Knowing you, you didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. So what do you use to determine what is right and what is wrong within the Scriptures themselves?Originally Posted by Benjamin Burch
Knowing you, you didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. So what do you use to determine what is right and what is wrong within the Scriptures themselves?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Here is the root cause of any issue you would like to adress in the Nazarene or any other conversation among Christians: "I, however, think the Bible is wrong." This is the sum of 6 years of theological training? Thank you for summarizing our problems so succinctly. I personally would rather be an uneducated fool, accept any topic covered by the Bible at face value, and consider the question settled than to be educated enough to make such a staement, in any context or proof text. For me it doesn't matter how Benjamin decides to determine the difference between right and wrong. His arguments no longer have any merit.
This, Dan, is the post traditional theology forum. The question, therefore, is on topic here. Your dismissal, however, is not.
This forum has been created by me with the specific goal to allow for discussions that go beyond the regular borders. In a forum like this, folks who dismiss that very concept, have no business for they have made their ideas irrelevant on this specific forum.
But you can attack Ben's view to your heart's desire at the regular theology forum.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Dan, the Bible also requires men who've raped a woman to marry her, and condones spousal abuse by portraying YHWH as a spouse abuser. To treat the Bible as a transcendent text which is correct at all times, in all ways, on everything it says, is the scariest thing I can possibly imagine.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Apparently Ben you have a right to your opinion in this forum but I don't. Hans and Steve have made that abundantly clear. So I guess you get to state whatever you wish unchallenged.
Nope. However, it can be challenged from different perspectives/angles. If you'd like to critique and challenge it from your angle, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the General Theology Forum. It really is not censorship, it is organization.
Some people don't want to have certain conversations. They want to have different conversations without getting continually bogged down in the same conversations they find undesirable. If you wish to have those conversations, there is a forum for that. You are more than welcome to quote my post and drag it into the other forum, starting a thread, just as Hans did. It's a free forum that way. Feel free to do so.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Ditto to what Ben replied. You are smart enough, Dan. You can do a lot better than write what you did here.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
You you are correct, Hans, I am smart enough. I am smart enough to know when discussion is no longer an option. Even in an open "anything goes" discussion one can cross the line and Ben has done so. It one thing to ask "Is the Bible true, given ...?" and quite another to state, "I believe the Bible is wrong?" The latter leaves no room for discussion. There is a phrase in the medical profession that if I hear it uttered, that person will go no where near my patients, any of them, for any reason. The phrase, is "that patient is better off dead" I hear that, you are fired (de-credentialed if I can do it), period, no discussion, no trial. That is a line that will not be crossed in my area of influence. I don't even care if it was a joke. I will not take that risk. Ben has crossed such a line. I will not risk the care and teaching of those I love to him, even if he was joking.
This discussion might be about religion, but it can in no way be construed as a discusion about a Christian religion, or regarding the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And for that reason; I'm out.
It's actually not even a discussion because you aren't willing to listen. Ben hasn't even had a chance to explain what he means and what led him to say what he said and you're just dismissing him altogether.
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane Claiborne
Well, you have to grant it to Dan, he gives a perfect illustration as to why he should not post on this forum. And I understand, he reached that conclusion for himself as well. That is gain and works much better than having to convince people who don't see it. Dan does, for which I am grateful.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
That's sort of the point, Dan. This forum was created for people to explain and explore various trains of thought and make their own determinations of agreement or disagreement.
I'm interested in hearing Ben's explanation as he has time to give it, interacting with it critically, and delving deeper into the thought process.
Speaking pastorally, the phrase, "the bible is wrong," is problematic for a lot of reasons - the major one deftly illustrated by your reaction here. As with any simple phrase, there is likely a lot behind it. I want to hear and learn what that is before I judge the content of the argument.
This forum exists mainly so those people who will say, "that's wrong, it just is, and I don't see any point in discussing it," don't have to.
Just from the brief comments Ben made, I don't think I could be persuaded to agree with him - but I'm willing to have the conversation and explore why he's said what he said. This is the dedicated space for such a discussion.
...just my $.02.
Yes, the phrase "the bible is wrong" leads far too many people to shut off their ears/brains and start reaching for weapons.
Where the Bible gets something 'wrong', our interpretation has to be nimble enough to focus on the truth of the message and not stumble over the secondary details. Such is the nature of ancient texts. Some things are lost in translation (both language and culture), while other things are just plain lost.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
I love this thread and forum! Thanks for starting it!! I agree with Ben (big surprise).
