either oppose it or not. Do we want Christian Sharia Law forced on all? I just think that its possible for a Christian to believe its wrong but also believe that we don't need to force our moral views on those outside the church.
Again I will save the right & wrong for later. You are obviously out of the closet that its wrong :-) I'll save that for a later debate.
And when we think of new theologies how about almost 100% of our end times theology ONLY showing up in the last 150 to 200 years. Views of heaven & hell have changed.
The Atonement is obviously a solution. The key is to what. The first thousand years Christians thought it was because this was Satan's world & we needed to be saved out of his hands. The problem the atonement solved was taking care of Satan. The second thousand years Christians thought it was because God was mad ie: Substitutionary Atonement. Sub. Atonement as we know it today not only didn't appear in the bible but it didn't appear in the first 1000 years after Christ. I'm now more leaning that what the solution really is for is systemic. Its God's desire that none should parish. What if he can pull off saving allot more people than we think. Why are we even in the judging who is in & who is not business anyway?
I think all these theologies are a strength. This is my thesis overall.
Jesus came obviously for the atonement & to give us the Holy Spirit. Jesus first sermon was the kingdom of God has come near. Peter ends his first sermon with no talk of heaven later but to convert & receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
BUT Jesus was meant not only to fit into different theologies but also different cultures. By boxing it up I think we've missed just how many different amazing ways followers of Jesus would look like in different cultures. I think he wanted us to love him with all our heart & our neighbors as ourselves. I think some of the bible writers overstepped and as history went along people continued to overstep & force things into a box, continued to control, continued to squash what could have been many beautiful types of Christianity.
He is the only way yes, but man I don't think he ever intended to create a religion, to organize or to allow one country or group of countries have a cookie cutter say on how it all has to be.
I know we are way off the post I wrote. In fact we have really not talked about the post at all. But this has still been fun. My post really was what is our response going to be to crazy things such as those three things.
One clarification from my first point on the what the atonement was solving in the first 1000 years. This is CS Lewis's version. ie: Chronicles of Narnia. Edmond must die because of ancient magic & Aslan makes a deal with the devil & so he gets to live.
DeleteWanted to clarify what that one was. I have actually NEVER been into substitutionary atonement. I'm not even sure I really ever got it or understood it when i was a fundamentalist. My view has always been the CS Lewis version ..... one that really only is around now (often mixed with sub. Atonement) because of Lewis. Actually speaking of new theologies. It is insane that such a HIGH % of our thought & theology today is from Lewis.
I actually address the Atonement idea (I believe the Victory and Substitution motives are a both/and, not an either/or) along with views of the church here:
ReplyDeletehttp://hayesworldview.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/why-the-differences-38000-part-2/
The charts via Oden sum things up pretty nicely.
Like my brother, when I have more time, I will respond to some of what you have said here in regards to the canon, the nature of atonement (if you'd like to respond to the link feel free of course) and the like. The reason I've taken the approach I have in discussing these things with you is because we have different presuppositions and worldviews when approaching things in general. For example, would you agree that his reflects your worldview?:
ReplyDeleterelationship over task
journey over destination
authenticity over excellence
experience over proposition
mystery over solution
diversity over uniformity
This list is from an article on "postmodernism" found in a book of apologetics.
Ya but we are both writing out blogs for different people. I do want to talk a bit more but if your set then your set. For the canon I agree that the reformers should have not messed with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm SURE we agree on the atonement.
The approach you have? I'm not sure what you mean by that but I'm looking for friends even with people I disagree with. Not Theology lessons or some 5 point sermon or a mean attitude.
Relationship over task?
No. I think they are intertwined. One can't live without the other.
Journey over destination?
No I want to be with Jesus the most. BUT Jesus did say the kingdom of God has come near. Also there is a hell after we die but there is also hell now. THe journey part for me is that heaven and hell are among us. We need to begin to enjoy heaven thru the Holy Spirit, though its pretty dim at times. And we need to save people from hell. Especially kids in the sex trade. I want the destination more but the journey is how you get there for me.
Experience over proposition?
