sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) (03/05/91)
Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 28-Feb-91 Re: Imposing
Christian mora.. Dan'l DanehyOakes@pacbel (1538)
> Christ also expects us not to judge one another.
While I agree with this general statement, I that an important caveat
is that we don't fall into a degenerated state, where we are afraid to
condemn *actions* which are sinful.
While we should not judge individuals, it is necessary to judge actions
and behaviors.
Along this vein of homosexuality & Christianity, I read in the paper
this morning that a special commitee of the Presbyterian Church has
announced that it fully supports the ordination of homosexuals to the
priesthood. In the article, the commitee stated that condemnation of
homosexuality was morally equivalent to "racism", and is thus
antithetical to Christian morality.
The commitee also failed to issue a denunciation of extra-marital sex.
Are any Presbyterians out there familiar with this special commitee?
How representative is this opinion of the denomination as a whole, and
how much influence will it have?
It seems like the content of "Christian Morality" is being _editted_ to
conform to current ideals of Political Correctness.
Does anyone else notice the trend towards PC-Christianity?
Are we looking at a change so fundamental, that it will dwarf the
Protestant Reformation in terms of alterations to the beliefs and
behavior of the faithful?
Stephen Chan
[This was the General Assembly Special Taskforce on Human Sexuality.
A number of its recommendations are uncontroversial, and will probably
be acted on rather quickly. However its recommendations on
homosexuality (and some other issues) will probably not be voted on
directly. Rather, I believe the plan is to prepare study material and
have churches study the issues broadly, and then see if a concensus
can be developed. Based on reactions in our Presbytery, which is
surely one of the most liberal in the country, I'd be very surprised
to see a decision at the national level to sanction homosexual
activity (though I could conceive of a change that again allows
presbyteries to decide based on their evaluation of individual cases
-- which is almost certainly what is happening anyway).
I am not convinced that a simple change in attitude towards
nhomosexuals -- even if it happened -- would be the major change in
beliefs that you imply. Note that the Presbyterian Church (USA)
already approves (indeed requires) ordination of women. This means we
have already decided that we cannot read ethics directly out of Paul's
fletters. Given that, I have to regard the objections to
homosexuality within the PC(USA) as being based to a large extent on
personal distaste rather than Biblical grounds.
However some of the langauge used by the committee as justification
for its recommendations might have wider consequences. I quote from
the News of the Presbyterian Church (USA): "The term 'justice-love'
permeates the report. A section of the report on singles says: 'Where
there is justice-love, sexual expression has ethical integrity. That
moral principle applies to single, as well as to married persons, to
gay, lesbian and bisexual persons, as well as to heterosexual persons.
The moral norm for Christians ought not to be marriage, but rather
justice-love. Rather than inquiring whether sexual activity is
premarital, marital, or post-marital, we should be asking whether the
relation is responsible, the dynamics genuinely mutual, and the loving
full of joyful caing. The line of moral inquiry directs people to
things that matter.'"
Whether or not this is an error, saying it is giving in to "political
correctness" seems to me simply name-calling. There are cultural
pressures in all directions. There's a tendency in conservative
circles these days to make "the family" a sacred value that sometimes
seems to come close to replacing God. There are idols of all kinds
calling to the unwary. I think we should do our fellow Christians the
courtesy of believing that they are actually considering things from a
Biblical point of view, rather than explaining away all disagreement
on the assumption that everyone else is giving into cultural
influences pointing in their direction, while we of course are
operating from pure Christian motivations.
I should note that there was a minority report. The vote was 10 to 6
for the majority. While the committee refused to pass on the minority
report to the General Assembly, it's clearly going to get there
anyway. Both are being distributed by the G.A. offices to interested
parties.
--clh]hammer@sp29.csrd.uiuc.edu (David Hammerslag) (03/07/91)
In article <Mar.4.23.58.13.1991.28690@athos.rutgers.edu>, sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: > It seems like the content of "Christian Morality" is being _editted_ to >conform to current ideals of Political Correctness. > Does anyone else notice the trend towards PC-Christianity? > Are we looking at a change so fundamental, that it will dwarf the >Protestant Reformation in terms of alterations to the beliefs and >behavior of the faithful? Whether it is "Political Correctness" or not, what disturbed me the most was that the committee, after (correctly) observing that society's norms are not in line with Church teaching, seemed to decide that it was the Church that needed adjustment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Hammerslag | Keep an open mind, but not so open that people hammer@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu | throw garbage in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) (03/07/91)
In article <Mar.4.23.58.13.1991.28690@athos.rutgers.edu> sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: > >> Christ also expects us not to judge one another. > > While I agree with this general statement, I that an important caveat >is that we don't fall into a degenerated state, where we are afraid to >condemn *actions* which are sinful. > While we should not judge individuals, it is necessary to judge actions >and behaviors. To which the moderator writes in regards to the recommendation by a comittee of the Presbyterian Church to allow homosexuals to be ordained as pastors: >... I think we should do our fellow Christians the >courtesy of believing that they are actually considering things from a >Biblical point of view, rather than explaining away all disagreement >on the assumption that everyone else is giving into cultural >influences pointing in their direction, while we of course are >operating from pure Christian motivations. Maybe the PC(USA) had good intentions, but I find it hard to swallow considering this passage from I Corinthians: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit the kingdom of God." (Chapter 6, vv. 9-10, NIV) If the leadership of the Presbyterian Church feels that Paul's letters aren't adequate for spiritual insight perhaps they should publish their own Bible and leave out the parts they don't like. -- Arthur Miller | art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Northwestern University | "Evolution: A few links & a missing chain." Class of 1991 | -- Dave Eastman [It's not a matter ofa wanting things left out, but believing that what makes sense in one context may not make sense in another. This does not mean ignoring Paul's advice, but rather watching how he applied the Gospel to issues of his time and attempting to do something similar for ours. This does not mean that I agree with the committee's report. I haven't read it, and the summary I saw contains some disturbing things. But as moderator I attempt to advise people on what lines of discussion are likely to be fruitful, and I can tell you that basing discussions with Presbyterians on the assumption that they simply throw things out when they find them inconvenient is not going to go anywhere, because that's not what they are doing. There are certainly reasonable objections that can be made to the way the PC(USA) (and other similar groups) handle Scripture. But if you're seriously trying to engage them in discussion -- as opposed to coming up with ways to justify ignoring them -- I think it would be useful to start with a bit more understanding of what they think they are doing. By the way, this is just a special case of a more general problem in this group. There seems to be a tendency to package people up in little boxes with labels like "idolatry", or "polytheist", and then not to bother trying to understand what they are really doing. That's not to say that you will agree with what they are doing. But I'd like to suggest that people start by trying to get a clear understanding of where others are coming from. --clh]
dconnor@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Daren Connor) (03/08/91)