Hans, I will answer your question sometime tonight or tomorrow. I want to give it the time and attention it deserves.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Ben,
What has led you to see some of these things as "wrong"? Have you come to that conclusion completely on your own, or have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values? For instance, where'd you come up with a position against spousal abuse? Some of us tend to be against it because of higher values the scripture promotes.
And . . . why have you stooped to do what a lot of hair brained posters do herein: call something pretty simple that just isn't? (I readily admit, that though I enjoy your posts most the time, I can't always follow your sarcasm.)
While I promise to answer these questions fully after I am finished with my final paper, allow me to address your final question here.
I will admit that I sometimes do stoop to this, and for that I need to improve, but this is not one of those cases.I apologize for it not being clear. What I meant by "pretty simple" was that I am not going to try and create some twisted, convoluted thing. My position is simple - I think the Bible is wrong.
Does that make sense? Not that my position is "pretty simple" to see that it is correct, just that it is a simple position! I'm sorry for the confusion.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I'm thinking we might do well to elaborate a little more on what we believe about the bible. It seems like the scripture's primary purpose is first to reveal to us the nature and character of God, and that in conjunction with such revelation as accomplished by Christ - both in scriptural and personal relationship. That revelation can also incorporate Wesley's quadrilateral. As we discover the nature and character of God, our interpretation of scripture must be validated by who He is. Admittedly, my argument is rather circular: let scripture reveal to us what God is like, and then validate scripture in light of that revelation.
I think I'd like to continue this after you finish your paper, and I finish grading a stack.
Thank you, Dennis, for your thoughtful questioning. Thank you Hans, for the question itself. Thank you, to any who are willing, for allowing me to talk through/about this.
Dan... start that thread in the General Theology Forum. It might be a good conversation. The avenue is available to you. I invite you to take it.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I agree with the statement you made that led to the creation of this thread. I too would like to hear your rationale. I don't quite have one formulated well enough to express.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Is it possible that the Bible does not speak to every situation we will encounter and that at times God places difficult circumstances in our path so that we will rely on Jesus for the answer? Certainly the Bible is valid for helping us determine if the message we are receiving from Jesus is consistent with what Jesus taught in the Bible. But what is of greater importance? Jesus or the Bible? If the Bible contradicts what Jesus is telling us today and that same message is consistent with who Jesus was in the Bible, do we follow Jesus or the Bible? What if there are others with the same message from Jesus so that the community of believers can confirm the message?
Not suggesting anything on my end just proposing questions that might reflect where Benjamin is coming from. (Of course it will be clearer when he responds.But his statement did cause me to pause and consider.)
I would surmise his educated opinion is the ultimate guide to right and wrong within and without scriptures. Like every post in any forum it is all a matter of opinion.
Person A says, the Bible is authoritative in all matters concerning XYZ, but in error on ABC.
Person B says the Bible is wrong on many points and cannot be trusted in all matters of faith in God.
Person C says, the Bible is divinely inspired and is inerrant, infallible, and contains absolute truth.
Person D says the Bible was written by men. It is not the written Word, Jesus is the Word so lets just follow Jesus.
See, it is all opinions. No Proofs are needed. Besides, they are untrusted by the other post-modern opinions anyway.
Eventually, it will come down to Jesus coming back seperating the sheep from the goats, the pure from the impure, the holy from the corrupted, the deceived from the discerning and prudent, the faithful from the unfaithful, the overcomers from those that shrink back. Until then it is all just opinion and every one is entitled to thier own. We all choose to believe what fills our hearts desire most adequately. But, this is of course just another opinion.
That we do, you , me, them, all of us whether we want to admit it or not.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
We are all post-modern and post-tradition. It comes with living in the 21st century. Some just go kicking and screaming being reactive to the changes and dealing with the fallout while others light the bombs.
Glad you agree with me. But, I am wondering why Hans and Todd thanked you for agreeing with me....but not me for pointing out....what you agreed with me on.
Because Paul agreed with a portion of your post, not the whole post. I agreed with Paul's statement about your post, but not your post itself. I would think that this would be self evident.We are all post-modern and post-tradition. It comes with living in the 21st century. Some just go kicking and screaming being reactive to the changes and dealing with the fallout while others light the bombs.
Glad you agree with me. But, I am wondering why Hans and Todd thanked you for agreeing with me....but not me for pointing out....what you agreed with me on.
