ABC Nightline on 10 Commandments Sept 25
ABC just opened a series on Nightline on whether the 10 Commandments are relevant in today’s world.
ABC just opened a series on Nightline on whether the 10 Commandments are relevant in today’s world.
The first show was on adultery (No 7). The show was very well done in terms of covering the spectrum of views. Ed Young of Dallas was the key pastor. Another participant in the panel headed up a sexual addiction ministry having come out of the addiction himself. He was very articulate. On the other side (the nature of such shows), a woman in an open marriage with her husband and another women (as well as a 10 year old child whim she seemed to have shielded from her arrangement) and a man who runs a cite that helps people cheat on their marriage. The conversation also included, significantly, children of broken homes who discussed the pain of what a broken marriage does to them. Next up: The Sabbath and Chick-Fil-A.
If the first show is any indication, these shows will be a good look at the way in which people view the commandments and reflect (or do not reflect) on them today. I will be keeping an eye on this series as it looks to be worth the time. Credit should go to ABC for making people ponder the question of whether should moral standards are relevant for us today.
19 Comments
Randy Crudgington
ABC’s 10 Commandments
I thought Ed young did well but missed a couple of opportunities which were delivered on a silver platter for sharing a better Biblical worldview. For instance the question of why doesn’t God want us to improve from the adult website guy, Noel.
I actually thought that Jonathon was a better communicator than Pastor Ed in the debate when he had opportunity to speak.
I thought the debate was well done and that the church did GREAT at representing Christianity.
The Sabbath/Chic-Fil-A story was little better than a good advertisement IMO.
Blessings,
Randy
bock
ABC
Randy:
I missed the Sabbath show last night. I agree on your response to the panelists on the night before. My own take, however, is that in a discussion like this you want to alternate between presenting a biblical worldview and also showing that the reason God has a commandment like this is because of the destruction it brings to relationships (Just ask the children, which they did). I thought Ed Young introduced that argument too late– it is a powerful one to most people (i.e., any who have experienced the pain divorce brings and that is most people today who know someone who has gone through that experience)
dlb
Randy Crudgington
ABC”s 10 Commandments
Dr. Bock,
I agree with you.
I have found that the series started with a bang but is merely fizzling after such a promising beginning.
As I said, the sabbath show was merely a “Chik-Fil-A” commercial. Last night was a story on a man who stopped a robbery by killing 2 of the 4 suspects. So allusion was made to the 6th commandment while really referencing the 8th commandment and announcing that hardly anyone really pays attention to it. It was nothing more than a news story without really digging in as they did with the debate.
I’ll watch the rest but my expectations have lowered dramatically.
Randy
brett williamss
Moral Relevance today
Dr. Bock,
You wrote: “Credit should go to ABC for making people ponder the question of whether moral standards are relevant for us today.”
I have not seen this show but hope to catch the next episodes. Thanks for alerting us to this. My question deals with your final comment. Is this show really discussing whether or not moral standards are relevant today??? In my wildest imagination I can not even conceive of a world in which moral standards are not intuitively known. Can you help me understand how such a topic (assuming I’m understanding you correctly) could be taken seriously in today’s world. In a sense, this show could not have aired the day after 9-11 or any school shooting, right?
Second, what do you think of the Argument that there can be no moral absolutes without a God? (Most notably argued by Wm Lane Craig, as far as I know)
bock
Moral Relevance dlb
That is the topic they say they are treating and to the extent it discusses how people deal with these commandments it does raise the topic. It is not an academic discussion nor a technical one, but one that works through personal stories and conversation. Still, not the normal TV stuff.
My position is that it is hard to have a sense of moral absolutes without God. One can construct such a position without God. But it is harder to hold in that in the end our construct becomes ours and it only holds to the extent we value the idea of a common moral good.
Anonymous
10 commandments
Would it be relevenat to say that the Genesis story is a telling of the origin of human civilazation, and that the Ten Commandments are guidelines by which man was civilized, that they were common to Fertile Crescentians and further distilled by a people who called by a higher divine source of truth took these truths, which were certainly altruistic, and applied them to themselves in a completely new way, reflecting their special relationship with haShem?
Lynn
Morality and the Ten Commandments
Dr. Bock,
In a sense, the question of morality seems to be somewhat subjective in nature. The idea of what you refer to as “moral absolutes” seems to me to be something that can only be understood in the sense of the “golden rule” that Jesus spoke about, that we are not to do unto others what we would not want done to us. This may be the only “intuitive” sense of morality that all people will be accountable to before God, or at least the starting place that will apply to all people in the human race. Things do get a bit complicated, in terms of the concept of absolute right and wrong across the board. People who have the privilege of having God’s Word, are not even in full agreement on some of the questions of right and wrong.
There seems to be a consensus amongst a majority in the Christian church, that they are in agreement on the concept of moral absolutes. The belief also possesses a sense of absolute “correctness” in their sentiments on the issues of humanity, rather than a balance and openness to people who hold other views. We see this in the political pursuits of what many would consider “mainstream” Christianity.
The Ten Commandments are morally relevant, some of which only speak to believers, nearly all of which are written on the heart, and were also referred to by Jesus. Strict Sabbath laws are obsolete for Christians today, in favor of a personal faith towards God. “Religion” decides through popular consensus how to interpret the statements in the Bible–a “relationship” with God functions in a more independent way in regards to the Scriptures. Independent of human approval that is.
Case in point: The statement of Christ in Matthew 5:32, regarding remarriage after divorce, is not the tradition or practice of mainstream Christianity, though the common denominator of “adultery” is addressed in the T.C.–while the interpretation of the addresses of same-sex relations–which many would agree was not addressed in an inherent sense, but was context-related–is a “moral absolute” to this segment of the body of Christ. Hmmm.