I occasionally attend a Presbyterian church here in the San Francisco bay area, and last Sunday the head minister set aside a few minutes to mention this subject. His main points were that a) since the report did not represent the majority views of Presbyterians (as evidenced by a recent poll), this motion (or declaration or whatever it is exactly) is very unlikely to pass, and b) in the unexpected event that it did pass, he assured the congregation that it would be ignored at THIS particular church (presumeably because it did not represent the majority views there). He also promised a couple sermons addressing the issues in the future. Apparently several members had mentioned the report to him and were concerned that the church might be affected by its passing. He seemed to want to assure them that they would stick to their Biblically-based doctrine and not cave in to the pressures of this group. I take issue with the moderator's remarks in the basenote. Paul's writings in the new testament are not the only portions of scripture that condemn sexual immorality and homosexuality, so by saying that the Presbyterian church threw out his teaching on womens' role in the church means they should accept homosexual practices is banal (not to mention the fact that many people don't agree that what he teaches there means that women may not have such a role in church in the first place). Though "political correctness" may not be quite the right term, I don't believe it's far off. I think what we're seeing, in general, is a lot of pressures on churches to bend to the man's selfish wants, which are constantly inflamed by the media. How much of the time do we have shoved down our throats the message that "sex-is-ok-if-you-really-love-the-person"? You are almost ridiculed in many social circles if you hold those "antiquated views" about wanting to reserve your sexuality for the boundaries of marriage, even though we have examples all around us (unwanted pregnancies, AIDS, etc) of the consequences of not following this teaching. Of course, this is not to say that marriage is any panacea; I think we're all aware by now of the incredible struggles there are in any marriage. So even though "pc" may be ill-fitting, it's probably the closest term we've got so far. - Daren Connor [Sorry if I said something unclear. I was not attempting to give an argument for acceptance of homosexuality. In fact I believe one can formulate grounds for accepting ordination of women and while still not accepting ordination of homosexuals. My response was to the claim that acceptance of homosexuals would have great and farreaching effects on the PC(USA). My comments were intended strictly to inform people about the detailed situation within the PC(USA), which I believe is such that allowing ordination of homosexuals would not be the revolution in that church that it would be, e.g., if the Southern Baptist Convention adopted such a change. First, as to any theological implications: As far as I can tell, the primary difference in Protestant churches today is in how they use Scripture. In deciding to ordain women, the PC(USA) has already crossed the line. Thus I don't believe ordination of homosexuals alone would indicate any change in the basic attitude towards Scripture that hasn't already been made. I do not mean to imply that the current stand forces us to ordain homosexuals, just that if we decide to ordain them, we already have at hand the necessary types of arguments, and so we will not need to make majors changes in our approach to Scripture to do so. Second, as to any practical effects: The current stand on homosexuals is murkier than many may realize, and officially accepting them for ordination may not be as much of a change as it sounds. In the Presbyterian system, decisions on ordination of pastors lie primarily with the presbyteries, and decisions on ordination of ruling elders lie primarily with the session. Higher bodies can intervene if they wish, but it's unusual. Under the current policy, those presbyteries or sessions that do not see it as a problem are unlikely to raise the issue with candidates, except in extreme circumstances. As far as I know, the current policy, while stating that ordination of homosexuals is not correct, does not allow one to challenge someone who is already ordained on the grounds that he is a homosexual. (I seem to recall a "no witch-hunts" provision.) It also includes language saying that we oppose "homophobia". If the policy changes, it's unlikely that it will change far enough to force presbyteries or sessions to ordain homosexuals if they don't want to. It will more likely simply allow them to make decisions based on their assessment of the individual, which I suspect is what is happening anyway. Finally, any effect on broader questions of sexual ethics would depend strongly on the arguments used and what other changes on sexual issues are "packaged" with any change in approach to homosexuals. As I commented originally, if all of the analysis in the report is accepted (and if the summary I've seen is representative of the whole document) that *would* be a major change. However if we wanted to allow ordination of homosexuals without making any other changes in sexual ethics, we would simply rescind the current policy, and say that we trust the individual church bodies to apply proper Biblical criteria for choosing officers. Then those who already believe homosexuality is acceptable -- and there certainly are such within our church -- would proceed and those who don't wouldn't. Again, these comments are not intended to advocate one result or the other, just to try to clarify the current situation within the PC(USA). --clh]
djohnson@ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) (03/09/91)
>Maybe the PC(USA) had good intentions, but I find it hard to swallow >considering this passage from I Corinthians: > >"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? >Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor >adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit >the kingdom of God." (Chapter 6, vv. 9-10, NIV) > >If the leadership of the Presbyterian Church feels that Paul's letters >aren't adequate for spiritual insight perhaps they should publish their >own Bible and leave out the parts they don't like. But then again, a list of other people who won't inherit the kingdom of God: The rich (no bizarre explanations of miniature camels and WD-40 please), the tax collectors, the modern form of the pharisee, those who dishonor their parents. If you have not yet fit into this list, how about the liars, those who bear grudges, those who are not meek, etc. In other words, all have sinned, and none shall inherit the kingdom of God. Pretty harsh? Well, there's another verse that says through Jesus Christ all things are possible - so even though we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it will be made possible. As a side note, I find it irksome at times that MANY people just love prioritizing sin, making some "worse" than others. This just isn't the case. A hateful word spoken to another separates one from God just as far as being sexually immoral. There are probably some people who, while refusing a homosexual from entering their church (or state), applaud a dishonest politician for being "Christian" because they vote the correct way. And I'm sure one can find recent examples of churches which ensure that no homosexual is ordained, yet fail to screen against the "lesser" sins. -- Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu - Political correctness is Turing undecidable.
mib@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.8.01.27.13.1991.25012@athos.rutgers.edu> OFM writes:
Second, as to any practical effects: The current stand on homosexuals
is murkier than many may realize, and officially accepting them for
ordination may not be as much of a change as it sounds. ...
... If the policy changes, it's unlikely that it
will change far enough to force presbyteries or sessions to ordain
homosexuals if they don't want to. It will more likely simply allow
them to make decisions based on their assessment of the individual,
which I suspect is what is happening anyway.
My personal experience may inject some light here, as well. The
moderators comments here are quite correct. In my old congregation, I
was considered for selection as an elder, and when I brought up the
subject of homosexuality with the relevant individuals, they indicated
it would be no bar. I was ultimately not ordained because I was
moving out of state.
In the only case I'm personally familiar with of the ordination of a
minister, the presbytery adopted a "wait and see" attitude, pending
the receipt of the committes reports. It seemed quite clear, however,
that if the General Assembly reinforced a ban on gay ordination, the
presbytery would seriously consider challenging that ban and ordaining
anyway.
My current congregation is federated between the United Church of
Christ and the PCUSA. The UCC permits gay ordination, and the PCUSA
(sort of) doesn't. Our church simply ordains whoever it sees fit, and
if a challenge is raised (which no one seriously expects) we will
point out that non-discrimination is virtually required by the UCC.
