During one of his nearly daily calls to EYW this week, Pat (Holland's Opus of Think Worm) took aim at my denomination, the United Church of Christ, so I thought I should provide a response.
He referenced the "Bouncer" commercial that the UCC produced which included the line, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we." He raised a complaint that was raised at the time the commercial aired, that it implied that other churches did turn people away. He called this elitist. The fact of the matter is that some people do get turned away from churches. Indeed UCC churches are sometimes guilty of this ourselves. Focus group studies done by the firm that produced the commercials found that this feeling of exclusion was common among the unchurched. Ecumenical leaders were shown the commercial and didn't object, realizing the importance of the message of extravagant welcome. It was edgy, but it wasn't elitist.
Perhaps the edgiest part of the message was showing same-sex couples being turned away. Pat and Pastor Tom discussed how homosexuals were welcome to attend their church. Of course, they also were clear that since they saw homosexuality as a sin that these sinners would feel uncomfortable in their church, but that that was a good thing because that is what leads to repentance and salvation. My question for them is that since all of us are sinners (depraved as they would say) and salvation doesn't change that (we are forgiven not made perfect) then wouldn't everyone be uncomfortable in church all the time? Do you faithfully preach the "whole word of God" all the time and thus decry all sin and make it clear that it is keeping these sinners out of heaven?
Now I get the point that the church is for believers. I agree that we shouldn't be throwing out our convictions in order to make people feel comfortable. But there has to be room for the seeker. Since none of us has it all together, each of us is a seeker, always learning and growing. Maya Angelou's answer to the question "Are you a Christian?" is "Not yet." There is wisdom in that sort of humble assessment of one's pilgrimage. So, yes, everyone is welcome, just as they are. Does the UCC do that better than most? Perhaps, and I hope that we try. Some of our churches don't see homosexuality as a sin, so we are indeed more welcoming. Call that elitist if you like, but that seems to strain the meaning of the word.
What we are is diverse. Pat and Tom would call that pluralism and name us as enemies of God. In my book, that sounds more like an elitist position. They sound like they are claiming to have all the answers. I'm not that prideful, I humbly admit that God isn't finished working with me yet.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Weekend Edition
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hello Ian, Knowing Tom and H.O. personally I can say for a fact that neither of them have all the answers. ( as I have stated and been ignored before in many posts here and on other blogs, God has all the answers. T. and H.O. will tell you the same while backing it up with sound theology and Scriptural reference) He has given them to us all in His Word. Problem is most folk would rather believe in a god of their choosing, without wrath and consequence, rather than The God, the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who does divide and separate the sheep from the goats, and was pleased to send His innocent Son to the slaughter for ransom of those who believe on Him.
As I have stated I was a closeted homosexual for two decades, yet never was I made to feel uncomfortable by any parishioner of Holland Church. It was the knowledge of my sin before Christ that brought shame and repentance, helped to reinforce the feeling of salvation in my heart and in Christ overcome the sin. Something a church that does not teach the 'Whole Word of God' will seldom if ever be able to do, thus leading those in need of repentance down the wide path to damnation rather than the narrow of salvation. Wake up, this is not a dream, and the last chance for Salvation may be in the next 5 minutes if it is the Will of God. Don't waste the next 5 minutes in doubt on the chance that it could mean an eternity of separation from God.
There are some deep theological questions here. Primary among them is what unrepented sin is able to keep one from salvation? Is it a lie that I haven't confessed? Marital infidelity? Or the alleged sin of homosexuality? If one can be saved and yet still sin, isn't it possible that homosexuals can be saved in their alleged sinfulness?
Then there are the questions of whether one can lose one's salvation or can one be deluded about salvation. Any theology that works in absolutes needs to have answers to these kind of questions. Sure, you can say that no human has all the answers, but when that human claims to believe in a system that does, he or she bears the burden of proof...or at least providing said answers.
It would not be a singular unrepentant sin, but the refusal to repent of sin that will keep one from salvation. Christ forgave the adulterer saying 'your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more' I would argue that if she received no Grace granted here by God to have a change of heart, believe on Christ and the wisdom He gave her, turned the corner and sought her next trick, continued as an adulterer until her death without a second thought she could not be by Biblical definition 'Saved'
As for the homosexual, if the Salvation is truly of Faith by Grace, the old dies and all things are made new in His image. While the behavior may take great effort and fight mightily as the old struggles to survive,(it took me six months to break free of my former sexual habits, and many more to throw off the yoke of pornography) the point is there is Christian growth, not excuses as to why one can't change,or rejection that there is a need to do so because one does not agree with God. If the Salvation is earnest,conviction will win by the Power of the Holy Spirit. If not the Homosexual will choose to reject the proffered Gift of Life, and be turned over to a reprobate mind. I know this as I have stood on that terrifying brink. Had I rejected Biblical Salvation Ian, I may well have been one of your parishioners and on a path other than that which God would have had me walk.