Only God knows if this belief of many in the church is based solely on a biblical commitment, with integrity and consistency, or more of a personal bias. It is an important comparison for those who view the issues of Christianity honestly and objectively. In regards to “moral absolutes,” it is clear that there is a cause for question on the issue of remarriage after divorce outside of biblical parameters, and a consideration to what God would want for people in life. It is an issue of the spirit vs. the letter of the law in my view. With remarriage after divorce not sanctioned in the Bible, this is, by necessity, something that is embraced based on one’s conscience and personal relationship with God, much like the issue that touches the lives of gay people. The commandment of Jesus Christ: Love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself.
bock
10 Commandments dlb
Welcome back, Lynn. You generalize to the Golden Rule far too fast. Yes, there are issues tied to each of the commandments in terms of specific application, but the idea that it is morally consistent to honor a marriage vow and not be an adulterer is not a complex idea. (As for remarriage, you know and note that the church has had various positions on that question) It is one thing to say we have a standard to meet and recognize we do. It is another to ask and determine what that standard is. An idea like one should not steal is pretty basic. The move over to politics, (which I agree is sometimes misapplied by Christians) only fogs the issue of moral integrity of the individual before God. That is where the commandments seek to take us.
Lynn
Moral Relevance
Thanks for your reply Dr. Bock. One of your commenters seemed to feel that the question of morality is completely intuitive, and that it is somewhat absurd to even discuss the relevancy of the Ten Commandments. That is why I mentioned the Golden Rule, to which all people will be accountable before God. I presume this is the “intuition” that he/she was referring to. God stated that He has written His law on the hearts of people. (Hebrews 8:10; Romans 2:14-16) The Bible states that where there was no law, there was no imputing of sin. His law is on the heart, intuitively in the minds of people, and we will be accountable to God for all that we have done or not done, with or without exposure to the T.C., even for those who do not have the gospel. The discussion is about morality, but the Bible is also clear that people will be accountable to God in terms of recognizing His existence, and our inadequacy without Him.
So all that I am saying is that some things are quite absolute, even without a reading of the laws of Scripture. Everyone knows intuitively that it is wrong to steal, murder, slander someone, be unfaithful to one’s spouse, dishonor parents, wreak havoc on society, etc. The Bible is clear that it is possible to sear the conscience, by ignoring it and lying to oneself, in which case the conscience doesn’t function anymore. Obviously, accountability to God will still be there.
What we have in the Bible, is an invitation to know God personally. We have the truth of His gospel of salvation and eternal life, through the forgiveness of sins, and through a relationship with His Son Jesus Christ. Believers bear witness to Him to those who do not know Him. The Holy Spirit bears witness to this truth, for whoever opens their heart to Him.
What we also have in Scripture, is the illumination of all that is right and all that is wrong. It is a gift to have this light, not a curse because is raises our accountability to His will. His standards are high for His people, possibly in a way that is not written on the hearts of unbelievers, such as regarding fornication. Believers know that Jesus condemned fornication, when He stated that foods do not defile the man (which was contrary to the Law, and part of the new covenant), but what proceeds from the heart is what defiles the man, e.g. fornication. He also explicitly condemned looking upon a woman with lust, and our porn-filled society is ridden with this sin, which is corrupting to the soul. I think many Christians have fallen prey to this also. We are blessed to have His laws and His words, because the faithful will inherit His kingdom.
In regards to moral absolutes, without the Scriptures are unbelievers accountable to divorce and remarriage laws? It is to believers that these statements of Jesus have been given. I don’t think you would disagree with this. There is some disagreement in the family of believers about what He desires for the person whose marriage has failed hopelessly, but I think it is clear that remarriage is seen to be approved by God, and is the norm.
All in all, I merely wanted to make the point that there seems to be some kind of conspiracy in regards to just how simple it is to have a lock on the truths of God. There are some gray areas, and we are accountable as individuals in regards to what is written on the heart. I’m sure that all facts and evidence will be taken into consideration in God’s judgment. I believe there will be no basis, for example, for anyone to claim that a commandment against fornication is legalistic, considering that it is serving the flesh, it bears bad fruits, and considering that Jesus condemned this.
As a gay believer, I am convinced that “fornication” is to be looked upon with regard to the spirit v.s. the letter of the law. A life-partnership is not fornication, simply because the law of the land does not recognize this as marriage. God is a God of the heart. He does not judge based on appearance. It is a certain type of godless spirit, including a hatred for God, that was addressed in the Bible. This is a biological reality, not a rebellious lifestyle, such as lustfulness.
I wanted to highlight the fact that so many Christians want to have it both ways. Remarriage is approved by God and is not immorality, despite the words of Christ, while it is very easy to require that the gay person live with a rigid take on the Scriptures, and either engage in what they do not desire, because they are not heterosexual, or be alone for life. I think many Christians have adopted an understanding and accepting attitude, and many are engaging in hypocrisy, because they have the approval of the larger church in doing so. The Bible has its complexities in regards to law, as seen in the words regarding remarriage, but I believe God will be looking for consistency and integrity in His people, regardless of their ultimate belief.
I know some people will want to scroll through anything that I have written, but it is only God’s Word that I am speaking about, the Christian faith, and a reality of nature. I’m not trying to renew this debate, but I felt that I wanted to address the concept of moral absolutes, biblical correctness, double standards in the church, and the heart of a kind and giving God, who sees the heart and knows His own.
I went ahead and included the link, not to promote my book on your blog, but because it speaks a little further for anyone who wants to read my website.
T N Thorne
Moral Equivelance?
Lynn, Thanks for your well reasoned response. I agree with your statement, “some things are quite absolute”. The examples you raised were also relevant.
In regard to your statement “a life-partnership is not fornication” I would have to say, that depends. The good doctor in his 5-part blog on homosexual marriage notes that there are two aspects to marriage: religious and civil. In the eyes of God the civil aspect is not of primary importance, it pertains to the kingdom of human politics. (I know some will rightly debate this assertion based on Paul and Peter’s commands to obey governing authorities, which is relevant but not of “primary” importance to this topic.) If a man and woman choose to cleave to each other and make that commitment before man and God then the relevant prerequisites for marriage have been fulfilled in God’s eyes. The government’s requirements may be necessary to receive government benefits, but have no bearing on the authority of the union before God.
It is always best to obey God rather than men when the two are in conflict. However, in the area of homosexual marriage the two are presently in agreement: it is morally wrong. “Life-partner” or not, homosexual behavior is clearly and absolutely a sin, based on many texts in both testaments. Your attempt of moral equivalence between remarriage and homosexual life partnership falls short, as at least the union of a man and woman can be righteous at some point whereas the union of a man and another man (or woman to another woman) is never appropriate. Furthermore, just because much of Christianity ignores the seriousness of divorce and remarriage doesn’t mean that we can choose other areas to ignore; two wrongs do not make a right.
