Thinking through the Recent Prop 8 Decision
I almost hate to bring it up, but the decision on Prop 8 is going the direction that reflects where much of our American culture seems headed, making a decisive turn on a road we have been headed down for some time.
I almost hate to bring it up, but the decision on Prop 8 is going the direction that reflects where much of our American culture seems headed, making a decisive turn on a road we have been headed down for some time.
The issue of human rights and freedoms now has gotten to the point that complex moral issues involved can be legislated by a single judge with one swipe of the pen against the stated wishes of the mass of people in a given state. Sometimes such a judiciary veto is good, but I am not sure it is in this one case where there is so much socially at stake. Fortunately the appeals process exists so others will have to weigh in, but to be honest I do not expect much from that process either. As a society we have walled off such moral questions by erecting an edifice of freedom that works as a silencer on the issues of family and morality that the topic of same sex marriage raises. These questions have been discussed for centuries. To even raise such questions about the long term moral impact, and not simply embrace the change, is to be accused of bigotry and hatred if not worse. To object, according to the judge, is to engage in non-ratiional discussion, a claim that ignores the fact that many, even a majority, of humans apparently have been thinking in an non-rational manner about this topic for centuries. The judge's claim is rhetoric, not substance. There was a time when an underlying moral sense and appreciation of the corporate role in setting community moral standards operated alongside how we govern and make laws. That concern and substructure is slipping away. We cannot even engage in the discussion with a sense of respect about the issues involved. We simply say the other side is not being rational. It is sad to see.
52 Comments
samuel ward
So, i’m currently reading
So, i'm currently reading through mere christianity, a book with high commendations that i just have never gotten around to picking up. He uses the existence of a Laws of Nature, or morality to prove that God exists, etc. So my question would have to be, how do we expect nonbelievers to conduct themselves within the lines that conscience dictates. In other words, we know where the ultimate standard of Right comes from, but how can we expect that standard of Right to be applied on a secular level? Should it shock us as Christians when political figures do not value the sanctity of marriage? Or when they argue that the meaning/definition of marriage and the family is arbitrary at best? Now i am not saying that we should not be appalled as the definition of the family is twisted and perverted. But can we really expect an atheist to acquiesce to our world view? The founders of this country wound up a political vehicle that had morals and a concern for conscience and right doing. But without Christ, how can we expect a country to substain that kind of dignity or appreciation of godly morals? If i could honestly ask a question that i would love to hear a response for. Having Christian values, how do you interact with politics when you are not guaranteed that your worldview will be validated, respected and most certainly not appreciated?
samspock89
i’m sorry if i sent my
i'm sorry if i sent my comment multiple times. i'm assuming that they don't show up until screened. however i had no verification that my comment had been sent when i hit save, it just sent me back to the original post. sorry.
Darrell L. Bock
Sorry if I Sent
Sam:
It is OK. It showed up 3 times. Just trust it. We review all these before they go up and it can take up to several hours. (We get lots of spam.)
I will respond to the substance of what you ask later. The core answer is that we cannot necessarily expect much. All we can do is engage in a conversation and make a case that morality and community standards do impact a society, hoping that is heard– and remember that in the end our call is to faithful in the midst of all of the discussion.
dlb
Paul M Dooley
Totally agree with the direction Prop 8 is taking
Totally agree. It seems that if you dare say you believe in the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman, you risk branded a hateful person. "Intolerant". Unloving. Which is totally not true of most Christians who take this position. By and large we are a very loving people. We simply want to protect the institution of marriage, as we believe God established it. I think the fundamental thing is that Christians consider marriage as a spiritual bond – whereas secular culture defines it as a state sanctioned bond. But I am afraid that this is an up hill battle in this society at this time in history. As a recent song proclaimed about our culture these days, "there is not much that is sacred anymore".
ladyhoffman
The Voice of God
" And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret." Ephesians 5:11-12 I have difficulty dealing with the moral decline of our nation. As followers of Christ, we adhere to the sanctity of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I feel helpless in the face of constitutional challenges yet God assures me He is in control and He can use believers to do His work in this world. I am studying Ephesians and believe the lesson to be taken from this verse is a strong one with serious application. The initial instruction is clear. Do not participate in sin but expose darkness. This Epistle was written to the Church of the Ephesians and Paul warns the fellowship to be very careful how they walk. Christians who practice sin, deny the Truth of God’s Word or secretly hide their sins are to be exposed. The application has affirmed the reason for my departure from a denomination that supports redefining marriage as a union between two people. Sin within our fellowship is not to be tolerated. The decline of the church is a serious matter. It appears that anyone who speaks out against sin is going to be persecuted in the very near future. "Social Justice" will become the only accepted attitude and those who oppose the norms determined by the government will be required to undergo reeducation or worse, prosecution. In these later days we are called to obedience to God's standards not to the standards of men. “ Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” Matthew 5:15-16
Lynn L
Love is the entirety of God’s law
Just to be very clear, I'm not here to engage in any lengthy debate on the subject–this has been done here already, at least to some extent, and I have immense respect for Dr. Bock for his time and attention to this subject that he has given. That said, I'll make my point for the sake of the truth on the subject, as I am convinced in the Lord that it is. I realize and accept the fact that Christians of a particular persuasion will claim correctness on the subject until the second coming of Christ. The Bible is very clear to them that Christians cannot be homosexual, that God would never create or allow this diversity within His family, and a gender issue in itself is grounds for condemnation to hell, born gay or not–or in other words, spirit of rebellion, lust, or idolatry present or not. That doesn't mean that those who disagree with their belief should be quiet and go away. To state my belief very briefly, the Bible is misunderstood on this subject, but it is easy to believe otherwise. The subject was spoken of in an abundantly specific context in every reference–including the facts of the history, essence, and function of the Mosaic Law, in contrast with the function of the Christian faith and the New Covenant, which is based upon grace and truth. John 1:17. To many people, this context is irrelevant. To many other people, it is not irrelevant, and the issue has been misunderstood. Despite this basis for our belief, accusations of not loving God will fly until the end of time, and those believers–gay and straight–who know otherwise, will take this presumptuousness until Jesus Christ Himself speaks on the subject for the first time. If you believe that He spoke already through Moses and through the apostle Paul, and it is to be taken in a rigid manner as a complete truth, then historical conditions, cultural beliefs, and all considerations of context, should also be irrelevant on every other law and precept presented in Scripture, and all Scripture is to be taken in this manner (with only the exception of the stated counter tones on foods and days of the week laws, and regarding blood atonement laws). I would like to ask Lady Hoffman in particular, or anyone who would like to weigh in, two questions. First: If the gender characteristics or body parts issue, in itself, amounts to "works of darkness" and "rebellion," which is how you take Scripture to be saying at face value…is it also true that all believers who remarry after divorce, outside of strict biblical parameters, are "adulterers", engaged in sin and darkness, and are not to be accepted by those who love God? It is stated this way in the Bible at face value. In fact, unlike the issue of same-sex relations, there is no context whatsoever described, which could suggest otherwise. Second question: Is the church in disobedience for not requiring women to cover their heads in prayer, and for considering this inappropriate in our culture? Matt. 5:32 ;1 Cor. 6:9-10 ;Exodus 20:14 ; 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Clearly forgiveness is for repentance, not allowance of sin, despite the beliefs of some. Aside from the question of whether people should be able to impose their religious beliefs on others through the laws of the land, despite the First and Fourteenth Amendments, these questions are to those who hold this belief about how God judges people, and about your gay and lesbian neighbors, your brethren in the Lord, and your children.
Kirk
Lynn,
I am sorry but the bible does not view homosexuality favorably and it doesn't appear that you are understanding christian theology. You are also conflating several different issues together. The bible says the homosexuality is an abomination. Paul mentions the homosexuality isn't good as well. As I pointed out in our other discussion, Jesus said to even look at another woman is committing the sin of adultery. To argue that Jesus viewed simply looking at another woman as a sin( which every man on the planet is guilty of) but he would be ok with homosexuality is an asinine argument. We are saved by faith in Jesus and then transformed by the holy spirit. The indwelling of the holy spirit is a subject that many Christians seem to over look. The bible tells you to repent for your sins. If someone was a homosexual,repented, saved by faith in Jesus, and had a true indwelling of the holy spirit, they would not be gay anymore. John Ankerberg had a former homosexual who testified to this in one of his shows. You are bringing your values to the bible and not the other way around. You are also more concerned with social issues than theology. If you believe that homosexuality is fine you have a right to believe that. You do not have a right to say that accepting homosexuality is biblical because it is clearly not. Let me rephrase that: You have a right to say that but we have a right to point out your flawed argument and keep it out of the church.
Kirk
Lynn,
Lynn, You are conflating homosexuality with several different issues. The bible is very clear on homosexuality. The old testament calls it an abomination. Paul also referred to it as a sin. As I mentioned in our other discussion Jesus said that even looking at another woman is adultery. To argue that Jesus who thinks that even looking at another woman is a sin, but would accept homosexual behavior is asinine. You do not seem to understand Christian theology. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. He sends the holy spirit and we are renewed by the indwelling of the holy spirit. For some reason many Christians overlook the holy spirit. However, in order to be saved we need to repent. If you have a a person who is gay, they repent, are saved by faith in Jesus and have an indwelling of the holy spirit, they would not be gay any more. John Ankerberg had a show where a former homosexual testified to this and later married a woman. You are bringing your values into the bible and misinterpreting the meaning of the bible to fit your values. You are not reading the bible and taking values out of the bible.The bible supports homosexuality because you support homosexuality. You have a right to your beliefs but just because you like a particular value doesn't make it biblical. You do not have a right to remake the bible to fit liberal values that you like. Let me rephrase that: You have a right to say that what you think but we have a right to point out your flawed argument and keep it out of the church.
samspock89
better words than i have
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490
Darrell L. Bock
Better Words than I Have
Sam:
A nice link. Thanks for this.
dlb
Lynn L
Principles, Honesty, and Respect
"The Bible is clear on homosexuality." The Mosaic Law is clear on other things also, as are Paul's teachings in other areas. If a simple reading is what reflects the truth, then people would've been right to be outraged that a Man came along and made statements that were directly contrary to the explicit words of the Law, as revealed by God to His people. Consuming certain foods was an "abomination." Working on the Sabbath demanded the "death penalty." Neither of these things are laws of the Christian faith today. A counter-tone would be a contradiction and even a lie, if a simple reading reveals "the truth." It is the difference between the Law and inherent truth, as spoken of in John 1:17. It was authoritative in its time, because it was given to the people to live by. The Bible indisputably reveals that the Law did not reflect the complete and inherent truth. In the context of respecting the born-again believer's relationship with God, and the conscience, and the law of love, the truth is not complete in the Law–which obviously does not permit all things, but establishes a principle just the same. There is a framework for "reason" to have a function. You cite the authority and applicability of Scriptures standing by themselves, which is where the faulty reasoning is being used here.
Kirk, to say that I care more about social issues than theology is false, plain and simple. It is a serious accusation and it is bearing false witness. Because I hold a belief on political issues–as do you–does not give a basis for an accusation.
It is interesting that God established this current address on this subject with complaints about not being given respect to an alternate view, and comments about exposing the truth about things. Both of these things are present in the refusal to give a view on the questions I raised on abundantly clear concepts in the Bible. An answer cannot be given, because what this does is show an example of applying a "philosophy" on how the truth is sometimes not as it appears in the clear texts of Scripture, whatever your answer may be. It is best not to address it and give any weight to this truth and the facts of the Bible that God gave to humanity.