-mibmls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.7.03.52.17.1991.21909@athos.rutgers.edu>, art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) writes: > Maybe the PC(USA) had good intentions, but I find it hard to swallow > considering this passage from I Corinthians: I don't want to start yet another round through the texts. But I think Mr. Miller should understand that matters are not quite as cut and dried as he seems to think. While I will usually argue that we may use English translations for theological discussion, this is NOT such a case, because the original Greek is, in fact, obscure to the point of incomprehensibility. The translators who obligingly give you a "clear" and generic anti-homosexual "message" in this passage (and the same is true, in essence, of the others) are doing no more than providing what they THINK Paul meant. That really amounts to nothing more than the continual regeneration of *cultural* pre- judice. It is, indeed *possible* to draw the conclusion "homosexuality is sinful" out of the texts of Paul's letters. It is also possible, to look honestly and prayerfully at these same passages and conclude, "no, that is NOT what Paul was getting at." Or at least that the matter is one in which WE are called to discern the correct path for ourselves, with allowance for our fellow Christians who are "convinced in their own minds" on this issue. There is NO clear and indisputable condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testatment (and the context of condemnations in the OT is also not really clear, in particular it is not clear whether Jewish law on this should be taken *by Christians* [I can in no way speak for Jews, for whom this putative distinction is irrelevant] as "moral" or perhaps rather as "ritual" law.) Again, I do NOT want to rehash the texts here again. Rather, I am seconding the request by the moderator that Mr. Miller protested: > >... I think we should do our fellow Christians the > >courtesy of believing that they are actually considering things from a > >Biblical point of view, -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!attunix!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) (03/11/91)
In article <Mar.8.01.27.13.1991.25012@athos.rutgers.edu> dconnor@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Daren Connor) writes: >Though "political correctness" may not be quite the right term, I don't >believe it's far off. I think what we're seeing, in general, is a lot of >pressures on churches to bend to the man's selfish wants, which are constantly >inflamed by the media. How much of the time do we have shoved down our throats >the message that "sex-is-ok-if-you-really-love-the-person"? You are almost >ridiculed in many social circles if you hold those "antiquated views" about >wanting to reserve your sexuality for the boundaries of marriage, even >though we have examples all around us (unwanted pregnancies, AIDS, etc) of >the consequences of not following this teaching. Of course, this is not to >say that marriage is any panacea; I think we're all aware by now of the >incredible struggles there are in any marriage. So even though "pc" may >be ill-fitting, it's probably the closest term we've got so far. > >- Daren Connor 1) Unwanted pregnancies and AIDS do occur within the boundaries of marriage. (I cannot say anything about "etc".) 2) Unwanted pregnancies and AIDS can effectively be avoided even outside the boundaries of marriage. (Again, "etc" is a mystery to me.) Clearly, if your goal is to teach how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and AIDS, reserve-your-sexuality-for-the-boundaries-of-marriage is the wrong lesson. How many times must I have shoved down my throat the message that "AIDS-is- a-punishment-from-God"? Daren, are you also suggesting that blood transfusions are sinful? This is unchristian, bad theology, and dangerous health policy. I'd rather be "pc" any day.
george@electro.com (George Reimer) (03/12/91)
In article <Mar.9.01.11.32.1991.23246@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > >...... in particular it is not clear whether Jewish law on this should be >taken *by Christians* I felt a need to clarify this point. The Old Testament laws were not given to the Jews, but rather to the Israelites. Persons who take on the faith of Christ are of the seed of Abraham, grafted on so to speak. Those who respond now to God's calling are promised rulership as kings and priests, thus becoming spiritual Jews. In other words, a unique part of the whole. ( ie. All Californians are Americans, but not all Americans are Californians. The laws of America apply to all Americans, Californians, landed immigrants etc. etc. ) Therefore, on the contrary, it quite clear that God's laws are to be taken by His own. -- "I almost think that in certain cases yes, and in others, no....." George egroeG Reimer remieR
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/12/91)
In <Mar.11.02.37.20.1991.5423@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: >1) Unwanted pregnancies and AIDS do occur within the boundaries of marriage. >(I cannot say anything about "etc".) >2) Unwanted pregnancies and AIDS can effectively be avoided even outside the >boundaries of marriage. (Again, "etc" is a mystery to me.) >Clearly, if your goal is to teach how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and AIDS, >reserve-your-sexuality-for-the-boundaries-of-marriage is the wrong lesson. So you have figures to show that AIDS and un-wanted pregnancies are more likely within Christian marriage than amongst those practicing "safe" sex? If not, you cannot say that this message is wrong, only that you don't want to hear it, that you prefer to hear other messages. >How many times must I have shoved down my throat the message that "AIDS-is- >a-punishment-from-God"? It is not a punishment from God. However the prevalence of AIDS is caused by the unwillingness of people to accept the world as God made it. If you stand near an unstable cliff to see the beautiful view, then it is not a punishment from God if the cliff collapses. It is your own doing, don't blame God for making the beautiful cliff. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about. [Let's step back and start this discussion again -- if you really want to continue it. Alexander's basic comments seemed reasonable: Christians need to be careful about using unwanted pregnancies and AIDS as arguments for Christians sexual ethics. The dangers of these arguments are (1) are these really our justifications? If there's a better way to get rid of AIDS, will we give up our sexual ethics and pursue this way? (2) they can easily lead to an incorrect impression of judgement. While I understand that you don't think God is specifically imposing AIDS as a punishment, this is an impression that Christians have given, and we need to be careful in our presentations to avoid it. On the other hand, I do understand that you intended a somewhat more subtle point than "AIDS-as-a-punishment-from-God." I think it's fine for Christians to point out that Christian ethics do have practical advantages, in that we can identify some dangers that they protect us from. As long as we don't give the impression that that's all they are. Perhaps you can each count to 10 before responding. --clh]
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (03/13/91)
In article <Mar.8.22.43.57.1991.20087@athos.rutgers.edu>, djohnson@ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes: >>Maybe the PC(USA) had good intentions, but I find it hard to swallow >>considering this passage from I Corinthians: >> >>"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit >>the kingdom of God." (Chapter 6, vv. 9-10, NIV) > > But then again, a list of other people who won't inherit the kingdom > of God: The rich,[deltions] the tax collectors, the modern form of the > pharisee, those who dishonor their parents.[deletions] In other words, all > have sinned, and none shall inherit the kingdom of God. Pretty harsh? > Well, there's another verse that says through Jesus Christ all things are > possible - so even though we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it will be > made possible. I don't deny that I am a sinner. I would think that very few of those who oppose ordination of homosexuals feel otherwise. It is by God's grace alone that we are saved. > As a side note, I find it irksome at times that MANY people just love > prioritizing sin, making some "worse" than others. This just isn't > the case. A hateful word spoken to another separates one from God > just as far as being sexually immoral. There are probably some people > who, while refusing a homosexual from entering their church (or state), > applaud a dishonest politician for being "Christian" because they vote > the correct way. And I'm sure one can find recent examples of > churches which ensure that no homosexual is ordained, yet fail to > screen against the "lesser" sins. > -- To a certain point, I agree with this. But the real question is, can we ordain people to the public ministry, who admit their homosexuality and deny that this is sinful? At the very least they are guilty of preaching false doctrine, which would be enough, in my opinion, to justify excommunicating them. I can see where we might ordain a man who admits to homosexuality, confesses that this is sin, and in whom we see evidence of repentance. On the other hand, one would not have to think too hard to find a number of reasons why this would not be advisable. "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to much wine, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgement as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap." --1 Timothy 3:2-7 Generally this passage is regarded as listing the Scriptural qualifications for a pastor. I don't read it as saying that a pastor has to be married, although it certainly speaks against requiring pastors or priests to be celibate. It does say that he must be 'respectable', and of a 'good reputation with outsiders'. I don't see how a christian church can preach what Scripture says about homosexuality, and ordain a homosexual. How can the church regard such a man as 'respectable' and 'having a good reputation with outsiders'? The church that refuses to ordain unrepentant homosexuals is not saying that homosexuality is a worse sin than some others (speeding, for example). It is simply saying that homosexuality is sin and to ordain an admitted, unrepentant homosexual is very poor Christian witness. In fact such ordination disgraces the church. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran and a former Presbyterian. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [In retrospect, I think it's probably a bad idea for those who favor ordination of homosexuals to use the argument that one particular sin is being discriminated against. Generally those who favor ordination of homosexuals do not believe that homosexuality is a sin at all. From the point of view of someone who does believe it is a sin, the unusual thing about ordaining homosexuals is precisely that typically they do not acknowledge it to be a sin. You might ordain an alcoholic, depending upon details of his personal situation. But you probably would not ordain someone who taught that alcoholism is an acceptable Christian lifestyle. This raises interesting issues about the relative importance of practicing and preaching, but I think one could justify this stand. --clh]
