Oh No! Not Universalism! Seriously, is that supposed to be scary? I really don’t have a stand on the after life (nor does the Bible), but his Calvinistic roots are showing.

First, Merrit says Carter said: ‘Christians needed to be “safeguarded against doctrinal and ethical error” regarding Jesus’ social habits.’

LOL! snort, chortal, hiccup.

Jesus said “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood’ you cannot be my follower. He failed to make sure everyone went away from his comment without doctrinal error. Many did leave due to his radical sayings that were never clearly defined until much later.

Jesus also wasn’t forcing everyone to admit all their sins – yes to the woman caught in adultery, no to the Samaritan Well Woman. He could have said something about her current “living in sin” situation, but he doesn’t, instead he engages in the longest conversation recorded between Jesus and a person. He engages in her desire for something more in life, perhaps he just brought up her current and past situations to appeal to her great need for a better life, but he doesn’t bring up or ask her to repent of her sin. He engages a foreign woman in deep theology, with the Bible’s longest recorded conversation between Jesus and a person. There was plenty of room to include a “sinner’s prayer lead-up or Roman’s Road style witnessing, but he didn’t, he freely offers her eternal life without making her confess she is a sinner.

Shocking? Not really, fixation on personal sinfulness won’t become an obsession for another 1,100 years in Church History.

So, did Jesus hang out with sinners who didn’t suddenly confess their sins? Yep. …and sent them off as evangelists before they had confessed any sins! There is no record of Mary Magdalen confessing her sins either… but there is a record of Jesus making her his first Apostle post-resurrection.

The idea that Jesus only associated with repentant sinners runs so absolutely counter to what I understand the gospels are conveying about Jesus that it says to me the “Gospel” Coalition are terribly, terribly off in what Christianity is about. I should note that I say this as someone who has walked away from the church, so I can be accused of not understanding Christianity. However, I think I understand it and the “gospel” Coalition people are deliberately not understanding it.

I don’t think I have to quote the scriptures on it–Jesus acted scandalously by regularly having table fellowship with people considered serious sinners by religious society. The gospels are shot through with this behavior. And despite what Joe Carter says, the Pharisees certainly didn’t think those sinners were repentant. They complained about Jesus eating with sinners or having a prostitute touch him when she was washing his feet.

The people who are saying that those who offer public services (e.g., floral services, bakery services) should be able to pick and choose based on their religious beliefs need to think beyond their attempts to hurt GLBT persons. Because that’s not where it will stay. I live in Mormon country–how long would it be before an evangelical Christian said they wouldn’t bake a cake or provide flowers for customers marrying in the Mormon temple because, well, the temple is satanic. (One need only read certain varieties of evangelical anti-Mormon literature to pick that up.) And that’s really what our country needs is services Balkanized along religious lines because people feel like they can’t serve X group. *rolls eyes*

As for the Gospel Coalition, this is just the latest in a long series of hateful beliefs bloviated forth from that self-important group of men. As I told them on their World Vision article this week (I did not go back and check to see if it was posted): “What a fun bunch of people you are. I’d rather go to hell than spend eternity with the likes of you.” This Joe Carter article only confirms my opinion of those men.

@ Sabrae:

They must have many hidden cherry pieces somewhere, from all the picking that’s going on. ..

@ Sabrae:
Whoa, well put

@ mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort:

Balkanization is the perfect descriptor of these “teachings.” 🙁

Jonathan Merritt’s story:

“A Thread Called Grace:
How I came to stop hiding and face the biggest secret of my early life.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/april/jonathan-merritt-thread-called-grace.html

Sabrae wrote:

In these debates, the topic of divorce never comes up for discussion.
According to the Bible, divorce is allowed for adultery only, and if a spouse remarries, they have committed adultery.
How many pew sitters are divorced? How many pastors have officiated in the remarriage of divorcees?
They do like to cherry pick, don’t they?