I am not someone who is speaking hypocritically either. I am 41 years old, have never married and have lived a celibate life. I admit my thought life condemns me of sexual sin regardless of the purity of my practice, and I am in no way elevating myself above you. I am simply showing that this heterosexual does not consider celibacy a rigid or unfair demand by God. In comparison to eternity, this life is short. It is my belief that self-discipline is a better friend than any life partner.
I deeply respect you and again thank you for your post. It brought up some very good and very valid concerns and criticisms of the church. Should you ever decide to live a celibate life and attempt to overcome homosexuality, I would welcome your friendship and accountability to help keep each other from moral failure.
In Him, T N Thorne
Lynn
Remarriage in the Church
To T N, I appreciate that someone has the courage and willingness to discuss the issue. I think there has been a conspiracy of silence on an important question until now, and I believe it is a question that deserves an answer, or at least an honest and thoughtful address.The first thing that I want to point out, is that you are making an assumption that I’m not celibate, possibly based on prejudice about the issue. I am quite celibate, and I have been for many years. I’ve been in only one relationship with a woman many years ago. I gave my life to God at age eighteen, and obedience and love of the truth has always been part of the covenant in my faith in Jesus Christ. Including in the thought-life. This being said, as far as overcoming homosexuality, I would have to overcome something that is part of the makeup of my very being to do this. I was fearfully and wonderfully created by God, and He is my Maker.On to the facts of the issues to be discussed…you said:“It is always best to obey God rather than men when the two are in conflict. However, in the area of homosexual marriage the two are presently in agreement: it is morally wrong.” You then make the point that …“the union of a man and woman can be righteous at some point“… I have to disagree with your premise that the marriage laws of the land, and the marriage laws of God, are in agreement on either the divorce issue itself or the legality of remarriage after divorce. The laws of the land do not meet the “relevant prerequisites” for marriage in the eyes of God. When Jesus stated that you are to keep your vows before God in marriage, and if a man leaves his wife and she remarries, she has committed adultery, and the one who marries the divorced woman commits adultery, while the laws of the land say no such thing, are the two in agreement? Is He not separating the laws of God from the laws of the land? You seem to give some kind of vindication to remarriage on the basis of the fact of heterosexual sex, not to be insulting, but frankly speaking. The fact is that this is sanctioned only within the context of marriage as it is codified in Scripture, and otherwise is called adultery. Honestly speaking, I’m not sure that you’ve addressed the words of Jesus on this. I would agree that if a marriage does not succeed, according to the laws of the Bible, they should possibly not remain together for the sake of peace; but the Bible states that an individual is “bound” in the marriage, as long as the spouse is living, and may not remarry outside of specified parameters. Romans 7:2-3. Therefore, is remarriage behavior sanctioned in the Bible and rendered moral?I freely admit that I am not a theologian; I am reading the Bible as an ordinary person who cares deeply what it says. I am reading it for what it says. If there is potentially a translation issue, I am open to that information as well. The Bible clearly presents an issue for those who wish to divorce their spouse and remain free to marry another, and to those for whom this is the case in their life, while they also condemn the relationship of the gay person.You said that you do not consider celibacy a rigid or unfair demand by God. I agree with you. If someone feels that they have been called by God to a life of celibacy, it is a gift and has its own rewards, and obedience will always be rewarded abundantly by God. He hasn’t made this demand of me, and this remains as undetermined in His plans for my life. Obedience is still the most important thing, for the sake of eternal rewards as always. In my belief, fornication is regarding the spirit, it has nothing to do with a life-partnership in love, and marriage is a spiritual concept. I could never look upon intimacy in this context as evil, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with lustfulness, the worship of idols, an unthankful heart, or a rebellious spirit.You said that, “‘Life-partner’ or not, homosexual behavior is clearly and absolutely a sin, based on many texts in both testaments.”I don’t see “many texts” but there are a few. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that the heart and spirit of any particular gay individual, many of whom are not described at all in Paul’s address, is irrelevant to the issue, and we are to abide by a rigid take on the issue, as it is understood by Paul speaking from his awareness of a particular people, and the case of the absence of these characteristics of the heart and the lifestyle has no bearing. If this is how we are to interpret the Bible, the person who remarries is absolutely an adulterer, even if it is their spouse who left them and they were willing to stay in the marriage, God does not look upon this with reason and consideration, which is a principle taught by Jesus Himself, and the person is to remain celibate or be an adulterer. The issues are not exactly the same, among other things because Jesus has full knowledge, whereas Paul was a mere human being with limitations, but they are similar. Even if a person is not entirely innocent in their divorce and has failed in some way, which is forgivable, this person would still be bound by the marriage laws as stated by Jesus. He never said that “remarriage is adultery, but if you ask forgiveness for remarrying it is not,” and I see no precedent in the Bible for understanding anything in this way. I do see a basis for kindness and understanding, and I personally do not consider remarried people adulterers, which is for God alone to judge. He is a God who looks upon the heart, and not the letter of the law, which does not necessarily represent inherent truth, as is clear in Scripture. This is not an issue of two wrongs making a right, and in no way do I derive my beliefs from the practices of others; what I am saying is that it is a recognition of the importance of companionship that is selectively applied, and is lacking in biblical integrity and consideration for people. As to the title of your post, on both issues the Bible provides no specific sanction, and both are personal issues between the individual and their God, with varied personal components and factors. Love in its truest form remains the law of God, in its entirety. Feel free to address any point that I have made. Thank you again for being willing to address a complicated issue in the church, biblical interpretation, and the laws of the land. God bless.In Christ,Lynn
TNThorne
I Agree
I agree with your analysis of remarriage with only one caveat, the person who is left in a marriage I think is free to remarry, but it has been a long time since I’ve looked at the relevant passage and may cede your point once I have another look. Fortunately the three friends I’ve had whose spouses have cheated on them have been able to reconcile and not divorce exhibiting an agape love I’m not sure I’m capable of at present. Truly God is at work even in the messes of his people.
In regard to my statement about human law and the Bible being in agreement, I was speaking only to the issue of same-sex marriage. You are correct that divorce and remarriage are issues at which God’s Word holds us to a higher standard than does our present legal system.
