Episcopal Bishop Homosexuality is not a Sin

[nbcrusader]

how do you know this? is obedience the only form of love god wants? can obedience ever be love, at least a mature kind of love?

It is repeated throughout Scripture.

"Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands." Deuteronomy 7:9

"But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul." Joshua 22:5

"O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands" Nehemiah 1:5

"I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees." Psalm 119:48

"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands" Daniel 9:4

"If you love me, you will obey what I command." John 14:15 (bonus for red letters!)

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." John 14:21 (more red)

"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love." John 15:10 (red)

"This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." 1 John 5:3-4


Please do not take this as justification for those who self-reighteously point out the flaws of others - they are not following the commands either.

I add this as when we say we want to love God, we should find out what God means by that, not what we feel is the right thing. Fortunately, those are not mutually exclusive.

 

[BVS]

But' Thou shall not be homosexual' isn't a commandment.

Unless man-made laws become God's commandment when repeated enough times...

 

[stammer476]

It is repeated throughout Scripture.

"Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands." Deuteronomy 7:9

"But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul." Joshua 22:5

"O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands" Nehemiah 1:5

"I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees." Psalm 119:48

"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands" Daniel 9:4

"If you love me, you will obey what I command." John 14:15 (bonus for red letters!)

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." John 14:21 (more red)

"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love." John 15:10 (red)

"This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." 1 John 5:3-4


Please do not take this as justification for those who self-reighteously point out the flaws of others - they are not following the commands either.

I add this as when we say we want to love God, we should find out what God means by that, not what we feel is the right thing. Fortunately, those are not mutually exclusive.

You are right. Jesus makes it clear that a major aspect of loving Him to obey His commands. But what the Greatest Commandment teaches is that every other commandment must be filtered through love: primarily for God and secondly for others.

When I study the Gospels, I see that this is what continually made Jesus so upset. The people had no problem following God's commands. They were all about that. But in their following, they lost love, both for God and for others. They were obsessed about obeying commands. But they mistakenly believed that if they followed the rules and did all the right things (cross all our T's and dot all of our I's), they were pleasing God.

Jesus changed all that by teaching that no rule matters if it is not filtered through love. Love, for God and for people, is the highest law. To me, that's what makes the issue of dealing with the homosexual so complicated. How can we follow a rule (homosexuality is a sin) if it so regularly fleshes out in a lack of love? How can we claim to follow Christ when we're putting law above grace? How can we alienate those Christ would never have alienated?

Essentially what I'm asking is: what is the higher command?

(Pardon my ramblings, I'm just talking to myself here.)

 

[nbcrusader]

But' Thou shall not be homosexual' isn't a commandment.

Unless man-made laws become God's commandment when repeated enough times...

Why trivialize the level of thoughtful discussion taking place in these threads on both sides of the issue? Plenty of God's commands have been presented.

 

[BVS]

Why trivialize the level of thoughtful discussion taking place in these threads on both sides of the issue? Plenty of God's commands have been presented.

I'm not trivializing anything. It's just a fact. It's not there.

Not everything in the Bible is God's commandment. Would you agree with this?

 

[Justin24]

I agree with you BVS. Most of it was written by Men in the later years. When I tell this to some of my family or friends they say I am wrong.

 

[nbcrusader]

I take the Bible as God's inerrant Word. I don't separate out what I want to attribute to God and what I want to attribute to man. For unless we attribute all to God, then none of it is trustworthy as coming from a Holy God.

 

[BVS]

I take the Bible as God's inerrant Word. I don't separate out what I want to attribute to God and what I want to attribute to man.

But it's not a matter of what "I want to attribute to God" or not.

 

[nbcrusader]

But it's not a matter of what "I want to attribute to God" or not.

How can it not be? If you want to separate Scripture into God's law and man's law, are you not the one setting the standard?

 

[BVS]

How can it not be? If you want to separate Scripture into God's law and man's law, are you not the one setting the standard?

So if it's all God's law then why is he such a sexist?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Why don't we follow this today? Why aren't women wearing veils in the temple? Why are husbands sleeping in the same bed while their wives are menstrating? Why are they allowed to touch their wives before the 8 days of being unclean after having a son?


Could it possibly be because this was man's idea?

 

[melon]

Melon is someone who seems to love research. But he does not strike me as someone who is really seeking God's will in the matter. (That is only my opinion based on the nature of his posts and nothing else - so I admit before hand - I could be wrong about this).

Quite the assumption, although I'm not all that surprised. For most people, the concepts of faith and reason are as diametrically opposed as fire and ice. However, this was not always the case in religion. The Middle Ages was the height of religious thought, and had a wide diversity of philosophy in Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam. It is from this tradition that I draw my religious convictions, not the myopic essentialism that pervades today's religious landscape.

It's that essentialism that seems to afflict you, and, frankly, it disappoints me that religion is stuck in such a quagmire. It's that essentialism that causes religion to consistently seem irrelevant and what causes religion to seem like nothing but a group of insane extremists.