Hi Sabrae! I often enjoy reading your perspective, and very much appreciate it. A good friend of TWW, Tim, just wrote an excellent piece about this issue of divorce and hypocrisy. And, the one and only Joe Carter also appeared to add his comments there. Tim shares a fascinating view as a trial court judge for the State of California.

http://timfall.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/gay-marriage-heterosexual-divorce/

Deb, thanks for putting this together! I really appreciated Jonathan Merritt’s thoughts, as I think it tears down the walls Christians build to “protect” themselves.

No matter how disguised it is, this whole thing equates to legalism. Isn’t this just like Paul having to rebuke Peter for not associating with the Gentile converts. Pure legalism.

I’ve been around the Christian scene long enough to see all kinds of creative legalism.
“Don’t listen to that music.”
“Don’t go to that place.”
“Don’t wear that clothing.”
“Don’t worship with those people.”
“Etc, etc, etc……”

What does unconditional love look like? Wouldn’t we all truly long to see it in action today?

It is not just Calvinists who wonder of such scenarios. An Arminian friend was shocked that we would consider selling our house to a Mormon! No, Mormons must remain homeless…

Godith wrote:

It is not just Calvinists who wonder of such scenarios. An Arminian friend was shocked that we would consider selling our house to a Mormon! No, Mormons must remain homeless…

I understand….we sold our last house to….an unmarried couple…..she was pregnant, with twins….we caught flak for that….I guess it would be okay for the twins to live under an overpass….

Janey wrote:

C.J. Mahaney, the disgraced pastor who is a defendant in the Sovereign Grace Ministries child sexual abuse 20-year cover-up lawsuit, is speaking at Together for the Gospel’s Anchored Conference in Arizona in June 2014.
http://arizona.thegospelcoalition.org/events/event/9/anchored-conference/2014-06-20

Upon further review I have heard of this conference Janey. The T4G reference threw me off. It is actually a Gospelly Coalition event, though there is not much difference. Several weeks ago I wrote an email to the conference organizers urging them to reconsider having Mahaney as a speaker. I received no response. A friend of mine actually had a response, I think it may have been from Josh Vincent. He wanted more information on Mahaney. I have not heard what the outcome was, but it looks like it was of no avail. BTW, Rich Richardson, the SGM pastor in the video, used to be my pastor. I wrote him about Mahaney holding a mini-conference at his church this past January, but of course that was also an exercise in futility. These guys have such fierce devotion to Mahaney that if he were ever to end up in prison for not reporting sexual abuse to authorities they would probably lobby for a week-end pass for him so he could speak at their conference!

Tell you what, I think a provider of any wedding service, whether bridal attire, flowers, cakes, catering, venues, music, should provide a checklist of “Biblical” sins to every prospective customer. Don’t just cherry-pick your favorite– put them all down. Have every customer check the ones they’ve been guilty of. Because of Christian beliefs, they may NOT serve any of those customers. They may then file for bankruptcy, dissolve the assets, and find another means to make a buck.

Erik wrote:

A good friend of TWW, Tim, just wrote an excellent piece about this issue of divorce and hypocrisy.

That was indeed an excellent piece, Erik!! Thank you for posting the link!

  __

No Shirt, No Shoes, Not the ‘Proper’ Sexual Orientation, No Service? 

Is this a Rosa Parks moment, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

—

The gospel coalition continued support of all things mahaney saddens me as someone who is a PCA member, and a fan of most all of what tim keller writes/preaches. From what I’ve seen, he isn’t as rigid as say lig duncan, but at some point he’s got to own this maheney thing….the gc is his baby, and either he puts an end to the mahaney love fest or through his silence, is complicit in it, which sadly will begin to taint my view of his works.

TW wrote:

Janey wrote:
C.J. Mahaney, the disgraced pastor who is a defendant in the Sovereign Grace Ministries child sexual abuse 20-year cover-up lawsuit, is speaking at Together for the Gospel’s Anchored Conference in Arizona in June 2014.
http://arizona.thegospelcoalition.org/events/event/9/anchored-conference/2014-06-20
Upon further review I have heard of this conference Janey. The T4G reference threw me off. It is actually a Gospelly Coalition event, though there is not much difference. Several weeks ago I wrote an email to the conference organizers urging them to reconsider having Mahaney as a speaker. I received no response. A friend of mine actually had a response, I think it may have been from Josh Vincent. He wanted more information on Mahaney. I have not heard what the outcome was, but it looks like it was of no avail. BTW, Rich Richardson, the SGM pastor in the video, used to be my pastor. I wrote him about Mahaney holding a mini-conference at his church this past January, but of course that was also an exercise in futility. These guys have such fierce devotion to Mahaney that if he were ever to end up in prison for not reporting sexual abuse to authorities they would probably lobby for a week-end pass for him so he could speak at their conference!