If that were true, this forum could be closed.
But there are still many who, with a very modern mindset, try to place everything in systems. Who keep pushing statements to logical absurdities, because they cannot deal with paradoxes. Thereby showing they still think very modern indeed.
Till they have become post modern, there is still a need for this forum.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
wrong
[rawng, rong] Show IPA
adjective
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
I would say that Ben does believe the Bible is wrong based on the above definitions of wrong.
He may even have some more definitions of the word wrong to add to the above.
It seems to boil down to the idea that if we take the book in total and if that is the case then Ben sayng it is wrong would be a true statement. If the opposite is the Bible is without error, does not deviate from the truth or is not wrong in facts, is always correct in opinion, action, method, and judgment, is always proper and in accordance with recommended practices, is never out of order, awry or amiss. If we are left with a perfect Bible, flawless in word and translation, or saying it is wrong.....then Ben chooses wrong over perfect.
Perhaps I am wrong but if that is the case then many would actually agree with Ben....more or less.
Flawed or perfect......in all ways? or...
Flawed or perfect in all things necessary to salvation?
Am I on the right track here or the wrong track?
Drumroll please............................................ .................................................. ......................
I probably could have stated this differently/better. I do believe that the Bible errs and that those specific voices which explicitly condemn homosexual behavior and would extend this condemnation to cover even monogamous homosexual relationships are wrong in their condemnation.
That is a better, clearer articulation of my position.
As such, Dennis did a nice job of hearing what I was attempting to say, and translating for me:
Dennis has also started by setting a primer for what I would say, as he asks this question:
To which I would want to clearly answer, "Yes, that is what I have done/attempted to do."have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values?
There are plenty of things in the Bible - usually in the Old Testament, though sometimes in the New - that we simply don't follow, and we have understood them to be products of culture from which we can move.
The sexual and marital ethic of the Bible as a whole simply is not a healthy one.
There is always this image to illustrate this point. It's a little over the top, sure, but it illustrates the point well. The Bible is a culturally conditioned document in which marriage is understood in an acutely cultural way.
Another problem is the way that the marriage image is used outside of such explicit discussions on marriage, where the metaphor is used by the prophets. These specific texts (Hosea 2, Jeremiah 13, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23) are extremely hurtful and harmful in their portrayal of marriage. The husband is justified in using violence, rape, and even murder as means for punishing the wife for her infidelity.
We would - and should - have no problem condemning this picture of marriage today. And while we might want to say that the prophets were using real goings on (the awful realities of the Babylonian siege) and speaking accurately about YHWH bringing judgment on Israel for sin. That is fair. However, a metaphor works because there is fertile ground in which for it to make sense, and this image of marriage is endorsed by the use of the metaphor, as well as the portrayal of the righteous YHWH as the violent husband who uses these means as punishment for the unfaithful wife.
If one needs grounds on which to say this is bad, I'd simply point to the revelation of Christ as a whole, as well as John 8 and the woman caught in adultery. I realize that this is a contested passage which some conservative-minded people who don't like the implication would like to remove, but that is now what the Scriptures.
"Scripture" is not a term which refers to some pristine, original texts written by some authors, but instead to the final, accepted, canonical shape in which the Church has declared them to be Scripture. Thus, I accept John 8 as Scripture and see it as standing in direct contradiction to images placed before.
.................................................. .................................................. ........................
**contextual side-note**
(What I say here will help you understand everything else that gets said)
In every Christian Liturgy that I know of, the Gospel reading is set at the climax of the Liturgy of the Word and it is accompanied by words, actions, and symbols which all proclaim an exalted status for the Gospels. These are the texts which reveal Christ to us most directly, and Christ is the one who reveals the father (John 14:9), and it is these words which are the "words of life" (John 6:68).
It is only in light of this that the other texts of Scripture - most notably the OT - can be understood as also revealing Christ. I take this seriously, and the Gospels take priority in my Scriptural hermeneutic.
.................................................. .................................................. ..........................
I also believe that the Bible provides us with a hermeneutic which challenges previous things and reinterprets itself in new places, new times, new contexts.
Now, I warn you in advance, you're getting a very quick run-by of work/thoughts that have been a year in the making, and will be over a year in writing eventually to articulate fully (and probably over 50 pages).
I accept Walter Brueggemann's portrayal of Deuteronomy as not simply a retelling of the Law, but as a reinterpretation of the Law. Instead of the law coming from Sinai, it is given from the edge of the land. A different time. A different place.