I would take issue with the notion that homosexuality is biological in nature, or is a manner in which God created you, as nowhere else in Scripture do I find God commanding us to keep away from anything that He has given us or to deny any fashion of how he made us. I do not doubt your capacity to love, or your heartfelt dedication to you partner, only the morality of the object of your love. I am very impressed by your statement that even in this you have remained celibate, revealing a strong faith in, and dedication to, our creator. I admit that I assumed when you mentioned your life partner that the relationship had been “consummated” in the biblical sense, and that I was incorrect in doing so. Many apologies for that.
If you want a hero for championing our understanding of divorce and remarriage I would suggest Charles Ryrie. He has held our view his whole life, and even in his elder years, after his wife left him for no good reason, he did not change his mind about what the Bible taught.
I welcome any further dialog and discussion on this topic or any other. You say you are not a theologian and, while you may not have a seminary degree, I would consider your understanding of God’s word (what little of it I’m privy to so far), is right up there. A degree is not a badge of understanding, but the consistent living of God’s Word is. There are many degreed men whom fall far short of this. Please continue to seek God first in all things, even as I hope to.
In Him, TNThorne
Lynn
Remarriage in the Church
To T N, I appreciate that someone has the courage and willingness to discuss the issue. I think there has been a conspiracy of silence on an important question until now, and I believe it is a question that deserves an answer, or at least an honest and thoughtful address.
The first thing that I want to point out, is that you are making an assumption that I’m not celibate, possibly based on prejudice about the issue. I am quite celibate, and I have been for many years. I’ve been in only one relationship with a woman many years ago. I gave my life to God at age eighteen, and obedience and love of the truth has always been part of the covenant in my faith in Jesus Christ. Including in the thought-life. This being said, as far as overcoming homosexuality, I would have to overcome something that is part of the makeup of my very being to do this. I was fearfully and wonderfully created by God, and He is my Maker.
On to the facts of the issues to be discussed…you said:
“It is always best to obey God rather than men when the two are in conflict. However, in the area of homosexual marriage the two are presently in agreement: it is morally wrong.” You then make the point that …“the union of a man and woman can be righteous at some point“…
I have to disagree with your premise that the marriage laws of the land, and the marriage laws of God, are in agreement on either the divorce issue itself or the legality of remarriage after divorce. The laws of the land do not meet the “relevant prerequisites” for marriage in the eyes of God.
When Jesus stated that you are to keep your vows before God in marriage, and if a man leaves his wife and she remarries, she has committed adultery, and the one who marries the divorced woman commits adultery, while the laws of the land say no such thing, are the two in agreement? Is He not separating the laws of God from the laws of the land?
You seem to give some kind of vindication to remarriage on the basis of the fact of heterosexual sex, not to be insulting, but frankly speaking. The fact is that this is sanctioned only within the context of marriage as it is codified in Scripture, and otherwise is called adultery. Honestly speaking, I’m not sure that you’ve addressed the words of Jesus on this.
I would agree that if a marriage does not succeed, according to the laws of the Bible, they should possibly not remain together for the sake of peace; but the Bible states that an individual is “bound” in the marriage, as long as the spouse is living, and may not remarry outside of specified parameters. Romans 7:2-3.
Therefore, is remarriage behavior sanctioned in the Bible and rendered moral?
I freely admit that I am not a theologian; I am reading the Bible as an ordinary person who cares deeply what it says. I am reading it for what it says. If there is potentially a translation issue, I am open to that information as well. The Bible clearly presents an issue for those who wish to divorce their spouse and remain free to marry another, and to those for whom this is the case in their life, while they also condemn the relationship of the gay person.
You said that you do not consider celibacy a rigid or unfair demand by God. I agree with you. If someone feels that they have been called by God to a life of celibacy, it is a gift and has its own rewards, and obedience will always be rewarded abundantly by God. He hasn’t made this demand of me, and this remains as undetermined in His plans for my life. Obedience is still the most important thing, for the sake of eternal rewards as always. In my belief, fornication is regarding the spirit, it has nothing to do with a life-partnership in love, and marriage is a spiritual concept. I could never look upon intimacy in this context as evil, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with lustfulness, the worship of idols, an unthankful heart, or a rebellious spirit.
You said that, “‘Life-partner’ or not, homosexual behavior is clearly and absolutely a sin, based on many texts in both testaments.”
I don’t see “many texts” but there are a few. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that the heart and spirit of any particular gay individual, many of whom are not described at all in Paul’s address, is irrelevant to the issue, and we are to abide by a rigid take on the issue, as it is understood by Paul speaking from his awareness of a particular people, and the case of the absence of these characteristics of the heart and the lifestyle has no bearing.
If this is how we are to interpret the Bible, the person who remarries is absolutely an adulterer, even if it is their spouse who left them and they were willing to stay in the marriage, God does not look upon this with reason and consideration, which is a principle taught by Jesus Himself, and the person is to remain celibate or be an adulterer. The issues are not exactly the same, among other things because Jesus has full knowledge, whereas Paul was a mere human being with limitations, but they are similar.
Even if a person is not entirely innocent in their divorce and has failed in some way, which is forgivable, this person would still be bound by the marriage laws as stated by Jesus. He never said that “remarriage is adultery, but if you ask forgiveness for remarrying it is not,” and I see no precedent in the Bible for understanding anything in this way. I do see a basis for kindness and understanding, and I personally do not consider remarried people adulterers, which is for God alone to judge. He is a God who looks upon the heart, and not the letter of the law, which does not necessarily represent inherent truth, as is clear in Scripture.
This is not an issue of two wrongs making a right, and in no way do I derive my beliefs from the practices of others; what I am saying is that it is a recognition of the importance of companionship that is selectively applied, and is lacking in biblical integrity and consideration for people.
As to the title of your post, on both issues the Bible provides no specific sanction, and both are personal issues between the individual and their God, with varied personal components and factors. Love in its truest form remains the law of God, in its entirety.
Feel free to address any point that I have made. Thank you again for being willing to address a complicated issue in the church, biblical interpretation, and the laws of the land. God bless.
In Christ,
Lynn
a commenter
note
The following post had an issue with a Bible link, so I asked the host if he could fix the link so that it goes to both verses instead of only the first one, which he graciously attempted to do for me. The post then lost formatting, which could be due to the fact that I write them elsewhere and then paste them here, or it may have just not liked an attempt at changing it. Whatever the case, it apparently could not be deleted and reposted, so the following post can be read with its correct paragraph formatting, as he reposted it for me in a later location. Look for the title of the same name for a clear reading of the following post, then go back and follow accordingly for the progression of the discussion.