Erik wrote:

A good friend of TWW, Tim, just wrote an excellent piece about this issue of divorce and hypocrisy. And, the one and only Joe Carter also appeared to add his comments there. Tim shares a fascinating view as a trial court judge for the State of California.

http://timfall.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/gay-marriage-heterosexual-divorce/

Thanks for the shout-out, Erik. It’s encouraging to be found fascinating!

Cheers,
Tim

andrew wrote:

The gospel coalition continued support of all things mahaney saddens me as someone who is a PCA member, and a fan of most all of what tim kelller writes/preaches. From what I’ve seen, he isn’t as rigid as say lig duncan, but at some point he’s got to own this maheney thing….the gc is his baby, and either he puts an end to the mahaney love fest or through his silence, is complicit in it, which sadly will begin to taint my view of his works.
TW wrote:
Janey wrote:
C.J. Mahaney, the disgraced pastor who is a defendant in the Sovereign Grace Ministries child sexual abuse 20-year cover-up lawsuit, is speaking at Together for the Gospel’s Anchored Conference in Arizona in June 2014.
http://arizona.thegospelcoalition.org/events/event/9/anchored-conference/2014-06-20
Upon further review I have heard of this conference Janey. The T4G reference threw me off. It is actually a Gospelly Coalition event, though there is not much difference. Several weeks ago I wrote an email to the conference organizers urging them to reconsider having Mahaney as a speaker. I received no response. A friend of mine actually had a response, I think it may have been from Josh Vincent. He wanted more information on Mahaney. I have not heard what the outcome was, but it looks like it was of no avail. BTW, Rich Richardson, the SGM pastor in the video, used to be my pastor. I wrote him about Mahaney holding a mini-conference at his church this past January, but of course that was also an exercise in futility. These guys have such fierce devotion to Mahaney that if he were ever to end up in prison for not reporting sexual abuse to authorities they would probably lobby for a week-end pass for him so he could speak at their conference!

As a PCA pastor, I agree completely.

Deb, one thing that I didn’t see from both Merritt and Carter is the fact that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance. Not everyone responds with repentance, of course, but his kindness always precedes repentance, not follows it. In answer to Carter, I’d say that Jesus associated with sinners before they even knew they needed him. And in answer to Merritt, I’d say that by associating with sinners Jesus showed them God’s kindness which in turn made repentance possible.

Cheers,
Tim

@ dee:

In my experience, Mormons never refuse to make money.

@ Tim: That scripture is often overlooked. It is one of my favorites!!

On the other hand, many religious folks have a way of redefining words such as kindness . . . "Kindness" to many folks could mean making sure someone knows God hates their particular sin more than my sin, and they better not forget it. 🙁

Bridget wrote:

@ dee:
In my experience, Mormons never refuse to make money.

They are capitalists…

Val wrote:

Oh No! Not Universalism! Seriously, is that supposed to be scary? I really don’t have a stand on the after life (nor does the Bible), but his Calvinistic roots are showing.

“MOM!!!!! THERE ARE UNIVERSALISTS UNDER MY BED!!!!!”

Mandy wrote:

In real life my cupcake baker is most likely a mormon…

As long as she’s not a hyperactive Pink Party Pony…

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Tell you what, I think a provider of any wedding service, whether bridal attire, flowers, cakes, catering, venues, music, should provide a checklist of “Biblical” sins to every prospective customer. Don’t just cherry-pick your favorite– put them all down. Have every customer check the ones they’ve been guilty of. Because of Christian beliefs, they may NOT serve any of those customers. They may then file for bankruptcy, dissolve the assets, and find another means to make a buck.

Like find a pulpit and preach “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”?