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/13/91)
Moderator: >While I understand that you don't think God is >specifically imposing AIDS as a punishment, this is an impression that >Christians have given, and we need to be careful in our presentations >to avoid it. How are we to watch the pain in our brothers and sisters, and resist telling them that it is because they will not look at the world that God has created? >On the other hand, I do understand that you intended a somewhat >more subtle point than "AIDS-as-a-punishment-from-God." I think >it's fine for Christians to point out that Christian ethics do >have practical advantages, in that we can identify some dangers >that they protect us from. As long as we don't give the impression >that that's all they are. Actually I don't know what else our morals are if they do not give a practical advantage. Are they just terrible disciplines imposed on us by a mean God who hates to see people have fun? Morals direct us to where true happiness may be found in a world which was created by God according to His Will. If we find better ways we should and do change our ethics. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about. [You ask how we are to watch pain in our brothers and sisters without telling them it's because they blew it. I think once people have AIDS it's a little late to tell them about the advantages of monogamy. That sounds like a more appropriate message for other contexts. In working with people who are suffering, I think we need to be very careful to avoid saying things that might reasonably look like (or be) gloating. --clh]
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/13/91)
In <Mar.12.04.19.10.1991.1697@athos.rutgers.edu> george@electro.com (George Reimer) writes: >Therefore, on the contrary, it quite clear that God's laws are to be >taken by His own. Must Christians be circumcised? May they eat pork? Must they shun those with skin disease? . . . . -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/14/91)
Moderator: >[You ask how we are to watch pain in our brothers and sisters without >telling them it's because they blew it. I think once people have AIDS >it's a little late to tell them about the advantages of monogamy. >That sounds like a more appropriate message for other contexts. In >working with people who are suffering, I think we need to be very >careful to avoid saying things that might reasonably look like (or be) >gloating. --clh] Well put. It seems that others are focusing more on the subject of AIDS than I am. The pain I was referring to was the pain involved in the lifestyle they lead, not in any resulting disease. Being in Australia AIDS tends toward the abstract for me, whilst the miseries of multiple dating, drugs, drunk driving and other unwise lifestyles abound. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/18/91)
In article <Mar.14.04.13.31.1991.25553@athos.rutgers.edu> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
Well put. It seems that others are focusing more on the subject of AIDS
than I am. The pain I was referring to was the pain involved in the
lifestyle they lead, not in any resulting disease. Being in Australia
AIDS tends toward the abstract for me, whilst the miseries of multiple
dating, drugs, drunk driving and other unwise lifestyles abound.
Now this is getting ridiculous. Let's say it again. Being gay, and
having gay sex, is not directly related to multiple dating at all.
How drugs and drunk driving got into it is completely beyond me.
And, if the assumption is that being gay is inherently unhappy, or
disappointing, it certainly isn't any worse than being a woman in our
society. It's roughly on a par with being a member of any oppressed
group. It's got its own problems, and its own joys. But it is simply
a factual error (and one which causes lots of grief on its own) to
claim that being gay is inherently unhappy.
-mibdyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (03/19/91)
In article <Mar.14.04.13.31.1991.25553@athos.rutgers.edu> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >The pain I was referring to was the pain involved in the >lifestyle they lead, not in any resulting disease. Being in Australia >AIDS tends toward the abstract for me, whilst the miseries of multiple >dating, drugs, drunk driving and other unwise lifestyles abound. The lifestyles WHO lead? You know, I don't know what you think most gay people spend their time doing, but I'll bet it resembles everyone else's pretty closely. Also, there's probably a lot more AIDS in Australia than there are people who suffer from "the miseries of multiple dating". -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu [The current discussion has not been a full-scale presentation of the issues, because none of those favoring Christian acceptance of homosexaulity has chosen to present their case in any detailed way. Their contributions have been restricted to rather limited responsesn, such as this one. I can't say that I blame them. Eventually one gets tired of saying that same things over and over again, and this issue has been discussed many times in the past. But I've always read their proposals as calling for a homosexual equivalent of marriage. That is, they seemed to be calling for Christians to broaden their concept of acceptable sexual relationships, but not to drop all standards of sexual conduct. I get the feeling that some of those on the other side are envisioned a "gay lifestyle" based on news reports of gay sex clubs. Discussion is going to be hard if people have radically different things in mind when they talk about homosexual activity. It's clear that the likelihood of getting AIDS is very different under the two models. --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/19/91)
OFM writes... >[In retrospect, I think it's probably a bad idea for those who favor >ordination of homosexuals to use the argument that one particular sin >is being discriminated against. Generally those who favor ordination >of homosexuals do not believe that homosexuality is a sin at all. >From the point of view of someone who does believe it is a sin, the >unusual thing about ordaining homosexuals is precisely that typically >they do not acknowledge it to be a sin. You might ordain an >alcoholic, depending upon details of his personal situation. But you >probably would not ordain someone who taught that alcoholism is an >acceptable Christian lifestyle. This raises interesting issues about >the relative importance of practicing and preaching, but I think one >could justify this stand. --clh] I happen to be fond of Bacon-Double-Cheeseburgers. Even though I can find good reason in the Bible why this may be a sin, and it has been shown to be a health risk, I persist, and I am unrepentant, worst of all I am proud and boastful in that (respectively, I don't believe that God will damn me for this and I'm telling all of you about it.) Now, should I (on the basis that I am arguable an unrepentant sinner) be denied ordination? Should I be required to refrain from eating BDC's as a condition of ordination? Should I be forbidden to mention my belief that I won't go to hell for eating BDC's? Should I tolerate the serving of BDC's at church functions? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (03/20/91)
Someone wrote:
> As a side note, I find it irksome at times that MANY people just love
> prioritizing sin, making some "worse" than others. This just isn't
> the case. A hateful word spoken to another separates one from God
> just as far as being sexually immoral. There are probably some people
> who, while refusing a homosexual from entering their church (or state),
> applaud a dishonest politician for being "Christian" because they vote
> the correct way. And I'm sure one can find recent examples of
> churches which ensure that no homosexual is ordained, yet fail to
> screen against the "lesser" sins.
I think the distinction of sins is *precisely* the issue with
homosexuality, and something that so many seem to be confused on. Some
sins, not completely repented of, deserve Hell, and some do not. All
sins deserve punishment, but some deserve eternal punishment, others
only temporal.
There are plenty of people who deny this. Fortunately, they are
inconsistent in their beliefs, and follow their consciences, not their
theology.
Everyone understands that there are just some things that one does NOT
do. Striking one's father, murdering someone, grand theft, or
frequenting houses of prostitution are things that a follower of Christ
does NOT do.
People may SAY that these things are equivalent to, say, making a sharp
remark to someone when provoked in a high pressure situation, but in
reality, they don't ACT that way. Some sins have to be completely cut
out of one's life all at once, others are of a lesser sort that need to
be worked on over time.