If you haver read my blogs you'll see i'm neither liberal or conservative & I'm just as worried about the Emergent movement as I am the rest of the church. Experience is never on its own.
Mystery over solution?
No again solution is first. Jesus is the solution. I fully believe in the atonement. I mean there is no way you could believe any differently on this than me, unless you believe in predestination which I don't but other than the old Calvin vs Arminian debate I'm sure we are the same there. I only want to embrace the mystery & enjoy it if that is what I have to do. Man when I was little there was so much mystery with my earthly Father. I thought he was super man. I enjoyed what I knew about him & I LOVED all those things that seemed so big & so huge & so out of the realm of my understanding. But as I grew the mysteries got solved. Eventually in the end so will all of ours.
Diversity over uniformity?
Well this is complex. Theologically to a degree but I still have my core beliefs in tact. When it comes to Tatoo's or Earrings or stuff like that then yes i'm into diversity. Having to wear a suit or tie or push out cookie cutter christians like that ..... no i don't like assembly line stuff if that is what you mean by uniformity.
Often you always have to asked "what did you mean when you said this or used this word". Cause I find words mean allot of different things to allot of people. People in america have a theology of not drinking wine. Christians in China ALL drink wine with communion. To me this is diversity.
The only one on this list that I would probably put first is diversity, cause I want everyone to be who they are as they become more like Christ. Who they are in the good things etc..... not in their sin or brokenness.
Oh I forgot Authenticity over excellence.
I have no idea what this one means. Of course I want people to be authentic. And I try to do everything with excellence. I don't see how one could be over the other. I'm authentic in my love for people, i'm authentic in that i try to be totally transparent with all my sinful struggles (sometimes to the pain of others ... I do try to be totally honest) But when I've been in many of the situations I've described; I hope I've done everything with excellence.
I hope my attitude comes across loving. I'm not at all above you nor do intend to give that feeling off. I'm not into arguments for arguments sake but rather for relationship sake. That is why I have muslim friends, communist friends, atheist friends etc. Even mormon friends but that tougher :-)
When people disagree they just do & you can go have a coke & sit back & chill & watch game 7 of the Eastern Finals together! When I respond to you that is what I'm trying to cultivate. I don't get that same feeling from you guys. I hope I'm just misinterpreting :-)
later bro
I should clarify too that even though i separated different areas of the "Gay" debate my primary focus was on those three things and how we should all respond to those things regardless of how we looked at any other aspect of the "Gay" issue.
DeleteI was just trying to acknowledge that there were many facets of the debate, but this seemed to be extreme & separate from ALL the others.
In regards to to tone, my intent is to be irenic, in that I am not trying to bash, or simply just "win arguments." However, as you can probably tell, I am an apologist and polemicist by nature (my spiritual gifts are teaching, prophecy, and discernment, which answers another one your more personal questions from my brother's blog). I have been in way too many theological and even evangelical discussion both in person and online that taking a very careful and systematic tone is way to avoid unintentional erro and unnecessary controversy. While this may of course seem "cold and calculating," it is really more of a safeguard. I am passionate about classical Christian orthodoxy, and defending and advancing the faith as passed down through the church.
ReplyDeleteActually what I'd really like to know from you guys is what do you think of the three links I posted on this article.
Delete1. What do you think of getting a kid up & teaching him a song about ain't no homo going to heaven & then cheering. Shouldn't it make us sad if they are going to hell? We seem to be excited about certain peoples eternal conscious torment.
2. What do you think of the pastor in NC that suggested that we build big electric fences & put the gays in one & lesbians in another & drop food in but basically let them die off so we can purge ourselves of the problem. Is this going to purge us from sin?
3. What do you think of the pastor in Kansas who says the Government should kill all Gays & Lesbians? He quoted Leviticus showing what the Government should do. Are we wanting some kind of Sharia Christianity here? And BTW, if we are going to start putting all of Leviticus into practice the Government is going to be killing allot of people.
I THINK WE HAVE ACTUALLY GOTTEN waaaaaaayyyyyyyy off track to the post itself.
Okay we disagree on theology & our philosophies are different. We don't really need to beat that dead horses anymore. I'm just wondering if guys like you as conservatives & apologists & teachers think of these things.