It is positioned at the end of the Torah, suggesting that the re-interpretive task taken on by Moses in the "Second Law" is an open-ended task which the people of God must take up and continue.
From here, I would suggest that Matthew attempts to portray Jesus as the fulfillment and continuation of this exact task. Jesus reinterprets the Law for the people from atop the mountain, in a new place, in a new context. Not only does Jesus do this, but OT concepts of marriage are among the items which Jesus challenges and reinterprets and they are also the only topic which was important enough that Jesus in Matthew revisits this reninterpretation later (Matthew 19).
That should be a good start for now. Another post coming, but I want to break it up for people and organize it a little bit.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking posts. I agree with your assertion that scripture (or maybe more correctly scriptural writers) often reinterprets, or just plain does away with other scripture. Specifically the NT certain reinterprets the OT. "You have heard it said, but I say..."
However, that actually raises a number of questions that I have not seen you addressing that are absolutely crucial to you argument. Questions like, "why does the NT reinterpret the OT." Was it simply that the cultures became more "sophisticated" or "enlightened" or had the paradigm fundamentally changed in light of the incarnation of Messiah? If the former then your argument might have some weight to sustain it, but if the latter then there is little reason to suppose that re-interpretive work continues past the writing of the text. Interpretive work yes, re-interpretive work, not so much. There's a lot more percolating in my brain but I need to sleep now, and maybe the thoughts will solidify.
Good question and not so easy to answer on solid facts. I don't think culture becomes more sophisticated or enlightened. I'm frankly not that much of an optimist. It does change, however, and sins once considered "mortal", no longer are and vice versa. Even current cultures are different. Whereas Europeans are generally more critical of movies showing violence, Americans are more critical of movies showing nudity, for instance. The other day I even got a "You Europeans........"
To presume that cultural influences are irrelevant to our interpretation of the Scriptures is a rather unlikely idea to me.
That something fundamentally changed in the light of the incarnation of the Messiah is most certainly true.
So my initial reply would be: both.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Foundational to my argument is that Deuteronomy, within the Torah itself, is already reinterpreting. Therefore, it is not simply an OT/NT thing, instead, the NT continues an already begun re-interpretive task. Secondly, the nature of Deuteronomy's re-interpretive task is that it takes place on a new mountain, at a new place, in a new time. Thus, it is context which necessitates it.
FWIW, I hate the term "enlightened." Folks 2,000 years ago were not idiots, and we suddenly didn't become smarter. The same humanity, with the same brains, has used those brains to learn and acquire knowledge for 2,000 years, changing the paradigms of thought based through what we know that we didn't, and couldn't have known before.
Sometimes those changes are good, sometimes they're bad. We're still as idiotic as we ever were, we just know a few more things because of time. Thus, now we use new knowledge to be idiotic with.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Ok, so where in that concept is the mandate (or perhaps the word is permission) for the continuation of that re-interpretation after the establishment of the canon?
Agreed!
You'll have to give me time if I am to answer this well. I'll get back to it. This is, of course, why I need to write a monograph on it, due to the fact that in three posts I could never have handled all of the necessary points.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
To summarize and organize a bit from my previous post, I offer the following points before I move on.
(1) We already freely reject certain concepts of the Biblical sexual and marital ethic before this conversation starts
(2) The Bible offers a hermeneutic of continual re-interpretation in contexts - new times and new places - and calls the people of God into that re-interpretive task
(3) The Biblical marital and sexual ethic is a topic which is open to reinterpretation and which the Bible re-interprets, re-thinks, and even rejects in part as a part of its reinterpretation.
(4) The revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospels should stand at the center of our re-interpretive hermeneutics, as the lens through which we view all other Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the New Testament's re-interpretive practice, the ethical codes of the Old Testament are reinterpreted by both Jesus and Paul, and a summary of their reinterpretation is offered as such:
For both Paul and Jesus, to love one's neighbor is to fulfill the entire law. The specifics of the law seem to disappear, and Paul's entire ministry as well as letters seem to suggest exactly this. While those who are transformed and righteous fulfill the law, they do so by truly loving one another - not by following specifics.
In case there was actually any doubt about the fact that this statement by Jesus was meant to challenge and reinterpret the Law in a new time, new place, new context, Luke dispels that doubt immediately with the following:
This is the basis of all discussion of sin, and therefore the question must be asked - and the ground to ask this question has been opened by by considerations 1-4.