Homosexual thoughts, words, or actions CANNOT be engaged in, if one
wishes to enter the kingdom of Heaven. They're sins of the grave kind,
like murder, large theft.credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (03/22/91)
In article <Mar.20.04.08.41.1991.9698@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com presents an argument that amounts to "I think some sins matter more than others, so God thinks so too." For instance: >Some >sins, not completely repented of, deserve Hell, and some do not. All >sins deserve punishment, but some deserve eternal punishment, others >only temporal. >There are plenty of people who deny this. Well, maybe I'm one of them. It depends on what you mean by "deserve". We all deserve far worse than we get -- if I were to say that according to Christian theology we all deserve hell, could you really disagree? >Everyone understands that there are just some things that one does NOT >do. Striking one's father, murdering someone, grand theft, or >frequenting houses of prostitution are things that a follower of Christ >does NOT do. Does not do? Or just should not do? >People may SAY that these things are equivalent to, say, making a sharp >remark to someone when provoked in a high pressure situation, but in >reality, they don't ACT that way. Some sins have to be completely cut >out of one's life all at once, others are of a lesser sort that need to >be worked on over time. Because the former are more serious when committed once? Or because they are easier to eradicate? Personally I have no trouble cutting out murder. None at all. Come to think of it, I haven't been to any houses of prostitution lately, either. But I really don't think it's because I consider those offences "more serious", so much as because the temptation is so much rarer. If I *did* feel the frequent temptation to visit brothels, and gave in to it occasionally, would that rule me out as a follower of Christ? Or would it just point to the moral weakness where I need to concentrate my effort, while you concentrate yours on your bad temper? >Homosexual thoughts, words, or actions CANNOT be engaged in, if one >wishes to enter the kingdom of Heaven. They're sins of the grave kind, >like murder, large theft. Says you. Somebody who is less lazy (now that's REALLY where I need to concentrate my moral effort ;-]) please post the relevant Bible verses. You know -- the ones where Jesus says that the serious sins are those inside the heart; calling one's brother a fool; looking at a woman as a piece of meat instead of a fellow-human, a friend; little weaknesses like that. CAR
pdj7631@rigel.tamu.edu (JONES, PAUL DAVID) (03/22/91)
In article <Mar.20.04.08.41.1991.9698@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes... > >Homosexual thoughts, words, or actions CANNOT be engaged in, if one >wishes to enter the kingdom of Heaven. They're sins of the grave kind, >like murder, large theft. I find it interesting that you see having "homosexual thoughts" as being on the same moral plane as murder. By your standards then, I'm as sinful (assuming the truth of this relative sin scale, bad to worse; I know the bit about "all are sinners", but that's not what I'm talking about) as, oh, Charles Manson. I think that this is simply silly. If you're going to assign variable values to sins, you might at least be remotely reasonable about it. ______ \ / Illithid (Paul D. Jones) Texas A&M, especially the Corps \ / PDJ7631@venus.tamu.edu of Cadets, stands staunchly behind \/ @rigel.tamu.edu each and every one of my opinions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Generally statements such as this are made in the context of the idea that even the most "minor" sin merits hell if not covered by Christ's death, and even the "worst" sin is wiped away by it. Thus in some sense they are all the same. The concern about distinguishing between sins is that it leads people to make excuses: "Oh, well, this isn't a really *serious* sin, not like that terrible thing that guy over there is doing." Of course from a practical point of view some sins have immediate consequences that are far worse than others. There seems to be a disagreement as to whether this fact is of any significance for Christianity. The Catholic tradition has tended to have well-developed systems for the nurture of souls. As part of this it has distinguished among sins, on the assumption that the amount of damage done to the person is different and different spiritual remedies are called for. Protestants have tended to eschew this sort of systematic discipline, and encourage everyone to throw themselves on the mercy of Christ, independent of what they have done. Under that approach, it's not clear what is accomplished by distinguishing among seriousness of sins. We are encouraged to realize that the careless word against our brother comes from the same corruption that under other circumstances could result in murder. Though certainly as a matter of "civil righteousness" we understand that the visible consequences of murder are more serious. --clh]
jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) (03/22/91)
In article <Mar.20.04.08.41.1991.9698@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Homosexual thoughts, words, or actions CANNOT be engaged in, if one >wishes to enter the kingdom of Heaven. They're sins of the grave kind, >like murder, large theft. I would like to see evidence to back this rather idolatrous claim up. I fear that you are coming very close to passing relative judgement and thus are perilously near to usurping God's authority in adjucating sin. I am not saying you have the right to rank sins relative to one another. Everyone has the right to one's own opinion in this regard, but to boldly claim that a certain sin absolutely and irrevocably leads to an other's damnation is contrary to Christ's teachings. -Jeff Fields
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (03/25/91)
In article <Mar.20.04.08.41.1991.9698@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Homosexual thoughts, ... CANNOT be engaged in, if one >wishes to enter the kingdom of Heaven. They're sins of the grave kind, >like murder, large theft. Other people have dealt with this more substantively; I wish merely to point out that this is *not* Roman Catholic teaching. (Catholic teaching is pretty well summed-up as the assertion that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy (a "life of celibacy" being quite well-defined in Catholic teaching.)) Whether one believes the (in this case homosexual) action immoral or not, merely considering the action is not in itself immoral. As a general case in moral theology, unacted-out temptation is never considered sinful -- in fact, resisting temptation is considered a practical virtue to be prayed for, studied and emulated. -- Cathy Fasano aka: Cathy Johnston fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu "The Church and the World are jammed to the rafters these days with people willing to get involved, get their hands dirty, take risks, make sacrifices, hurl themselves at spears, lead the advance, inspire, illuminate, encourage, organize and manage great affairs. I find most such folks insufferable, even if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Where are the people willing to sit on the sidelines and find fault?" -- Michael O. Garvey
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/27/91)
[Joe Buehler commented that homosexual thoughts can't be engaged in if you want to enter the kingdom on heaven. Cathy Fasano objected that considering the action is not in itself immoral. Unacted-out temptation is never considered sinful, as resisting temptation is a virtue. --clh] Matthew 5:27-30 "You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' 28 But now I tell you: anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away! It is much better for you to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is much better for you to lose one of your limbs than to have your whole body go off to hell. I do not believe that Jesus is advocating self-mutilation here, I believe he refers to parts of our spiritual makeup. (Ex. If your desire for a woman causes you to sin, purge yourself of that desire.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
jhpb@garage.att.com (04/01/91)
> [Joe Buehler commented that homosexual thoughts can't be engaged in > if you want to enter the kingdom on heaven. Cathy Fasano objected > that considering the action is not in itself immoral. Unacted-out > temptation is never considered sinful, as resisting temptation is > a virtue. --clh] I didn't see Cathy's response, so can only quote the moderator's summary. I was referring to the trilogy found in the Confiteor: I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever-virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, [etc.]... that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed... What I meant was that one can commit sins of homosexuality without anything but one's thoughts being involved. Don't confuse temptation with sin here. Just because bad thoughts pop into one's mind, doesn't mean that sin is involved. It depends on whether one consents to the thoughts. Our thoughts come from 3 things: ourselves, evil spirits, good spirits. Here's an example that happened to me, by way of illustration. I was driving along one night, on my way home. I had to stop behind a car at an intersection. The driver, an old woman, was taking her time making the turn. All of a sudden, a disparaging comment about this old woman popped into my mind. This thought had absolutely *nothing* to do with what I was thinking about at the time. I was thinking about work, as I recall. The thought was from an evil spirit, most probably, because it was *totally* unrelated to what I was thinking about. It was a temptation, and not a sin. Had I dwelt on it, and said "Right on!", it would have been a sin. A further comment: I gave the thought/word/deed categorization; there are others. For example, somone who defends homosexuality, while not strictly engaging in it himself, is guilty of it. I mean that quite literally -- someone who defends a sin has to answer for that sin at their personal judgement. This is sin by way of condoning, vs. doing. Joe Buehler [This comment does not refer specifically to Joe's posting, but to the discussion as a whole: I think this discussion may be based on an attempt to draw lines between black and white where there are often shades of gray. Someone who looks on all women as sex objects would seem to be seriously sinful, even if they don't actually commit rape. But suppose they have grown up in an environment where this was the common view, but have now come to realize how hurtful it is. They may still have the thoughts, but they are engaged in an internal fight against them. Are their evil thoughts sin? Yes, in some sense. A perfect Christian -- not to mention Christ -- would not have them. But they have already repented, in the deepest sense of rejecting the sin. In C.S. Lewis' autobiography, "Surprised by Joy", he describes his early experience among Christians. He found that they had a very different moral code than he was used to, and his immediate reaction was simply to make sure that his own uncouth principles weren't visible to them. An uncharitable view of this is that he still had evil thoughts, and this was simply hypocrisy. But I don't think that would be a fair assessment. It was the earliest stage of what came to be true repentance. I believe this is not an unusual situation, but in many ways the normal one. It's what is meant by being "at the same time justified and a sinner". We need to recognize that our thoughts are never pure, repent of our remaining unpurity, base our actions on our best thoughts rather than our worst ones, and trust to God's grace for the rest. At times Christians have tried to define exactly what degree of dwelling on the thought has to happen to make it a sin. If carried to excess, this sort of moral hairsplitting can lead people into spending their time diagnosing their own spiritual state when they should be out following Christ. --clh]