Do you think, bottom line, that this is too far & even if we disagree that this is not the approach that Jesus would take. Do you think Jesus would put his stamp of approval on any of these three things?
Basically this is where I would draw the line. If you think any one of these things is great & you would do it yourself or applaud then our conversations is through.
THIS was the big question of the post. So lets leave all the rest of this out and just answer the questions can liberals, progressives, conservatives all agree that these things are wrong?
Is there a more loving way to show our disapproval? Can we love our enemies, even if they have an agenda that will lead to our death? Jesus seemed to.
I really would just like you guys to answer the intent of the blogs three questions :-)
I should clarify too that even though i separated different areas of the "Gay" debate my primary focus was on those three things and how we should all respond to those things regardless of how we looked at any other aspect of the "Gay" issue.
DeleteI was just trying to acknowledge that there were many facets of the debate, but this seemed to be extreme & separate from ALL the others.
Well, to answer the original, I do believe that all three examples are NOT indicative of what we should be doing in the church. Even if one believed what is being said, a worship service is absolutely not the place to be saying it, and the tone is only going to make the cultural problem worse. It is one thing to share law and gospel, but totally another to be malicious. So no, I do not endorse any of the methods chosen here, especially in the context of a church service, where we are supposed to be gathering for Word and Sacrament.
DeleteYES I did miss this :-)
DeleteI'm new at blogging and so i've been getting some input from pros that tell me i need to keep it shorter & not mix together points. which i did.
Anyway thanks for the response. Good to know that reformation theologians & the calvinists are not accepting these kinds of things.
That is what makes it complicated like I was saying cause it spreads it out to many issues not just one. These are christians who are getting press so that is what gay people see & then they don't even want to talk to us real followers of Jesus.
I think the non christian political world is struggling with how to co-exist with their differences too. Its just like everything has to be one extreme or the other. Usually doesn't help :-)
ANyway great talking to you man!
good to know :-)
ReplyDeleteThen where we really differ is that I'm passionate about saving people, eternally & in this present life. I would give my life for any kid caught in hellish world, & i've come close. I used to just think of myself as an Apologist when I was younger but I think we only need one apologist, God himself. And btw if you can find any classical christian orthodoxy in the chaos of history then you have just split the atom! There are so many wars, so many burned at the stake, so much politics, so many manipulations.
DeleteI think when I was a young pastor I trampled on people to defend the faith, then i realized the faith didn't need defending. The gospel is about Jesus touch broken lives & brining healing & restoration & wholeness. Not that ideas or theology is not important, its just that defending the poor & broken as Jesus did seems the priority. He thru out ALL their classic orthodoxy because they had missed that it just came down to two things. Loving God with all your heart & your neighbor as yourself. THey had added too much. And people got left behind. The apologist that Jesus was was for throwing away anything that didn't lead to love & oneness. THe purpose of hte church is oneness. Look in John 15 to 17. With the diversity of even the 12 you get the idea that there were many ways to looking at the same mountain ..... but Jesus was that mountain. He didn't want us to be one in the sense of all the same beliefs he wanted us to be one in the sense of our hearts & how we respected EVERYONE no matter who they were (woman at the well). Jesus should have been stoned that day according to classical orthodoxy.
So after 2000 years how can you be any more sure that the christian orthodoxy we have now is any more right on than the jewish orthodoxy they had then that Jesus blew out of the water? This is where mystery comes in. You can't know for sure. So I'd rather spend my life trying to save people, in this I know Jesus fought for. Rather than ideas which we will have no idea if they are right till heaven.
I don't think you meant it this way, but saying that we differ about being passionate about saving people is quite an assumption. One can hold to orthodox Christianity without sacrificing a desire for evangelism. Apologetics and Polemics are tools in regards to sharing the gospel, in fact they are commanded (I Peter 3:15, II Corinthians 10). We are also commanded to "hold fast to the traditions" both written and oral in II Thessalonians 2:15. One could make a case that being an apologist is being obedient to scripture.