And, frankly, that's what got us into this protracted argument in the first place. I'm acutely aware that there are liberal Christians, mainline Christians, and conservative/fundmentalist Christians. I recognize that each exist. However, I do not see such equal recognition coming from conservative Christians, particularly when you burst in here and all but declare the Episcopal Church of being guilty of heresy.

Frankly, if you and other conservative Christians don't like how liberal the Episcopal Church has become, then don't be a part of it. Join the myriad of Christian religions that are most contented in being two steps away from being the Christian Taliban. But liberal Christians seem to have few options in the religious scheme of things, short of becoming a lapsed Christian or becoming an embittered agnostic/atheist.

My point from the start of all of this was less about debunking conservative Christian theology as much as acknowledging that there is a solid theological foundation for liberal Christian beliefs, rather than just a flippant argument about how everyone just picks and chooses from the Bible. While I can certainly make plenty of arguments in favor of the latter, even amongst self-professed "fundamentalist Christians," my theology is, instead, based on something much stronger than that.

If you can't understand that, then you can understand why it is so hard to modernize Islamic nations. Conservative Christians, just like conservative Muslims, frankly, can be so stubborn.

And that's why I take offense to what you have written here. You have no right to make such an asinine assumption.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

So if it's all God's law then why is he such a sexist?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Why don't we follow this today? Why aren't women wearing veils in the temple? Why are husbands sleeping in the same bed while their wives are menstrating? Why are they allowed to touch their wives before the 8 days of being unclean after having a son?

Could it possibly be because this was man's idea?

It sounds as if the concepts presented by Scripture are too difficult to follow, or do not match our concepts. The Scripture quoted is not one of the easiest passages to follow, but still must be addressed. Take this as God's and prayerfully consider what it means instead of take it as man's and toss it away.

 

[BVS]

It sounds as if the concepts presented by Scripture are too difficult to follow, or do not match our concepts. The Scripture quoted is not one of the easiest passages to follow, but still must be addressed. Take this as God's and prayerfully consider what it means instead of take it as man's and toss it away.

Well then I guess we should rid ourselves of all our female ministers, priests etc and start changing society to be as sexist as God.

Seems pretty hypocritical of the church not to follow these rules.

 

[Dreadsox]

You are right. Jesus makes it clear that a major aspect of loving Him to obey His commands. But what the Greatest Commandment teaches is that every other commandment must be filtered through love: primarily for God and secondly for others.

When I study the Gospels, I see that this is what continually made Jesus so upset. The people had no problem following God's commands. They were all about that. But in their following, they lost love, both for God and for others. They were obsessed about obeying commands. But they mistakenly believed that if they followed the rules and did all the right things (cross all our T's and dot all of our I's), they were pleasing God.

Jesus changed all that by teaching that no rule matters if it is not filtered through love. Love, for God and for people, is the highest law. To me, that's what makes the issue of dealing with the homosexual so complicated. How can we follow a rule (homosexuality is a sin) if it so regularly fleshes out in a lack of love? How can we claim to follow Christ when we're putting law above grace? How can we alienate those Christ would never have alienated?

Essentially what I'm asking is: what is the higher command?

(Pardon my ramblings, I'm just talking to myself here.)

I love this post.....very much.

 

[stammer476]

I love this post.....very much.

Hey, thanks.

Good to know I'm not the only thinks this way.

 

[Liesje]

Yeah Aaron, that was a great post, not ramblings at all. I think you're saying what I'm thinking and asking the same questions I've been asking.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well then I guess we should rid ourselves of all our female ministers, priests etc and start changing society to be as sexist as God.

Seems pretty hypocritical of the church not to follow these rules.

That makes for a good, snappy response. Is it a genuine analysis for purposes of discussion?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Remove any perceived snappiness from this, and isn't that what essentially remains? The church is rather sexist and otherwise blatant in inequality?

 

[BonosSaint]

I think women will willingly submit to men as teachers once we figure you've got it right. Or maybe not.

 

[nbcrusader]

Remove any perceived snappiness from this, and isn't that what essentially remains? The church is rather sexist and otherwise blatant in inequality?

No, BVS's comment was that God was sexist when he applies his own notions of equality.

 

[BVS]

No, BVS's comment was that God was sexist when he applies his own notions of equality.

No I'm trying to get at why the literalists aren't calling out the church's supposed hypocrisy?

 

[nbcrusader]

By projecting your notion of what "literalists" believe then condemning them. Besides, you did state they were "as sexist as God".

 

[BVS]

By projecting your notion of what "literalists" believe then condemning them. Besides, you did state they were "as sexist as God".

Ok, I may have been harsh but that's because I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I don't understand why somethings are taken very literal and others aren't if EVERYTHING in the Bible is suppose to be taken as God's command. And this is what's not getting answered...

When I look at the Bible literally I see a son that almost contradicts his father.

 

[nbcrusader]

Fair enough - it is not easy territory. The passages you referenced are challenging to absorb and apply. Personally, we have faced our own hardships based on other's interpretations (my wife teaches a bible study).