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (04/02/91)
In article <Apr.1.02.27.55.1991.7132@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@garage.att.com writes: |> |> Don't confuse temptation with sin here. Just because bad thoughts |> pop |> into one's mind, doesn't mean that sin is involved. It depends on |> whether one consents to the thoughts. Why ? and who defines what 'sin' is ? Please don't counter with Mat 5:28 - I don't subcribe to the "if you've thought it, you've done it" interpretation of that verse, because I don't think that it makes any sense. |> Our thoughts come from 3 things: ourselves, evil spirits, good spirits. Is there a strong Biblical precedent for this ? |> Here's an example that happened to me, by way of illustration. [deleted for brevity] |> The thought was from an evil spirit, most probably, ...[deleted] I (as a confirmed sceptic) would like you to prove that the thought 'came from an evil spirit' and not from your own subconcious, expressing a perfectly HUMAN emotion, Pleeeeeaaase. :-) |> |> A further comment: I gave the thought/word/deed categorization; there |> are others. For example, somone who defends homosexuality, while not |> strictly engaging in it himself, is guilty of it. I mean that quite |> literally -- someone who defends a sin has to answer for that sin at |> their personal judgement. This is sin by way of condoning, vs. doing. |> |> Joe Buehler Once again, who is it that has decided what a 'sin' is ? If I 'defend homosexuality' would you say that I have sinned ? Are you in a position to tell me what sin is for me ? for anyone ? And aditionally: |> |> [At times Christians have tried to define exactly what |> degree of dwelling on the thought has to happen to make it a sin. If |> carried to excess, this sort of moral hairsplitting can lead people |> into spending their time diagnosing their own spiritual state when |> they should be out following Christ. --clh] Who decides what 'a sin' is ? Surely: "Anything that is not of faith is sin" ? (near the end of Romans 14) so sin, like faith is a personal matter, not a universal one ??!! Jim.
RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) (04/03/91)
In article <Apr.2.03.50.49.1991.19881@athos.rutgers.edu>, James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) says: > > Why ? and who defines what 'sin' is ? > Please don't counter with Mat 5:28 - I don't subcribe to the > "if you've thought it, you've done it" interpretation of that verse, > because I don't think that it makes any sense. Sin, strictly defined, is anything that does not conform to the character of God. So... what is the character of God like, you ask? If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then that is the place to look to find out. If you think that the Bible is unadulter- ated (pardon the pun) b.s., then you're essentially back to "square one." I'm not going to go into aplogetics now, and argue with you about the intellectual merits of faith (unless you want to... please use e-mail then). As for Mathhew 5:28, I'm not really sure of its context in relation to this thread. However, it addresses the essential point that there is a "right" way to look at somebody, and a "damaging" way to look at somebody. Lust is the obsessive desire to possess something. The Bible does *not* say "never appreciate a woman" (or man for that matter), but it *does* say that lust crosses the line between appreciation of God's good work and idolatry. This is something that has to be worked-out between the Christian and his in-dwelling spirit. The "lust thresholds" are different from person to person. As far as Gay Ordination (subject of this thread, I think), the Bible is clear on what is acceptable sex practice and what is not. It is not logical to ordain practicing sinners in a church which believes that the Bible is the Word of God. You can rant and rave all you want about "how it doesn't make sense," etc., but a Chris- tian has every right to believe that homosexuality is a sin (since God tells them so), and that Gay ordination is wrong. This should not be interpreted as license to persecute gays. The Christian church (ideally, anyway...) preaches love, and I have no problem with gays being church members as long as they're not practicing sinners. ("practicing" == "doing it without repentance before God.") >|> Our thoughts come from 3 things: ourselves, evil spirits, good spirits. > >Is there a strong Biblical precedent for this ? Yes. Romans 8:5-15 (Sin nature, Holy Spirit). There are others, if you're *truly* interested in such. (Otherwise, I won't waste your time as well as mine...) >|> Here's an example that happened to me, by way of illustration. > [deleted for brevity] >|> The thought was from an evil spirit, most probably, ...[deleted] > >I (as a confirmed sceptic) would like you to prove that the thought >'came from an evil spirit' and not from your own subconcious, expressing >a perfectly HUMAN emotion, Pleeeeeaaase. :-) Usually, thoughts that are completely "out-of-character" from a person are interpreted by people as "evil-spirit." Thoughts from the subcon- cious are also biblical, so there is no need for intellectual defense here. I don't think you really expect me to logically prove that there is a Satan. If you did, I'd ask *you* to prove that there was a sub- conscious (pick your definition!). >|> A further comment: I gave the thought/word/deed categorization; there >|> are others. For example, somone who defends homosexuality, while not >|> strictly engaging in it himself, is guilty of it. I mean that quite >|> literally -- someone who defends a sin has to answer for that sin at >|> their personal judgement. This is sin by way of condoning, vs. doing. >|> >|> Joe Buehler Ah..... I don't know about *THAT*... I have never seen a passage about being *judged* in that way. There are lots of passages about "causing others to fall" through actions that don't pull your own mind away from God, but does pull others' mind away from God. The act isn't the sin; the callous disrespect for the spiritual life of others *IS*. That is what the judgement is all about. In all ways, the Christian is to put the spiritual well being of others before his own. Does a minister defend homosexuality? He's not guilty of homosexuality, but he will be judged for "spiritual damage caused..." >Once again, who is it that has decided what a 'sin' is ? >If I 'defend homosexuality' would you say that I have sinned ? >Are you in a position to tell me what sin is for me ? for anyone ? There are lots of general guidelines (no murder, rape, etc...) But otherwise: no. No-one can tell you what is sinful for you except God, who is the only one who has your "owners' manual." The apostle Paul writes a nice piece on "the believers' freedom" in I Corinthians 10:23-31. This sums things up nicely. You might even want to read the whole letter, since this theme crops-up again and again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Belcinski | Any opinion expressed above is not | Bitnet: RJB@SLACVM.BITNET | necessarily that of SLAC or the US DOE. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
harling@uunet.uu.net (Dan Harling) (04/03/91)
In article <Mar.18.11.22.10.1991.7345@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Tom Blake) writes: > I happen to be fond of Bacon-Double-Cheeseburgers. Even though I can > find good reason in the Bible why this may be a sin, and it has been > shown to be a health risk, I persist, and I am unrepentant, worst of all > I am proud and boastful in that (respectively, I don't believe that God > will damn me for this and I'm telling all of you about it.) > > Now, should I (on the basis that I am arguable an unrepentant sinner) be > denied ordination? Should I be required to refrain from eating BDC's > as a condition of ordination? Should I be forbidden to mention my > belief that I won't go to hell for eating BDC's? Should I tolerate the > serving of BDC's at church functions? > > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton In Romans 14, Paul speaks of the "weaker brother," who stumbles at the thought of eating meat sacrificed to idols, perhaps because he feels that it is a form of idol worship. In his case, such an action would be an obstacle to his faith. Paul clearly states that, for this weaker brother, eating meat sacrificed to idols is a sin. He also clearly states that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin in itself. However, Paul does say that it is wrong for you to in any way (by word or by example) encourage him to eat meat sacrificed to idols, thereby leading him into sin. Even if you are convinced that homosexuality is not a sin (and I, frankly, do not share that opinion), there are many people for which it would be. Those in a position of authority have a great responsibility for those under their care, including the responsibility for providing a good model of behavior. A pastor/minister who eats meat sacrificed to idols conveys the message that "it must be okay," and those weaker brothers in the congregation may be led astray. Likewise, a pastor/minister who is an active homosexual would convey the message that "it must be okay" to those of the congregation for whom homosexuality is a sin, possibly leading them astray. Therefore, whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a sin for you, there can be no question as to whether an active homosexual who denies that his actions are sinful should be put in a position of leadership, where his example will be scrutinized by his congregation and the world in general, and taken by some as license to stumble. I will also let you answer that question for yourself. Yours in Christ, ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel A. Harling PictureTel, Inc. 8 Forest Street Peabody, MA Rockport, MA (508) 546-9003 Opinions are the sole property of Daniel A. Harling. Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or reproduction of these opinions is permitted, provided this notice remains attached. So there. [Of course if you believe it's a sin, there's no issue. But if you don't, the argument of "weaker brethren" may be harder to apply than you suggest. As far as I can tell, Paul does not suggest that we should avoid teaching freedom from the Law for fear of offending the weaker brethren. Indeed he continually reaffirms Christian freedom. Nor does it seem to me that he proposes to hide the fact that he practices such freedom. Rather, it seems to me that what he suggests is avoiding situations that are specifically likely to encourage people to violate their consciences. Certainly serving meat to those who have scruples, and maybe even eating in their presence. But not teaching about our freedom from the Law. I agree with you that people who hold more "liberal" standards need to exercize restraint, to avoid tempting people who are not enlightened to violate their own consciences. But I don't think this extends so far that they should hide what they believe. The situation of homosexuality is a particularly difficult one (again, assuming for the moment that the act is not itself sinful), because there are two dangers to be avoided. I agree with you that if someone is tempted to homosexual activity but feels it is wrong, it's a bad idea to encourage them to violate their conscience. However there are a number of people who are already practicing homosexuals, and who consider themselves beyond the pale of the church, and sometimes failures as a human being. (I'm basing this on testimonies of homosexuals posted in this group in the past.) It could help such people to see homosexual pastors. Thus I think there are situations in which having homosexual pastors could present a danger, and other situations in which it could help bring people to Christ. So what do you do? I hate to get into a situation of counting the number of people who are damaged each way, and writing off the lesser number. What I would hope is that in a properly operating church, the pastor is more than a statue that is stuck up front as an example. Rather, I would hope that there's enough interaction with members that the leadership of the church can help deal in a pastoral manner with the dangers are presented by whichever policy they follow. --clh]
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (04/04/91)
>The situation of homosexuality is a particularly difficult one (again, >assuming for the moment that the act is not itself sinful), because >there are two dangers to be avoided. I agree with you that if someone >is tempted to homosexual activity but feels it is wrong, it's a bad >idea to encourage them to violate their conscience. Ahem. Let me follow this reasoning. If "the act" is not sinful, but someone feels it is wrong, then having a gay minister will encourage that person to violate his or her conscience. Sorry, this has to be one of the lamest analogies I've ever seen. Is it a "bad idea" to have an minister who is a member of an interracial couple to minister to a congregation because some of the members think that is wrong???? I'm glad I was sitting down when I read that. >However there are >a number of people who are already practicing homosexuals, and who >consider themselves beyond the pale of the church, and sometimes >failures as a human being. (I'm basing this on testimonies of >homosexuals posted in this group in the past.) It could help such >people to see homosexual pastors. You must be talking about private email you've received, because I have never seen any "homosexual" post here claiming to be a failure as a human being (unless turning your back on a bankrupt institution which has nothing to offer you in the first place and getting on with your life is anything but a sign of mental health.) -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu [It's unclear whether you are replying to me or to the original posting. What you quote is from me. My response, in the portion you quote, acknowledges that we need to avoid encouraging people to violate their conscience. However I then proceed to say that this argument is not sufficient to prohibit ordination of homosexual pastors. Where I agree with the original posting is that "liberal" positions such as those allowing homosexual ordination should be carried out with due concern for the impact on members whose understanding has not progressed as far as that of our leaders. For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has a very strong policy requiring ordination of women. However when churches are unable to bring themselves to ordain female elders, this is treated as a pastoral issue. We do not have storm troopers descend upon that church to force them to elect leaders that they cannot in good conscience follow. Instead we counsel with them over a period of time. I believe this is in agreement with Paul's handling of Christian freedom. It is clear from Galatians that he is not prepared to give up his understanding that Christians are free from the Law, but it is also clear from I Cor 8 that the exercize of that freedom should be tempered by concern for others. I do not mean to imply that any of our homosexual correspondents is a failure, nor that they currently consider themselves to be such. Indeed those that I know to be homosexual (my knowledge of the sexual orientation of our contributors is obviously limited) seem among the better balanced people contributed to this group. However I recall a posting indicating that this present happy situation was reached after a good deal of self-doubt. It was my conjecture in the response that you quote that having homosexual leaders in the church might prove helpful in this regard. If I have misinterpreted things, and homosexuals growing up do not experience any particular threat to their self-esteem because of their homosexuality, or if having homosexual leaders in the church would not provide encouragement in such situations, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. Of course none of these considerations is relevant to someone who considers homosexuality to be immoral to begin with. However before you respond to my comments above with yet another set of arguments on why homosexuality is a sin, please remember the context of my comments: The original posting said that even if homosexual activity is OK, homosexuals should not be ordained because of dangers to the weaker brethren. The only way to evaluate such a claim is to assume that homosexual activity is OK, and see whether the impact on weaker brethren alone is sufficient to prohibit ordaining homosexuals. If the original poster in fact considered homosexuality sinful, and was not willing to consider the situation seriously from the point of view of those who do not consider it sinful, then he was engaged in a dishonest rhetorical device. I always do our correspondents the honor of assuming that they are being honest in their postings. --clh]
tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) (04/04/91)
[OFM writes:] >The situation of homosexuality is a particularly difficult one (again, >assuming for the moment that the act is not itself sinful), because >there are two dangers to be avoided. I agree with you that if someone >is tempted to homosexual activity but feels it is wrong, it's a bad >idea to encourage them to violate their conscience. However there are >a number of people who are already practicing homosexuals, and who >consider themselves beyond the pale of the church, and sometimes >failures as a human being. (I'm basing this on testimonies of >homosexuals posted in this group in the past.) It could help such >people to see homosexual pastors. Bad move. The assumption that homosexuality is not sinful is biblically indefensible. Would it also help drunks and adulterers who feel "beyond the pale of the church" to contact drunken and adulterous pastors? Doesn't the Bible, the apostle Paul in particular, treat all these sins in a similar fashion, and worth repenting of (I Cor. 6:9,10)? What biblical reason is there for extending some special exemption to the homosexual? It seems the Bible makes it clear that folks need to be confronted with their sin and offered the hope of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The cure can only be affected by proper diagnosis of the disease. This is the only way sin can be dealt with. It cannot be "reclassified" as a medical or social aberration. Sin is sin, and to treat it as something else seriously damages witness of the Christian Church (as many oldline denominations are painfully discovering), and waters down the meaning of the gospel. Unfortunately, too many modern churchmen (sorry, churchpersons) are happy dealing with symptoms instead of root problems. -- Tom Albrecht [The message to which I was replying said that even if you accept that homosexual activity is OK, we should not ordain homosexuals because of danger to "weaker" brethren. The only way to examine such a claim is to assume that homosexual activity is OK, and look at the implications. --clh]
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/04/91)
In article <Apr.3.02.56.06.1991.10405@athos.rutgers.edu> RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) writes: >|> A further comment: I gave the thought/word/deed categorization; there >|> are others. For example, somone who defends homosexuality, while not >|> strictly engaging in it himself, is guilty of it. I mean that quite >|> literally -- someone who defends a sin has to answer for that sin at >|> their personal judgement. This is sin by way of condoning, vs. doing. >|> >|> Joe Buehler Ah..... I don't know about *THAT*... I have never seen a passage about being *judged* in that way. A good passage on the subject is one that is actually closely connected with the topic of homosexuality. Romans, isn't it? ...not only those who do such things, but those who consent to those who do them [are worthy of death]. Disobeying God's moral laws and fighting against them *are* distinct things, but, in matters as grave as the one under consideration, definitely enough to damn one, either way. I will try to dig out some material on the various ways to be guilty of sin.
