It is time to embrace the contradiction, the APPARENT contradiction, the two positions that seem to be irreconcilable. On the one hand, the ‘conservative’ church states that the Bible says the practitioners of homosexuality (because it is a choice) are sinful beings and that many bad things should happen to them. On the other hand, the ‘liberal’ church embraces those of God’s children who know themselves to be homosexual and that it is not a choice for them.
In an earlier generation, the battle was not over homosexuality, but over the gender role of women. That is still a line in the sand of orthodoxy for some denominations. It is no longer the battle it once was in the PCUSA, now that we have homosexuality to replace it as the new battle.
But here’s the thing. Is this what Jesus really wants us to take away from Holy Scripture? We’ve had a theology that looks to the Scripture to condemn practices not openly condemned in the pages of the Bible, two being slavery and polygamy. But as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture has followed. What kind of guiding principles of interpretation allow for such a structuring of Biblical theology?
And if we can use the bible to condemn practices that the Biblical literature does not condemn, can we flip the practice? Can we look at practices that the bible appears to condemn but come to the conclusion that these things are really okay and that, as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture will follow?
I think the devil has already won. He has convinced good Christians to oppress and sideline on biblical authority people that Jesus came to liberate. He has convinced good Christians to abandon biblical authority that tells us the very liberation story of Jesus. It is time to poke the devil in the eye.
5 comments:
the Bible says the practitioners of homosexuality (because it is a choice) are sinful beings and that many bad things should happen to them. On the other hand, the ‘liberal’ church embraces those of God’s children who know themselves to be homosexual and that it is not a choice for them.
Speaking as a conservative, I must say that this excerpt seriously misrepresents the conservative position.
The Bible teaches us that we are all sinful and that sin has corrupted all aspects of creation. Sexuality is one of those corrupted areas and there is a wide variety of disordered sexual behaviors. Many of these disordered sexual behaviors feel "natural" and probably most people don't have control over their inclinations. (This is true in other areas of life also - the alcoholic doesn't "choose" to be so, the overeater doesn't "choose" to be so, etc.)
Thus "choice" is irrelevant as to a behavior's moral status.
The Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ came to redeem sinners and restore God's creation. Christians are called to avoid sinful behaviors and instead adhere to the moral precepts of the Bible. The Bible also teaches us that most of us won't be able to avoid all sinful behaviors, and that grace will cover us for that. But that doesn't mean we don't need to try.
The Church must likewise hold to the tension of law and grace. It can neither cast away the law, nor can it cast away the teaching of grace.
Scripture is pretty clear that male and female were created to be complementary and that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's purposes for sexuality. In other words, homosexuality is an example (but certainly not the only one, nor the worst) of sexuality corrupted by sin.
Thus, the "law" which the Church must uphold is that homosexual behavior is a sin and not to be affirmed - regardless of whether someone perceives themselves to be "naturally" homosexually inclined or by choice. The "grace" which the Church must uphold is that the sin of homosexual behavior is one sin amongst many and that Jesus Christ died to save sinners.
To defy either the law or grace implies defying God, and that incurs a consequence. If anyone chooses to defy God, it means that they choose to live apart from God - both in this life and the next, and God will permit that. God doesn't want that, but he will permit that.
Thus as a conservative, I most certainly do NOT want "many bad things" to happen to those people that engage in homosexual behavior. But the Church has no power to supercede God and declare something "good" and "affirmed" which God has declared "not good" and "sinful." As a conservative my desire is to turn everyone towards God and a true understanding of Jesus Christ, and that this will lead to a change of heart and a desire by that person to follow God's moral law, understanding that nobody can do so perfectly.
Part 2a
In addition to what I said earlier, I see a lot more problems with this post. Where to begin?
Let's start with the proposition "Can we look at practices that the bible appears to condemn but come to the conclusion that these things are really okay and that, as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture will follow?"
This strikes me as a bass-ackwards way to do theology - placing us (human folly) in the driver's seat instead of God. It sort of reminds me of the question "Did God really say you must not..."
It seems to me that rather than adopt some sort of legalistic approach to try to create our own morality and then try to fit Scripture around that, we should instead look first to Scripture and ask what its message was and is. You mention four different issues: slavery, polygamy, women's leadership in the church, and homosexual behavior. Let's briefly consider each in turn.
Slavery - I think it is a serious misstatement to claim that Scripture condones slavery, nor that the Church "changed its theology" in the mid-nineteenth century to oppose slavery after supporting it for 1800 years. We need to understand some things first - in the ancient times, slavery was primarily an economic condition, whereas in the 1600s or so, when Africa was first colonized, Europeans began to accept slavery on racial grounds (i.e. slavery and racism went hand in hand). If you look at Scripture, we see in the OT that Israelites could not enslave other Israelites. The Israelites were God's people in the OT and God's people were not to be enslaved. In th NT, everyone became God's people potentially. In the NT slavery is never condoned, but rather is accepted as a social reality. The Bible wasn't meant to be a political justice manual and so it never had a purpose to call for slavery's abolition. The NT clearly does not approve of slavery, as Paul calls on a slave owner to free his slave and accept him as a brother instead. Thus, opposition to slavery is well grounded in Scripture.