All that I have done here, is show a foundation for the belief that God's judgment will not happen the way many people believe it will. He is a just Judge who loves all of His children abundantly and equally. He does not judge legalistically, but in truth. The remarriage doctrine is a perfect example of this truth, as is the teaching on headcoverings, and other examples. The fact of heterosexuality sanctioned in other circumstances, would not mitigate the statement regarding adultery made by Jesus. It is about the letter of law and truth, and is a theme of God's Word. Romans 13:8-10
Kirk
reply to lynn
Lynn,
You are ignoring Paul's comments on homosexuality and Jesus' statement that even looking at another woman is adultery. Looking at another Woman= bad but homosexuality= good? I am sorry but that isn't a very good argument. You think homosexuality is ok and you are rationalizing it to be biblical. Homosexuality isn't the equivalent of not eating a certain type of food. To make that argument you are ignoring Paul and Jesus and putting your values into the bible. You are also ignoring the issue of the Holy Spirit.
Lynn L
The Debate on the Issue
Kirk, the debate on this issue is deep and involving, and you are making no point in regards to the larger picture, which is the principles and themes of Scripture. I've made a case here involving these principles, though brief and concise at this point, and you've declined to address it. This establishes that you either cannot answer my questions, or will not answer for the reasons that I mentioned. Either way, you've failed to rise to the debate, so that you can avoid it. All for the purpose of using the Bible to judge people whose lives are about love for God and fellow humanity.
(1) Paul's comments on homosexuality are stated in a context of people who are in rebellion against God, which is expressed more extensively than possibly anything else in the Bible. He is addressing and observing the motivations and character of their hearts. He was not speaking about what we are speaking about today, and obviously had no knowledge of what we are speaking about. He is not talking about the issue with any kind of appreciation for the facts of this issue–he is talking about rebellion, lust, and idolatry, which is a different thing altogether. This means nothing to you; it says a lot to people who view things discerningly. Your interpretation places body parts, which is what Paul was speaking about, on the level of God Himself. Paul was speaking about something else, with a view to the condition of the hearts of the people that he was addressing. Biology does not amount to godliness or ungodliness. He is a God of the heart.
(2) The command of Jesus to not look upon a woman with lust involves the character of the heart, and the fruits of the Spirit. This is not an issue of self-control, absence of love, etc. There is no comparison between a man who is lusting and disrespecting a woman in his mind, and a relationship and life-partnership that is only different from a marriage between a man and a woman in regards to gender characteristics. It is about rightly discerning things for what they are in truth. John 7:24.
(3) I've ignored nothing in Scripture. I've considered it carefully in the explicit context that God planned for it to be addressed in the Bible, and in consideration of the law of love. It is you who is ignoring the facts of Scripture–that passages cannot be taken standing by themselves. Again, it is a principle and theme of Scripture.
(4) If there is any actual integrity in your beliefs, or love of truth, answer the questions. I'll tell you what I think your answer is: "Despite the very explicit words of Jesus regarding remarriage, there is no way that He intends to call remarried people the "adulterers" that are of a different character altogether, a different context of sexual relations, and who do not love God and will not enter into heaven." But it is very easy to believe that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the people that Paul described, are one and the same with the people we are talking about. The testimony of people means nothing to you. You are condemning people who are born-again and who have placed their faith in God, for a life-partnership in love. Reason means nothing, because you have a law to cite–but it works differently on a multitude of other laws and precepts of Scripture. You say that "it is not a very good argument," while not having addressed the argument.
My convictions are affirmed by the Holy Spirit. It is between the believer and their God, and most importantly, you can honestly cite no harm done. I would never risk any part of my inheritance with Jesus for anything that this life has to offer.
It is also a fact that the argument for condemnation lacks integrity and speaks many untruths. Basic beliefs are one thing, but many people speak many lies about the issue, and about people, to make their case. We shall see.
I'm not here to debate…I just had to speak my convictions. Again, my appreciation to Dr. Bock. God bless.
Kirk
Reply to Lynn
Lynn,
Lynn L
The Bible and the Issues
Kirk, you stand up for a superficial view of the Bible. You can't speak about it, or even begin to give an honest and thoughtful perspective on the facts of Scripture. In your selective reading of Scripture, God has condemned believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ, whose lives are based on love, not fleshly indulgences or lack of faithfulness, to hell. As I said before, your dodging of my argument reveals that you have no grasp or respect for the realities of the Bible that God gave to humanity. As I see this, your avoidance reveals a lack of love for truth, honesty, and humility. But that will be for God to decide.
I address all of Scripture. A rigid take on the laws of Scripture doesn't reflect absolute truth across the board, which is a proven principle of Scripture over and over again. It is a teaching of Jesus. Read through the Scriptures in my posts. In fact, read the whole Bible. You stand for the position that the law is not fulfilled through love, and you rely on a selective use of laws and precepts. You can cite no harm, but judge your brethren based on appearance. God is love, and His law is love. Maybe it is you who serves a religion, and not the true Jesus Christ. There is room for disagreement on the conclusion of these facts of the Bible, and the facts of the issue, but your position is avoidance, which is cowardly and empty.
Paul is, in fact, speaking about body parts being used other than the heterosexual design. In my view, to not understand that his perspective is regarding the spirit of rebellion behind these people's actions, is to place heterosexual sex, in itself, on the level of the nature of God. It is His creation. He is speaking about rebellion against God, which was the case in these particular people, but it is not the case in the individual who was born gay, who loves God, loves the Son whom He sent, worships God, and seeks only to have a life-partnership with the person they love. Paul was speaking about a certain kind of person. If you want to go back to the law to make your case for rebellion, you will have to establish a consistency regarding all laws, instructions, and precepts. You can ignore our testimony, but God does not, and He knows His own. Love is the law.
As to the testimony of someone who says he is no longer gay, I have to question if he was ever genuinely gay from birth. The vast majority of people who try to change their sexual orientation, with prayer, therapy, fasting, crying, etc. do not ever become heterosexual in their nature. In your view, they should just be alone for life…or marry fraudulently. As to whether you should be expected to understand that some people are born gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex (which is medically proven)…that will be between you and God. As I see it, the fact that this is sometimes outwardly apparent in a person's natural physical and emotional makeup, is something that proves the case. Maybe you haven't known or been familiar with enough people to be accountable to see this reality of nature. It is evidence. So we'll see.
I never said anything about it being only biological. For some people it isn't and there are abuse issues. For other people it is part of their natural makeup from birth, which even the parents who raised them can testify to.
As to same-sex marriage, my "logic chain" is about equal partnerships. It is also about the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The country doesn't belong to political conservatives–it belongs to all Americans. You can throw everything and the kitchen sink into the discussion–this isn't about any of that. Gay people are part of the family of God. There's no compromise of the truth here. He loves all of His children equally.
Kirk
reply to lynn
Lynn,
The bible also makes clear that sex is permissible only within a marriage. Paul also condemned a certain sexual act that most homosexuals engage in. As far as I know he also meant that married couples were forbidden for performing this sex act too.
Then you have natural evidence that goes again the act as well. AIDS is easily spread by this sex act. It's one of the reasons that there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa. Let's take all that all off the table: In order for your position to hold, you really have to argue that Jesus would support same sex marriage.Are you seriously going to argue that Jesus would have no problem with same-sex marriage?
Lynn L
Prop 8
Kirk, your comment speaks of one of several good reasons to cease marginalizing gay people, and allow the recognition and support of committed relationships in the laws. AIDS is not being spread in same-sex marriage relationships. Also, if STDs are evidence of harm, then heterosexuality is harmful also. Simply the facts of the issues. I don't advocate anything that causes harm.
To whomever: It seems that political conservatives are not concerned with the impact of denying the gay and lesbian segment of society legal standing and support. The impact of telling a child who was born gay that there is something dreadfully wrong with him or her is also something to be considered and understood there. It is a fact of life, and is evidenced and outwardly apparent in the makeup of many gay people. The lack of evidence of harm–honest evidence–is an important part of the belief of those who are accepting. It is not comparable to the things people compare it to, some of which are unspeakable, and these things will never be an issue in the family of God.
Proposition 8 only passed by 2%. Apparently the "corporate role in setting community standards" is very much in favor of same-sex marriage, though not yet by a majority of the people. Marriage has been understood to be between a man and a woman for centuries…and a man and many women…and something that the father is in control of in regards to his daughter. It is now understood to be not a problem to remarry after divorce, which has become a very accepted thing to do. Where is the movement in conservative Christianity to structure the laws to address this? Should it not be banned or governed by law, to curb the divorce rate? Where is a movement to denounce remarriage in the church, which would be for the sake of discouraging divorce?
As to Jesus's acceptance of same-sex marriage…I already know that He does accept this. The character of the heart has not faltered in relationship to gender characteristics being the only difference. The gospel is much deeper than to exclude people on the basis of a gender issue. I wonder how many spirits would (or will) be angry at Him for this. I'm speaking from my understanding of God, which is also my experience with Him as He has shown me. I do respect people's right to hold a different view and an honest perspective. God's will be done.
Darrell L. Bock
Prop 8 and Jesus
Ok, Lynn, explain this in the Bible–Gen 2 and its definition of marriage as involving a man and a woman, a text Jesus cited (and he was capable of challenging the status quo). Please note I am not talking about the government or civil rights. Just what Jesus taught. To say Jesus accepts same-sex marriage is to say something for which there is no biblical evidence (generic claims about love do not apply) and to ignore how he defined marriage and how he said God defined marriage as well in responding to the issue of the exception in Moses. You are right to raise the issue of consistency in how we let moral violations in heterosexual contexts slide, but as we discussed long ago and long and hard, to use one poorly handled moral area to open the door for another is not moral progress.
On to whomever: I suppose one day people will use the argument that people are born aggressive and thus are murderers by nature, people God cannot help to do better.
Lynn L
Dr. Bock, Jesus did speak
Dr. Bock, Jesus did speak about a marriage between a man and a woman. He also spoke no condemnation against the polygamous marriages of the patriarchs, neither was there any condemnation in the O.T., which is a setting of many laws. In fact, what was spoken by God was specific parameters in regards to these marriages. The sin was in going outside of their tribe only. This is a sanctioning of polygamy by God, for whatever the purposes were in that time and context.
The fact that there were problems that occurred there, as you cited before in suggesting a condemnation in the Bible against it, is also said by Paul about marriages between a man and a woman. (1 Cor. 7:7, 9, 28, 32, 33) Problems are simply a fact of life, and relationships between people can bring about more problems, and can also be a help to people, as stated in the O.T., so we have to take Paul's words in light of the full picture. Despite Paul's address of this, medical science has shown that long-term marriages promote health and life, and is highly valued by nearly all people.
So, speaking about marriage between a man and a woman is not a commandment of God, as seen in Paul's words on remaining single as he is, and it also doesn't make a case that this is the only type of relationship approved by God. I'm not speaking in favor of poymamy, only the principle related to what you are saying. It can be argued that polygamy would be unacceptable to God in today's world, and in the context of New Covenant truths, and that it is not the epitome of "love," so the O.T. approval can be argued to not reflect an inherent truth about partnerships, only a contextual framework for that time and purpose.