Lynn
Our dialog
T N, I do appreciate your time and your willingness to discuss the issues. I have to say that a few things should be cleared up, and I realize that it is easy to misunderstand things sometimes. Please bear with me because I’m a bit befuddled at your comments.
Where, in anything that I have written, do you see me saying that I have a partner?? Then when I clarify and explain that I have been in only one relationship with a woman, which was years ago in my early thirties, you still are not grasping that I am not in a relationship? To add to this, I have been clear that in a life-partnership I would never consider it wrong for this to be a sexual relationship, and it is for God to decide if there will be a partner and for His plan to be known in my life, as should be the case for any believer. I don’t understand, T N, how you misunderstood, but everyone makes mistakes.
To reiterate, I’m not in a relationship presently. If I were, and I characterize it as a life-partnership, intimacy would of course be a component of this relationship.
I only have two more items to bring to your attention. One of these things is another misreading, and the other is possibly a misstatement.
I’ll start with the possible misstatement. Your words: “If a man and woman choose to cleave to each other and make that commitment before man and God then the relevant prerequisites for marriage have been fulfilled in God’s eyes.” To also say that our laws do not reflect God’s standards in the Bible, would be a contradiction to this statement. One of the conditions necessary for marriage according to Scripture, is that neither party, based on biblical laws, is legally married to another person, which is binding as long as the spouse is living. You are basically saying that “heterosexual commitment” meets God’s prerequisites, regardless of the existence of the vow that was previously made, and you are speaking for what is a legally recognized marriage according to Scripture.
Perhaps you didn’t see where you may have contradicted yourself, or that you neglected to address the issue at hand, which was the fact that you give superiority to the divorced and remarried Christian on the basis of sex, which Jesus called adultery, while you didn‘t address His words, or give an answer for the fact that adulterers will not enter heaven. Forgive me if I’m the one who isn’t understanding our dialog, but this is what I am seeing.
The third thing—the other misreading. This one is possibly the most understandable of the three, because maybe you’ve never had a reason to spend much time with this aspect of God’s Word. I make no claim to have a grasp on all aspects of God’s Word. I hope to never comment where I don’t know what it says though, which is why it is important to address this further. You raised the discussion, then glossed over the extraordinarily key aspects of it, which is itself the problem in the church on the issues I feel, and which is why we are here on Bock’s blog. The Bible is used to establish something very possibly rooted in personal sentiments, while they do not deal with other aspects of the Bible because it is easy to rely on human approval and agreement.
You do acknowledge that you may not have seen this in Scripture, so all can be reconciled in your awareness of the Scriptures. I just want to point out that there is no other way to understand the specific words of Scripture on this. Contrary to how some people will always see me, and that will be for God to decide in truth, what I try to do with God’s Word is to understand the true character of what is written, with the nuances and depth and meaning of the texts, and all doctrines taken into consideration to give light. To not understand that what is clearly stated in the Bible is that, even for the person who was left by their spouse, remarriage is called adultery, is to have left out the very character of the texts that address the marriage laws.
There is so much that will never be thought about for the people who have ignored these facts of Scripture, while they are very willing to judge their brother who has taken in the Scriptures with thoughtfulness and seriousness, and they make judgments in a highly selective and biased manner. I don’t feel personally judged by you, but I am just making the point that some people are very harsh and ignorant judges of their brethren, and they will find out differently one day on certain things. No one should make a judgment who is ignorant of the facts of the Bible and the issues in the church. I would understand it if I heard some equal expressions of outrage about remarriage (especially with all this talk about the definition of marriage…plenty of opportunity), and that would be that individual’s right, but with consistency—apart from that, it is something else.
I am convinced that the reason God established His Word in the way that He did, is to call forth the fact that law can be rigid and unreasonable in some situations, and love will always reign supreme. This is Scripture itself. I could be wrong about this assessment, but it is what I am seeing in God’s Word, and I believe I’ll stand comfortably with this before God. (Paul’s words can be a little difficult, and he was formerly steeped in the Law, but it is an established principle of Scripture just the same, and was also part of his teachings.) If I’m wrong, the very large segment of the church that is remarried outside of the specified parameters given by Jesus—this being that one’s spouse has committed marital infidelity, and Paul’s added clause, speaking from himself, in the case of an “unbeliever” leaving the believer—they are unrepentant adulterers, living in an adulterous relationship, and reason or the value of companionship has no place. (Is this your belief?) It is about law versus liberty in my view. John 1:17; Matt.12; Romans13:8-10.
I am not advocating divorce here by any means, and my address is much more regarding remarriage, just to be clear. God is the One who sees the heart, whether it is just or unjust in the actions, and I cannot make a judgment or vindicate anyone on that, nor should anyone else on any casual basis, simply because it is a complex and personal issue. But the church is not concerned about what remarriage means in regards to the Scriptures that I have seen, because Christianity seems to be defined by heterosexual marriage in large part in America. It isn’t aligned with the actual Bible, and there was much truth in the Newsweek article, by the way, and only one or two points I had a problem with.
It is also true that Paul’s address in Romans 1 wasn’t even about “the nuclear family”—it was about body parts fitting together heterosexually. Are body parts and sex paramount in God’s eyes in a faithful relationship? Does this in itself judge the heart? Paul viewed this act in the context of a spirit of rebellion in people, as his words make abundantly clear, which would absolutely be paramount in God’s eyes, as well as the types of relationships.
We are also not under the Mosaic Law. If you want to make this aspect of the Law—a small percentage in the overall body of laws, which at are obsolete—authoritative and of inherent truth in all contexts, you are entitled to that, but many people see a basis to view this differently, including in regards to new covenant principles.
I have more that I could say, including an address of a recent comment from Becky on part five on homosexual marriage, regarding the passage that “there is a way that seems right to man, but in the end is death,” of which I’ll just say that all things are decided by believers, or should be, within the framework of a relationship with God. It is not about going off on your own, left to your own devices.