I’ve read this blog for quite some time, and enjoyed reading through these very active comment boards.
Thank you for the warm welcomes, and it’s wonderful to now participate in these discussions. 🙂

A number of publications ( and Christian Post comes to the forefront here ) appear to have a running contest on which Pharisee is most self-righteous.
“I hate them more than you do.”

My stance on the subject is this ~

Every American citizen is equal under the flag. Anything less is legalized segregation.
The fact that in this day and age, and especially in the Land of the Free, that we are still fighting for equal rights speaks volumes about the true State of our Union.
Oh, we talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it, this young nation has a very long way to go.

As to the Pharisees in question ~ When you look down your nose at others perceived sins, you yourself slide down another few inches into the dung pile of self-righteousness you’re standing knee deep in.

As it states in Revelations, “You who state you want for nothing don’t realize that you are poor, wretched, blind and naked.”

It’s hard to discern tone on the internet, but from whatever we can discern, Carter came across as terribly immature and petulant in this whole exchange. Judging by the way DeYoung and Burk rallied around him, we have to ask ourselves once more if this is really all about Christ or membership in some sort of exclusive “gospel club.”

I find the interchange interesting and informative. This is what MALE theologians do. It really is pretty much a guy’s debate. Our male linear thinking is on display. I hung out with these type guys for awhile, I always enjoyed the arguments. It was one of the favorite pass times of the Bible College men’s club – of course we also talked about cars, sports and wives. We rarely talked about sex however though I was part of one absolutely hilarious interchange at a faculty prayer meeting.

Val wrote:

but he doesn’t bring up or ask her to repent of her sin

That doesn’t mean she did not need to repent, or that Jesus did not expect her to, or wish for her to do so. He did quite often say in the Gospels to people “repent for the Kingdom is at hand.” It was something he expected or wanted people to do.

From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matt 4:17)

Tim wrote:

Thanks for the shout-out, Erik. It’s encouraging to be found fascinating!

And may I add, straightforward, logical, and compassionate all at the same time!

This is kind of off-topic, but not really. It’s about being obsessed with sin and what that does to people who are autistic, anxious and have a strong OCD component.

I used to judge every interaction I had with people as to whether or not it met some sort of standard of rightousness. *Every* interaction. To give an example: I worked five years on a technology help desk, taking calls from people to help them with their computer issues. I judged *every.single.call* I was on. And some days I took 60 calls! I did this while I was on the call. After the call. When I was driving home. When I was going to bed. Did I do right? Was my tone correct? Did I treat them properly? Did I give them the brushoff when I really knew the answer and just didn’t want to deal with them? On and on and on and on. Our calls were being recorded for quality control purposes, but I was better than any quality control recording because I did more than my share of browbeating of myself.

When I walked away from the church, the little voice in my head (and there was one) went away. One day I realized the voice was *gone.* It was such a relief not to have that hyper-critical “voice of conscience” mentally kicking me around day after day after…and I let that voice continue for so long because I thought that “voice of conscience” might be the Holy Spirit speaking to me. In point of fact, it was probably some OCD delusion.

The reason I mention this is because The Gospel Coalition men and many, many others think that harping on sin is the way to go. Maybe most normal people can brush it off, but if you’re autistic, anxious and OCD, it doesn’t get brushed off. It gets internalized, turned over and mashed around until it’s unrecognizable. What ultimately happens is that you start seeing sin everywhere in your life and it’s exhausting and incapacitating to have any sort of interaction with others because of the internal judgment (to say nothing of what you think they might be thinking).

I don’t think The Gospel Coalition and their friends think about what kind of mental effects their preaching might have on persons who are not mentally in the same place they are. I wish they would show some grace.

Patrice wrote:

Re the baker/gay issue, conservative Evangelicals forget that if they can decide not to serve based on ethical conviction, others will be free to do the same to them.

Some businesses have already started to do that very thing.

Arizona Pizzeria Protests Anti-Gay Bill By Refusing To Serve Lawmakers

Rocco’s Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson reserved the right to “refuse service to Arizona legislators”

An Arizona eatery has taken a stand against a controversial new bill — one that allows business to deny service to gays in the name of religious freedom — by in turn exercising its right to deny service to lawmakers in the name of equality.