As far as citing a poorly handled area to open a door to other immorality, maybe I didn't make my point well enough. The first point we agree on regarding the inconsistency of conservative Christianity on these issues, which I see as an egregious hypocrisy and injustice. The larger point is that there is a "reason" that remarriage is approved, and that is the value that is placed on love and companionship. We see God as giving as kind, despite the strict words regarding remarriage and adultery. It is a biblical truth that law can be rigid and unreasonable in some situations, and that love reigns supreme. I am merely challenging the inconsistent philosophy of conservatives, and the spiritual and social injustice of this, and the political mindset that supports it. I personally agree with the approval of remarriage in the law and in the church, as do apparently the overwhelming majority of Christians. You may be one who approves of it, so I don't think you can cite this as an immorality. That was my point.
To be clear, this has nothing to do with approval of divorce, only a realistic understanding of these things. I personally do approve of remarriage, after a significant time and commitment to God alone, and I approve of same-sex marriage.
At best, we can take the words regarding a man and a woman as an example of what is "ideal"–but only if we leave out the words of Paul calling "singleness" the ideal way of life. Obviously singleness is only for the few who have a gift of celibacy, as he said, and a calling from the Lord in this regard, and the vast majority would be destined to procreate and propagate the human race.
Some people are also born gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex. My view is that God does not value heterosexuality more than He values people, and He does not need all people to procreate. (I know your view is not that He doesn't value people, but your priorities defy reason or justification to me.) What is truly ideal is love, kindness, and consideration for all people–values to pass on to children. Granted same-sex relationships are not specifically sanctioned in the Bible–neither is remarriage after divorce sanctioned. Granted it is a philosophy, but one that is based on biblical principles of truth, justice, kindness, and the themes regarding law not necessarily reflecting absolute truth, and the doctrine of liberty. Again Rom. 13:8-10. There's no comparison between this and murder or violence, which are contrary to the fruits of the Spirit, given by God.
My view: What is condemned does not fall under the category of gender characteristics, but is something else altogether–and the judgment if someone believes the gospel, but does not repent, is eternal condemnation separated from God. Dr. Bock, I don't understand your notion of "morality" in light of the facts of these issues, which has nothing to do with gender, but has to do with how we treat people. I do respect your right to your view though, and I can't say what the expectation of God is upon people on this, other than honesty and love.
Darrell L. Bock
Jesus and Marriage
Please do not misrepresent what I said. Bad place to start. Neither did you answer the question. You tried to skate around it, taking logical missteps along the way.
1) Genesis, which he cites, only mentions a man and a woman in marriage.
(2) Problems in what can be done does not equal allowing what cannot be done (logical fallacy there), so raising 1 Cor 7 does not work. hat is a rabbit trail from my question.
3) Even worse in your reading is that Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 7 that choosing to marry is not sin right there in the context, so this is not a command in any kind of absolute sense as you try to characterize it (even though it is not relevant anyway).
(4) So you misrepresent 1 Cor 7 to try and get out of what Genesis 2 says. Genesis 2 is not a commandment when Jesus cites it but a definition of what marriage is and a description of what happened when God brought Adam and Eve together to start the helpmeet relationship that made for a marriage, a male-female design that Jesus affirms. No where does he say one must do it. In fact Jesus also notes the value of staying single. but what Jesus does say is that this is what constitutes a marriage according to God.
(5) So what Jesus says simply states what a marriage was intended to be and nowhere does he say two partners of any sex, but specifies a man and a woman.
(6) This was no "ideal". (genre mistake) It was a declaration of what marriage is and that it was intended to be permanent. Thus, Jesus' no divorce reply (at least with only adultery as an exception- but all of this detail on divorce is not relevant to my question either). So you calling it and making it ideal is a second logical equation that is not what is taking place in the passage. Each of these moves (commandment, ideal) obscures the point by trying to move away from it and ceases to see the point of why Jesus cited Genesis 2, which was to define marriage as a base for what he goes on to say.
(7) So to say Jesus approved of same sex marriage not only says too much. It says something Jesus denied by the very passage he used to define and discuss marriage.
(8) Not only is nowhere a same sex marriage in the Bible endorsed, but every time a sexual relationship between the same sex comes up, it is condemned. Jesus even referred to Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence of evil. Running to love to cover a multitude of condemnations is yet another run around the text.
For these reasons, you lack of understanding about my position on morality affirmed in the last paragraph of your response does not respond to facts about the text, but efforts to get around what it says. According to Genesis 2 and Jesus' own words we can cite, gender has everything to do with marriage and the morality of it so defined (Judge Walker's view notwithstanding).
I am not going to go around in circles with you again on this topic of same sex relationships. We did that dance already. I will leave it here.
Lynn L
Dr. Bock
Dr. Bock, I don’t want to continue a debate either, but it does seem to play out that way regardless of my simply wanting to make some points about the issue. I’ll make this the last time I expound in any way on the topic on your blog, which is the only blog that I have done this on, believe it or not. (The only exception being the forum on one other Christian website, which was amongst a vast multitude of messages.) You ended up being the chosen one for this, and I do apologize that it ended up being such a dominant length of a message on your blog. It is a complex subject. I’ll make some final comments.
I don’t believe I misrepresented you. My answer was simply regarding the fact that the biblical reference about a man and a woman does not represent the only kind of marriage sanctioned in the Bible. You cite this as "the biblical definition of marriage,” but the Scriptures show another scenario sanctioned by God as marriage. So citing those words as the entire definition presents a patently false simplicity on the subject. You know as well as anyone that passages standing by themselves do not necessarily represent the whole picture. It is a model for marriage–it doesn’t represent condemnation for other committed relationships, which are in no way described in the references of same-sex relations in the Bible.
The other thing that presents a false simplicity is something that is astounding to me, especially considering that this is a context where people are supposed to love the truth. I’m referring to a discussion on the facts. Even you will not speak about the facts of Scripture regarding the legal bond of marriage being until the death of the spouse, with only one exception. Jesus did not state infidelity as one of many exceptions, He said that “other than for this reason, remarriage is adultery, including for the person who marries the divorced person.” Would this truly not translate as “not permitted” before God, and not a “biblically sanctioned” marriage? This establishes a basis for the necessity for reason, discernment, and a view to liberty, if one believes that remarriage will be permitted by God. It is outside the specific parameters of Scripture. Paul saying that you do not sin if you marry–in the context of suggesting that they do not marry, in view of the times of distress (which we are also in now, including the state of marriage)–does not nullify all that both he and Jesus explicitly stated about the “legal bond” of marriage before God. The subject is the biblical definition of marriage. This is far from irrelevant, as people make it out to be.
My point which largely went unanswered: People cite passages standing by themselves, but this is contrary to a principle that is a repeated theme of Scripture–and it is blatantly inconsistent with how they view the rest of Scripture. A rigid understanding and use of laws and precepts in Scripture is only convenient to apply on this particular issue. There is nothing short of a multitude of examples of this. It is how God established His Word and His religion. First a complex body of laws, then simplified through the law fulfilled in a word, which is love. This establishes a principle, and it shows how the judgment of God will take place. It will not be “according to appearance,” as man judges, but will be in truth and will be just. It is respecting the individual’s personal relationship with God and conscience before God, with the exception of harm done, which is contrary to love. If a set of laws is what God gave us to live by in His Word, that is what we would be accountable to–but much is obsolete, it is not practiced in the Christian faith, and we are not obligated to a rigid understanding of laws and requirements, only the law fulfilled by love for God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself. That is what Jesus taught. Despite the church dismissing at least six instructions of Paul–some spoken with severity and words used such as “disgrace”–somehow a different principle is cited with boldness and authority on pretty much only this subject. And it is regarding a concept that was actually steeped with context in the Scriptural references.
Jesus speaking about Sodom and Gomorrah is about the lust and godlessness that the story depicts, not what we are talking about. If your understanding of Jesus is that all people who engage in a relationship with a member of the same sex will be judged as the rebellious and godless, as seen in these references, that is between you and your God…or if you believe that forgiveness for willful choices and actions makes the difference, as some believe…I think you will find that it is not how He will view and address this. You believe the same about my understanding of Him. We shall see.
As to marriage, no one has the authority to say that two people who are in a committed life-partnership have not been blessed by God, and are not married by God and in His eyes. What the Bible describes is not this. They are married. They are blessed. As to the law of the land, I’m pretty sure the will of the people is going in the direction of the Constitutional right to equality, consideration, and protections under the law. Based on your comments, I’m not entirely sure you are against this. Maybe you are though.
The fact that something is not specifically endorsed, does not mean that the issue has been understood fully. The way people use Scripture is not what they live by–the church does not live by a rigid understanding of laws of Scripture. It is about differences in how we understand God and Scripture, but the argument for condemnation stands on many falsehoods and inconsistencies as I see it. I don’t believe I’ve tried to get around anything; I’m just looking at the whole picture realistically, and in light of God’s love for people, His kindness, understanding, and yes, justice and truth.
I won’t comment at length if you ever post on the subject again, as it is hard to contain briefly and not debate. I’ll still be around though. Thank you again, and my apologies for putting you in this position. Dr. Bock, my best wishes to you, and I hope you are enjoying your sabbatical in Germany. God bless.
Lynn
samspock89
well reasoned logic is so
well reasoned logic is so beautiful. i'm glad you bit the bullet and made a response Dr. Bock, because i literally felt sick every time i witnessed such garrulous and flagrant misrepresentation of the word of God. while i would have refuted errors, as i perceived them to be, they were surrounded by a sea of text that i did not feel like wading through. maybe your next blog could be about eschatology. premillennial vs amillennial. or even just discussing covenental vs dispensational theologies.
Darrell L. Bock
Another scenario, where?
Lynn:
You claim another scenario for marriage but cite no text for it. That speaks volumes. You attempt to redefine passages that address the kind of relationship present in same sex marriage. That speaks loads. I let the nature of your answers speak for themselves.
Scripture has two exceptions that permit divorce. Sexual infidelity (Matt 5) and unbeliever desertion (1 Cor 7). I am not missing what the text says there, but the point is irrelevant to the key point being made.
These passages do not stand by themselves. There are several texts on this theme. Not a one is positive. Not a one says (all bad except for this one case where love is present). Nothing. Nada. That speaks tons as well. Not one positive example. Not one.
I am sorry Lynn but as sincerely as you believe this, it is at the expense of the emphasis on this topic in the Word. People who engage in this practice sin (as do others in other areas– on this we are all agreed). It is sad that it cannot be identified as the sin the Scripture calls it to be. There are different kinds of disobedience– denial is one kind. That has consequences God will one day sort out for all of us. But Paul warns at the end of Romans 1 that encouraging people to do this is even worse. That is part of what makes your responses so tragic.
What the nation ends up doing probably will have little to do with God's word because we no longer care about that consideration as a society. That is what I most lament. The law permits lots of things that are not moral. It is a low common denominator in part because we love freedom of choice (read no accountability to God) so much. I do not expect good moral judgment (or much of a moral reflection from many in the world who do not care about God) on topics like this. We love our autonomy from God too much. That also is sin.
The only truth you defend is the one you see about this topic while ignoring several counter signs in the text.
Despite all I have said about how I read your view, I also wish you all the best.