(a)Does homosexual marriage, in a monogamous relationship analogous to heterosexual marriage, break the law of loving one's neighbor as one's self? No.
(b) Does it break the law of loving God? Only if we say they are disobeying God.
However, I do not believe you can say they are disobeying God because all of God's ethical commands regulating relationships between people exist to ensure [a]. Also, the grounds for questioning whether this is really against God's commands has already been laid by 1-4.
From here, one more point needs to be considered: Natural design.
The Church often resorts to this as its go-to reasoning for why homosexuality is sinful. It violates the "natural order" which God intended. However, this fails on 2 different points.
(1) We do not use this reasoning for any other sin. Homosexuality is the only sin for which we use this reasoning. Therefore, this is suspect at best.
(2) God did not, in fact, design heterosexuality into the way the world was created.
- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.
Therefore, monogamous homosexual marriage does not appear to violate the great command by which Christians determine sinful and righteous behavior and "natural design" as a fall-back reasoning is faulty, ultimately failing on both of its central claims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The later epistles continue this re-interpretive task specifically in regards to the marital and sexual ethic.
Both 1 Timothy 3 and Ephesians 5 present a different model of marriage, whereby polygamy which was once considered acceptable by all of the Bible's religious patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, David), is now rejected and considered unacceptable for every class of religious patriarch in the Church, Bishops and Deacons.
I will let you all catch up, and start another post where I do a little more organizing and summarizing before continuing. I'm not confident in how clear and coherent I have been to this point.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
The natural design argument is one that I find particularly compelling. If a certain lifestyle or behavior results in the destruction and shorten lifespan of another, then I have to consider whether or not the actions and behavior that brought that reality about are loving. I think there is enough medical opinion to make this a valid concern. I will say it again, men engaging in sexual acts with other men are simply abusing their bodies. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Yes, heterosexual acts of physical intimacy can be unhealthy too. Not making excuses. But men and women are designed for each other. More later.
I would point you to my critique of this idea here.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
This is where we'd find some disagreement. I don't disagree with these statements, necessarily, but I do think you're making a logical leap here that may be unwarranted. I'm not sure we can say that natural design and God's intention is the same thing. Sin does have an effect on creation (the more I study evolutionary theory the more I'm wondering if a natural bent towards selfishness wasn't around long before human beings) and God allows those effects and works with/through/around them.
I read Genesis as saying God's intentions for humanity was to be paired as male and female - there is an intentional splitting of humanity into two distinct groups. Try as I might to see how those could be arbitrary, I just don't see the biblical evidence.
At the same time, there is a lot in our world that doesn't come out as God intended. Genetic mutations and failures of all kinds permeate creation - many in ways that are obviously outside the kind of world God makes (at least in our historical and biblical understanding of God).
For me (and I don't have the time or desire to go through all the steps to get here, but I imagine you can follow well enough) the question of homosexual marriage comes down to whether or not a loving, monogamous, committed relationship between people of the same gender can represent the relationships between God and God's people in the same way a heterosexual marriage can.
There's plenty of good rationale to answer yes and no; I can respect those communities who truly wrestle with the issue and come down on either side. I don't think either is wrong - at least from an interpretive standpoint.
That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.
Personally, and I'm not sure how this would work out in a denominational setting (there would be some terrible awkward logistics), but it seems like every potential marriage should be examined, tested, and either approved or disapproved by the local congregation based on their best and most faithful understanding of scripture - no matter which two people come to seek such approval (heterosexual or otherwise). Likewise a couple should be respectful of the loving and caring decisions of the faith community to which they belong.
...just my $.02.
I too am happy to be part of a denomination that has taken the stand it has taken. That is one of many reasons I am part of the COTN and in the case of homosexuality I think they are more right than those who have determined it either isn't scripturally forbidden or that scripture got it wrong.
Loving God . . . Loving others.
Wow Ben!
This is very interesting and thought provoking. I was a bit taken back by the original wording and this post is helping see your point. It is always interesting how we pick and chose which laws are cultural and which are universal. It is especial harsh to look at the Law and see how a young woman who is raped is stoned for not crying out for someone to hear. Where do we draw the line?
My Friends Call Me Stew!
Good post Ben. At the end of the day it does not persuade me but you put forward a strong arguement and demonstrate the value of this forum. Listening.
Thank you
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
You'll have to read the 3rd post to get the full thing!
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
