Monday, December 10, 2007

Social justice? Biblical wrong


Winter

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/episcopalians.secession.ap/ind
ex.html

I have no desire to make the topic of homosexuality a 'pet' discussion on this blog, but it is simply an issue that has come to mind recently through reading. I would not want someone who reads this post to think that I am just another Christian with a 'fundamentalist agenda'. I am not a fundamentalist and this is only my second article on this topic since 2004 when this blog began. This article is as much about Biblical integrity as homosexuality.

According to the above link and article, in California an Episcopal diocese voted Saturday to split with the national denomination over disagreements about the role of homosexuals in the church. Clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California voted 173-22 at an annual convention to remove all references to the national church from the diocese's constitution. Bishop John-David Schofield of the Fresno-based diocese stated:

That the Episcopal Church "has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order."

I would agree with his view, at least in that Biblical truth has been denied. The reasons I side with his view are not because I am homophobic. I have never struggled with homosexuality, but have struggled with heterosexual desire as most men have. I have not had bad experiences with homosexuals, and humanly speaking do not necessarily consider them the worst type of persons. I do not have difficulty in being friendly with homosexuals and in no way hold any animosity. In a democracy, I can grant in toleration and not philosophical acceptance, that adult persons have the right to engage in homosexual acts. I can also grant that persons that struggle with homosexuality can be part of the Kingdom of God if elected by God, trusting in Christ, and repenting of sins, including homosexuality. I need to repent of my sins, and everyone that enters the Kingdom of God should repent as a sign of conversion. We are saved by election (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-12) and regeneration (John 20:22-23, Acts 2) in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work, and do not necessarily repent of every single sin in life, but a sign of regeneration and belief from a person should be general repentance of sin. I can grant that people can struggle with sin for many years, but those in Christ should understand that works for God should follow faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10, James 2). I personally have absolutely no desire to see anyone condemned, but I am intellectually obligated to share what I have found in my research over many years as a full-time student.

Although application of Biblical doctrines can vary from ancient times, the theological Scriptural teachings remain the same. Erickson makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times. Erickson (1994: 37). Although the expression may change, the essential teaching does not. Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83). There are clear Biblical teachings that homosexual practice is sin. Biblical Christianity requires a commitment to a contextual, grammatical, historical approach to Scripture. Secular philosopher, Simon Blackburn states that homosexuality has been the focus of discussions concerning the relation between law and morality and in contrast, morality and nature when it is accepted that homosexuality is not a moral issue. In this case issues relating to law, majority preference and prejudice are pondered. Blackburn (1996: 178).

Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, reasons they are guided by biblical teachings on social justice and tolerance to accept homosexual practice.

Christian advocates for accepting gay relationships, including Jefferts Schori, say they are guided by biblical teachings on social justice and tolerance. But Schofield and other conservatives believe Scripture bars same-sex relationships.

The above quote strikes me as a half truth. Yes, in Matthew 22:37-46 the second commandment is to love others as one loves self, and this is repeated in Mark 12:28-37 see also Luke 10: 25-28. Christians are to love those that have differing perspectives, tolerating them when needed, and should support the need for social justice, but logically and reasonably, if the Bible teaches both condemnation and love, both must exist without contradiction! To love homosexuals by accepting them into communion, baptism, marriage and membership would violate Biblical commandments and therefore should not take place. To hate or mistreat homosexuals or to ban them from attending Christian churches in order to hear the gospel message would be wrong and unloving. To attempt to force Christian views and values on homosexuals in a way that they lose basic democratic rights would also be unloving and should not be practiced by those within the Christian Church.

A major mistake many secularists, religionists and liberal Christians make is to assume that the love of God and Christ cancels out God's justice and condemnation of sin. This is untrue. Scripture explains that those that remain outside of Christ, and are not regenerated, stay in their sin. By freely sinning they face a spiritual existence in Hades after death (Luke 16, Revelation 20), and everlasting punishment after resurrection in the lake of fire (Revelation 20). The loving thing for a Christian to do is set aside personal feelings, desires and 21st Century secular notions for religious justice and realize that although homosexuals have at times been persecuted over the years that by giving them 'social justice' in regard to full acceptance as homosexuals and members within Christian churches, will in no way, shape, or form, overturn God's view of justice which he has explained in his Scripture through prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Christ. The issue of acting homosexuals and their acceptance or rejection for church membership must be approached Biblically, objectively and reasonably and not with mainly emotional and intellectual responses conditioned by 21st Century religious thought. Scripture needs to be applied for the 21st Century, but this does not change the essential meaning of God's word, or God's nature that remains the same now as it was when the Biblical text was inspired.