Lynn L
answer to Dr. Bock
Dr. Bock, God’s commandments to His people did not forbid a man to marry more than one woman, while this was a common and accepted practice of the time, and in the sight of God. The fact that the patriarchs practiced this, with no condemnation of this from God, strongly implies endorsement. God governed every aspect of His people’s lives. In a setting of 613 laws given by God, there is no forbidding of the practice of marrying more than one woman. In Deut. 17:16,17, they were commanded that the king was “not to multiply horses, and not to multiply wives, and not to multiply gold and silver.” The context of this makes clear that He is not saying “do not have more than one,” unless there is an argument to be made that he should not have more than one horse. “Multiply” would be speaking of accumulation and excesses. Exodus 21:10 is also an instruction (endorsement ) regarding marriage to more than one woman. Marrying more than one woman would therefore not be adultery.
In 1 Tim. 3:12, Paul is instructing that a deacon is not to be the husband of more than one wife. Why is he not instructing Christians in general in this way? Why is there no condemnation on the practice in the O.T., the words of Jesus, or the words of Paul?
King Solomon married foreign wives, and multiplied wives, in disobedience to God. This “turned his heart away from God,” but there was no condemnation upon marrying more than one woman, or an instruction to marry only one woman.
I’m making no claim to be a theologian, just an ordinary person reading the Bible. God blessed His people who were the husband of many wives, and who owned many concubines. They are the patriarchs of the faith. They were married to these women in the sight of God. I don’t believe it represents love in its truest form, but I’m answering your definition of biblical marriage. A same-sex relationship can reflect love in its truest form.
You are saying that I am not answering your question, but in order to answer it to your satisfaction, you want me to say that the fact that God established heterosexuality in specific terms, means that He will not consider His gay and lesbian children also. The logic doesn’t follow. You believe that if a gay person doesn’t simply be heterosexual or celibate, they are in rebellion against God for being in a love relationship. It is a discernment of spirits that your belief fails to see. There is a monumental difference between the people described in the Bible, and the kind of person, life, and relationship that we are talking about, and the kind of relationship with God that we are talking about.
All due respect, speaking about other Scripture isn’t “creating rabbit trails” away from your point. Can you honestly stand before God and say that there is no such principle in the Word that I’m speaking about? It simply doesn’t exist? To acknowledge these principles of Scripture is not extremist or denying any facts. Accepting your conclusion is an extreme thing, which condemns God’s gay and lesbian children as rebellious and godless, which they are not.
The church takes the words about “a man and a woman” so far, that they believe they have no obligation to the words that speak against remarriage. It is not only speaking about forbidding divorce. Or does the Bible “endorse" what it also calls adultery? There was only the one exception stated by Jesus, and the second exception addressed by Paul, speaking from himself. Outside of those circumstances, it is outside the stated parameters of Scripture. There are other examples of this kind of discernment being applied in the church. These facts of Scripture that I’m speaking about do exist. That is why I believe your interpretation is based solely on your personal perception of this, rather than a proven case, and agreement amongst a heterosexual majority.
To the commenter: “Well reasoned logic” is not in seeing the gay, born-again believer in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the address of Paul, which is how you assess this. Too much text to read, if it is accepting of your gay and lesbian brethren? Too difficult to breeze through it to see what is being said? God will decide if He was pleased with that or not. I see idolatry in some of the words and actions of people who believe as you do. Perhaps it would have to be someone you actually know and love to see this truth, someone you know to not be as those described in these references. God will say where the sound reasoning was. If you take out all of the bad character described there, the only thing left is ultimately an idolization of heterosexuality. I suggest not to hold on too tight to the idea that God sees us as you do, and not to hold on too tight to the idea that heterosexuality is right next to God Himself.
I'll let it go from here. Thanks.
Darrell L. Bock
No answer
Still have not answered the core question about same sex relationships in Scripture, running instead to discernment of spirits. You ignore the Hebrews 13 text to continue to discuss many wives. All irrelevant to the direct topic because that is the best you can do. There is no evidence for your category. It is what you have discerned because it is what you want to believe. God speaks but we discern in a direction that has no clear single text. Simply dangerous.
Lynn L
Further answer to Dr. Bock
Your claim is that I am “redefining” what the Bible says about same-sex relationships. It is very easy for people to see what is written in Scripture as a complete reference to the nature and origin of all same-sex relationships. They believe there is nothing to discern there, and that it is all the same. A discerning view of the subject sees something much different addressed in Scripture, and sees the underlying principles in a different way than you do.
Polygamy is the least of my interests in the Bible, and that only had to do with the concept of presenting Scripture standing by itself to make a case for a complete truth, i.e. the biblical definition of marriage. It is also a fact that the biblical definition of marriage does not sanction remarriage outside of specified parameters. The law of the land recognizes it, but God does not recognize divorce, and renders remarriage adultery, in the strict sense of what is written. The reference to "one man and one woman" is an incomplete representation of the Scriptures. It is the way people use the Bible to their advantage. Appreciating the concept only has a limited standing–it doesn’t condemn God’s gay and lesbian children. Love is the glory of God.
By the way, I read Heb. 13, and there's nothing there that speaks against polygamy. It speaks about the marriage bed, and marriage in the Bible includes instructions about polygamous marriages. He isn't calling something that God Himself gave instructions on, adultery.
There’s an entire foundation pertaining to principles of the Bible, including the fact that the Law doesn’t necessarily represent inherent truth–nearly all of it being obsolete in the practice of the faith today–and the fact that we have not been charged by God to follow all of Paul’s teachings, nor do we. These are just the facts of Scripture. I’ve addressed that, and to this audience that sees Christianity as largely defined by “heterosexuality only” and will see only what they want to see, none of which will be a recognition of these principles of law and truth, which is not at all surprising. The fact is that they judge by what they do not live by.
To answer your question:
Paul saw these people who were in rebellion, as evidenced in many ways, and he related the same sex activities to a rebellion against God, exactly as he described. In the case of these people, I have no doubt that is what it was, and it was directly tied to rebellion, lust, and idolatry. This is the case, unless heterosexuality is the nature of God. Paul’s teachings show that he was capable of speaking from his beliefs about what is proper in a cultural sense, and represented as a truth of God. God gives no basis for the belief that we are to blindly follow Paul’s instructions. Again, we do not abide by all that he taught as inherent truth, including regarding a teaching that was originally from the Law, which was forbidding women to speak in church. In a purely natural born and biological sense, this is not intrinsically rooted in lust, rebellion, or idolatry–and the relationship with God, the quality of life, and absence of harm, is everything as I understand God. So, it is not a “redefining” of anything other than how Paul’s intention and meaning should be understood. He was not assessing the kind of relationship we are talking about. There is no basis to believe he possessed all knowledge of the subject, but spoke in the context of what he was seeing. If you believe that he did, then you are right to live by his teaching, and as far as I’m concerned, you are obligated to live by all of them.
Personally, I believe your priorities are amiss in placing “heterosexuality” above the truths and realities of people being born gay. I also believe that it does a disservice to the gospel that we present to the world. If the cross is repulsive to people, if the claims of Christ are repulsive, if personal conservatism is repulsive to people, that is something different entirely. I believe what the world sees is ignorance of a reality of nature, and a belief in God that has no soundness or reason, and isn’t about love for people. It makes “sin” a kind of baseless, religious concept.
Here’s an analogy: Green boxes with an X in them cannot enter into heaven. That is what was spoken of and described in Scripture. Green box no X, not the same thing, and not what was spoken of in Scripture. There is a common component, but that is the extent of the commonality. God established in His Word the predominance of heterosexuality. Godliness or rebellion is not defined by biology. God is love, shown in the fruits of the Spirit, and to defy this is sin. Worshipers of God, with self-control and faithfulness, and engaging in a life-partnership, are the children of God. If you are comfortable believing that it is all the same to God, by all means do that. In my understanding, there is a monumental difference.
The heresy would be in excesses, unfaithfulness, and denying that Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, is the only way to God. There is also no single text approving of other things that the church has applied a discernment on regarding biblical instructions. You believe this is dangerous, and you have to follow your conscience. There is another side to the story.
To Sam Spock, I’m finished here, but, conclusion aside and foundationally speaking, unless you are boycotting the Word of God, list what you perceive to be “errors” that I’ve stated about Scripture.
Kirk
Lynn prop 8
"I don’t believe I misrepresented you. My answer was simply regarding the fact that the biblical reference about a man and a woman does not represent the only kind of marriage sanctioned in the Bible. You cite this as "the biblical definition of marriage,” but the Scriptures show another scenario sanctioned by God as marriage."
Your points are getting more and more irrational. The reference to being married to God is a euphemism. In other words, God comes first. To say that because the bible uses the phrase being married to God, that means same-sex marriage is ok, is making some serious leaps of faith. To say that because the bible doesn't define marriage explicitly, that also means Jesus would want same sex marriage is another argument that doesn't hold up very well.
The bible clearly says the only permissible way to have sex is in marriage. Were homosexuals getting married back then? No. If Jesus had no problem with same sex marriage don't you think he would have said something about it, instead of letting homosexuals live in sin for thousands of years? It must have slipped his mind.
"AIDS is not being spread in same-sex marriage relationships. Also, if STDs are evidence of harm, then heterosexuality is harmful also. Simply the facts of the issues. I don't advocate anything that causes harm."
You are conflating AIDS with STDs. While AIDS is a STD most of the run of the mill STDs will not kill you. You are side stepping the issue.
The fact that AIDS is spread by a particular sex act is evidence that the act is not natural. Why would they have to be in a same sex marriage to not get the disease? If the template for same sex couples was monogamy, you wouldn't see the large numbers of homosexuals with the disease.
The term perception is reality is apropos for this point. The political arm of the homosexual movement has run a political campaign to give the impression that gay people are the same as straight people, they just like people of the same sex. This is not true. The average number of sexual partners that gay men have is almost unbelievable.
I didn't believe it at first because to have that many sexual partners amounts to a full time job. I had a liberal journalism professor in college who said the exact same thing. She was writing a story about AIDS in the 80s and didn't believe the statistic because it was so high. However, after investigating the claim, she confirmed it.
In the 1970's large numbers of gay men frequented bath houses. The bathhouses were literally a place were gay men had orgies. Bath houses turned to rest stops and now they have the Internet. That is not to say that gays can't be in a monogamous relationship. However, the norm for the gay culture is not monogamy.
Even if we stipulate same sex couples can be in a loving relationship, you still have the marriage and sodomy problem. You totally ignored the sodomy references in the bible. It clearly says that is a sin as well.
You also ignored the issue of the Holy spirit. You say you know you are correct by the Holy spirit. You ignored the example of the gay man on the John Ankerberg show who is no longer gay. One of you is wrong.
As I pointed out before Paul explicitly says that there is a counterfeit Holy spirit. How do you know who is right? By searching the scripture. In this issue you are making highly irrational points and making huge leaps of faith. The notion that God and Jesus support same-sex marriage and homosexuality is contrary to scripture. You believe that homosexuals should be able to be married and that's fine. You have a right to your opinion. What is not fine is attempting to wrap the bible around your opinion to make it fit.When people don't agree with you, demonizing "conservatives" isn't addressing the flaws in your reasoning. It's simply name calling. Even the most liberal people would concede that the bible does not support homosexuality.
Lynn L
To Kirk
Kirk, I know that you don't respect what I'm talking about either, so I'll just tell you like it is. To me, you have really no sense of logic or honesty to speak of, so I'll leave this one alone.