There is no question as to weather you can loose your Salvation, once received it cannot be lost. Unless you assume God to be prone to mistakes in judgment as to who he sheds His Grace and so Faith in Christ on, but this is not a truism, as a being capable of such a mistake could not possibly be God by Biblical definition. No line of Scripture ever Identifies the loss of a Believers Salvation, only of a sinners rejection of the offer, i.e. the wealthy young ruler.
Other than Matt.12:30-30, and Mark 3:27-29 where Salvation is totally denied those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit,(and in both references the context is unsaved sinners being addressed, not those already professing Jesus as Saviour) There is no reference in Scripture to the Saved according to the Will of God being rejected after said Salvation for any reason.. Burden born,answers provided. Your belief 99% Depends on His will, and your 1% effort in either trusting in, or arguing against His word. I am by no means the sharpest tool in the box but as for me.......
Fine, so you call homosexuality a sin and then can tell a person is unrepentant because he or she won't give up the life style. But I suppose it is acceptable as long as they "say" they want to change? Consider the sin of lust. As long as I "say" I don't want to lust then I can seek forgiveness when I do? But if I say that I am not going to try to stop lusting then I'm out of luck, even if I actually lust less than the person who doesn't choose to try?
Of let's consider the justification of the accumulation of wealth. For many American Christians it is not only acceptable but a sign of God's blessing. Why shouldn't unrepented reliance on wealth be a disqualification for salvation? There is a much stronger biblical case for this. Jesus himself said that it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven (or at least as impossible as a camel going through the eye of a needle).
Face it, by your strict judgment there is little to no hope for any of us. Yes, it is by God's grace alone that we are saved, not by works. So I trust that God's grace extends to everyone since we all have sinned.
You are so close to understanding! I would say it is acceptable if the fruit of their labor against the sin of homosexuality is repentance, if they are truly Saved by the Grace of God,through Faith in Christ, He will turn none away. As for the lust you are dancing between the edge of dark and light. He will come to divide, and you will be on one side or the other, He alone will be the judge Ian, not me, not The supreme Court, but ultimately the only authority that matters. And there is no partiality with Him.
There is also no restriction on the wealthy, but when wealth and it's pursuit is what you worship before God, again the rich young ruler, he kept his wealth here in exchange for the life Christ offered him, leading to salvation. There are wealth families in our church that freely share of their wealth, as they put their love of Christ and service to God before their love of and service to mammon. As a trained theologian, you have studied this in seminary so should know better than to bring it up as an argument against wealth and Christianity here, but I deffer to you as it is your blog.
We are saved by Faith in Christ alone, by the Grace of God alone. You seem to have missed a line, similar to the Mormons changing 'The Word was with God' to 'The Word was A God' to justify their theological argument in John 1:1 And yes, outside of Jesus, by the Grace of God, there is not one righteous, no not one.
The fact that God alone is the judge is what I am looking for us to agree upon here. My response to that is to flee as far away from judging others as possible, since that is God's work not mine. I will gladly help someone with discernment of what is sinful in their life, but my work is to do that for myself. Anyone who proclaims to be following Christ and wants to walk the path with me is welcome. That certainly includes homosexuals whom God has not convicted of the "sin" of homosexuality. Just like it includes people who trust their wealth and are so deluded that they can justify it from twisted reading of scripture...ok, that wasn't nice, I had a knee-jerk reaction to being told that I was educated enough to agree with someone else's reading of scripture. We MUST accept in humility that there are other ways to interpret scripture and thus the way we read it may be wrong, or simply one way of many, or what we need for now, but may change later. No need to respond that there is only one way, the Bible is clear, etc. I've heard that and rejected it, just like you reject what I propose. This simply goes back to Pat and Tom talking about pluralism as being an enemy of God. I don't have that level of hubris to be so right all of the time.
If the reading of Scripture is borne out in context, the conclusions are inevitable on most all major points. This may take a great amount of research and study, praise be to Luther, Edwards, Calvin, etc. as well as many modern day scholars like JP Moreland, John Mark Reynolds, add infinitum. but the truth is there for those who pursue it and desire the God of Scripture and not of their own concoction based on what they find most appealing about the idea of God and the forgiveness of Christ as they think it should be.
We are never called to judge those outside the Church, as that is God's domain,but we are called to hold those professing believers to a Biblical standard of growth and development, did Paul tell the incestuous Corinthians, "walk the path of righteousness with me even though you commit atrocities, sons having their father's mother, for Christ has not yet convicted you"? Cor. 5:5 says 'deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus'
And no, (bear this out in new testament context) it does not mean burn the sinner, but cast him out from among you and fellowship, that the earthly judgment of the Lord,his separation from fellowship and shame and misery may turn him to true repentance and so Salvation, that he would not face eternal damnation.
Forgive me the assumption I made in the implication your level of education makes you unlikely to see that anything other than the point I was trying to make concerning wealth as an idol was possible. But the point I made is valid, even if it is not pleasing nor fits your interpretation.
I feel Ian that you have the right to reject Scripture as the absolute Word of God, and that you can embrace pluralism, which by your own arguments, you do. God help you sir, for a man of sinless perfection once said "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and no one comes to The Father accept through me." As is my right I will side with Him. As for Tom and H.O., we just happen to agree, convicted by the same Spirit.
Mkz, it's interesting, that out of a compassionate heart you seem to take pity on Ian after his conclusions. I think what Ian was getting at here, is that if grace truly is grace then it extends to someone like myself who hasn't mastered all the temptations, problems and sins in my own life. Homosexuality seems like the Holy Grail of conservative Christianity. And why is that? I'm not sure. I think it has much to do with a lack of understanding.
As far as the Bible is concerned, Jesus never addressed homosexuality. God chose not to include it as a central concern, and we've already uncovered that the word in it's present form is not found in the old or new testament as it's now translated. Soooo, Christ's initial "greeting" to folks is about repentance, which is a "new way" of understanding or believing in God. But mental ascent is a weak link to the Way. You cannot just believe in something to be moving toward it. I believe Africa exists, but I am no closer to it than I was yesterday. There are too many mysteries to just jettison to get to the "good stuff" of impugning homosexuality.
Being in the closet, is not being openly gay. Why would even a closeted homosexual, knowing about the style and welcome of your church want to darken its doors? By actively seeking homosexuals (Jesus seemed to hang with people like this) isn't Ian's church fulfilling the great mandate? And once those people hear the good news, that God loves them and wants them to follow a New Way of being in Christ, isn't that the point? It seems if someone had functioned as a homosexual and gone underground because of society and the church, that would be a torturous thing. Tony Campolo is a strong advocate of a welcoming approach to gays based on an experience he had as a high school heckler. Tony offered this man nothing but participitory insults and barbs and the guy ended up killing himself. (Tony was one of many students hurling the hateful remarks) Christians dance a fine line between loving the sinner and "hating the sin", but the truth is, hating the inherent, innate traits of someone made in the image of God is at best confusing and at worst a devastating realization to the poor soul that they're some kind of mutant.
Mike, be careful when you quote Scripture with that much certainty, as the context, culture and intent of the author has likely little to do with the current discussion. I can only say that the church will be forced to change on this issue someday, or it will never be able to complete the Great Commission with any kind of consistency and relevance.
The culture should conform to the ethics of the church, God's Word, per se. not the other way around, when that happens, well, look around you Dave, you see what happens.
God is very direct and in no uncertain terms against the sin of homosexuality, as is Jesus. Follow the thread.
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" The Word, and He in the context here is Jesus, one of the three individuals that compose the Triune God. I would challenge you to find anywhere in Scripture where the Three Persons of the Trinity ever disagree, but I will not send you on the chasing of wild geese. No such passage exists.
If we can agree that Father,Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, then lets go to Leviticus 18:22, God spoke this passage, the same God that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus need not have addressed the issue again in His 3 years on earth as His Father made the issue quite clear to those who Believe His Word.
Like so many who wish to believe in a warm and fuzzy god of their own making,rather than the God of the Bible who is both wrathful, loving, forgiving, and omnipotent you are free to do so. God in His Mercy and Grace gave you free will.
As for Ian's church, it does not teach the Word of God, but what the minds of those who wish to have their ears tickled. I would not forget Paul's statement Gal. 1:8 "But if we or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed"
The Word of God is before you, the Holy Spirit guides us in it's understanding, and God has given us the ability to reason and understand context. What you do with that is up to you.
I will also rest firmly in my arguments on the platform of Scripture. I can and will if you need, define and follow every thread through every word if it helps you even a little, to understand anything I have debated in my posts.
As to the church changing, look around you Dave, most have already fallen to heresy, humanism, pluralism, and idolatry. Eden is not burning Dave, it is burnt. Fortunately there are many, if you look and listen, whom still preach the unadulterated word of God without fear, truth is the greatest mercy God gave us in Christ. And if the church I attend begins to preach a gospel other than that given by the Word of God, I will find another that does. Fortunately as we are a growing and vibrant fellowship in Christ this does not seem likely, but in all things His will be done.
Mike,
The hubris you exhibit in having absolute knowledge of what is the true gospel completely belies your typical proclamation that you have much to learn. Oh, I'm sure that you will justify your position through some allusion to external objective truth that exists regardless of your ability to comprehend or explain it that comes to you through grace.
I am glad that that works for you. But some of us, by using the minds God gave us, cannot make sense of that position and seek God still. I am very sad that you can so easily dismiss me and my church as not preaching the Word of God. My humility about not knowing all there is to know about God extends to my understanding of what is "the true Gospel." You need more certainty than that, but at least on my blog perhaps you could simply remain silent when your certainty leads you to this sort of jab. I really make an effort to simply point out where different forms of Christianity disagree, but I still see the Gospel being preached in all of them.
As for the persons of the Trinity disagreeing, "the Father" said "and eye for an eye" but "the Son" said "you have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' BUT I say to you..." Maybe you can explain it away as a minor disagreement, but it is a disagreement nonetheless.
Post a Comment