Theologically, since human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. For many heterosexual men, sexual activity outside of marriage would seem natural and pleasurable, and yet it breaks a Biblical commandment (Exodus 20:14), for others immoral lives would be normal and yet they stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). Fortunately, for those in Christ who are eventually resurrected, God provides a purified nature and sin is a thing of the past (1 Corinthians 15). The homosexual and all of us as sinners should not have sins accommodated for and need to be respectfully told the truth of God's holy approach to sin.

Christian churches need to reinforce the Biblical truths in regard to church membership and the taking of communion, baptism, and marriage. If this is not done and extreme (not necessarily moderate) liberals are allowed to gain membership and leadership positions, a church and/or denomination can be overrun by theological error. This can lead to legal disputes as well as churches leaving denominations. Personally, if need be, I would rather be in a house church with leadership and believers that are willing to take Scripture and primary Biblical doctrines seriously than to fellowship in the context of church meetings with those persons, however well-meaning and nice that are attempting to speak for God in the 21st Century by muting or presenting a reinterpretation of the Bible. Some Biblically based Christians may remain within a denomination that does not take the Bible seriously in order to provide a witness. This may be admirable in some cases, but my personal position is that I will not submit to unbiblical leadership within a Christian church, although with God's help I shall be loving and respectful to all those who have different views than I do. I also view it as a Christian witness to lovingly and respectfully point out Biblical error. I will submit to secular governments when needed that sanction homosexual relations as I live within Western democracy, but Christian denominations are to obey God's word or risk being Christian in name but not practice. I wish to be a member of a Christian church in practice.

The human nature needs to be regenerated and not accommodated in Christ.

For the Church to do otherwise, is to provide certain persons a false sense of security in regard to God's ultimate judgment of sin. I state this lovingly and with good intentions.

Russ:)

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Homosexuality', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 177-178. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

14 comments:

  1. This is a very interesting, moving and thought provoking blog. I commend you for putting your beliefs, thoughts and emotional feelings in print. I would guess that within liberal churches, there are members and adherents who also have a strong feeling about this subject, but who do not voice their opinion openly because they will be considered unkind and unloving to those of homophobic nature. As you have stated, we still must love other individuals as we love ourselves, but we do not need to tolerate actions that are considered to be sinful. Please keep on writing the blogs which many will read, and if it gets them to thinking about their own personal lives, and lives of those they love, then I am certain you are doing the will of God. I will keep on reading, and will point others to your blogs as often as I am able. God bless you in your endeavours!

    ReplyDelete
  2. related:first article on this blog from 2004

    Thanks Anon.

    Certain believers in liberal churches need to make respectful stands for Biblical truth. I am more concerned with maintaining Biblical truth in the Christian Church than battling any one particular sin, and of course acknowledge that I am a sinner, saved by grace. Biblical churches must not allow membership and leadership to become polluted by those committed to disobeying Scripture. Those folks should form churches with their own religion which they call Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Touchy subjects like this need more balanced views as stated here. All too often extreme liberalism or extreme fundamentalism are seen as the only options (certainly are portrayed as such by the sensational media).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very good comment, Sir Charles.

    There are massive differences in perspectives, but we should seek objectivity. I suggest that Biblical believers and extreme liberals do not belong within the same denomination.

    ReplyDelete
  5. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    The Bible is very clear, this life style is a sin, yet sinners can repent. Rick b

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well done Russ.
    Carefully written. Sadly many people today stand for nothing and fall for anything. Some think to disagree is to hate but it's only to disagree. Many people get forced into accepting something they don't agree with on these false grounds.
    Keep up the good work Russ.
    Russell, down under

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Rick.

    That is short, sweet, and true.

    Cheers, Russell.

    Some think to disagree is to hate but it's only to disagree.

    Exactly, this blog is not about hate, but a pursuit of Biblical, theological and philosophical truth. I like your point that some persons are pressured with false choices!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    Why is it, if I say homosexualaty is wrong, it is hateful, But to say, being a thief is wrong, is not hateful? Or if I say, it is wrong to rape, I'm not hateful?