Darrell L. Bock
Further Answer to Lynn
When we are not dealing with a text only, but a theme consistently handled negatively with no hint otherwise. The only discernment one needs is to recognize the theme for what it is: teaching. In this scenario, there are no underlying principles to seek out. The text has them in its consistency. That is part of what this topic different than others you raise to try and move around what is explicitly present in the text again and again. Everything you say about principles or dealing with texts where there are a variety of angles being presented (as with polygamy or divorce) and that do ask us to think through qualifications that apply to those topics do not apply in this case. This key difference in how the texts are handled render the examples of these other categories irrelevant to the particulars of this discussion.
The issue is "not to blindly follow Paul's instruction" but to hear the heartbeat of God in a consistently set forth rebuke of a specific sin so serious it is the example of a deep fall of a culture. Your "personally" section states your credal priorities. Sadly, it ignores all of the above. God's creation of male and female and their interaction within marriage are obliterated by what you argue for as acceptable to God. His definition of marriage, affirmed by Jesus, as involving male and female is ignored, set aside as an irrelevancy. If people find affirming that repulsive, then so be it. No one said that calling sin a sin would be popular, not even Jesus had that success in his life. But he screams through his shed blood that forgiveness and transformation (please note this last category) are possible for those who seek him. It is not where we start as people that matters (because we all start in the pit); it is where we turn to get out. That is what makes forgiveness and enablement that comes through him and the work of the cross so beautiful.
Lynn L
Final to Dr. Bock
Dr. Bock, I hear what you are saying, and I do appreciate that you have to stand by what you are convinced of in your spirit. I do believe you are holding up an image of heterosexuality, and making a case that there is a sinfulness in the alternate scenario–but it is still a subjective case you are making, though you see it as proven. As I see it clearly written, there absolutely is an "underlying principle" involved in the references, which are all very "context-based" for a reason. Scripture wasn't assessing something that is absent of bad fruits, including as Paul's words show, and as this is. The way you see it clearly written, is that there is a godliness in heterosexuality (the life-partnership kind of course). You feel that I am actually "ignoring" the meaning of that relationship and design of God's creation. You feel that that image "outweighs" all of these facts of Scripture and the issue that I've brought out. It all weighs out differently for me. The representation of Christ's love for the church, and her love for Him, has nothing to do with gender characteristics. Loving, giving, supporting, nurturing, patience, loving unconditionally, commitment–all of the things that make up a meanigful love relationship–is not gender specific, and goes both ways. Transformation through the Spirit of God does not change the natural, biological makeup of people. I haven't ignored God, or anything that He has created. People being born gay is part of His creation. In Christ there is no male or female. We disagree on the categories of things, and we disagree on the difinition of sin (part of my definition includes the ways some people handle this issue). The Bible says many things that are not part of the practice of the faith. My priorities are not amiss. The gospel isn't gender-related. My sincere respect to you…thank you.
Darrell L. Bock
Final to Lynn
Our differences are well summarized in your last post. Thank you for that. Just one point. We are not talking about relationships in general here where all the points you make about how people should treat one another apply and where gender does not matter. We are discussing marriage, where gender is a central part of the issue as Genesis 2 presents it. The gospel is not gender-related, but marriage is. The failure to note this biblical distinction in categories is precisely where I think your confusion lies. All the best, Lynn.
Lynn L
Gender and Marriage
My View: Marriage is a spiritual bond, and it is also a legal concept, hence the battle in the laws of the land. Dr. Bock, I understand your point about what you believe in regarding the biblical teaching on a man and a woman, but let me respond or this will end on an unfair note. The reason I am separating gender from spiritual concepts, including what I believe God will recognize to be marriage, is that your interpretation of the Bible does nothing less than condemn people to hell, on the basis of a gender issue alone. It is your belief on what the Bible strictly states on this issue. This would also be applying to the believer is Jesus Christ, as not a true believer, and abhorrant to God. I have no doubt that whatever the Bible was specifically referring to as condemned, i.e. arsenokoites, will be the case on that day, and that Paul saw this as a complete concept in his scope of experience. Godlessness will be condemned. I also have no doubt that it is not about a gender issue alone, and the gender aspect itself is in a neutral category. Sin is regarding the character of the person, and the context of the relationship. I want you to understand my point, and I want you to see how far you take gender characteristics: On this issue it condemns the soul. On remarriage, this is somehow sanctioned, despite the explicit texts on the subject. God is very far away from that view, as I understand Him. Love and understanding prevails. I'm making no claim to have proven this. Man doesn't have the authority to definitively speak for God on a controversial issue. You'll enjoy the popular vote on Scripture…just some thoughts for consideration.
Darrell L. Bock
Gender and Marriage
A person who justifies sin by claiming other sins are not treated the same way can plead injustice but not that what is described is not sin. No one said anything about this sin condemning someone to hell like it is different from any other sin in that regard. That misrepresents the point. Thus, my current response.
Gender is not what condemns; disobeying God does when he defines the concept of marriage and refers to a male and a female. You still have not given a single passage that even suggests what you are claiming when this combination of relationships is directly addressed. Everything else, sadly, is a dance to deny what the texts show. If it were just love, then why did not God just say marriage is between two people who choose to love each other in faithfulness. That is easy to say. You and I can both say it. The texts never said that. They never came close. There is little need to understand your point when everything the texts say point to the fact that this is not even hinted at when the topic is specifically addressed. Sin condemns a soul (any sin). Disobedience is condemning no matter where it is, outside the gracious work of Christ which can bring forgiveness. What is sad is a blindness that fails to read what is right in front of someone in numerous texts. Sorry to be so direct. But your pleading for understanding is a request for me to deny what is in the Word in several locations (and no asterisks are necessary to see what it says consistently). It is very unlikely that it says something else when it is repeated and when supporting the rebuked activity is said to be even a worse form of unfaithfulness. Love and understanding in a spiritual context mean being responsive to God, not what we have convinced ourselves of. No one speaks for God here. He has spoken for Himself in these texts. No vote needs to be taken. It is not a democracy we are discussing but the revealed Word that consistently sings with a warning about this topic.
Lynn L
And Finally For Me
There's plenty wrong here, but I'm sure its time to let it go, considering that we've wished each other brotherly sisterly wishes and all. The only potentially provoking thing I will say, then–and I hope you know me well enough, by now, to know that I mean no disrespect to you–is that I don't have the heart to wrestle you to the ground on some things. In a formal debate, things would be different.
So, bypassing where I believe I have proven inconsistencies in your views, I'll just say that It is just as I have said before, in regards to the "basis" for what we are to be accountable to as the commands of God–based in truth, in a direct and inherent sense for all time–in reference to sin. Everything that I have talked about is in trying to establish why it is that–despite the fact that the Bible is not a simple set of laws, end of story, and it is very far from that–this one particular "precept" of Scripture, shall we say, is so very special and in its own category of applicability and authority for the born-again believer, and that context issues have no meaning here.
My view seeks, basically, a "natural law" basis for the requirement that the gay person is to be heterosexual / celibate, or the basis for any other law of Scripture–in other words "evidence". I feel that this is pretty much the only controversial law of the Bible in the Christian church today, of any kind of significance anyway. There seems to be not much of an issue in mainstream Christianity on remarriage after divorce. (People quietly justify fornication in their minds, but there is a major case for harm to be made there, and an honest one, including the simple concept of trusting God and waiting for the right person, as in the fruits of the Spirit.) It is controversial to put this gender-based requirement upon people, regarding the earthly love of their life, or potential love.
You never actually made a case for harm. You make a case for the natural aspects of the beauty of a heterosexual marriage, but not why it is commanded by God (this or celibacy) on the level of "condemnation" as spiritual rebellion of the gay believer. The "natural aspects" don't fly for the gay person, who, based on this phenomenon of nature, will never fall in love or feel that kind of love for someone of the opposite sex. We'll disagree until the second coming of Christ on this: The fact that God established heterosexuality–propagation of the human race, and what it mostly functional, helpful, and nice for most people–does not establish something that is in the category of violence, stealing, drunken carousing, fornication, adultery, rebellion, prostitution, disrespect for parents, people hating, and God-hating…upon the life-partnership and sexual relationship of the gay person.
Your philosophy disregards too much for people, and your biblical foundation I see as inconsistent (I know it is not in your view, and debating that further serves no purpose outside the context of a formal and well-structured debate, where the sides are at least abundantly clear and well-challenged). You want people to believe that "God has taught that same-sex intimacy is inherently reflected in, and inseparably linked with, the things that are associated with it in the stories of Scripture." I can't go along with that, because it is simply untrue, realistically and fundamentally speaking. He taught, and sometimes despite the law, that love prevails in truth…He taught reason and discernment in the use of laws, and that we are not to judge "according to appearance, but make a righteous judgment." Why did He say this if it is all clear in the law?
I agree that it's been argued here to a great enough extent, and we will always feel very strongly about our concepts of morality. I believe people's regard for morality, in its truest sense of love and fairness, and genuine quality of life, is the real reason for the shift in the beliefs of people on this issue, not at all part of the fall of a culture. Though there is plenty of acceptance of sinfulness in the world, godly people accept their own children's lives on this issue, as does my own family. I don't have anything more to say. I just can't easily let go a charge of disobedience to the God for whom I live. He is my life, which is a statement that is risky to make in this kind of environment, but it is true.
Even if ridiculously unfounded statements are made by people, at any point–such as unjust generalizations about people or logical falsehoods–I'll let it go now.
Darrell L. Bock
Finally
Thanks for the interaction. Sadly we are not talking about unfounded statements, but failing to read a consistent text that operates in many contexts (so appeal to reading for some other context will not be an escape). For you natural law on this trumps revelation on the topic. For me it is the other way around. Only your view of natural law can cancel out what seems so consistently explicit.
Lynn L
Thank you also Dr. Bock.
Thank you also Dr. Bock.
Robert Fisher
Lynn, Dr. Bock has
Lynn,
Dr. Bock has succinctly expressed the problem of your position with:
The gospel is not gender-related, but marriage is. The failure to note this biblical distinction in categories is precisely where I think your confusion lies.
and
Gender is not what condemns; disobeying God does when he defines the concept of marriage and refers to a male and a female.
But let me add some analogies to show that your view is inconsistent with how the way you approach this issue is probably inconsistent with the way you would approach other moral issues:
Loving, giving, supporting, nurturing, patience, loving unconditionally, commitment–all of the things that make up a meanigful love relationship–is not gender specific, and goes both ways.
You seem to be trying to justify an act that you admit scripture condemns, and you seek to do so by positing the case where it is accompanied by other attributes that would normally be good in other contexts. But of course this is invalid. It would be like a thief justifying his theft simply because he always gives 10% of it to charity, a child who goes to the arcade instead of doing his homework, telling himself "I'm supporting the economy by spending money here, and improving my hand-eye coordination". In other words it comes across as a rationalization.
Why must you insist on coupling these otherwise good qualities to a wicked action, which in the majority of cases does not accompany it?
Transformation through the Spirit of God does not change the natural, biological makeup of people. I haven't ignored God, or anything that He has created. People being born gay is part of His creation.