Polygamy - The Bible makes it very clear in Genesis, and also affirmed by Jesus, that the norm for sexual relationships is one man and one woman. In the OT, the patriarchs had multiple wives, but polygamy is never actually condoned and advocated in Scripture. In the NT, Jesus not only affirms one man and one woman as God's purpose in marriage, Paul also explicitly establishes monogamy (husband of one wife) as the standard for Christian leadership. Thus, opposition to polygamy is well grounded in Scripture. (con't below)
Part 2b
Women's leadership in the Church - This is the most complex subject of the four. Certainly, the OT reflected a patriarchical societal structure. The ancient world was also very patriarchical, with women viewed as chattel and not even legally competent to be witnesses. Jesus and the early church represented a dramatic shift in this regard, with women performing early leadership roles and being chosen to be the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. This early equality of men and women (which was truly revolutionary in its day) crashed into the existing patriarchical culture producing conflict. We read some NT passages which some interpret to limit women's leadership roles in the church, but with others argue cannot be so interpreted. It is false to say that the Church has had a uniform theology towards women's roles for its first 2000 years. Rather, from early on, women clergy were not permitted, but not based on Scripture, but rather on Tradition (i.e. women could not represent Christ in the Mass, thus only men could be priests). I think it clear that a fair interpretation of Scripture shows the NT making a revolutionary movement towards male-female equality, and I think that a theology based soley on Scripture would permit female clergy (and Catholics do not deny this). The strongest argument against women's leadership in the Church is not Scriptural, but rather mutual respect for Church Tradition.
So let's look quickly at the first three issues and how cultural attitudes have interplayed with Scriptural interpretation. Christianity has done more then any other religion has to abolish human slavery - this was true before 1700 and has been true since. However, when Africa was colonized, it became a cultural attitude that Africans were sub-human. This racist attitude didn't come from the Church, it came from culture, and it permitted a race-based slavery to rise up again. Note also that it was evangelical Christians who shut down the slave trade again. Polygamy has simply been a non-starter for so many years, that it is a dead issue (though I expect that it will soon be legal in Western society given the moves towards same-sex "marriage" coupled with the increased visibility of Muslims and other polygamous friendly cultures). Christianity did a lot to increase women's social standing, but the equality impetus from the earliest Church soon got stalled with the ancient cultural attitudes against women's equality. It was only when this cultural attitude receded that many churches embraced the equality in the Gospel. And if you look at Christianity today - the biggest bulwarks against women clergy (the Roman Catholics) do not base their stand on Biblical theology, but rather on Tradition. Amongst Protestants, there are many conservative groups that are completely open to women's leadership.
Part 2c
Homosexual behavior - as I mentioned above, Scripture makes it very clear that sexuality was created and intended by God for the union between one man and one woman. Now we should note at this point, that homosexuality and bisexuality was widely accepted in the Greek and Roman worlds and thought to be a natural part of male sexuality. There were instances in the ancient world of homosexual couples (e.g.Sacred Bands of Thebes). In this context of cultural acceptance of homosexual behavior, the unanimous testimony of Scripture is against such acceptance. And this rejection is based on the fact that homosexual behavior violates God's plan for sexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is declared to be the result of sin's corruption. So, then cultural attitudes were not receptive to homosexuality for 2000 years until liberal Western culture began to adopt an attitude of radical individual moral autonomy. There is no new knowledge that is driving this - rather cultural attitudes.
Thus, if one looks first to what God is telling us in Scripture, and then placing cultural attitudes UNDER God instead of OVER God, I think that what the Church ought to be teaching in these four areas is pretty clear - regardless of how our cultural attitudes might change in the future.
Part 3
My final concern has to do with your comment "He has convinced good Christians to oppress and sideline on biblical authority people that Jesus came to liberate. He has convinced good Christians to abandon biblical authority that tells us the very liberation story of Jesus."
The obvious question raised by this statement is what Jesus came to liberate us from. In the context you have written, it sounds like you are declaring that Jesus came to liberate us from the law and any standards of behavior. But this is more of a Gnostic theology than a Christian one. Jesus came to liberate us from sin and from the corruption of sin. He came to redeem us and transform us - to give us grace so that we can turn away from sinful behaviors.
If homosexual behavior represents a corruption of sexuality brought about by sin, then surely that is something that Jesus is came to liberate us FROM, not something Jesus came to "liberate" us INTO! In other words, what is the point of Jesus if all that he does is tell us that we are just okay as we are?
When Jesus redeems us from sin, it does not imply that he is condemning anyone. We condemn ourselves. Jesus is here to liberate us from sin and the corruption of sin. He came to bring healing to all areas of creation and all areas of our lives.
It is this area that I see as the fundamental problem with the whole "homosexuality" debate in the Church. It's not really the issue of homosexuality per se, it is the much deeper - though subtle - shift of theology on what Christ has done for us - i.e what is he liberating us FROM? Sin or God?
Post a Comment