@ dee:

I used to visit blogs that discuss some of these topics regularly.

More examples I recall, about Muslims in Europe and the USA:

Women Muslims who refuse to take their driver’s license photo without their burkas (their faces are hidden, making the point of the license a little moot).

A woman Muslim grocery store worker in the United States who refused to ring up a customer’s frozen pizza, because Muslims are anti-pig (pigs are considered unclean), and the customer’s pizza had pepperoni on it.

Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up customers who have service dogs (dogs are considered unclean) and customers who have a bottle of alcohol with them.

There was a blog page by a guy (I think he was a moderate Muslim and in Europe) who had ordered a Pooh Bear book for his little daughter.

The book was from a Muslim re-seller. He got the book in the mail and was astonished to see that the re-seller had taken a black marker and crossed out the Piglet character (who is a pig) on all the pages.

@ raswhiting:

Be careful. Olasky is a dangerous person who is using words differently than most would understand them.

To be the contrarian in the thread….

1) I am against legalism in all of its overt forms. Secondary theological issues are not the basis for salvation. For example, I am an “Old Earth” creationist(ala Hugh Ross’s “A Matter of Days”), but don’t think a belief in YEC, or, evolution, will cause someone to lose their salvation. With that being said, I would contend with someone(gracefully I hope) who disagrees because while good theology does not save, bad theology can hurt(extreme example…snake handling).

When I say “overt” I mean in the sense of demanding that others adhere to my positions. For example, I like the show “Modern Family”, there are people who for moral reasons will not watch it. That is fine that for their conscience they refuse to watch it. It would not be fine for them to demand that I not watch it because it makes me unchristian. But it would be fine to have a “debate” about our differences, recognizing that regardless of where we end up because of the debate it doesn’t necessarily say anything about our salvation.

2) I do believe there ARE some important lines and distinctions that Christians should make and defend. To go back to the “Modern Family” idea….I do not watch pornography because it is sinful and destructive. If there was someone in my church who claimed it was perfectly moral and acceptable and they regularly consumed of it, we would have a problem. I do not believe I would be wrongly “legalistic” to say, “this is unacceptable behavior for a Christian”.

In a bigger sense, if there was a Church that was hosting “Porn Viewing Parties” I hope we would all be in agreement that there was something inarguably wrong about that. I would contend that overt and celebrated sexual sin is incompatible with Christian life and Discipleship. If this was occurring, I would perhaps take it upon myself to write a “letter to the editor” to explicitly explain that such and such church is not representative of the Gospel and how I, as another local pastor, was disappointed to see a “sister” Church encouraging sin.

To take this back to an actual practical example. 50 years ago I hope that I would be willing to write a letter declaring my disappointment in “segregated” Churches because it was not representative of the Gospel.

Now, obviously, where we should be drawing that line between what we can accept and what we cannot(watching Modern Family —> Watching Porn) can be difficult. But the degree of difficulty should not dissuade us from working diligently, biblically and humbly to do so. Perhaps each persons “line” will be located in a slightly different local than others, but there should at least be a degree of similarity that we can have unity on. For instance, we can all accept “Porn not ok….Modern Family ok”.

3) Regarding the issue of the providing services for specific events that may or may not directly conflict with ones moral/religious/ethical convictions, I believe in giving individuals a fair degree of leeway. Someone here posited that Christians wouldn’t be too happy if that policy was used to discriminate against them. I disagree. If a “muslim” taxi cab driver refused to drive me because I was carrying alcohol(which I am wont to do), I am ok with that.

Within that concept though there is a degree of basic logic that should be employed. For instance, my personal identification AS a Christian should not be the basis for discrimination. But, some of my particular behaviors CAN be used for a basis of discrimination. For practical example, as an evangelical somewhat reformed pastor I would be fine with a “Gay” photographer not wanting to photograph my wedding because he finds my views on marriage incompatible(and even offensive) to his beliefs. I do not believe in forcing him to do something against his conscience.