As to your comment that being gay couldn’t be biological, because God would not allow this to be the case regarding something that He called wrong—it is a variation in the makeup of humanity, and it is a reality of nature, which doesn’t discriminate or function based on Scriptures. Though I have no doubt that the hand of God is absolutely upon the making of some people gay, which are His own children, and are a part of all families. You are entitled to your view, and I understand why people would believe that way, not having personal knowledge of the reality of it, but it is every bit as intrinsic and real as the heterosexual orientation, which thankfully many fine people in the world understand. The love in a relationship is, of course, for the person, just as it is for the heterosexual person. It is often evidenced from childhood, and it came from nowhere else but by God and nature, for those who were born gay. This is something that I know from personal knowledge as a fact, and, well I guess it would be hard to actually prove, but I think the evidence is there. All people are not born heterosexual, and the majority who are didn’t choose that either. I do absolutely respect your right to your view though.
What I had hoped to challenge Bock’s readers on this issue of remarriage after divorce, is an address of why, in light of particularly Matthew 5:32 and other words from Jesus; Romans 7:2-3; and 1 Cor.7, they are so caught up in judging the gay believer, who loves God as much as anyone else does, and in some cases more than most. I don’t think they have processed or considered how the Bible was written, with its complexities, and its doctrines of liberty and laws, some of which do not seem to be aligned with medical facts, as people are healthier even when they remarry, though not as much so as if they never divorced (yes a study recently showed that), and the reality of some people being born gay. I think an address was never given on this aspect of the issue, because principles of “reason” would have to be demonstrated, going outside of the specific words of Scripture to allow remarriage, and that would be unacceptable or dangerous or too revealing of their actual beliefs.
“Forgiveness” is not an answer, for reasons that I’ve mentioned, though some people will always understand the issues in that way, and God is the only One with full and complete knowledge. The question is what is right and what is wrong, not how we can be forgiven as a provision for doing our own will.
One more thing for Becky…just a thought…there’s a good article on a Greek word that is used in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “arsenokoites.” It is well-researched and thoughtfully and fairly written. You might like to read it one sleepless morning: http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoites-malakos-meanings-and-consequences . Or google the word and it will take you to the page on the clgs website.
A last word on homosexual marriage: I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, which is not only a fundamental fairness to all Americans, and supported in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but it is abundantly what is best for the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that the over one-thousand rights and benefits that the federal government gives in the marriage laws for heterosexuals can be argued to be for the good of children, and marriage laws are not only for couples of child-bearing age, but have a set of practicalities that would apply to all domestic partnerships, many of whom do have children that are being left out of this equation. As a law that supports divorce without question, and remarriage without question, it is not based on the Bible, the commandments of which would greatly hinder divorce—marriage laws are civil and they are currently rooted in the religious bias of popular beliefs.
As to the “spiritual” concept of marriage, which all gay people can adhere to, just as straight people before God, with or without legal recognition—no one has the right to speak for God and say that He does not recognize a marriage between two people, and I don’t believe it should be done in the laws either. But I’m one who is not caught up in the legal terminology, only the equality in the laws.
I’ve made my case here (and nowhere else online, I misspoke on that in the original dialog), and I’ve proven my case about much. Facts are facts. There will always be people on both sides of the fence regarding right or wrong on this issue, and no one can prove the mind of God on this. What is absolutely certain, is that there were some very rebellious, idolatrous, violent, lust-filled, unthankful and unloving people, who also engaged in same-sex activities, which was seen in a context of wickedness. (Many heterosexuals engage in all of the same acts, which were, incidentally, never forbidden in the Bible for heterosexuals, and I advocate nothing that is unhealthy, whatever may be.) I’ll never believe these passages describe all gay people or relationships inherently, or that God’s priorities are as people believe they are on this. We’ll see all of the truth one day, and God’s righteousness will reign forever.
Your honest response is welcome. I know that I laid more on you than you bargained for, partly because I’m wrapping up here. My belief is that love and liberty, reasonably applied, trumps law and judgment in Scripture. Perhaps where the difficulty comes into the dialog, is that it was unclear precisely what you agreed with. In my view, considering the seriousness of the concept of adultery in the Bible, and the lack of any address regarding homosexuality in three significant areas of Scripture, in all of which adultery is condemned—The Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus, and the Book of Revelation—it defies reason that God would show kindness and consideration only to the heterosexual segment of His family on this particular issue, where the conditions of what He is speaking about are in fact present, and require a strict adherence to a judgment on a subject that was always very context-related in Scripture, where the conditions referred to are not present.
(Regarding the more common understanding of the concept of adultery, that is a different story altogether, and of the lowest of character in the view of any believer, as it has to do with lying and cheating on a trusting spouse. The more complete definition in the Bible is regarding the question of God’s recognition of divorce, as it is spelled out undeniably in Scripture, just to be clear. My address is regarding the specific words and teaching of Scripture, and He called this adultery, with full knowledge, meaning, and purpose.)
If you have taken my words as not approving of remarriage, I think you have misunderstood me, and I think that is probably the case because I speak about strict laws and precepts of Scripture. My point is regarding a use of “reason” in how we view the issues, as the specific words of Scripture on the subject do not permit remarriage, while many people apply these principles of reason and discernment inconsistently, and with favoritism and bias, claiming to be simply maintaining a commitment to Scripture on the gay issue. I have shown what my beliefs are throughout, and the last several paragraphs of my previous post I believe are very clear in how I view the issues. It is possible that you didn’t follow the logic of what I was saying—my apologies if that didn’t come across clearly. Maybe what you missed is that, ultimately, whatever a person’s beliefs are on the issues, which we are all entitled to, consistency and fair-mindedness towards all people are the keys to integrity, love, and justice.
I wish you all the best in your walk with God, in all faithfulness. Thank you for reading this and for your kindness. Take care T N.
Lynn
I won’t say I’ll never visit, but this is finished now. Thanks Darrell!
TNThorne
Divorce, remarriage, homosexuality and the Constitution (whew!)
Lynn, thanks again for your response. I want to address your concerns as briefly as possible and will also consider this discussion closed after this post unless you decide to further it.
First, you asked where in your writing did I understand you had a partner. You wrote, “As a gay believer, I am convinced that “fornication” is to be looked upon with regard to the spirit vs. the letter of the law. A life-partnership is not fornication…” I was reading between the lines and should not have, but your defense of life-partnership lead me to believe you were involved in such a relationship.
Second, in the quote of mine you use regarding heterosexual marriage I was speaking in the case of two never-before-married people. In no way have I given “superiority to the divorced and remarried Christian.”