But of course, biology has nothing to do with this. Science can tell us details of how our bodies/brains work, but this is simply irrelevant morally. The ancients knew that temptations to sin would arise in certain contexts and these must be resisted. That is all that is relevant. A thief cannot justify stealing an HDTV by saying, "Biology has showed how light from TV travels down my optic paths and into my neurons, causing me to enjoy watching it. I can't help that. I was born this way". Such an observation is simply irrelevant and does nothing to justify acting on his particular temptation.
And remember, we are all born with our own particular temptations. We must all do our best to resist them. The most tragic thing you could do would be to give yourself over to them, to make them your masters, to try to justify them.
The reason I am separating gender from spiritual concepts, including what I believe God will recognize to be marriage, is that your interpretation of the Bible does nothing less than condemn people to hell, on the basis of a gender issue alone.
But your separation of gender is invalid in this case. Any immoral action involves, and indeed depends upon things that are morally neutral in and of themselves. A paedophile cannot say, "You're condemning me to Hell on the basis of age. What's wrong with being a particular age?" The murder could say, "I changed the configuration of molecules of my victim's vital organs. Why is that so wrong?", etc. etc.
Your writing is typical of revisionist attempts at redefinition. At every sentence, I'm overwhelmed with misgivings about the misunderstandings that you seem to have of even the most basic issues of morality and scripture, and I suspect the other conservative commentators here feel the same. If you wish to persuade, you must present a detailed exegetical case, and not just refer to generalities and invent ad-hoc methods of interpretation. You must answer the question of why your particular definition of 'love' and why your particular 'contextualization' and hierarchy of values should trump that of scripture.
Visitor
In my high school Bible class
In my high school Bible class a few years ago, my teacher got on the topic of gay marriage and homosexuality. He talked about how homosexuality was basically a sin (duh); the Bible talked about sexual sin, and how people will become more perverse with their sin- going farther and farther. The Bible tells us marriage is strictly between a man and a woman- our society is seriously straying from those morals. We can't go around judging and telling homosexuals that they're going to hell; its no way to help someone with their sin. I believe we should encourage and witness to them the best we can. Society and culture is triumphing, but sadly, in the wrong direction. We can vote for or against laws all we want but its not going to change the hearts and minds of the people.
Bella Cranick
The bible does not condone
The bible does not condone sin. Period. Homosexuality is a sin. The hard part is that the Bible does condone love. When you see a man and woman in love you know that that is socially, ethically, and most importantly spiritually acceptable ( Talking about the love written about in 1Corinthians 13). When you see a man and man professing to be in love, it is hard to look upon them with judgement for professing to love each other. As a Christian, I am called to love others as God loves me.
Then, the lightbulb went on. I sin. The bible does not condone my sin. But God still loves me. So, then I said…."Why not show God's love and leave the judging to Him?" Yes, I think homosexuality is a sin, just like the other sins. No worse no better. So, I say, "Love like God loves us." No more no less.
Why judge? Why not love?
Darrell L. Bock
High School and Bible– Love and judging
To the past two posts (Visitor and Bella): There is a difference between judging (which God will do one day with complete justice) and discussing and warning about sin and its consequences, which is part of what this blog entry discussion is about. Scripture is full of discussion about how it teaches and rebukes us and asks people to be discerning about sin (Just look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17). So keep these distinctions in mind on a topic like this.
Yes we are called to love. One of the most important features of love can be to say to someone, if you do that it will harm you. So I tell a child not to put his fingers in a fire so they will not get burned. My three year old grandson did it anyway and he cried about it. The lesson can be learned before one puts the fingers in the fire or afterward or perhaps sadly when it is too late. So in love we speak about these things. They are not conflicting categories.
As with the visitor, my hope and prayer is that hearts will change so real change from within can come. To Bella, I say, God loves us and He also tells us what sin is because of His love. The prophets of God confronted, not because it was popular, but because they loved their people enough to raise up the question about whether what they were doing was healthy for them and others or not. One can love and warn about sin. In fact to not do so, is not to love deeply. When we do it, however, it should be done recognizing we all need God and his forgiveness and that we all fail (Galatians 6:1). It also should be done with a hand outstretched to be of help. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery and then told her to sin no more. He loved her fully.
Lynn L
Logic and Honesty
Robert Fisher,
Basic logic: The examples that you raise, which are supposedly comparable with this, have evidence of "harm" associated with them. I'm advocating nothing that causes harm, and no case has been made to the contrary. If you've missed that in my argument, you aren't trying to understand my argument.
Basic logic: The Bible condemns many things that are not things condemned in the Christian faith. I am observing and speaking of the motivation, the context, and the character that was being referred to in the references on this subject, e.g. lust, violence, idol worship, unthankfulness, denial of God. It was described fully. That is the context in which the condemnation was made. Context is a theme of Scripture regarding commandments, and some of this also involves the cultural settings.
Clarification: A life-partnership is not a "temptation." Is remarriage after divorce a temptation? Is remarriage sin, adultery, disobedience? Where is it sanctioned in the Bible?
Another clarification: Speaking of positive attributes has to do with the fact that it is an entirely different spirit from what was addressed in Scripture. God knows who His children are. The wicked are not described this way in His Word. The difference between "rebellion" and "biology" has everything to do with this. They are in two different categories.
Also, there is absolutely nothing "neutral" about sex with a child. There is nothing neutral about murder. There is nothing neutral about taking what doesn't belong to you. These things cause harm and devastate lives. The gender aspect of this, by itself, is neutral and has no evidence of harm. The references are context-related.
I've laid out my argument, and I've spoken in plenty of detail about what is written in Scripture. Law doesn't necessarily represent inherent truth, or to be taken in a rigid manner. That is Scripture. Romans 13:8-10 says much.
I would be very interested in a clarification of your argument. Please answer each point if it is you who speaks for sound doctrine and understanding of our Lord.
Robert Fisher
Basic logic: The examples
Basic logic: The examples that you raise, which are supposedly comparable with this, have evidence of "harm" associated with them. I'm advocating nothing that causes harm, and no case has been made to the contrary. If you've missed that in my argument, you aren't trying to understand my argument.
No, I follow it, but there is an inconsistency here. You claim to be arguing for SSM from a Christian perspective, but then you imply that your notion of 'harm' has ultimate primacy, and this is where you seem to be substituting a foreign hierarchy of values for the Biblical one, which would give us the right to ask you, 'why should we accept your new system?'.
For instance, idolatry does not involve harm, nor does covetousness nor lusting, though they may lead to it. Adultery is forbidden even if it involves no harm (else it would say 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless all parties involved consent'). Sexual ethics are still very important in the NT, which shows that they fall under the rubric of moral rather than ceremonial laws, a point you overlook above (ex. "There’s an entire foundation pertaining to principles of the Bible, including the fact that the Law doesn’t necessarily represent inherent truth–nearly all of it being obsolete in the practice of the faith today").
You also use the term love loosely ("First a complex body of laws, then simplified through the law fulfilled in a word, which is love … we are not obligated to a rigid understanding of laws and requirements, only the law fulfilled by love for God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself. That is what Jesus taught.")
But Jesus' quote is taken from Leviticus 19:17-18, and includes the notion of rebuking one's neighbor, and not suffering sin upon him. So you cannot divorce other aspects of the moral law from 'love' as you seek to do. Paul had the congregation expel the incestuous man in 1 Co 5 precisely because they loved him and wished for him to give up his 'harmless' desire so that he could be saved. This is what Romans 13:8-10 that you quote is about. It actually supports my point.
And regardless of your view of harmfulness of the act itself in a purely non-Christian context (which I think can be defended), harm eventually does come into play when we deal with prop 8, which is something else entirely. For prop 8 will make it harder for Christians to run their families and their businesses according to their conscience (remember the New Mexico photographer who would not photograph the 'wedding'?).
People like Kevin Jennings will try to force inappropriate materials on teens using the schools as he was only able to do through GSAs in the past. So the issue of harm on the level of the act itself is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Basic logic: The Bible condemns many things that are not things condemned in the Christian faith. I am observing and speaking of the motivation, the context, and the character that was being referred to in the references on this subject, e.g. lust, violence, idol worship, unthankfulness, denial of God.
But the desire and the act is itself unclean. That is the whole point of the passage in Rom 1. That is why it is 'giving them up' to it. If it were merely neutral, like eating or sleeping hair, Paul would not have called it 'giving up', and would not refer to it as a 'vile affection', that condemnation being separate from whatever prior sinfulness prompted God to 'give them up'.
Clarification: A life-partnership is not a "temptation." Is remarriage after divorce a temptation? Is remarriage sin, adultery, disobedience? Where is it sanctioned in the Bible?
In the cases of frivolous divorces, yes, it is sin. But divorcees do not try to parade their choice as something noble. They generally do not sue when they are put out of congretations. And sin is sin, even if done in the context of a life partnership. To use an example without harm, it would better that an incestuous couple or polyamorous group should be broken up, even if they never emotionally get over it. C. S. Lewis in the Problem of Pain distinguished between love and mere kindness (permissiveness): "What could a man mean by 'love' if he said, 'I love my son, but I don't care how much of a blackguard he is as long as he has a good time'".
Another clarification: Speaking of positive attributes has to do with the fact that it is an entirely different spirit from what was addressed in Scripture. God knows who His children are. The wicked are not described this way in His Word.
'Positive attributes' such as the fruits Gal 5:22 only act one way. The context is in a letter to professing Christians. Thus they are a sign of penitent, saving faith if the person's profession of faith is orthodox. They don't operate the other way. They cannot sanctify a false religion, nor validate a sinful behavior.
Also, there is absolutely nothing "neutral" about sex with a child. There is nothing neutral about murder. There is nothing neutral about taking what doesn't belong to you. These things cause harm and devastate lives. The gender aspect of this, by itself, is neutral and has no evidence of harm. The references are context-related.
As above, I think harm is not adequate to fully describe sin. To give a better example, note the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus is bookended by condemnations of incest and bestiality. Neither of those involves 'harm', yet we'd all agree these are immoral.
Randy R
Lynn
Lynn,
You have interesting views. I am curious as to how you believe concerning a few things. I apologize, but if you could keep your answers succinct, it would help me to understand you better. Thanks.
One, how authoritative do you believe the Bible is?
Two, in short, what is your basis that gay marriage is an acceptable Christian practice?
Three, do you believe that God is a God of love AND a God that is against sin?
Four, how do you resolve the issue that every portion of the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned it is spoken of in a very negative light, and seems to always be associated with idolatry before God?
Thanks again.
Darrell L. Bock
Allowing Lynn an Opt Out
Bloggers:
Lynn and I had a long exchange in lat e2008 and early 2009 that went through many of the questions Randy raised. So I am giving her the option simply to refer to that earlier discussion to save her having to repeat herself.