So, while you may not agree with a particular baker choosing to not participate in a SPECIFIC event, I do not believe there can be a case made that a Christian is COMMANDED to do so. If a Christian was refusing service JUST because of someones orientation, race, religion, I would be against that 100%. But I support any individual not wanting to be involved in a strictly defined SPECIFIC event.

As another real world example: We have a large “anti-circumcision” movement in the US today. I don’t agree, but whatever. I don’t think a caterer who is fiercely and morally opposed to “genital mutilation”(as they call it) should be legally coerced into providing services for AND attending a Bris. That’s just silly. I 100% disagree with their position, but I fiercely defend their right to practice it. But, if they made everyone “drop trowel” to check for their intactness before they would take their business, I would have a problem with that.

Perhaps I am illogical and cannot see this correctly….but I don’t think there is any issue in making these types of distinctions and defending ones right to stand by them.

4) Regarding the Carter/Merrit row…..I read both Carter/DeYoungs original post, Merrit’s “interpretation” of those posts, and, Carter’s response to the interpretation. I contend that Merrit did indeed grossly misrepresent what they wrote. And, if the content of his article is accurate, he also grossly misrepresented their views to many other prominent theologians and pastors. Regardless of whether you like/agree with either Carter or DeYoung I hope that we would always be opposed to anyone being misrepresented in damaging and unfair ways.

Seeing as no one other than my mother reads my blog(cough cough http://www.theologicalinklings.blogspot.com)I am not sure how I would respond if I found that someone had cherry picked a portion of what I wrote and went around basically defaming my name and view in a publication and “privately” to other pastors that I respect.

I probably strongly disagree with a large degree of the theological positions of this site and many of the commenters in the threads here. But if I would ever discuss your views I pray that I have enough respect and integrity to interact with what you actually intend to mean and what you said. Not just a caricature of your theology that would make my criticism more “powerful”. At least in this case I don’t think that is what I perceive Merrit having done.

5) Generally speaking there seems to be a large degree of being quick to criticize based on theological differences vs actual behavior. Not in this article, thread, or many other portions of this site(which I do read regularly), but in Christendom in general. We start with the assumption that because “they” think differently than us “theologically” we are convinced of their being associated with many terrible behaviors before all the evidence is available.

They are Arminian Egalitarians = They are surely presiding over Gay marriages and are a bunch of Universalists….

They are Reformed/Calvinist Complementarians = They abuse their wives, their congregation and are so glad they aren’t going to burn in hell like nearly everyone else….

Perhaps in some cases those conclusions are accurate. But I don’t think it is BECAUSE of their theology, but they abuse that theology to ACT how they already are committed to doing so.

@ Chris F:

NO. The standard is that if you are openly offering a service to the public at large, you must treat all comers equally, without regard to their race, creed, culture, gender, etc. That means if you are overbooked, you refuse everyone, without regard, until you resolve your overbooking and can take a new client.

As an attorney, I do not handle criminal cases, it matters not who it is. I do not handle contested divorces (I did until early this year, but will not take any more). I will take agreed ones, but my new contract says that if the agreement falls apart, my services terminate. (I usually do a pretty good job of getting agreement and keeping it, with my goal being fairness that preserves a peaceful relationship on behalf of the children and parents. I do small estates, not big ones. I do wills and trusts and other “what if” documents for anyone willing to pay the fee, unless they have a lot of money, in which case I refer them to those who will provide the ancillary services I do not provide.

So, if you provide services to the public, you must serve all the public willing to pay the price you charge for those products or services. Of course, you can refuse to be public, and not advertise your services (no storefront, no ads, no flyers), just word of mouth. BTW I know a wedding cake baker/decorator that does very well by word of mouth, but who serves everyone until her calendar fills up.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Only virgins need apply!

Daisy wrote:

Here is a link to an editorial about this. It takes the position opposite yours.

Kirsten Powers’ Understanding Of Sin And Conscience Lacks A Biblical Foundation

Two–no, three thoughts on that.

1) I have a BA in government and to me “The Federalist” means the collection of papers written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay to support the ratification of the US Constitution. I know why it’s being used in here in this manner, but it’s jarring to see it used in this fashion.

2) I very nearly had an OCD anxiety moment reading that thing.