ReplyDeleteChristians have different gifts and are part of the same body. Who is witnessing to those who are in the college academy? Or to those who have been taught that the Scriptures are "full of contradictions?" Or to those who think that all religions are equally true etc...? If Christ truly died to save all, that includes the aids patient, and that also includes tenured skeptical university professors. There is also a place for building up those who already believe, which includes Christian discipleship involving the mind, heart, soul, strength etc...apologetics and correct doctrine are unavoidable.
We do, through the collective witness of the church, know the following, which is confessed by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists etc...:
God is Trinue
Jesus is fully-God and fully-man (hypostatic union)
Scripture is the very word of God and inspired (both Testaments)
Jesus was born of a Virgin...
I could add more, but these are agreed by orthodox Christians everywhere, regardless of denominational affiliation. So yes, there is a core of classical Christian orthodoxy that can be ascertained, and many points are essential for salvation (such as the person of Christ, being both God and man). How do I know this? Buy the active work of the Holy Spirit in the church for 2,000 years, in which consensus on many issues has been reached. When Christ said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail, this includes what the church believes and confesses to be true. These are points that will never be overturned.
There are many scenarios when we are called to different vocations in service to God. This is a case where diversity IS a good thing, since no one man can do all things.
I would disagree about the trinity. God could be more or less, though we KNOW he is one, that much he has always affirmed. Even in the creation account we find a mention of "they might become like 'us'". God is certainly one and certainly has appeared in at least 3 forms but that particular doctrine is based on allot of speculation & assumption. I tend to agree with it but not because its good hermeneutics cause its awful hermeneutics.
ReplyDeleteI would agree on Jesus yet I think there is much more mystery to it than this. I think he was much more. I'm not talking like Super man but I think even just saying this minimizes ALL that he is and ALL that he will do. This has better hermeneutics than the first but not much. Its not completely clear all he was.
The third one is tricky. My denomination says VERBALLY inspired. So man there are so many ways people say this & so many different things they mean. I am very upset that after 1500 years that books were taken out of the bible. The Catholics & the Eastern Orthodox BOTH do not agree with any protestants on what books are inspired & what are not. The fact that the reformers took books out after 1500 years is terrible. Luther didn't want James & Revelation either. The truth was many lowly non theological printing press guys made decisions on what books to include as they printed them according to where they lived & who was buying. Sometimes it wasn't even the theologians.
So you're right we ALL agree scripture is the very word of God & is inspired but there never has been any agreement to which books should be in or out. Or if any are higher or lower as in did Paul mean to include himself when he said all scripture is inspired. Hard to know for sure. He is at least the first & greatest theologian we've ever had!!
Virgin Mary I'm a go on. Can't tell you why. Seems obvious in the scriptures to me. I've never had reason to doubt though many in the emergent church do. I do indeed think she was a virgin for REAL. I've went back and forth as to why or how, having fun thinking about all that mystery but I do very very very much believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
In fact Mary really gets the short end of the stick. Everyone loves David & all those guys. Protestants are afraid to talk much about Mary, especially on how great & awesome she was, because of the Catholic thing. MARY is my favorite character of the bible besides Jesus. I LOVE HER. I do wish they would have told us what happened to Joseph though. UGH!!
NO I didn't mean to say you weren't passionate, i was more saying I was only passionate about people.
Apologetics is an odd art though. I have mine & you have yours. Sometimes you're just not on the same page. I certainly am not worried about your salvation :-) For me I just want to keep risking my life physically to rescue the helpless & help them out of hell now so that they can begin to experience God here & have heaven to look forward to in the future. ANd sometimes what you think is good exegesis I might think is bad or vise versa.
anyway Peace ....... & above all we have hashed this all out enough ..... i'd really like to hear about how you respond to those three things above that this article was about in the first place. I wasn't mean to make a gay right or wrong or an exegesis fight though i can see how I added to much in there. I was mostly trying to just get a sense if all of us could agree that these three instances are not a healthy christian approach. The pastor in Kansas, now he has bad exegesis ...... unless the government is gonna start killing allot of people for things in Leviticus :-)
I did give my response above in regards to the three links, I think you just missed it.
ReplyDelete