 

[AEON]

You have no right to make such an asinine assumption.

Melon

You are quite correct and I sincerely apologize. I'm a bit confused by some of your posts, but I had no right to try and guess your motivation. It WAS totally asinine of me.

Please forgive me.

I do look forward to your posts. I have for years. I usually do not agree with them, but they definitely show thought and careful consideration.

 

[maycocksean]

I think it's fair to say that no one but the most fanatical extremists (none of which have posted here as far as I can tell) take everything in the Bible completely literally. EVERYONE picks and chooses. Everyone.

What seperates fundamentalist Christians or literalists from other Christians is our belief that the entire Bible is from God. We believe, as Nbc said, that if some of the Bible is from man and some of the Bible is from God then each individual becomes the arbiter of what is from God and what is from man. For a "literalist" this kind of individual Christianity is not workable.

Now from this point, we may go in different directions. I think we can all agree that Bible is not always easily understood. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Anything worthwhile I believe shoudl be a challenge, should require some effort.

So how does a literalist pick and choose if the "entire Bible is the word of God." Here's how I do it. First off I realize that the Bible is a story (a true one, but a story), not a list of instructions. We should not take everything that Biblical people did as instructions for what we should do. We should not presume that God approved of everything Biblical people did--even those who were his followers. We should not take everything that Biblical people believed about God to represent what is actually true about God. What we see in scripture is that everyone, even the "holy men" are pretty screwed up. Our only image of perfection found in the Bible is in Jesus (and even Him we don't always understand). The Bible is the story of humans struggling to find God, God reaching out to them, humans turning away from Him and reaping the consequences. The Bible presents God as the source of life and love, and apart from Him there is only death and selfishness.

I believe (and I know not all literalists agree with me) that the Bible was inspired by God but written by men. I don't believe as the Muslims do about the Koran, that the Bible is a dictation with God telling the prophets exactly what words to write. (This is why Muslims encourage the faithful to learn Arabic--because they believe the Koran is word-for-word from God, any translation will invariably introduce the human element and compromise it's accuracy). The writers of the Bible used their own words and perspective to express God's ideas.

As a result the Bible was written in the context of a particular time, place, and culture. The Bible did not and could not address issues of technology, knowledge, and culture that were not present at the time it was written. However, the PRINCIPLES of scripture, the message of scripture, the power of scripture to impact our lives is timeless and unchanging. We can use those principles, and the message of scripture today. We can apply them to modern life and our present culture through reasonable, thoughtful, and prayerful application. We must mine Scripture with the Holy Spirit's guidance to discover the underlying principles and apply them properly. We often make mistakes in doing so, especially when a particular pet interpretation can be used to justify wrong behavior.

Finally, I believe that God has shown (and continues to show) an awful lot of patience with us, and He takes us where we are at. A friend of mine believes that the Biblical culture is "God's culture", that God "created" the culture of the Hebrews. I could not disagree with him more. If I were to agree with him I would have to agree that God is sexist. And of course this is not compatible with our bedrock belief as Christians that God is a God of love. The culture of Biblical times was very much a patriarchal culture. Very male dominated. I believe God worked with that, though I do not believe this was His ideal, or His plan. (One of the best evidences we have of this is of Jesus treatment of women, which was far "ahead of his time.") But he worked with people where they were at. Other examples would be the practices of polgyny and slavery which I do not believe God approved of either. But he chose to work with people in the culture and place where they were at.

There are hard scriptures in the Bible--like the one about women being silent in church. We need to try to understand the context, culture, and time in which this was written. Perhaps it was important then. Perhaps it is not so important now. Again we have to look at the "big picture", the larger principle, we have to look at other scriptures that tell us that in Christ there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, but all are equal under Christ. We need to look at scriptures that tell us that husband and wife should submitt to ONE ANOTHER.

And when we find ourselves teaching things from the Bible that lead to hatred, prejudice, and intolerance we need to ask ourselves whether we've really understood scripture correctly.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think it's fair to say that no one but the most fanatical extremists (none of which have posted here as far as I can tell) take everything in the Bible completely literally. EVERYONE picks and chooses. Everyone.

While I agree with much of the substance of your response, the initial summation is with error (though it may need to be to fit into the context of the forum vernacular). First, many have used the term “literalist” as the appropriate label for one who takes Scripture as the authoritative, inerrant Word of God. One cannot take all of Scripture literally because Scripture points out where imagery is used in the forms of parables or prophecy – thus internally directing the reader to not take the passage literally.

Another problem with the pick and choose summation is that it replaces any form of Scriptural analysis for discussion. Say a passage of Scripture (“Passage X”) that was essential for salvation before the Messiah becomes not essential for salvation when salvation came by grace through faith in Christ. This does not mean you have “stopped picking” Passage X. It also does not mean that Passage X can be removed from Scripture.

Some level of exegesis must occur – it cannot be described with a quip like “pick and choose”. So, properly read, one who takes the entire body of Scripture as the authoritative, inerrant Word of God is NOT picking and choosing. Thus, the summation that everyone does so is false.