The kinks into these discussions are below:
topic is how the Bible sees and describes marriage. (The second addresses homosexuality… was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised … the article moves on to homosexuality, yet another topic to work through in another post. So I will leave …
Blog entry – Darrell L. Bock – 2008-12-26 16:53 – 40 comments
cultic, and others moral and societal. The article describes the remarks abouthomosexuality … God. The point here is that the challenge to homosexuality in the Bible is about far more than its … against God is told. The article does recognize that Paul was “tough” on homosexuality although …
Blog entry – Darrell L. Bock – 2009-01-02 01:00 – 30 comments
have similar kinds of standards that also have viewed homosexuality as immoral). This morality extends … of homosexuality, but also in favor of releasing pedophiles and murderers from prison. That is to say, unless … that while I am not homosexual, I do know a few who are. I do not judge them to be inferior to myself …
Lynn L
The fundamental disagreement
The fundamental disagreement concerning the idea that "lust," "idolatry," "covetousness," "some examples of adultery," which is a violation of a vow before God, supposedly do not cause harm…is one reason why further discussion is pointless. They are antithetical to spirituality, which is defined in the fruits of the Spirit. The point that murder could be thought of as "rearranging the molecules in someone's body," or that sex with a child is "neutral" in itself, but the judgment against it would be merely chronology or something, shows a lack of logic so great that further discussion is pointless. The failure to answer a basic question regarding a clear doctrine of the Bible, that remarriage after divorce is adultery–which has been understood decidedly differently from the texts of Scripture in mainstream Christianity–renders further discussion pointless. My comment was clearly not about divorce, per se, it was about remarriage, but you address divorce only, and say nothing about remarriage. Romans 13:8-10 speaks about "doing no wrong to your neighbor" as being the entire law, but I speak "too loosely" about love being the entire law of God. Scripture point blank says as much. Loving God above all things, first and foremost, is the other part of the law of love. The idea that someone is in a life-partnership, doesn't show that priorities are amiss. Lusting and coveting is an attitude of the heart, biology is not an attitude of the heart. But I'm sure this is a very special law that is in its own category of Scripture, and context issues are irrelevant only here. Your sense of "sexual ethics" is its own religion. Body parts fitting together heterosexually is of primary importance to God in life…much more important than His gay children's fulfillment in a love relationship, which is one of the most important things in nearly all heterosexual people's lives. Body parts fitting together heterosexually is more important than the question of whether there is even a spirit of rebellion present or not. Gay people should mind the authority of Paul's understanding of this, with the limited context that was part of his experience with the issue, and mind the authority of this particular law of Moses.
To the other commenter, I feel that my posts have been succinct. I'm not a perfect person, but God will decide if the clarity issues are on my part or the reader's part. In my experience, avoidance is the best way to go in response to my points. Maybe you are not suggesting that I haven't been succinct, but were only trying to establish a clear debate on the points from here. It is possible that a decent debate could've been had there, but it's a somewhat complex issue and that's been done here already, as brother Darrell said. Though it does lack structure as a debate.
Part of what I have done here is challenge myself, which is why I wrote to Dr. Bock to begin with. I have looked deeply at the issue, and searched my soul in the Spirit of the Lord, in my faith and relationship with Him, and, of course, in reference to ALL Scriptures. It is a difference of opinion regarding the deeper principles of what is written, but nothing has been proven to be inconsistent, unfounded, or biblically false–which would be with a view to the "foundational" issues, because disagreement on the conclusion proves nothing false, only a difference in our understanding of how the law of God functions. This discussion has been important to my study of the issue, which includes how people respond to the issue when questioned in a succinct and direct manner. I went into this current address with no desire whatsoever to debate, only make some points, which, in this kind of environment, is impossible. I've debated the issue off and on for several years now, with astonishing results. I guess a lack of logic is part of the fallenness of humanity–in my opinion, many unfounded and ridiculous statements are made for God and for the belief against same-sex relationships–but my points are succinct…and largely unanswered.
If it is important to people to believe that the gay believer, who adores the God who gave them life and salvation, and whose life is based on love and commitment, and not a spirit of rebellion, lust, idol worship, etc., is the type of person spoken of in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the teaching of Paul, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, that is between you and God. As to an obligation to the Law of Moses, and the body of instructions of Paul: If that is how Scriptural laws are to function, then you should live by that philosophy of biblical authority for yourself, frankly speaking, and take care of your own household. Many people understand the issue and God much differently. We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. I am confident in who I am before God, in His grace and His love for me, and in my response to Him in obedience. I could never accept the idea that it is all the same to Him. He does not judge the way man judges, which is legalistic and appearance-based…He judges in truth.
Darrell L. Bock
Were You Really Open with Us?
Lynn:
I hate to accuse you of being disingenuous, but how we entered into this discussion in 2008-2009, much less more recently, hardly looks like you came into this with an open mind to be changed or challenged as you state above. Your initial inquiry to me when this all started was you wanted to make some points about how gay people can view the Bible and respect it and hold their views. This is hardly the presentation of a self challenge. The claim that you had no desire to debate this also seems less than straightforward given how we started this thread of discussion. You were given full reign to express yourself and responded daily and in detail. You even directed me initially to a site where you initially made your points that you claimed few people truly wrestle with. You asked if it was OK, to come on and make your points. You did so, having noted you were booted off another site for your consistent efforts to make points there. This opportunity for dialogue I accepted. I thought and still think it valuable for the arguments pro and con to be set out where people can see them while trying to maintain a respectable tone to it all. So my short note here is one for the record.
Sorry to call you on this, but that self description appears to be more spin than substance. I could not let it go by without speaking to it. We are going to agree to disagree on this topic for reasons both of us have made clear. I am about to say we have exhausted the topic and each other int eh process. You can praise yourself at the end for not having been really challenged with your responses largely unanswered. That to me reveals more about where you have been coming from than almost anything you have said in these two years. The fact you cannot bring forward a single concrete passage on this topic with the emphasis you have (having to appeal to themes and other contexts rather than specific texts on the topic) also says a great deal about how open you were and where the biblical discussion stands.
I make no pretensions here. As much as I would like to be able to say your reading of the text is right (or even possible) to remove the painful confrontation that regularly comes with this topic, nothing in my reading of Scripture or its themes (or in your defense of going there) allows me to go there or even come close to seeing it as a likely response to ALL of Scripture (as you like to say it). To be honest, I came into this discussion thinking it was not very likely but I was willing to engage on the basis of letting each side have its say. Since no specific text has been produced (and the specific topic is addressed in several texts across the swath of Scripture), what you see as a lack of willingness to love by those who challenge you, I see motivated by love and a faithfulness to the text, as well as to the God who ultimately produced it. It results in a loyalty to call sin sin (and not see doing that as some twisted form of legalism or dogmatism). I have seen as well a willingness to admit to inconsistency and injustice when what we believe is not actualized in our behavior. Many who have written in response to you have made and accepted this point, even as you continue to suggest they are hypocritical in their view. My understanding of how God addresses what He regards as sin means that loving in this case means confronting, confronting with texts on the topic and asking that they be faced up to. We see such challenge from within Scripture all the time. It also means raising questions about how you portray the history of this discussion that I wish I did not have to raise but feel compelled to do. You get one more time to respond and then the discussion will be closed perhaps with my responding or just letting it go at where it is.
I hate ending it here, as the exchange has been fruitful in showing where the sides are as well as why and how they get there. Hopefully others can appreciate that part of the exchange, even as they make their own assessments on the merits of each side.
Robert Fisher
The fundamental disagreement
The fundamental disagreement concerning the idea that "lust," "idolatry," "covetousness," "some examples of adultery," which is a violation of a vow before God, supposedly do not cause harm..
A weakness of the discussion here is the lack of a precise definition of 'harm'. I took it that you mean 'involuntary, unjustified physical damage or depriviation of property', but perhaps I have misread you. If you don't wish to debate here (and Dr. Bock seems about ready to shut down the thread), perhaps this could be continued on your site once you get it up?
They are antithetical to spirituality, which is defined in the fruits of the Spirit.
The only 'spirituality' that seems emphasized by the NT is from saving faith, of which the fruits are a sign, but the fruits do not define it.
that remarriage after divorce is adultery
After certain types of divorce, yes. That is a tragedy, it needs to be addressed, but as Dr. Bock pointed out above "You are right to raise the issue of consistency in how we let moral violations in heterosexual contexts slide, but as we discussed long ago and long and hard, to use one poorly handled moral area to open the door for another is not moral progress."
Romans 13:8-10 speaks about "doing no wrong to your neighbor" as being the entire law, but I speak "too loosely" about love being the entire law of God.
Yes. First off, you are doing no wrong to your neighbor by rebuking his sin (Lev 19:17-18). Second why do you assume the gay is the only neighbor we have to think of? If repeal of prop 8 goes through, activists will have more power to harm other parties by forcing their viewpoints on them. These too are our neighbors, we must think of them as well when we support prop 8 and we have the power and responsibility as citizens to do so.
Loving God above all things, first and foremost, is the other part of the law of love.
Yes, but you cannot claim to do that if you willfully and persistently disobey his clear commands.
The idea that someone is in a life-partnership, doesn't show that priorities are amiss.
But life partnership is (on the rare occasions it exists) just an attribute you are using to justify something else.
Lusting and coveting is an attitude of the heart, biology is not an attitude of the heart.
Actually, lusting and coveting (and violence and alcoholism) have a biological basis, and the attitude of the natural man is to give into these temptations.
Your sense of "sexual ethics" is its own religion. Body parts fitting together heterosexually is of primary importance to God in life…much more important than His gay children's fulfillment in a love relationship, which is one of the most important things in nearly all heterosexual people's lives.
It's part of God's revelation, not its own religion. It's not of primary importance. When other heresies are brought up, they will be (and have been) confronted as well. And yes, God's word is more important than sinful men's desires, even if they love them so much, they try to make the claim that their identity is inseparable from them. I don't believe that for a moment. It is NEVER too late to repent. Please do not forget that. You are not your desires. You can be free.
Body parts fitting together heterosexually is more important than the question of whether there is even a spirit of rebellion present or not.
It seems you are justifying rebellion based on bringing in neutral attributes. Adam and Eve could have justified their rebellion using this method ("It's just one fruit amongst many others…", etc.)
Gay people should mind the authority of Paul's understanding of this, with the limited context that was part of his experience with the issue, and mind the authority of this particular law of Moses.
Again, this overlooks the civil/ceremonial distinction made implicitly but clearly by Jesus and Paul. Sexual ethics is part of the moral law which will always be valid. Will we ever transcend the moral law? Will we ever transcend your new moral law and embrace another which again condemns homosexuality? Relavitism takes back with one hand what it gives with the other.
If it is important to people to believe that the gay believer, who adores the God who gave them life and salvation, and whose life is based on love and commitment, and not a spirit of rebellion, lust, idol worship, etc., is the type of person spoken of in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the teaching of Paul, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, that is between you and God.
It's not that it's important, that just seems to be what the text says.
As to an obligation to the Law of Moses, and the body of instructions of Paul: If that is how Scriptural laws are to function, then you should live by that philosophy of biblical authority for yourself, frankly speaking, and take care of your own household.
Well, we do that as well. Who protests strip clubs and (straight) porn shops? It's not gay activists. But if you are trying to promote immorality with regards to homosexuality, we'll have to call you on that as well. If other 'sexual minorities' ever come out of the closet and try to mainstream and justify other forms of immorality, we'll call them on it as well. Are you saying we are only allowed to confront forms of immorality that we engage in? Then murder should be legalized, since most people aren't murderers.
Many people understand the issue and God much differently. We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. I am confident in who I am before God, in His grace and His love for me, and in my response to Him in obedience. I could never accept the idea that it is all the same to Him. He does not judge the way man judges, which is legalistic and appearance-based…He judges in truth.
But usually appearance is adequate to judge by, else why are you appealing to the "appearance" of certain fruits within your particular relationship to justify it? If I see an incestuous relationship or a case of harm (man mugging and 80 year old woman), the "appearance" is all I need to observe what is going on.