    We can call somethings wrong and it's not a problem, other stuff we call wrong, then we are hateful, why is that?

    Then I here the Homosexuals say, if we do not tolorate their lifestyle we are comminting hate crimes, yet they do not tolarte our beliefes, their is a word for that, can anyone Guess? I will give a hint, it starts with the letter (H). Rick b

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, I see that Blogger has added icons/logos to the comment names. I suppose it is a bit of an upgrade.

    Rick, thank you. In the media I have not viewed much open-minded discussion concerning homosexuality. A problem I see is that for some within this movement, to be homosexual seems natural, and for an opponent to state that it is not, would seem unreasonable to the homosexual. A problem is that our Bible and Scripture is historically based on God, through persons, interacting with humanity. Therefore, if God states that something is unnatural through authors, regardless of the opinion of the persons under discussion, it is unnatural. God created humanity and knows what natural is supposed to be. Again, I must reiterate that there is human corruption which Romans discusses and we as human beings are all impacted by this alteration from perfection. I cannot Biblically accommodate my own sin, as much as I would often like, because if I do, it does not allow me to have a consistent theology and Christian testimony.

    The word of God must be taken in context and with care for grammar and background study, but methodology must not be allowed to cancel out the religious philosophy of the Biblical author. I have run into this problem with others in the United Kingdom and although I acknowledge that background studies and methodology are important they can be taken too far. For example, if one puts too much emphasis on methodology instead of Biblical theology it could be poorly deduced that Paul spoke out against homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians because he was homosexual. I have read this on more that one occasion, but if context, grammar and Biblical theology are overlooked for a speculative methodology of why an author writes what he writes, these kind of faulty conclusions can be reached. Often when persons really want to believe something they will hold to views that are perhaps logical and possible, but not necessarily reasonable in light of evidence. This is one of the reasons why we have so many differing religious views in the world today. So many are just not willing to accept God's word if it means that their nature is condemned, but accepting the condemnation is a beginning step in being able to accept salvation. We do not primarily create our reality, but are forced to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Prepare to say goodbye to free speech in Canada...

    The Canadian Islamic Congress has persuaded the national Human Rights Commission to launch an inquiry against MacLean's magazine about an article which included the offensive phrase:

    “... the massive backlash against innocent Muslims that failed to materialize...”

    ...so merely denying that Canadian Muslims are facing "massive discrimination" is now a hate crime against Islam?

    See the full article here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Russ, I'm runnin short on time here, but go to this blog link, http://interested01.blogspot.com/

    The 2nd topic down is called Men of the cloth, the Guy Larro I am speaking with is so mad at me he is using the F word with me. Well you might want to reply to him on the Bible, but other wise read all 27 replys, I posed a question to him about if God really does not exist, who decides what Truth is and Right from wrong. Reading the replys and my questions will give you more info, I was thinking maybe you could do a topic about that and if you do, then invite the Larro, Atheist guy to read and reply. Rick b

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Rick,

    I scanned the link and comments, but I had to go to a Christmas dinner party for two hours, and I now have to leave shortly to head to New Westminster and first pick up Sir Chucklins to meet with friends tonight. However, I shall comment. Personally when dealing with atheism, I like to primarily focus on the historical revelation through Biblical Scripture and secondarily focus on philosophical arguments concerning first cause and the meaning of life.

    I have not concentrated on articles concerning truth and morality in regard to atheism because although I reason that a belief in the Biblical God provides a better foundation for the rational belief in truth, atheists often have similar moral codes to Christians on several points, although there are often differences in vital issues such as abortion. We can spend our time arguing with atheists on whether or not they hold to morality rationally, but some of the more intellectual ones, at least, do have a reasonable moral code. One atheist I spoke to years ago stated that he was against the killing of human beings above all creatures since they were superior intellectual creatures to all others. This is true, even without a belief in the spirit. Now, I pointed out that with the Nazis they viewed some human beings as inferior to others and if they had a proper Biblical understanding that God created all human beings there would not have existed a view of evolutionary or ontological (nature of being) inferiority of some persons. The atheist acknowledged the weakness of his position, but I cannot deny that he had objective rational morality to a degree as he correctly viewed the life of a human being as of greater importance to that of any animal.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for your well-thought out article, I read your blog just for such writing. I live in this diocese in CA, so was especially interested in an international take on this very controversial move.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks very much for the comments, Jen.

    I shall bookmark your blog.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete