Tags
Civil Unions, Don Fado, Gay Marriage, General Conference, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, United Methodist
by Matthew Hamilton
(Photo credit cnn.com)
Controversial retired United Methodist minister Donald Fado complained about growing international, especially African, influence on the church in his June 21 sermon What Happened to My Denomination at the United Methodist California-Nevada Annual Conference in Sacramento, California. Fado had for years been the pastor of St. Marks UMC in Sacramento and had gained his controversial reputation primarily by performing same-sex civil unions despite the church’s official disapproval of same-sex relationships and prohibition on same-sex ceremonies.
The sermon was a lamentation for the United Methodist General Conference in May which upheld the biblical position on sexuality and voted that homosexual practice is “incompatible” with Christian teaching. The vote was 61% in favor of upholding sexual standards. But U.S. liberal clergy tried to dilute the church’s teaching with a proposal that would have declared the church in disagreement over sexuality. Supporters of this proposal tried to argue that disapproval of homosexual practice by implication denies God’s grace is for everyone. The proposal was defeated by a vote of 53% in favor and 47% opposed. Reverend Fado laments that “47% of the people say God’s grace is NOT for everyone!”
Reverend Fado then lamented the demographic evolution of the UMC, which is experiencing immense growth outside of the United States in overwhelmingly conservative Africa while most of the more liberal U.S. regions are fast shrinking. Almost 40% of delegates at the General Conference came from outside the U.S. And the evolving demographics mean that it will be virtually impossible for same-sex marriage to ever be officially approved of by the church. Fado laments this reality:
“In the early days, we are told that the missionaries took not only the gospel, but took the American culture and superimposed it on the people in Africa and Asia and around the world. And now it has come around the other way, and now they are coming to the United States and superimposing their cultural values on us.”
Apparently, for Reverend Fado, the debate of homosexuality in Christianity is an issue of “cultural values” rather than Biblical doctrine.
Still speaking of sexuality, Fado quoted Bishop Melvin Talbert, who on the last day of the General Conference proclaimed:
“The derogatory rules and restrictions in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust, and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience. The time has come to join in an act of Biblical obedience. The time has come to act in defiance of unjust words of immoral and derogatory discrimination and laws that are doing harm to our GLBT sisters and brothers.”
“Amen!” Fado added.
Fado then made his case that the Book of Discipline and the authority of the church could be disregarded on this issue. He told the story of how John Wesley needed a priest to send to America but the Bishop of London refused to grant his request. So Wesley went over the bishop’s head, consecrated his own man, and sent him to America. Fado finished the tale saying: “That broke all the rules and laws of the church… That’s our heritage, that’s who we are; we’re Methodists.”
Of course the analogy between Wesley’s appointment of a bishop and condoning homosexuality stops at defying church authority. Church authority is one thing, but defying God’s commandments is completely different. Wesley did not defy God with his insubordination. But the same cannot be said of United Methodist clergy like Fado who want to rewrite God’s laws to condone homosexuality as a practice.
One of Fado’s more absurd arguments that the United Methodist Church should condone homosexuality was that the church needs to counter stereotypes of Christians. Fado says that the stereotype exists that says: “We are low on joy, that we are tired, that we are afraid of things new and strange. It’s a stereotype that’s hard to break through in order to communicate the good news.”
If approving of homosexuality made it easier to communicate the gospel, the U.S. United Methodist Church wouldn’t be shrinking by 100,000 members annually and the conservative African United Methodist Churches who don’t approve of homosexuality wouldn’t be growing by about 200,000 members annually.
It’s shocking that Reverend Fado bemoans the growth of the United Methodist Church outside of the United States because churches in Africa and Asia are almost exclusively conservative and their delegates to the General Conferences will continue to block any liberal attempts to rewrite the UMCs official position of sexuality. One would think growth of the church around the world would be a cause for joy and celebration in the body of Christ. Apparently however, for people like Donald Fado, growth in the body of Christ is only good news if the converts share the liberal vision of social justice and permissive sexuality.
http://vimeo.com/47223269
http://www.theird.org/issues/marriage/episcopal-bishop-promotes-homosexuality-denies-biblical-authority-?erid=1623100&trid=3faebfe3-5c9a-4824-9e74-a53880e9717c
Here is an interesting comment from the author of your one study, Michael…
“This study may not reflect the experience of younger children growing up today in same-sex families, particularly because society has become more accepting of gay and lesbian families in the last decade,” he said in a University of Texas report. “Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents. Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or nonbiological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood.”
source
This study, he says, does NOT support the suggestion that gay folk are bad parents, according to YOUR source. Rather, it is suggesting that growing up in unstable homes or with nonbiological parents tend to pose some risk for children moving into adulthood. What is the answer to this?
Is it reasonable to conclude, therefore, that we ought not allow adoption (non-biological parents)? Or rather, is it a SUPPORT for the notion that we ought to support stable, healthy marriages – gay and straight?
The latter is what I would take away as the most rational, moral conclusion from this flawed study, given what the author of the study says himself.
Michael: Are you prepared to stand against marriages where there are adoptions? Against other marriage situations where POSSIBLY the combination of characteristics might POSSIBLY have negative impacts for POSSIBLE children, POSSIBLY in the future?
That would be a morally and rationally ridiculous position to hold to, and I think you must agree, since you have not stated your opposition to all these other marriage arrangements.
Dan,
Are all polyamorous relationship oppressive? Who is to judge? Some monogamous relationships are oppressive, so do we deny marriage in such cases? If “marriage” is extended to same-sex individuals, then it needs to be extended to any combinations of individuals that express love, faithfulness (to the group), etc. Would not be the caring and just thing to do?. I don’t advocate this, but it is the logical consequence of destroying the age-old definition of marriage.
Please back up your statement that “we” are losing the argument. The Chick-fil-A support last week suggests that there is more support for traditional marriage and the First Amendment than is often expressed. Your “side” of the same-sex issue is vociferous and persistent, as is usual for passionate advocates. The “silent majority,” as it has been called, doesn’t often raise its voice until some egregiously outrageous event occurs such as the politically motivated nonsense spewed by the mayors of Chicago, Boston, and others against Chick-fil-A.
David…
Please back up your statement that “we” are losing the argument.
? I would point to the surveys that I’ve already pointed to: As of this year, surveys show that there is a slight majority that supports marriage equity for gay folk.
I would point to the surveys that show that 2/3 of young people (born after 1981) support marriage equity. You’ve clearly lost the argument amongst young folk and are losing the argument nationally in most age groups (except for the oldest amongst us, who are dying off soon, to be replaced the 2/3 of young folk who support marriage equity, who will in turn be followed by the 9/10 of even younger folk who support marriage equity.
That last figure (9/10) is not something in a survey, just what I would project based upon trends. When I was a young man, there was near universal rejection of the notion of marriage equity. Now it’s half/half, and that, with the younger adults being 2/3 in support of it. The support is trending towards support of marriage equity.
Do you think that this trend is going to somehow reverse? Or is it your suspicion that these many surveys are just wrong and, even though they SAY their scientific surveys find that 2/3 of young adults support marriage equity, they don’t really?
Do you think you’re actually winning the argument, on a national scale? If so, based on what?
Dan, I agree that there is movement toward acceptance of same-sex relationships based on stats. So, the Chick-fil-A phenomenon may be more about the First Amendment, but can we be sure?
Lots of stats show diminishing support for traditions and previously accepted norms. I guess that only future generations will be able to judge outcomes.
In my experience, young people are uncritically idealistic (I was) and ideals of equality, fairness, non-discrimination, etc. are attractive and applied often without attention to issue content.
As I have stated before hardened, ideological positions, tend to be impervious to argument. People select support from wherever they can.
It’s my observation that most people “go with the flow.” So, if same-sex marriage, etc. are “in,” then the un-reflective many will just go along. Really, who would dare to judge another person’s behavior! How un-cool is that!
‘C’est la vie.
David…
Are all polyamorous relationship oppressive? Who is to judge? Some monogamous relationships are oppressive, so do we deny marriage in such cases?
As I have stated several times, it seems to appear to most of us in our nation that polygamous relationships tend to be unhealthy, sick, oppressive. In all the instances of it happening of which I’m aware, it is not usually based upon a healthy status of equality between men and women, but found in oppressive, negatively patriarchal groups where it is the men having multiple women and that only, not the other way around. It often involves the men not only having multiple women (often in the context of a religious environment that denies equal rights to women and where women are in submissive roles – see the Mormon and Muslim sects where this actually happens), but also the men marrying very young girls.
Or, the other instance where one might see this is one in which sexual swinging, or having multiple partners is the goal, not a healthy, committed marriage.
I am aware of no instances of healthy, equal, non-oppressive polgamy, are you?
IF you or someone can make the case that there exists somewhere some groups that are interested in healthy, non-oppressive, free and equal polygamous marriage relationships, I think a sectarian state would have to consider that evidence and, if a reasonable case can be made, would have to consider marriage equity for that group.
As it stands now, I know of no such evidence.
Here are what wikipedia offers as “recent polygamy cases…”
You will note similar language in each instance…
“some “Fundamentalist” polygamists marry women prior to the age of consent, or commit fraud to obtain welfare and other public assistance.”
“Green was also convicted of child rape and criminal non-support.”
“In 2005, the state attorneys-general of Utah and Arizona issued a primer on helping victims of domestic violence and child abuse in polygamous communities. Enforcement of crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence, and fraud were emphasized over the enforcement of anti-polygamy and bigamy laws.”
And so on.
Again, if you think you can make an effective case that polygamy can be good and moral, go for it. I don’t think you are suggesting that.
Dan, you have such a concern for health, etc. Forget that. It’s about equality and love. And. who’s to say that a group can’t love, and act in healthy ways. Your argument seems so unfeeling and unfair.
Well, since I’m striving to base my argument on facts and real world situations, not feelings of unfairness, that doesn’t really concern me.
It is factually discriminating against a group to say that “These people who are not harming anyone else can not get married within their sexual orientation and enjoy the benefits that come therewith, but this OTHER group of people can.”
It is okay to ban harmful, oppressive behavior. It isn’t okay to ban behavior simply based upon religious prejudices.
I assume you have no evidence to support polygamy as healthy? If not, then we can agree on that much.
Religious prejudice? Hmmm.
Contradictory evidence can be found concerning most arguments. So what? How can you ban “marriage” for a group if they can guarantee love, health, non-abuse, etc.? How is that just? Where is the equality? This is what you want. You seem to have little concern for a marriage structure that is based on obvious complementarity of the two sexes. One man, one woman marriage is a unique category, the name of which is not to be confused with other unions. You attack this position as immoral, etc. We shall never agree!
I say, that the state and society have an interest in limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Other union combinations can get it together, if they must, without the involvement of the state or Church, using whatever other term they want–and let God be the judge of their actions.
Dan, are you sure that the young and uncritical care about your logical arguments concerning health and abuse, etc. in polyamorous relationships? To hell with boundaries….Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
To segue….the Aids epidemic might have been mitigated by abstention within the homosexual community. But, no. It was a case of “the pen_is mightier than the word (of God and common sense).” The epidemic might have petered out if logic had prevailed. So much for youth wisdom.
To be clear, lest you’ve missed it in the past, your sum total of biblical argument to support your religious biases are:
1. There are about five places in the Bible that appear to condemn some sort of gay behavior.
2. Therefore, I think God doesn’t like homosexuality at all and I think that God is opposed to all gay behavior.
3. The Bible does not say that anywhere (that is, in ZERO places in the Bible does God argue against homosexuality or all gay behavior), but that is how my religious traditions have traditionally interpreted those passages, so I’m basing my discrimination NOT on what God has said and NOT on what the Bible clearly condemns, but on my religious tradition’s human teachings.
On the other hand, we have the simply obvious observation that two people expressing their sexuality in the context of a healthy, loving, respectful, monogamous, faithful, adult, consensual marriage arrangement IS a loving, healthy way to express their sexuality. Whatsoever things are good, noble, pure, loving… think on these things. Obviously, a healthy marriage is noble, good, pure, loving.
On what RATIONAL bases would we oppose something so obviously good and moral? On what RATIONAL bases would we discriminate against a group like this?
So far, I’m hearing zip from you all in answer to that question – well, except for SOME studies that suggest that MAYBE some gay marriages MIGHT be a less-than-ideal place to raise children, but as noted, there are people who have questioned those studies and beyond that, we don’t ban people from marrying based on the POSSIBILITY that MAYBE they might be less-than-perfect parents.
That argument, specious as it is, is AT BEST, a poor argument against gay folk raising kids, but even there, it’s hardly sound. It is not an argument against encouraging healthy marriages for gay folk as well as straight folk.
Michael, are you going to ban all non-readers from getting married because they might have children and those children might suffer?
Are you going to ban all smokers from getting married because they might have children and those children might suffer?
How consistent are you going to be with your discrimination?
IF you were truly wanting to ban ALL groups who MIGHT not be good parents from even getting married, then at least your position would be slightly rationally consistent, although it would remain morally questionable.
The thing is, you probably aren’t going to push for bans of all POSSIBLE groups who MIGHT be bad parents from marrying because you probably recognize how immoral and unjust and irrational that position would be.
If you can understand that, then perhaps you can understand how this gay discriminatory position comes across as irrational, immoral and unjust.
Dan do you have an argument to make in favor of normalizing homosexual sin? You’ve suggested that you changed your mind for a reason, but you’ve never explained it. Every time someone points out your errors of logic or morality, you respond by saying “No it’s not.”
Negation is not an argument.
Using your logic above how would you deny equal rights to the polyamorous? YOU say that they are harmful/oppressive. Isn’t your position discriminatory, irrational, immoral and unjust? Does your polyamoraphobia excuse your position, or are you hiding from your own latent polyamorous feelings?
Michael…
do you have an argument to make in favor of normalizing homosexual sin? You’ve suggested that you changed your mind for a reason, but you’ve never explained it.
Michael, you’re begging the question. Being gay is NOT a sin. There is no biblical evidence for it. There is no scientific evidence for it. You all are the ones who have a deficit of reasoning on the topic.
Further, all gay behavior is not sinful. There is no biblical evidence to support that (zero). There is no scientific evidence to support it.
If you have ZERO solid evidence to support your position (and that’s the case), and the sum total of your argument is, “Well, my faith tradition has always thought it was bad, and culturally, most of us have thought it’s bad…” and yet, you can’t point to a single bit of evidence to support those cultural/religious biases, on what possible bases would you expect anyone to agree with you?
Tradition has its place, but citing tradition as your sole argument is not a logically sound place to make your stand.
If you want someone to support y’all, and you want to win back the youth and the increasing majority who disagree with your biases, then you will have to present something stronger than, “well, I think it’s so, because my religious biases tell me so…”
Your religious biases are discriminatory, hurtful and immoral, not to mention irrational.
I’m thinking you must agree, since you didn’t answer my questions (which other groups that you THINK MAY be less than perfect parents if they MIGHT have children PERHAPS one day… which other groups are you going to discriminate against?). The reality is, you can’t rationally discriminate against these other groups so you can’t answer that question without pointing out the biases against gay folk.
Dan, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
** “WHY should a state grant benefits to one group of people interested in marriage and not another group? ”
Does the state prefer one group to another? NO. Any person wishing to marry is equally entitled to marry. Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they want to create the legal fiction of “same sex marriage” to indulge in the illusion that they are normal and respectable just like normal couples. If that is allowed, then on what rational basis would we disallow any number or combination of persons/genders from establishing a relationship and calling it “marriage”? The effort to change marriage by definition is really an attempt to destroy it.
** “The truth is, a father and a father, or a mother and a mother can and do raise children (and otherwise contribute to society as a couple) that results in civil stability and the health of a society.”
The best science reaches a different conclusion.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
** “A homosexual orientation is a small, but natural, minority in creation and like heterosexual couples unable to have children (also a small natural minority) pose no credible threat to population.”
While small, homosexuality is not normal. It is an abnormal expression of human sexuality that is inherently dangerous to the homosexuals and society as a whole.
http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html#_edn1
Add to all this the fact that homosexuality is universally condemned in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. For those who are allegedly Christian, it seems an act of hubris to suggest that all believers through all the centuries from creation to today have missed the truth of God for sexual morality – while a miniscule group of “progressives” with a tenuous affection for the Gospel have discovered the real secret that excuses all manner of sexual expression.
SO to sum up: theology, biology, and sociology all agree that Dan is wrong. Sadly, this is unlikely to make a dent in his fanatic fascination with the quest to normalize homosexual sin. But at least we can say conclusively that his view is not based on reason or truth.
Michael…
The effort to change marriage by definition is really an attempt to destroy it.
You have produced no evidence to support such a scurrilous, outrageous statement. I find that to be entirely lacking in credibility and making such a statement makes you (generic “you” – folk who make such statements) found paranoid and untrustworthy. Rationally, people (and increasingly a great majority of our young people) reject such statements as irrational and the people who make them as biased and irrelevant.
I had stated…
The truth is, a father and a father, or a mother and a mother can and do raise children (and otherwise contribute to society as a couple) that results in civil stability and the health of a society.
To which, Michael replied…
The best science reaches a different conclusion.
and you pointed to a website which pointed to a study conducted by a right-wing author and funded in part by an anti-gay organization (Witherspoon Institute). The research has been questioned as being biased and politically-motivated, with flawed methodology, raising questions to its soundness.
As noted in this New Yorker article…
“[This study] purports to show the very harmful effects of having gay and lesbian parents. This would be in contradiction to a whole series of studies in recent years that showed children in those families doing very well. Attacking the methodology of a study whose conclusions you don’t like can be a lazy default reaction. But, in this case, the way it was conducted is so breathtakingly sloppy that it is useful only as an illustration of how you can play fast and loose with statistics…”
It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians. Two hundred and fifty-three people said “yes” to question S7. A hundred and seventy-five said that their mother had had a relationship of some kind. As John Corvino notes at TNR, “Only 42 percent of respondents reported living with a ‘Gay Father’ and his partner for at least four months—and less than 2 percent reported doing so for at least three years.” Less than two per cent of those (two people, three?) said that their whole childhood was spent with their mother and her lesbian partner.”
Flawed studies conducted with a political agenda result in flawed results.
One flawed study hardly qualifies as “the best science…” Your making such a statement actually serves to show…
1. That you who do this type of thing are not looking at actual evidence, but only that which supports your pre-held religious biases.
2. That you’re willing to twist facts and make misleading statements (“bearing false witness”) to support your religious biases.
3. That your statements are, therefore, less than trustworthy, wholesome or truthful.
On the other hand, supporting marriage and encouraging a healthy marriage situation as the place for expressing your God-given sexuality is, on the face of it, moral, wholesome, pure and good.
Again, all of this helps contribute to making you all sound paranoid and irrational and lacking in morals. For this reason, once again, you are losing the argument.
Or, consider this statement you made, Michael…
While small, homosexuality is not normal. It is an abnormal expression of human sexuality that is inherently dangerous to the homosexuals and society as a whole.
1. Homosexuality can be said to be not normative, and that would be just a statement of facts. A homosexual orientation simply is NOT the norm, that is clearly true.
2. But homosexuality normally DOES happen, it happens naturally. It is, by definition then, both normal and natural. To move on to the unsupported and scurrilous statement “it is inherently dangerous to the homoseuxals and society as a whole,” once again, makes you sound paranoid, irrational and as if you’re basing your whole position on religious biases, not the facts as readily seen.
If you can’t answer the question “HOW is two gay people entering into a loving, respectful, adult, consensual, monogamous marriage relationship harmful to them or society…?” then all your blanket assertions just sound irrational and immoral, especially when you start playing fast and loose with real world facts.
For these reasons, you are losing this argument. Until such time as you can stop appearing irrational, immoral and paranoid, I predict you will continue to lose this argument and, increasingly, lose the next generation and the generation after that. Your position will be ignored and bypassed, tossed to the dustbin of history much like anti-miscegenationism and other irrational positions.
David…
By the way, did you see my earlier reply on this thread that spoke of polyamorous relationships?
I’ve answered that question at least once before. I think most people rationally have concluded that polyamorous marriages are not ones that are healthy – that they are harmful/oppressive – and thus, we can rationally oppose harmful/oppressive marriages. Is it the case that you believe that such arrangements aren’t harmful/oppressive?
I would point out again that, taking up this strand of thinking, one can’t make a sound rational argument from a biblical point of view that polygamy is anti-biblical, but we are opposed to it nonetheless. NOT because the Bible condemns it (it doesn’t) but because the vast majority would find such a situation to be based on oppression/manipulation and, therefore, harmful.
If you were truly concerned about “heathy” marriage, you might think about how that relates to same-sex relationships.
I am addressing the principle of rather than the practicality of polyamorous relationships. People in love typically do not consider the ramifications of their actions.
David…
People in love typically do not consider the ramifications of their actions.
I’m unsure of your point, David. People in love certainly do consider the ramifications of their actions. As you may recall the Bible teaches us, “Love does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking… Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
Love certainly does consider the ramifications of the lovers’ actions. They want the best to happen, and are not mindlessly taking actions that might possibly cause harm. This is certainly true of all the healthily-married people I know – gay and straight.
Again, unless you all have something beyond religious superstition to support discrimination, you will continue to lose this argument, because your arguments sound immoral and irrational.
Dan, do you see any difference in a child having a male father and a female mother? I do. Men and women are not the same in rearing roles.
Anymore, divorce, intentional single parenting, unmarried couples living together, etc. essentially carry no stigma. Independent of same-sex “marriage,” this has changed the landscape of what the long held, and I say salutary, view of marriage means. Marriage has become provisional on “how it feels.” Same sex-marriage adds to this diminishing of respect for marriage. The erosion is gradual, and only in retrospect can see the harm done.
Two of my children have been involved in divorce and unmarried living together, so I understand the emotional need to support and love them even when I disagreed with them. In fact, I agreed with the need for the divorce of the one although I don’t agree with the “concept” of divorce. If I had a child that wanted to enter into a same-sex relationship, I would say that I did not agree with it, but that I still loved him (or her) and hoped that he (or she) could be generous enough to accept that love.
I have read papers that conclude that the best family environment for children is one in which there is a mother (f.) and father (m.). The arguments that oppose your position are not immoral or irrational. It has been noted that until recently, Pres. Obama supported marriage as between a man and woman. But his position is obviously only informed by political concerns. His insincerity is immoral. I sense that many in our society are informed by superficial emotion concerning marriage. It means little more than feeling good, and once things get difficult, the commitment of marriage disappears.
By the way, did you see my earlier reply on this thread that spoke of polyamorous relationships? I did not see any reply from anyone. Maybe I missed something.
David…
do you see any difference in a child having a male father and a female mother? I do. Men and women are not the same in rearing roles.
I see a difference between ANY two adults in the world and any other two adults in the world regarding child rearing. Some gay families may not do as good a job raising children as some straight families. Some straight families may not do as good a job as some gay families. There is a world of variation between adults and there is no rational reason to oppose something that is as innately good as a healthy marriage.
More later.
David…
I have read papers that conclude that the best family environment for children is one in which there is a mother (f.) and father (m.). The arguments that oppose your position are not immoral or irrational.
They aren’t only if you will stand opposed to ALL marriages that don’t provide “the best family environment.” So, it can probably be safely said that the best family environment for children is in a home where there is not regular beer drinking happening. Will you suggest then that all beer drinkers should not be allowed to marry? The best family environment is probably one where the parents don’t smoke. Are you going to ban all smokers from marrying? The best family environment is probably one where both parents regularly read. Are you going to ban all non-readers from marrying?
Hopefully you get my point: EVEN IF the studies suggesting the “best” family environments for children involve both male/female parents (and I would suggest these studies are questionable – gay/lesbian homes with children are still a relative minority and there probably has not been sufficient evidence to make such a conclusion), that conclusion (therefore, let’s ban all instances of marriage where there won’t be a “best” environment) is not one that is respectful of either liberty or the opportunity for individuals to prove themselves.
Opposing marriage because POSSIBLY the parents involved are part of a group where POSSIBLY they may not provide the “best” environment for their children (IF they have them) is not a sound rational decision and it infringes on individual liberty, morality and justice. This is why you all are losing the argument – your opposition is based upon prejudice and immoral/unjust/irrational thinking.
David: Do you oppose ALL marriages where there won’t be a “best” environment for children? What about people who don’t even plan to have children? Do you want to ban those people from marrying (gay or straight)?
What in the name of heaven would give you the moral authority to make that call?
Dan, you’ve made this argument before and it seems to me to be a case of category confusion. If you don’t see a categorical difference between having a mother (f) and a father (m) and beer drinking, etc., then there’s little basis for further discussion. You are not going to change your position, and neither am I. It is not a case of losing arguments. Majority opinion is not necessarily correct opinion.
Whether or not religious bodies wish to bless or sanctify—whatever—unions between same-sex couples should be left up to them, and let the main argument against same-sex marriages be a civil concern.
I don’t believe that the state has any compelling interest in extending the title or benefits of heterosexual marriage to same-sex couples. Why should the state be concerned with emotions of love, commitment, etc., whether it is among homosexuals or heterosexuals? Marriage benefits extended by the state, should be to support traditional families in which a father and a mother raise children that results in civil stability, health, and orderly continuation of the population. I reject the argument that some marriages are barren, etc. There are exceptions to most things.
If non-traditional combinations of persons want to love together, have sex together, emote together or just hang out together, let them, but don’t call it marriage and the state has no interest in supporting such arrangements.
The endless religious verbiage that is flung back and forth obviously does not change obdurate minds—on ether side of the argument. Heterosexual marriage, one man and one woman, is the message I get from a common sense reading of Scripture. But, God will be the ultimate judge of human behavior; not you and not me. Join or flee churches as their understanding of God’s will suits or repels you.
Our society is plagued by sexual/relational dysfunction. Single parent families, divorce, pornography, etc. I dare to say that same-sex marriage is part of this destabilizing and society destroying process. And this is NOT hate! I don’t hate divorced people, or single parents, or gays. I admit to abhorring the lack of care that these communities often manifest, and their attempt to normalize dysfunctional behavior. There is a distinction to be made between hate and opposition if one wishes to pay attention.
David…
Marriage benefits extended by the state, should be to support traditional families in which a father and a mother raise children that results in civil stability, health, and orderly continuation of the population.
You are welcome to your opinion, but perhaps you can understand why so many people (an increasing majority) will reject it as an immorally prejudiced position to hold and not one a state/people interested in Justice can support. WHY should a state grant benefits to one group of people interested in marriage and not another group? That is the definition of discrimination and it is immoral. The People, at least in the US, will reject that position. If not in this decade, then almost certainly in the next.
The truth is, a father and a father, or a mother and a mother can and do raise children (and otherwise contribute to society as a couple) that results in civil stability and the health of a society. As to “continuation of the population,” I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there is no shortage of population. A homosexual orientation is a small, but natural, minority in creation and like heterosexual couples unable to have children (also a small natural minority) pose no credible threat to population.
If the state wanted to get out of the marriage business altogether, that might be one just and moral solution, but IF they’re going to be in the business of promoting and giving benefits to married couples, it is immoral discrimination to grant to one group and not another.
David…
I dare to say that same-sex marriage is part of this destabilizing and society destroying process.
How? This is why people are increasingly rejecting your position as immoral and just irrational. HOW? If you can’t say, “A gay married couple hurts/destabilizes marriage because…” and answer that with some rational, non-religiously biased answer (and I have yet to hear the first rational, moral reason offered – not a single one), then people will increasingly just ignore those who appear to be irrational and immoral.
You all are losing this argument for exactly this reason.
“Perfect knowlege”
Is that your mantra? So yes, if you sin through ignorance there is forgiveness. But when the truth is made known there should be repentance.
Hiroshima? That’s an essential of faith for you? Even knowing that the 20,000 who died saved the two million that would have died in a conventional invasion? Interesting how the liberal mind works.
Michael…
“Perfect knowlege” Is that your mantra?
No, grace, sweet grace. That is my mantra. Salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus our Lord. Even our imperfection can’t separate us from the Love and salvation of God.
That’s my mantra. It’s an orthodox Christian mantra, ain’t it?
Michael…
So yes, if you sin through ignorance there is forgiveness.
Agreed, that’s what I’ve been trying to get you all to see if you can agree to or not and, finally, you seem to own that sweet grace of God that orthodox Christianity teaches.
Michael…
But when the truth is made known there should be repentance.
So, who holds the truth? I’ve made “the truth” (ie, the truth as I understand it) known to you. Is your lack of repentance following my presentation of the Truth to you evidence that you’re not saved?
Or, you’ve offered me your opinion of what you think “the truth” is. Should I abandon what I think the truth is to agree with your opinion of the truth simply because you’ve suggested this is what you believe (or what the church has traditionally believed), OR, am I responsible to God to strive to understand God’s will as best I can, even if I disagree with you?
I say, the latter.
Michael…
Hiroshima? That’s an essential of faith for you? Even knowing that the 20,000 who died saved the two million that would have died in a conventional invasion? Interesting how the liberal mind works.
I was making quite the opposite point. Agreeing with me and my tribe on what we think is the obvious sin of Hiroshima-style atrocities – even such an obvious sin – you’re being mistaken about it is not evidence that you’re not saved, just mistaken. Why? Because being correct on all sins is not how we are saved, nor is it evidence that we aren’t sanctified… It’s just evidence that we are human and lacking perfect knowledge. Thankfully, we’re saved by Grace, not perfect knowledge, a point which you appear to begrudingly agree with.
As to “liberal mind,” I personally think my anti-war position is an extremely conservative position. I’m taking Jesus and the Bible’s teaching on peacemaking quite literally. I’m opposed to the sort of non-just wars (in addition to being opposed to wars in general ) – taking a hard-line, small gov’t, strictly Just War – no more – position (at least as a starting point) seems to be in keeping with conservative values. Just not modern conservatism which is more massive gov’t, interfering globally sort of twisting of classic conservatism.
Thanks for sticking with me to work through this conversation, and reaching some semblance of agreement. I still suggest you appear to be lacking faith in God’s grace and lean too much on your own fallible human understanding for my tastes…
Peace.
“If you don’t have an assault weapon, sell something on Ebay and buy one.”
– Jesus, Luke 22:36
Wow, really? Instead of twisting Jesus’ words (or ignoring them) to say something they don’t mean, you’re just making them up now? This helps your argument, how?
It’s a different topic (and I’m sure that’s just your idea of a bad joke, done in poor taste), but when Jesus asked his followers to get swords, they responded, “We have one or two here, Lord…” Jesus said, “that’ll do.” He obviously (and literally textually) was encouraging them to do this for reasons of “fulfillment of Scripture” and not to raise up an armed response.
Silly jokester.
“How wrong can you be and still get in to heaven?” Leviticus clearly teaches that we can sin unintentionally (Chapters 4 & 5), but you are teaching sin with your eyes wide open. The warnings of I Corinthians 5:9-11, Titus 1:6, and 2 Timothy 3:5 come to mind.
Yes, you believe that you are correct, but you are in fact mistaken. Believers are expected to teach what is true and live holy lives, so the question is, how wrong can you be and still be saved? This is God’s call. But at some point, if a person claims to have been saved while they live in rebellion against the Holy Spirit, the church should, legitimately question that claim.
Michael, thanks for the clarification. So do you think we who believe that it is abundantly obvious that bombings (and threats of bombings) such as Hiroshima are clearly, clearly disgustingly sinful should treat those Christians (and they are legion) who support such actions as questionably Christian, or do you think we should accept them as dear brothers and sisters who are tragically mistaken (we think) on this (we think) abundantly obvious point?
If we treated you (“you” conservatives, I don’t know if you personally support Hiroshima like atrocities) like you treat us, we’d be treating you like lepers who are almost certainly not saved. We believe in grace in non-essentials and agreeing with us on Hiroshima-like activities does not rise to the level of “essential.”
Do you think agreeing with you on marriage equity comes anywhere close to rising to the level of an essential of the faith, or are you willing to extend to us the same grace we are willing to extend to you?
Just so I’m clear, to the question:
Can we be mistaken on a view of a sin – support for marriage equity, for instance – and still be saved?
Your answer is:
Yes, possibly, but it’s dangerous to be so far (in what I believe to be) error.
Which sounds like to me rather a wishy washy treatment of grace. It sounds like you’re saying, “Yeah… we’re saved by God’s grace, not by our knowledge… BUT you better not be TOO wrong or you might get clobbered and grace won’t cover you.”
Do you see how you appear to be hedging your bets on grace in favor of damnation if we are TOO mistaken (ie, do you see how you appear to be leaning towards a works-based salvation, while mouthing support for grace)?
While you argue that people can sin with impunity if they have received grace. Scripture calls people to repent and believe. Repentance is a turning from sin. If you live in sin it is evidence that you have not been redeemed. This is not a question of works – it is a matter of sanctification.
Then Michael, are you saying that sanctification means you have perfect knowledge of all sin?
Does that mean you think that you will die, meet God and find out that you were perfectly right on all sin and that you can’t be wrong and that you won’t find out that you were mistaken on some sin behavior?
Consider the implications of such a brash position:
Some half (let’s say) of all Christendom believes that Hiroshima-like massacres are obviously sinful. Some other half believes just the opposite.
Do you think that means that half of all Christendom (the half that was mistaken) is neither saved nor sanctified?
Or consider all the many other potential sin behaviors… smoking, drinking, investments, saying oaths, refusing to give to anyone who asks of you, hoarding, divorce, etc, etc. There is a wolrd of potential sins out there that Christians of good faith simply disagree upon. Are you saying that you and all the sanctified will be perfectly right on all of those potential behaviors, and everyone else is probably not saved?
On what rational or biblical basis would you make such an astounding claim?
Where in the Bible do you find support the amazing notion that saved and sanctified people have received perfect knowledge of all sin behavior?
Keep in mind, I’m not talking about refusing to repent for behaviors that I know are wrong, but simply disagreeing/not thinking that behaviors a, b, c, d, m, and x are sinful and being mistaken.
“Now we see as through a glass, darkly,” my brother.
Nothing against you since I don’t know you, but I simply don’t believe you have attainted perfect knowledge. I know for a fact that I haven’t.
As to the suggestion that I believe we can sin with impugnity, I would just clarify that I think we don’t have perfect knowledge and sometimes sin IN IGNORANCE, but that I would not call that sinning with impugnity, which implies, to me, a deliberate willful choice, which is not my position at all.
Are there principle(s) that would proscribe “marriage” between more than two persons? If so, what are they?
I think this question does relate to same-sex “marriage” justification that seems to be based on love, commitment, justice, equality, etc.
If this is directed to me, I would suggest that I think so. I think marriage between multiple people is almost always (in practice, anyway) almost always one man/multiple women and is the product of negatively patriarchal societies and the women are generally more oppressed/less equal in these relationships. I think there is suitable evidence for harm to oppose it in principle.
We certainly can’t oppose it biblically speaking, though, right? I mean, it is not once condemned, never, in the Bible and there are multiple instances of “men of God” engaging in polygamy, as well as concubinism (which is never condemned). In at least one place (2 Samuel, I believe) we have instances where a literal translation has God “giving” David his multiple wives, and surely God doesn’t “give multiple wives” unless it’s a good thing.
This would be one example of why we are straying from biblical truth and sound exegesis if we treat the Bible as a rule book.
On what basis would you oppose polygamy, David, or would you?
Dan, it was an open question, but I did have you in mind.
I am a layman, and I sense that the participants in this discussion may be clergy or certainly folks who are better informed on Scripture than I. By asking the question, I wanted to move away from religious arguments which seem to have little sway with made up minds.
If your non-religious argument against multiple person “marriages” is based on oppression of females, I would ask you to broaden the question to polyamorous relationships, and I am seeking principles and not just practicality.
I believe that Christian marriage can only be between one man and one woman. But, what about civil “marriage?” What are the principles that could be cited to support or deny civil “poly-marriages?” I think it is not just an academic question, and that if society accepts same-sex “marriages,” based on appeals to love, commitment, etc., then on what basis could it deny “poly-marriages” when participants express the same appeals?
I want to see the whether the logic in secular arguments for same-sex “marriage” holds up in more general cases of the polyamorous sort.
Nothing? No responses?
You all (many, many of you) keep hinting around that you believe that we are saved by grace… AND by holding the “right” position on marriage equity (“right” as is your hunch, not according to God, who hasn’t offered an opinion on marriage as it relates to gay folk). If you truly believe that Grace is not enough, that you also need to hold the “right” position on marriage, then have the courage to state so clearly.
If you will agree with me on the orthodox “saved by grace alone,” and not the heretical, “and by a perfect knowledge on some behaviors,” then state the agreement, even if you disagree with me.
But this silence is unbecoming, friends.
What do you believe?
Sorry Dan, I’ve been working. Let me sum up.
1) We are all saved by grace through faith, not by works.
2) Those who are saved should stop sinning. This includes sexual sin.
3) Homosexuality is sin. Every reference to homosexuality in Scripture is a negative reference. We have few references rather than hundreds, because there was no alternate understanding – the case in Scripture is closed. For further study see the new book, “What’s on God’s Sin List for Today” by Tom Hobson or Robert Gagnon’s book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice”
4) The biblical viewpoint on homosexual sin is in agreement with the secular findings.
*Sociology: Male/Female unions form the basis of all cultures. The pattern is
universal.
*Biology: Animals reproduce either sexually or asexually. For humans, sexual
reproduction is the biological norm.
*Evolution: Clearly there is no evolutionary change generated by homosexuals.
To the extent that genetics precondition one to be homosexual, it is clearly
a recessive gene.
5) On this topic your position is simply wrong. You have affirmed that you might be wrong, and I can assure you that you are in fact wrong. This does not become true only if I am always right about all things. I freely admit that I might not have the correct understanding of supralapsarianism or string theory, but I am absolutely correct in my understanding that all homosexual relations are sin. (No, let’s not quibble about “orientation”)
6) So, in regard to your salvation the question is, “How wrong can you be and still get in to heaven?” Leviticus clearly teaches that we can sin unintentionally (Chapters 4 & 5), but you are teaching sin with your eyes wide open. The warnings of I Corinthians 5:9-11, Titus 1:6, and 2 Timothy 3:5 come to mind.
So in conclusion, you may be saved by grace, you may be on your way to heaven, but you put you soul in jeopardy by believing teaching falsehood in regard to homosexual sin. You should change your mind.
Thank you for the answer, such as it was, Michael. Where you say…
Leviticus clearly teaches that we can sin unintentionally (Chapters 4 & 5), but you are teaching sin with your eyes wide open.
What do you mean by this. The fact is, I truly believe that you are mistaken on your position on marriage equity and believe your behavior to be sinful (not you, personally, but all who hold to a traditional view on this one point). If I am mistaken, it is a mistake I have made honestly believing in my position.
So, could you please clarify:
It sounds like you’re saying that the orthodox view is correct: We are saved by grace and NOT by holding “the right” view on some group of particular behaviors. It sounds now like you’re saying that we can be mistaken on a view of a sin – support for marriage equity, for instance – and still be saved. If so, could you please answer that directly?
I hope you hold to the traditional view on this point.
How about the rest of you? Grace or grace PLUS the right position?
**DO you believe that we must hold perfect knowledge/not be mistaken on any (or some subset of) behavior in order to be saved?
Covered that – saved by grace not works.
**Quote the passage where God says “Homosexuality is sin.” It isn’t in there. God in not one single place calls a homosexual orientation “sinful.”
Really? I suspect you know all the material by now. In every place that homosexuality is mentioned it is always a negative reference. It is never commended, never regarded as normal, good, or holy – never, not once.
Whenever human sexuality is commended, wherever it is regarded as normal, good, or holy it is always a reference to heterosexual unions – always, everywhere.
So what exegetical gymnastics allow you to read what Scripture says and believe what Scripture condemns?
Michael…
Covered that – saved by grace not works.
I’ve very glad that you affirm the traditional Christian gospel message. Then my question remains: Do you then agree that it is NOT necessary to have perfect knowledge in order to be saved?
And, if you can agree with that, can you agree that it’s not necessary to agree with the traditional interpretation/opinion on marriage for gay folk in order to be saved?
That is, can somebody honestly think that marriage is a good, Godly thing and still be saved (and their supposed error does not prevent their salvation, because we are not saved by our knowledge, but by God’s grace)?
The orthodox teaching of Christianity would affirm that we CAN be mistaken about a behavior (sin in ignorance, if you prefer) and still be saved. I’m just concerned that so many of you all seem to attach (or say outright) an “essential to salvation” to that interpretation on that behavior.
Or, if you are affirming salvation by grace AND YET hold that someone can NOT be mistaken on that behavior, how is that not a salvation by works heresy?
Michael…
It isn’t in there. God in not one single place calls a homosexual orientation “sinful.” Really? I suspect you know all the material by now. In every place that homosexuality is mentioned it is always a negative reference.
Hold on, before moving on, can we affirm we’re looking at the same Bible? We agree, do we not, that there is not ONE place where God condemns a homosexual orientation? (because, quite literally, it is not in there)
Can we agree that there is not ONE place where God condemns a healthy marriage relationship between gay folk? (again, not in there).
Yes, I do know the material fairly well, I’ve been reading the Bible for all my life and my parents read it to me before I could read. I’m familiar with the approximately FIVE places in all the Bible that seem to be dealing with SOME FORM of gay behavior.
The question is: What form? Are those five references speaking of ALL gay behavior (up to and including a marriage situation)? OR, is it speaking of (as it appears to me, in context) pagan sex rituals, as happens in the two Leviticus passages and the Romans passage.
I think, clearly, it is not speaking of all gay behavior, just an offensive subset of gay behavior (and pagan sex orgies, to me, are offensive, whether straight or gay). It is begging the question to ask, “Does the Bible condemn all gay behavior?” and respond with, “Yes, here are the passages…” and refer to the same ones I’m looking at.
No one is questioning “Does the Bible contain a line that says, ‘if men lay with men, it’s wrong. Kill them…’” We’re questioning if that is a condemnation of all gay behavior. You think Yes, apparently, I think No.
One of us is most likely wrong, but neither of us can “prove” the other is wrong. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you seriously think marraige equity is sinful and believe that God’s grace covers your egregious error.
Are you wiling to give “us” the same grace?
Michael, I appreciate your response. I was also struck by Dan’s assertion that all of us may or will or can (does it really matter?) be mistaken on issues that we thought were abundantly clear. If that’s the case, where does it end? Are the “essentials of the faith” that Dan cites that I agree with up for negotiation as well? Are we possibly mistaken about these things? Then he follows that he changed his position on the issue of God’s approval of homosexuality because he believed that he was following God’s will. But how can he be sure? He spent his first few paragraphs stressing that we are going to be mistaken on our knowledge of much of what God calls sinful or not yet then makes a pronouncement that he changed his views on homosexuality because he wanted to stop sinning. How could he know? Based on his arguments, it would seem that this could only be known by claiming the “infallibility” that he said you, Michael, were claiming when you made your own statement.
Gabe…
I was also struck by Dan’s assertion that all of us may or will or can (does it really matter?) be mistaken on issues that we thought were abundantly clear. If that’s the case, where does it end?
Is it the case, then Gabe, that YOU believe you CAN NOT be mistaken on any issues, including the ones you think are clear?
If that is your position (any of you) would you just come out and say it rather than beating around the bush? If you think, “Ya know, I’m 100% that I personally can NOT be mistaken on any of my positions on any sinful behavior…” then say so.
I suspect you don’t say so (even though most of you who’ve responded sound like you WANT to say so) because you know on the face of it what an outrageous and unbiblical claim it is. But if you believe it, say it, so we can carry on the discussion.
Gabe, the questions I’m asking (related to what’s happening on this post and others like it) are: Do you think salvation is found in grace alone through faith in Jesus alone AND being correct on some behaviors, as to whether or not they are sinful? Or do you agree with orthodoxy that humans are fallible creatures, capable of being mistaken?
If you have a list of behaviors that someone can’t be mistaken on and still be saved, would you provide that list and support (rational and biblical) for such a position?
Thanks.
As to this…
Then he follows that he changed his position on the issue of God’s approval of homosexuality because he believed that he was following God’s will. But how can he be sure?
I can’t, can I? I’m confident as I can be that this is the correct position, but I’m a fallible human and I am wise enough to humbly admit, “I COULD BE WRONG.”
For now, I see through a glass darkly, but then I shall see perfectly, paraphrasing Paul. I hold no perfect knowledge, nor do I claim to. Perfect knowledge is the domain of God and I’m striving not to make the mistake of claiming to be a god.
Look, I’m not saying that I think it’s difficult. I think there are some truths that are quite obvious and there are a multitude of supports for that. Obviously, killing babies is wrong and sinful, we ought not do that. Our very human (flawed though it may be) conscience tells us that much, and the Bible supports it with truths such as “don’t shed innocent blood.” We ought to love our enemies, that seems abundantly clear to me. We ought not still or kill or rape or maim. For the most part, we all agree on the obvious truths that some might argue are self-evident.
Other truths are less self-evident. Is war acceptable? Killing our enemies whom we’re called to love? WHICH wars are acceptable?
Christians of good faith have disagreed over that difficult issue for millenia. Even though I may think the answer is obvious, I am not so bold or arrogant as to say, “But those who disagree with me are not saved, because you MUST BE RIGHT on that topic to be saved…” because that would be a works-based salvation heresy.
I lean towards grace, even on topics which I think are obvious, because I myself am saved by grace and not my perfect knowledge. Thank God.
Pingback: Mere Links 07.31.12 - Mere Comments
I think it’s about time for liberal Methodists to affirm the bible is the word of God… All of it not just the parts they like. Then read it. Maybe God will open their eyes
Michael…
This is not a disagreement over non-essentials.
Are you actually saying that agreeing with you/the traditional teaching on marriage = an essential Christian doctrine?
On what basis?
Are you familiar with more orthodox considerations of what Christian essentials are?
Even more modern conservative groups (like CARM) would not list “agreeing with the church traditions on how marriage is defined” as an essential. Typically, the list is something like…
1. Sin nature of humanity.
2. Monotheistic God, creator of the world, lover of humanity
3. Jesus, the son of God, who came to earth as a human, lived, preached, died and raised again.
4. Salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus
5. Acceptance of that salvation by repentance and acceptance of Jesus as savior.
Although, sadly, some more modernist movements keep adding and adding to that list.
You’re not adding to that list, “And agree with me on THIS list of sins…,” are you? If so, what is your list of sins about which one can’t be mistaken and on what basis are you creating that list?
Michael, is it the case that you think you are incapable of being mistaken on the sin nature of any action/do you think you have perfect knowledge when it comes to sin?
Michael…
for the Christian, homosexual marriage does involve a rejection of Scripture and God who is the author thereof.
Thank you for the thoughts, Michael. But I can assure you, I do NOT reject Scripture. I love Scripture and believe it to be, “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” as the Bible teaches.
Just because someone disagrees with an interpretation does not mean that they reject the Bible. You, after all, disagree with my interpretation, but I am not making the claim that you are rejecting the Bible or God. “Rejection” implies a deliberate choice.
Rejection: 1. To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of. 2. To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
Holding a different opinion is not the same as rejection.
Those of us Christians who support marriage do so out of a sincere desire to follow God and do the right thing. Can you see what I’m saying there and understand that reality?
Again, you might reasonably say that it is your opinion that we are mistaken, but you can’t reasonably say that you know our hearts and we’re choosing to reject God or the Bible.
And so, given that, do you think that one must be right on the sin nature of every possible sin in the world in order to be saved?
I don’t think you do.
Do you think that one must be right on the sin nature of SOME subset of sins in order to be saved?
If so, which sins and on what basis do you create this category of sins which lead to damnation?
And, how is that not placing a works-based requirement on salvation?
These are the questions I’m striving to get an answer to and hope you all will consider and strive to answer or back pedal a bit and come to agreement with the orthodox view that we are saved by grace, not our perfect knowledge of sin.
“Shall we sin so that grace may abound? By no means.”
You certainly do not need to agree with my opinions. Opinions are like noses – everyone has one. But in this exchange I haven’t offered my opinion – I only wrote what God has said. God defines homosexuality as sin. God defines marriage as male/female. If you disagree with that, take it up with the author of salvation.
Methodists may not be bound by such distinctions, but the Presbyterian Church has this standard: “No opinion can be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level. On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.”
You seem to prefer a world of opinions which lack any particular utility beyond the comfort they bring to the conscience of those who embrace them. I prefer to live according to the standard of the word of God, which is the evidence of grace, and leads to life and truth.
Michael wrote (and others doubtless agree)…
If you disagree with that, take it up with the author of salvation.
This is my point, my brothers and sisters in Christ: We have taken OUR OPINIONS, our interpretations of God’s Word, our hunches about what God does and doesn’t think, and conflated them with God’s Word. “If you disagree with me, well, you disagree with God, take it up with Him…” I hear that same arrogance over and over.
We hold our opinions about God, all of us. None of us have spoken directly with God. God has not told us directly, “Yes, you are understanding that passage correctly…” These are and will remain OUR OPINIONS. Now, we may all think that our opinions are solidly based on what the Bible says (I certainly do), and we may be confident that we’re pretty sure we’re correctly understanding God’s Word (I certainly am), and that is fine.
But when we move from “I’m pretty confident that I’m understanding God’s Word correctly” to “I can’t be mistaken,” or even “My church tradition can’t be mistaken” then we have crossed over a dangerous (for us) line. We have moved from the humility called for in the Bible to arrogance. From recognizing our fallen nature and our need for God, to making ourselves a small god (“If I can’t be mistaken, I reckon that makes me at least a little omniscient, eh?”) and it treads dangerously close to self-idolatry. It is a huge concern and one I think we all should prayerfully consider.
Michael…
But in this exchange I haven’t offered my opinion – I only wrote what God has said. God defines homosexuality as sin.
That hasn’t happened, actually. What there is, are a handful of places with passages that YOU have interpreted as “God defines homosexuality as sin.” Don’t believe me? Quote the passage where God says “Homosexuality is sin.” It isn’t in there. God in not one single place calls a homosexual orientation “sinful.”
Further, God no where in the Bible calls all gay behavior sinful. It simply is not literally in there. You’re reading into the Bible more than what’s there. When you do that, you start to begin to presume to speak for God what God hasn’t said.
What I prefer, my brother, is God’s Will in my life and that is what I’m striving for. I simply disagree with your and the traditional opinions about what is sinful. Will you agree that neither you nor even the church is infallible and that you can be mistaken? If not, are you not concerned about holding on to an arrogant attitude (when we are called biblically to humility)?
Now, instead of graceless and false ad hom attacks, my brother, is there any chance you or SOMEONE here could address my actual questions?
And so, given that, do you think that one must be right on the sin nature of every possible sin in the world in order to be saved?
I don’t think you do.
Do you think that one must be right on the sin nature of SOME subset of sins in order to be saved?
If so, which sins and on what basis do you create this category of sins which lead to damnation?
And, how is that not placing a works-based requirement on salvation?
Please clarify your particular point. What do you mean by the phrase “be right on the sin nature of every possible sin”?
All sin must be forgiven and the life of sin must cease. Yes, grace covers our subsequent sins as well, but the tenor of your question suggests to me that 1) you are looking for permission to continue to indulge in some sins, or 2) you are suggesting that if perfection can’t be achieved there is no point in even a little goodness.
Please read Romans chapter 6 again before you respond. It’s all in the book.
Michael…
Please clarify your particular point. What do you mean by the phrase “be right on the sin nature of every possible sin”?
I’m quite glad to clarify, thanks for asking. Sorry if this is a little long, but I’m trying to be clear, since my short description failed to be clear…
There are an endless spectrum of behaviors in the world. Smoking cigarettes. Smoking marijuana. Driving cars. Speeding. Drunk driving. Marrying a ten year old. Marrying a 16 year old. Marrying someone of the same gender. Polygamy. Polluting… on and on and on, there are all these behaviors in our lives.
God may or may not hold an opinion on all of them, we don’t know (that is, God simply has not told us what God’s opinion is on marijuana, driving cars, or two gay folk living in a marriage relationship). Some of these behaviors we may believe to be clearly sinful. Others we may think are not sinful. Yet others may depend on the circumstances to clarify if they’re sinful or not.
With me so far?
Now, it may be the case that we find out, standing before God one day, that, for instance, using Nuclear weapons (as the US did in Hiroshima) was a clear and horrible sin. Is it your position that all those Christians (saved by grace, through faith in Jesus) who fully supported Hiroshima-like bombing are now lost because they sincerely held a mistaken view of that behavior?
Or, we may find out that being opposed to marriage between gay folk was a sin. Or we may find out that being supportive of marriage between gay folk was a sin.
Or name your behavior.
It is my understanding of the orthodox Christian position of salvation that we are NOT saved by having a perfect knowledge on all sinful behavior. It is my opinion, based on the Bible and upon simple observation of the world around me, that we ARE going to be mistaken on some behaviors. There WILL be/ARE behaviors that I support right now thinking, in good faith and seeking to follow God, that they are moral goods… and I WILL find out that my fallible human opinion was mistaken. It will have been an honest mistake. I begin with the presumption that I can be mistaken even on points I think are abundantly clear.
The same for you: I’m telling you that you WILL find out that you have been mistaken on SOME behaviors – either thinking incorrectly that some behaviors were sinful and they weren’t or thinking some behaviors were not sinful and they were.
This is just part and parcel of the human condition: We don’t have perfect understanding.
We will NOT be “right” on the sin nature of every possible behavior.
Is that something we can agree with, or do you think that you are infallible when it comes to understanding all sinful behavior?
Michael…
All sin must be forgiven and the life of sin must cease.
We DO need forgiveness, and that is why God, by grace, forgives us. We DO need to ask for forgiveness for known sins, but because of our fallible human nature, we won’t know all our sins, and that is where God’s grace covers us.
Agreed?
Yes, grace covers our subsequent sins as well, but the tenor of your question suggests to me that 1) you are looking for permission to continue to indulge in some sins,
No, this is not the case. I think you are mistaken on your “gay marriage” position and, in your error, you are sinning. I’m striving, grace-fully as possible, to get you all to consider this possibility. Why? Exactly because I’m striving to NOT indulge in sin. I’m a straight guy, married for 27 years now. When I changed my position (from the traditional position which I held the first 27-ish years of my life to being supportive of marriage equity), I did not know any gay folk (actually I did, but I didn’t know that I knew any gay folk…), so I wasn’t changing my position for a friend’s sake. I changed my position for one reason alone: I was convinced that the traditional position was mistaken and that by supporting marriage for all folk, I would be more in line with God’s will.
or 2) you are suggesting that if perfection can’t be achieved there is no point in even a little goodness.
You are wildly mistaken on both points. I don’t believe that perfection can be achieved, but I do believe in taking seriously the call to follow in Jesus’ steps. What it sounds like you’re failing to get your mind around is that I actually believe my position to be the most Godly, the most moral, the most biblical one to hold. It’s NOT that I want to make it easier for my gay friends, so I want to say marriage is okay, even though I “know” it isn’t. It’s NOT the case that I don’t think we ought to strive to follow in Christ’s steps. I just truly disagree with you/the traditional position on this issue.
Please read Romans chapter 6 again before you respond. It’s all in the book.
Brother Michael, I’ve been a Christian for nearly 40 years and regularly read the Bible, including Romans 6, thanks. I’m well aware of Paul’s words, “Shall we go on sinning to increase grace? God forbid it!” I’m not talking about continuing in sin. I’m speaking specifically of NOT continuing in sin. I changed my position on marriage equity exactly because I wanted to follow in God’s ways and stop sinning. I am sure now that my old position (opposed to marriage between gay folk) was the wrong, sinful position to hold and have left it behind NOT because I want to indulge in sin, but just the opposite.
Beyond that, the Romans 6 passage does not address the problem of believing that we can’t be mistaken on a sin (ie, a works-based “perfect knowledge” approach to salvation), so I’m looking forward to hearing your clarification/response to my questions.
DO you believe that we must hold perfect knowledge/not be mistaken on any (or some subset of) behavior in order to be saved?
If you think there are some behaviors that we can’t be mistaken on (some behaviors, it’s okay to be mistaken on, but not others), how many behaviors is it that we can’t be mistaken on? What are they? On what basis do you have a list of behaviors that we must hold perfect knowledge of in order to be saved?
Thanks.
This may be the funniest thing I’ve seen on the internet in a while.
I think that such a response points to the subtle superiority complex of the liberal mind. That is the idea that while modern American liberals claim to believe in equality of all people everywhere, their whole philosophy is based on a hierarchical mentality which assumes that their ideas are inherently superior to any other ideas. That is why they engage in ad hominum attacks against any person or group who dares to disagree with them.
Another point is the conflation of Grace and License. God’s love is for everyone who repents and believes, but those who reject Christ are doubly damned, first by willfully sinning in the first place and then second by rejecting the offer of Christ. God is the purest demonstration of a being who while remaining perfectly loving, makes sin clear through the Law and calls on people to repent and make a meaningful life change.
Unfortunately, fools like this Fado start by disregarding the authority of the inerrant infallible Word of God. The validation of homosexuality is just a symptom of a larger spiritual sin regarding the authority of God’s Word. Everything else flows from there.
Indeed the more basic difference between the flourishing United Methodists in Africa and those who misuse John Wesley’s heritage in the US is that one is a Church where the Word of God is honor and respected and held up as the only standard. The other is a social club with no standards at all.
Anonymous “Watchman” said…
God’s love is for everyone who repents and believes, but those who reject Christ are doubly damned, first by willfully sinning in the first place and then second by rejecting the offer of Christ. God is the purest demonstration of a being who while remaining perfectly loving, makes sin clear through the Law and calls on people to repent and make a meaningful life change.
And this gets right to the point of my question. Mr (Ms?) Watchman, you presume in your statement above that we are “willfully sinning” when we support marriage for all people. But we simply are not. We are specifically willfully striving to follow God’s will and we disagree with your interpretation. At the very worst, we are sinning in error.
Do you think those who sin in error are “doubly damned…”? That seems to be placing a heretical salvation-by-our-knowledge anchor around God’s salvation. I don’t even know what you mean by “rejecting the offer of Christ…” who has done this? Do you think that mistakenly and sincerely holding a belief/opinion about a given behavior that turns out to be mistaken is the same as rejecting the offer of Christ?
Do you all at least see how it appears you are dabbling with heresy and graceless-ness?
Also, do you think it wise, gracious and/or loving to refer to a fellow brother in Christ, a poor sinner, saved by grace like you, as a “fool…”? Did not Jesus specifically warn against calling someone a fool?
And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
~Jesus
No one is denied the right to marry now. But Liberals want to create the legal fiction of “homosexual marriage”. Homosexual marriage argues at its heart that fathers and mothers, husbands and wives are not necessary. That all sex based distinctions: social, physical, genetic, hormonal, physiological, are all immaterial. It is an attempt to redefine what it means to be human – and to impose that view on all people everywhere.
And for the Christian, homosexual marriage does involve a rejection of Scripture and God who is the author thereof. God created human beings male and female. God designed the complementary roles of mother/father, husband/wife. Persons who promote the normalization of sexual sin are fundamentally rejecting God’s person, power, plan and purpose to establish their own religious system based on their own personal preference inspired by a fallen human nature.
This is not a disagreement over non-essentials. This is a foundational choice that defines whether one is part of the fellowship of the redeemed or not.
Matthew said…
Church authority is one thing, but defying God’s commandments is completely different.
Respectfully, you’re begging the question, Matthew. I’m confident whom Fado (whom I don’t know from Adam) is absolutely not defying God’s commandments, he just disagrees with your (or his church’s) interpretation of God’s commandments. Those of us who support what seems to be obviously moral (supporting loving respectful adult marriage relationships as a moral good for the community and the healthiest, most moral/righteous place for the expression of our God-given sexuality) do not do so to defy God, but to follow God.
At worst, you can say (as we say about you) that we are (in your opinion, but not according to God directly) mistaken on this non-essential-to-the-faith matter and, in our ignorance, are supporting a wrong ideal.
Could someone please address the issue of disagreement over non-essential matters of behavior? From an orthodox point of view, we are not (not, not, not) saved by our right opinions/interpretations on matters of behavior. Agreed? We are saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus, not through agreement on a denomination on a particular behavior, right?
If someone sincerely thinks that smoking, or engaging in war, or drinking alcohol, sex within marriage (gay or straight), or even something as horrendous as the bombing of a city of civilians (a la Hiroshima) is a moral good, righteous before God’s eyes, they do not lose their salvation because they hold a wrong opinion. If they have been saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, then they are saved. This is the one orthodox teaching on salvation, can I get agreement on that?
Or, failing that, if there are SOME behaviors that you believe to be sinful and you believe that to be mistaken about that behavior is to be NOT saved, then what is that list of behaviors on which you can’t be mistaken and be saved? AND, where do you find any biblical or rational support for that suggestion?
You all seem to treat this disagreement as if it were a disagreement over a Christian essential and, in so doing, you APPEAR to be advocating a heretical view of salvation that is dependent upon our perfect (or perfect on some topics) knowledge. If someone could address this concern, it would be appreciated.
In Christ, Dan
I do know that one needn’t hold a position in order to argue it (debate clubs and societies attest to that), but I wonder if you unfairly present yourself as defending orthodox views of salvation while holding views that are inconsistent with 2,000 years of orthodox Christian thought.
http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2010/01/in-other-words.html?showComment=1264678020729#c7738184641632126017
The appearance of “a heretical view of salvation,” is perhaps of less concern than an actual one.
—-
Belief, as we understand it, and action have always been tied together. Jesus had a bunch to say about that too. (Not all those who say lord, lord…)
I do hold out hope that God’s mercy does cover many sins, but choosing to believe something other than God’s word for us is clearly dangerous.
John…
The appearance of “a heretical view of salvation,” is perhaps of less concern than an actual one.
If that is some suggestion that I hold a heretical view, well, I would just say you’d do best to say so outright and support it rather than making vague and unsupported allegations. I hold to an orthodox, non-heretical view on all Christian essentials, salvation by grace (not works), the sinful nature of humanity, God and Jesus, the risen son of God, repentance and forgiveness, etc, etc.
Your link was to a discussion on one particular view of the Atonement (the Penal Substitutionary Theory of atonement, a theory which developed hundreds and hundreds of years after Jesus’ resurrection/the early church). I would suggest that IF you would like to discuss that with me, that an email might be more appropriate, since it is so far afield from the topic here.
I’d rather discuss ideals than getting into personal charges/ad hom attacks.
John…
I do hold out hope that God’s mercy does cover many sins, but choosing to believe something other than God’s word for us is clearly dangerous.
We have not “chosen to believe something other than God’s word…” we deliberately choose to follow God’s Ways as best we understand them. We just disagree with your interpretation of a few verses on a particular behavior. I’m very glad that you affirm that you “hope” God’s mercy covers many sins, but are you really suggesting that there are some behaviors that we can be sincerely mistaken on and BECAUSE we are mistaken, we can’t/won’t be saved?
If you are saying that, how is that not relying upon our genius rather than God’s grace? How is that not a works-based heresy?
I am trying hard not to be sarcastic here, so I will just ask if racism and paternalism are now accepted isms in the UMC.