Lynn L
I look forward to…
I look forward to God's assessment of this discussion. Our memories of how this was initiated are two different things. I don't even have to go back and look at what was written in our initial dialog, because I remember what I did there. Whether you can see this or not–and the only thing that really matters will be God's address of this–I entered this discussion with a genuine desire to know what the answer is, if there is one, from the perspective of a theologian, to what I see to be an undeniable set of facts of Scripture, which I've summarized in the later posts. You say this isn't true, and that I don't want to know what the answers are.
What I'm talking about is a concrete set of facts of both Scripture and the well-accepted practices of the Christian faith. We do not live by either the body of Paul's instructions, or the laws of Moses that could be applied. You see this particular issue as an area that has an emphasis, but other areas also speak with strength as well, which have been dismissed as inappropriate in our culture, and apparently not reflecting an inherent truth of God. I addressed you to find out what is the biblical basis for this dismissal of laws, and why a different principle of interpretation is applied on this issue, which is taken in a rigid manner as opposed to the reason and discernment that is applied to many other biblical laws and precepts. Our dialog went fine, it was four parts each, and then it turned into a drawn out debate with other people that I felt compelled to engage in ultimately.
You are saying that I was booted off another site at that time, and that I came on and asked you if I could make some points, and that isn't true and never happened. Also, the site that I referred to was my own blog that I decided to close a while later. I did not come here to make some points in the initial dialog. I came here to find out what the answers are, as recognized by a theologian, just as I said. It was with the recognition that I may have missed something, but nothing factual or compelling was shown to me, as to why the gay person should be understood in terms of the biblical examples of same-sex relations, and other points.
I came here this time around to make some points, with no desire to debate, just as I said. I have explained that it is hard to let things go when being accused of disobedience to God, which hardy reflects an intention to come here and debate.
I've been straightforward here, and I have sought out the whole picture. If you don't see a body of laws in Scripture that are not part of the function of the Christian faith, and that being God's explicit intention for the Bible that He gave to humanity, we are reading two different Bibles. I have to say that I am disappointed in your accusatory attitude, and what you are saying about me is untrue. I'm "praising myself" in saying that crucial points that I've made have gone unanswered? They've gone blatantly unanswered right here in this current dialog. God will address all of this one day, though, and will speak on all things. My faith is in God, because it is God that I serve. I never said that I came here to be changed, only to seek out the whole picture with an open mind.
I don't know why you didn't simply let this close out on its own. Did I seem like I want to reiterate my case? I'm not being called out on anything here, and there is no self-deception…your judgment is off on that. Your judgment also seems to be way off on the debate, as you continue to say that I can provide no specific texts to endorse this…but isn't my point to you that you can provide no specific texts to endorse what the church doesn't live by, that has been specifically spoken against in Scripture, including in the N.T., such as women praying with their heads uncovered or wearing their hair short? Paul called this a "disgrace." Is it a solid point to say that I cannot provide an endorsement? This was about seeking the foundational principles for this, which I see to be not unfounded, but it is applied selectively in the church. No biblical foundation was ever given on that or other points.
I've also been very clear that the hypocrisy is not about "failings" of people in the church; it is in that they willingly "endorse" what is contrary to the explicit words of Scripture, indicating that there is something to "learn" there about the idea of a rigid take on the laws and precepts of Scripture, which is also a teaching of Jesus Himself…but this is only embraced as long as you are not having to learn it for the gay person. The hypocrisy is in a claim to hold to a certain principle of interpretation, but it is not the principle that they live by themselves.
To Robert Fisher: You are welcome to write to me when I put my website back up, or if a search yields my email. There is so much that has been simply not read or paid attention to, because you didn't answer the simple questions that I raised. I likely won't go any further in a debate on the issue. I am comfortable that the truth is on my side, and that much is provable that has been disregarded here. God will decide ultimately. May His name be blessed forever.
Darrell L. Bock
On the Last Response, Integrity & an Expression of Appreciation
Lynn:
Because this is an integrity issue I am going to do this. In a private email on April 21, 2010 you wrote the following to me.
"The reason I'm writing you, is because [XXX.COM} has blocked my ip address! I wrote a seven-part post, as per the reasons above, because of insults and the misrepresenting of me, but other than that, I have in no way done an inordinate amount of posting, only a very moderate amount of single posts."
The one mistake I may have made is not being clear this took place in the midst of the dialogue and not at the start. (In fact, the note to this above is unclear as to its exact timing but could have left that impression and I should have been more specific. That may be why you do not recall it. For that I do apologize). But this incident was a part of the eventual background of the discussion and why I did not close it off when the topic came up again.
I have bracketed and deleted the name of the site. I did not make this up. So I think your recollection of what took place here is not noting all that went into this and these details help to explain why I responded as I did yesterday.
I think you have been sincere in setting out your convictions. I do accept you came back on not wishing to reenter the debate but sensing (appropriately) the need and responsibility to represent your views and reply to queries. All that is fair. I think that clarification may help us sort through this most recent exchange.
I have only questioned how open you were at the start and how you have portrayed that in light of how all of this got started. (I actually have the earlier email just to me from July 27, 2008 where you say there are some things you can never change your mind on as we were getting started on all of this. I will spare you printing that one unless you force me to.)
We have gone back and forth on the hermeneutics of the examples you raise. Head coverings (one text with other texts allowing women speaking with no such notice). How many mention short hair? You asked about and challenged the more common view on inconsistency in application and why this case was special (only have it out for the gays). I have repeatedly said (with no acknowledgement on your part) that you are right to raise this and that one can say that is unjust when it is done. (I also said that failure ot apply in one area does not exempt the other area). I have accepted that discernment is in play in some of these texts, such as the headcovering for reasons I just noted, but argued this did not work for this topic where the texts are multiple and ring out with one message. That is why I regard this topic as not being the same as some of the others you raise. So the issues you raise have been answered (not blatantly unanswered). You may not accept the replies, but at least show the respect to note responses did come. This is not a rigid take in Scripture, it is reading a consistent presentation in many texts for what it is. I think we have both milked the sides of the argument for all they are worth here. You were heard, just not believed. In think the same may be true in reverse, but that is not to say the questions went unaddressed or unanswered (maybe not satisfactorily in your view, but that is not blatantly so). This specific topic is now closed for futher give and take. It has run out of gas. I hope you will honor that.
This one sentence from you makes no sense to me: "I never said that I came here to be changed, only to seek out the whole picture with an open mind". How can one say the second part of this without being open to the first? Sentences like this are what caused me to post what I ddid yesterday. Sorry if you think it was unfair, but it is confusing.
Now let me try to end this on a positive note. I have responded in some detail here to try and clear the air some. We agree to disagree on this topic. But I truly do appreciate the time and effort you have given to sharing your convictions on this matter and doing so by having to respond to repeated direct (and sometimes harsh) challenges of those convictions. That does take some doing. For the most part, I would say in your defense you have done this well in terms of tone and with dignity. It has helped us all to see the issues and the sides, as well as the case for each. You are to be thanked for helping make that happen. I am always pleased to have you engage the blog (Hope you might consider doing it on other topics, maybe even where we agree). I also agree with you that God will sort all of us out on this one day. He is the only one big enough to do that. Please understand that one fo the reasons for pounding away at this so hard is that many of us (out of a sincere regard and genuine love, even if it is in your view severely misguided) think what you believe denies what Scripture teaches in a significant way. (I know you would make the same plea to me for a different reading and for different reasons). That is all fair as well. I leave it to you to respond to these attempts at clarification of the record as you wish. I repeat my gratitude for your willingness to engage.
Lynn L
Dr. Bock
Dr. Bock, it did sound to me like you were referring to the initial dialog when you said I had been booted off another site. You were speaking about my request to you to engage in a discussion on the subject, so it sounded like you were referring to the initial dialog. I did misunderstand you on that one part of your comment. Obviously I remember the incident that happened a few months ago. Clearly I thought you were referring to the initial dialog, so all you had to do was clarify that misunderstanding.
Basically, I didn't want it to appear that this discussion was spurred on by that incident–that is what didn't happen. They did actually reinstate my ip address, which I know you had nothing to do with. It is literally the only other place I have communicated about this subject online, which was also for the purpose of my study on the subject, and which I won't be doing anything more with on forums. I didn't want to do that this time around, but it is a subject that, by necessity, has to turn into a debate, and I have no desire to debate the issue any further.
People misunderstand things all the time. For example, Robert Fisher took my words about “the entirety of the law fulfilled by love,” and “doing no wrong to your neighbor” as if my take on Rom. 13:8-10 is that he is wrong to judge your neighbor. The point in my reference is whether or not your neighbor’s life-partnership is sin. The passage addresses the question of what truly is sin. If you have done no wrong to your neighbor, you have fulfilled the law of God. Harm must be proven in order to say that you have done a wrong to someone. The passage is clear that the law is fulfilled in a word. We are to owe nothing to anyone except to love one another.
For the record: If you believe harm is being done, you are right to say so, but you should be able to provide honest evidence for your conviction on that. The simple fact that you are offended by the idea, doesn't make a case for your concern about your neighbors. But, no, I won't discuss it further. I do have to reiterate that I advocate nothing that causes harm in my beliefs on spiritual and moral issues.
Actually, Dr. Bock, I asked two basic questions in my first post on this thread, which did go completely unanswered. It is amazing to me that people apparently feel justified in not speaking about the Bible they use to judge other people. I think it says much.
I have no problem believing that I said there are some things I couldn't change my mind on. Many people are born gay. The discussion is regarding what can be shown as a substantial truth in regards to the foundational principles of what is written in Scripture. My heart is and has been completely open to God, which is only for Him to judge in me. I do appreciate your time with this.
David, justopenthebook
Prop 8 and labeling
One of the core tactics of the new liberal agenda is the use of accusatory labeling. As has been mentioned, anyone who supports the biblical view of marriage is automatically labeled a bigot, insensitive, full of hatred, uncaring, etc. It's the same tactic that has been used throughout our country's history, both on the left and right, to use semantics to undercut the other side's views. It doesn't matter if the accusation is "Communist", "Anti-Semitic", "Anti-American", "witch" or any other useless label.
Unfortuantely, those in control of the highest levels of government are now using this labeling as justification for legislating morality to us all. We must remember who the prince of this world is – the Father of lies, the Great Accuser.
It is our duty as Christians to combat evil, wherever it is found. God's call to obey the government is superceded by the First Commandment, to love God above all else. What's missing is the leadership, organization and mobilization of God's people to create real change with the truth.
This should be coming from the church; but unfortunately I think most of the church in this country is more concerned about giving an introduction to Jesus only, or lost in the traditions of their denomination. It will be interesting to see who God uses to fill the void.
Finally, does any of this really surprise us? The moral decline in America is staggering – but at the end of the age, should we really expect anything else?
FisherOfMen1967
Secular Legalism or Spiritual Love?
Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't so much homosexuality as it was the open acceptance of it as perfectly normal. That is where our nation and the world are headed. I truly believe we are becoming more and more like the "days of Noah." As has been stated though, we cannot expect a secular culture to accept a spiritual precept. Judicial activism is, however, overturning the will of the people, but we should still be making our voices heard at the ballot box. As for the people, we should be loving them into the Kingdom that they may open their spiritual eyes to God's standards and turn from moral relativism, not beating them up with legalism.