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.1.02.27.55.1991.7132@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com writes: >> [Joe Buehler commented that homosexual thoughts can't be engaged in >> if you want to enter the kingdom on heaven. Cathy Fasano objected >> that considering the action is not in itself immoral. Unacted-out >> temptation is never considered sinful, as resisting temptation is >> a virtue. --clh] > >I didn't see Cathy's response, so can only quote the moderator's >summary. Which didn't quite get to the meat of my objection... (not that this is the fault of Our Sainted Moderator; I was unclear.) What I was objecting to was the all-emcompassing nature of the term "homosexual thought." I'm not claiming that *all* "homosexual thoughts" (or "heterosexual thoughts" for that matter) are virtuous; I'm simply claiming that the term is sufficiently broad to include some things which are clearly *not* sinful. Joe's broad condemnation of *all* "homosexual thoughts" is a condemnation of *being* homosexual, since even the thought, "I am attracted to members of the same sex," is an example of a "homosexual thought." The Judeo-Christian tradition has always made this distinction between these kinds of thoughts. We use words like "covet" and "lust" as distinct from "want" or "admire". For example, someone else quoted a translation which rendered Matt. 5:28 as (approximately) ...any man who looks at a woman with the intent to possess her commits adulterey... The problem is that taken at face value this verse would include a man considering making an honorable marriage proposal, and we all pretty much agree that that is *not* the intent. (The NAB translates the term as "looks lustfully" which is what I think we pretty much agree it means.) {Joe then tells a story to illustrate the difference between temptation and "impure thoughts." While I might put a little different interpretation on some of the details of the story, Joe and I have no disagreement that there is a distinction.} >A further comment: I gave the thought/word/deed categorization; there >are others. For example, somone who defends homosexuality, while not >strictly engaging in it himself, is guilty of it. I mean that quite >literally -- someone who defends a sin has to answer for that sin at >their personal judgement. This is sin by way of condoning, vs. doing. Likewise (to put this in a context) -- we live in a society in which drunken gangs of frat boys lurk around gay bars and beat up and kill men who come out. To the extent that catagorical denounciations of whole classes of people (even when the broadness of the denunciation is purely rhetorical excess) encourage this kind of violence, they are at least unwise if not actually sinful. [ok -- I guess Joe and I are even now in the accusing-each-other-of-sin department. :^] The Catholic church in recent times has some sensitivity to this issue -- the recent Vatican document which called homosexuality an "objective disorder" also condemned violence against homosexuals in pretty strong terms. As to why *I* put the issue in this context -- As some folks here know, up until eight months ago I worked for an commodity options trading firm. The subculture of trading is pretty groty, and has been described as a cross between a locker room and drunken frat party. (I'm still trying to shed the prodigious vocabulary of obscenities which I acquired there! :-) ) Now these guys are pretty homophobic (it's part of the adolescent macho posturing), and I was regularly subjected to graphic descriptions of the violence and mayhem which they wanted to do to gays. (Fortunately most of these guys were smart enough to avoid discussing plans for violence against women when they were around women, so I was spared that...) So yes, I've vehemently defended homosexuals many times over the last five years, and I rather hope Joe would have, too. -- Cathy Fasano, aka: Cathy Johnston, cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu, fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu "If yer gonna skate on thin ice, ya' might as well dance."
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (04/06/91)
In article <Apr.5.03.07.59.1991.9540@athos.rutgers.edu> fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) writes: >The Catholic church >in recent times has some sensitivity to this issue -- the recent Vatican >document which called homosexuality an "objective disorder" also >condemned violence against homosexuals in pretty strong terms. Cathy, you must have read a different Vatican document than I did. The one I read had a rather mealy-mouthed condemnation of violence against anyone, but offered the opinion that no one should be surprised if violence occurs when gay people refuse to stay hidden. Can you spell "chills-up-my-spine"? It's spelled "R-a-t-z-i-n-g-e-r". And with few exception on the local level, the Church chooses to remain silent whenever there is a opportunity of condemning such directed violence. It's not just that it isn't an interesting matter that the hierarchy chooses to take up; there's a tacit complicity there. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/08/91)
In article <Apr.5.03.07.59.1991.9540@athos.rutgers.edu> fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) writes:
What I was objecting to was the all-emcompassing nature of the term
"homosexual thought." I'm not claiming that *all* "homosexual thoughts"
(or "heterosexual thoughts" for that matter) are virtuous; I'm simply
claiming that the term is sufficiently broad to include some things
which are clearly *not* sinful.
Joe's broad condemnation of *all* "homosexual thoughts" is a condemnation
of *being* homosexual, since even the thought, "I am attracted to
members of the same sex," is an example of a "homosexual thought."
I meant thoughts resulting from a will acting contrary to Divine law.
Everyone has their primary temptations, of course. Someone's may be
homosexuality, I suppose. The temptations have to be resisted, is all
I'm saying. Sin is in the will, the body is just following suit.
As to why *I* put the issue in this context -- As some folks here
know, up until eight months ago I worked for an commodity options
trading firm. The subculture of trading is pretty groty, and has
been described as a cross between a locker room and drunken frat
party. (I'm still trying to shed the prodigious vocabulary of
obscenities which I acquired there! :-) ) Now these guys are pretty
homophobic (it's part of the adolescent macho posturing), and I was
regularly subjected to graphic descriptions of the violence and mayhem
which they wanted to do to gays. (Fortunately most of these guys
were smart enough to avoid discussing plans for violence against
women when they were around women, so I was spared that...) So yes,
I've vehemently defended homosexuals many times over the last five
years, and I rather hope Joe would have, too.
I wouldn't defend homosexuality, but I have no use for foul langauge,
that's for sure.
[I think Cathy's hope was not just that you would object to foul
language, but that you would also object to violence and mayhem
against homosexuals. --clh]