Third, I believe marriage is appropriate in three instances: a person who has never married may marry, a person who is widowed may marry again, and a person who has been justly released from their previous marriage may remarry. My position on the third is largely from 1 Corinthians 7. I agree that most dissolution’s of marriage are not due to the death of the spouse or adultery and ought to be condemned.
Fourth, I believe that all are born with a sin nature and are capable of any sin – including the capacity for homosexual behavior. That some have overcome homosexuality shows that it is not genetic but is instead a condition of the sin nature. The fact that homosexuality is never approved of in any context in God’s Word speaks volumes as well.
Fifth, the forefathers wove many biblical concepts into the fabric of this nation and to say that there is to be a separation of church and state is misguided. The amendment you refer to is addressing a separation of powers only. The state does not have power over the church (which is why churches don’t pay taxes) and the church does not have power over the state (which is why the Pope is not the President).
I wish you the very best in your pursuit of holiness. – TNT
Lynn
Views
T N, I’ll try to respond briefly, for the sake of a clear understanding of your beliefs if you are willing. You and I will likely always be in disagreement on the issues in this lifetime, and that is okay in my view. The essentials are in the identity of God and Christ, faith, love, hope, etc., and more could be said there some may say. We see through a glass darkly as it says. We do not all understand all of the Scriptures alike.
Ironically, we both are disagreed with by the majority of Christians, if I understand your beliefs correctly, but for different reasons. Where you are disagreed with is quiet, however, and is not talked about much publically that I have seen. Though I think these principles are abundantly clear. The popular belief is that the “adulterers” that are condemned in the passages of Scripture, are not the people who believe that remarriage after divorce is acceptable for them. They do not appear to embrace the idea that Scripture is condemning the act of the individual who remarries after divorce, or who marries a divorced person, despite the words of Scripture that address the issue. They believe that it is a different kind of spirit and lifestyle, in truth, that is condemned in Scripture.
This is where the similarity comes into view on the two issues. The words regarding the marriage that is “sanctioned” in Scripture are undeniable, and it is not sanctioned outside of specified parameters—leaving the individual in their personal relationship with God, a spiritual understanding of marriage, a clear heart and conscience, and not subject to man’s judgment as I see it. It is not in a specific accordance with the laws of Scripture, this aspect of which you are concurring with, but in the view of many, it is in accordance with God’s kindness and understanding. It is a consensual relationship between two adults, where the previous marriage is over in the view of the individuals, and in the eyes of the laws of the land only, but not in alignment with the laws of the Bible, which is where the charge of adultery comes in.
This may be an unfair setup for my question to you, because you undoubtedly believe in a God of love and kindness, as you understand this to be personally—but let me ask you what your position is on this: When a Christian remarries outside of biblical parameters, which you state to be unacceptable, is this an adulterous relationship as the Bible says, and as I see clearly to be the letter of the law? If so, are these adulterers, who make up a large percentage of the body of believers, on the lists of the people who do not belong to God and will not enter heaven, despite what they believe about themselves, as both Paul and Jesus taught?
(I’m not assessing the rightness or wrongness of your beliefs, which I hope I have made clear, and the Scripture is there, but it is quite a belief and a statement, I feel, if it is how some people believe.)
And finally, if I may…I wholly and completely disagree with some of your logic, in regards to (1) people “overcoming homosexuality,” which is only shown to be an “abstinence” from the desired relationship, which establishes no such thing as what you are saying. I’m celibate and I’m still gay. Although I’m sure there is some testimony there—there are some cases of people having been misguided in the first place regarding their sexual orientation for various reasons. In my case, it is biological and part of the person God made me. I agree that anyone could engage in same-sex intimacy if they choose to, which isn’t really the point of the issue. Anyone can also not engage in anything they choose not to engage in, which doesn’t make a case that what they are not engaging in is proven to be sin. You say that this is not approved of in any context in Scripture, but there is only one basic context shown there, very extensively laid out to the reader, which doesn’t reflect all contexts that this can exist in, which is a simple and indisputable fact. If “discernment” between the different kinds of hearts and relationships doesn’t come into the picture in your view, you are certainly entitled to your view. (2) On the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” I’m not a Constitutional law expert, but this seems clearly to be referring to establishing the religious beliefs and doctrines of a segment of society as law, as opposed to evidence of harm and natural law. I’m not aware of biblical concepts in our laws that wouldn’t exist in any civilized society. I don’t see religion woven throughout our laws at all. And (3), I have to disagree with what you are saying that you said, in terms of placing these two issues on unequal ground morally, which I believe you do in your reference to “righteous at some point,” unless I misunderstood you, but it seems to be the very essence of your post. There seems to be some sort of vindication there (which would be an interesting thing to bring before God regarding the difficulties of Scripture and the desire to remarry… that “it is heterosexual”… while the gay person brings before God that “it is love and commitment, and a thankful heart”), but I may have misunderstood your meaning.
I’m glad that you see now that I am here discussing the issue—I am defending what I believe to be acceptable to God, and the biblical basis for that: Liberty within love…reason and discernment. Although I’m just one person. I would very much like to know what your belief is on this question that I asked you. This is intended in a good spirit, and I’ll answer only briefly if necessary.
BTW, “forgiveness” cleanses sin repented of—it doesn’t remove the legal bond of marriage or permit anything, or Jesus would not have called remarriage adultery, as He is the One who taught forgiveness. Jesus gave only one basis for being released from the marriage vow in divorce, and said that but for this circumstance, remarriage is adultery. Considering that anyone would agree that there are other valid reasons for divorce, such as abuse, addiction, or many would agree abandonment, by necessity, He leaves the door open for reasonability versus the letter of the law, which would condemn the innocent.
One word on holiness: It is given by and through the Lord Jesus Christ alone, in obedience to Him, and in grace and peace. L.L.
brikony
ten commandments
Some people try to say the Ten Commandments no longer apply but I watched a sermon recently that was very informative on the topic. It says they still apply and it was very Biblical. Before you discount it, you’ve got to see this. It’s incredibly clear. It’s called “The Lie Destroying America” and it can be found at the following links:
Part 1 — http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=80b2000684ffdbdc12b8
Part 2 — http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a11d910b8436e905b7cd
Watch it and you’ll see what I mean.
Lynn
My Final Comments
It seems as though TN has declined to communicate any further on the subject, so I’ll give my final comments. If it is a question of my motives, I assure you that this discussion is only for the sake of stimulating thought and examination of the issues, and for the sake of knowing what we believe to be the truth and why. If a subject addressed in the words of Christ is something that cannot be communicated about on a Christian discussion forum, what an extraordinary and unusual thing that is. As a guest on Dr. Bock’s blog, I was seeking nothing more than an honest and thoughtful address, as no one human being knows the mind of Christ in all of its fullness and perfection.
I have to note, in his three posts on the subject of comparing these two issues and bringing out some important facts for consideration, TN never once even acknowledged that the Bible does, in fact, call remarriage outside of specified parameters adultery, much less weigh in on what this means for the divorced and remarried Christian. This was the topic that I had addressed here. The concept of marriage between a man and a woman who had never been previously married isn’t questioned by anyone. What his address does, is it actually advocates blocking out the facts of what Jesus is talking about, in favor of highlighting the fact of heterosexual sex approved of in a different context.
He then denied that he suggested a favoritism towards heterosexuals. I’m not trying to be insulting, but I can’t make sense of this discussion without addressing, at least to some degree, what took place here. I do understand the point that I believe was clear in his initial post, that the fact of a heterosexual relationship makes the difference in God’s eyes, a point which he then seemed to deny making. My answer to this point is that, considering that the sexual aspect of a relationship is what would render it to be adultery—and apart from this would then be platonic, and beside the point of any discussion—this cannot also be any kind of vindication in God’s eyes. God’s approval of remarriage would have nothing to do with an appreciation on His part for the act of heterosexual sex. TN does not say that He approves, but he places this in a perspective that takes this into consideration.
I feel that it is important to address, because this literally involved cutting out the facts of Jesus’ address on the subject, and creating some sort of approval from there, which can never be right. Giving preference to the heterosexual issue was the very essence of his post. On the gay issue, I have no problem acknowledging all that was written there. I see this as very much involving an explicitly stated context. If these facts are irrelevant, what this means is that heterosexual sex is somewhere near the nature of God Himself, and to not abide by this, is to go against God Himself. This does seem to be Paul’s teaching, but there is every reason to believe that the “spiritual rebellion” that clearly accompanied what he was seeing, is a key aspect of why he furthered a condemnation on the subject. There is a difference between God’s nature and His creation—His nature is love, and to not abide this is to go against God.
My understanding of God’s possible approval of remarriage is based on a view to principles that He speaks about, and a view to the value of companionship. I could never judge this as immoral—but only God can judge the hearts of people, and I am only speaking theoretically and regarding what I personally believe. I see situations where a remarriage is good for people, and a wonderful thing for people, and this is what my belief is based on also. I hesitate to compare the issues, because we are to keep our vows before God, and the gay issue has nothing to do with breaking a vow, terminating a relationship, and then later making another vow. (I think there should be a very long commitment to God alone first, before considering another marriage.) I also hesitate because it is a difficult area of Scripture, but it brings out many truths. This is only an aspect of my overall biblical case regarding liberty and the gay issue, which is actually prolific, as several important principles are a theme in Scripture, and we have been called to freedom within the parameters of love. (Gal. 5:13-14)
In closing: It seems that it is impossible to say that remarried people are adulterers, while it is very easy to assign “the sin nature” to the homosexual orientation, rearranging the order of Jesus’ teachings, who purposely did not address this issue. The sin nature in Scripture, also known as “the flesh,” involves lust. (Gal. 5:18-21, KJV or NKJV says it best) Some people will never believe this in this lifetime, but many people know it to be true: The homosexual orientation in a gay person, is the same as the heterosexual orientation in a straight person, in its origin, and it is different in a way that is involving gender only. “Lust” is defined by a detachment from a meaningful relationship, and an objectification of people. I do believe the word “arsenokoites” has very possibly been mistranslated, as what we are speaking about doesn’t fit with the unruly character in these lists, any more than a remarried person would be rendered unfit for God’s kingdom. I don’t consider either to be immoral, or the issues to be reflecting a criteria on rating morality. Living for the flesh, or mistreating anyone, are what defines immorality. There is much Scripture on that. They want the gay person to believe that, if they engage in a life companionship, they are now described in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and in Romans 1, which is untrue.
I have a strong conviction against sin throughout my years with God, but there is no basis to believe that the hearts and lives of all gay people has been described in these particular passages of Scripture. The issue is, therefore, a matter of legalism in the church. It is obedience to Christ in a personal relationship, to be judged by Him, that is rewarded.
In respect for the full definition of the word: “Forgiveness” on the obligation itself in a marriage vow, as with a debt, is not a teaching of Jesus—He wanted no escape hatch there from the covenant—therefore, if this is accepted in this way, based on the belief that the marriage is over, which it may well be, with remarriage not being sanctioned anywhere in Scripture, it is based on these principles of kindness, reason, and the gift of life.
If, on the other hand, you believe that remarriage in itself is wrong, it is seriously wrong in principle to engage in it, on the basis of claiming forgiveness for remarrying. This is also true for the gay issue, and I want no part of that theology. Although popular belief often seems to say differently, the Bible teaches forgiveness “for repentance of sins” several times over. This is how I personally understand the issue, as merely one individual who loves God more than anything else in life.
I felt that this needed to be completed a little further, but now this is finished. Thanks again to Darrell for allowing the space, and thanks to the readers who took the time to read this. TN, if I misrepresented you, I do apologize, but it did seem to be what was communicated, and what was not addressed, and that you reserved the right to disown your own point. Possibly you haven’t thought about this aspect of Scripture, because there isn’t any mention of it in your addresses. Whatever the case, the readers can decide for themselves what they believe was communicated here, on both sides.
Whatever the merits are of his particular beliefs, and whatever the belief actually is regarding the facts of Scripture and the body of believers, I guess will remain a secret belief of some who had an opportunity to give a thoughtful address, and let the readers ponder the issue seeing your perspective.
God be glorified, who loves all of His children equally. It is such a certainty, to some people, that those who are accepting on the issue have departed from a true knowledge of God and the Bible, but these individuals who are accepting are seeing many, if not all, of the truths that I am seeing, in both the issue and in the Bible. I will never believe that God’s love and understanding for His children, and His family, is an empty philosophy. God bless.