3) I was reminded of a comic I read in French class back in college (over 30 years ago now). Basically, the protagonist starts removing all of his clothing because each piece is made by a company that he can’t support (and he details why as he’s removing each garment). He finally gets down to his underwear and ends by basically throwing his hands up in the air and cracking a non-sequitur joke about Richard Nixon. That’s kind of how I feel about when people start going on about “participation is affirmation.” Where do you draw the line? Are you going to go around naked and not participate in anything?

dee wrote:

I have a suggesting. Get ahold of Amy Smith of SNAP or any other SNAP person. i bet there are some in your area. I bet a couple might show up to your protest.

Good suggestion, I will do this.

Daisy wrote:

Sabrae wrote:
According to the Bible, divorce is allowed for adultery only, and if a spouse remarries, they have committed adultery.
Not all Christians share those interpretations about marriage, remarriage, and divorce.
You can find some alternative views about those subjects at Crying Out for Justice blog (cryingoutforjustice.com), and the writings of David Instone-Brewer.

Jesus added to this, to say that if a man looks with lust at woman, he has committed adultery as well.
Now look at the list in the Bible who won’t be entering the Kingdom. Liars, thieves, drunkards, sexually impure, etc.

I honestly believe that all these things were to illustrate His Holiness and our wretchedness, and what He was telling us is, ” You can’t see Heaven without Me.”

Just as the law was pointing us to our need for a Savior, the Savior Himself was driving that point home in His teachings.

Daisy wrote:

It seems to me a lot of the homosexual couples ordering a cake specifically for a homosexual wedding tell the baker from the start, “We are a homosexual couple; this cake will be a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage.”

Of the homosexual couples I know, they go to great lengths to not draw attention to themselves. They know most of society has already condemned them. I seriously doubt most of them will flaunt their marriage to a cake baker.
What probably gives them away is when they both show up to a cake ordering or cake tasting appointment.

If a “Christian” baker wishes to discriminate based on his “conscience” then s/he had better start applying those standards to all the customers. Or find another way to make a living that doesn’t violate his/her “conscience.”

dee wrote:

The gospel boys, however, will redefine “kindness” as telling you that you are going to hell.

And that’s a sad gospel to preach, isn’t it Dee?

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I think a provider of any wedding service … should provide a checklist of “Biblical” sins to every prospective customer. Don’t just cherry-pick your favorite– put them all down. Have every customer check the ones they’ve been guilty of.

Yep, as if ranking sins was ever part of Jesus’ preaching. It’s all or nothing, and I’m glad Jesus took care of all my sins on the cross so now I have nothing left to try to deal with on my own.

Adam Borsay wrote:

In a bigger sense, if there was a Church that was hosting “Porn Viewing Parties” I hope we would all be in agreement that there was something inarguably wrong about that.

I forget where I saw or heard it, maybe Fighting for the Faith broadcast, but we are already there.

Thre are seeker friendly churches who feel fine using sex as a draw to increase audience numbers.

I think it was mega church pastor Noble who said he would feel fine using stripper in a Sunday morning church service if it would get more rear ends in the seats. I think that quote was references in a Fighting for the Faith broadcast.

Other churches have in fact put in stripper poles and shirtless, hunky male dancer guys on stage to get more members at their churches.

You might be aware of Ed Young Jrs “Sexperiment” and Driscoll’s kinky sermons of the past. Some preachers think that by being sexually titallating and appealing to the lowest common denominator, they can get more people to show up.

An Attorney wrote:

Only virgins need apply!

HUG and I would both qualify, as we are both virgins.

@ Janey:
Thanks for the correction, Deebs. You’re right, it’s The Gospel Coalition (TGC).

Frightening how loyal TGC leaders are to celebrity pastors, despite proof that Mahaney’s conduct doesn’t meet the standards of 1 Timothy 3 for leaders to be “above reproach.”

As an Evangelical I don’t find The Gospel Coalition to have credibility. It’s some sort of disturbed fan club rather than true followers of Jesus.

K.D. wrote:

I understand….we sold our last house to….an unmarried couple…..she was pregnant, with twins….we caught flak for that….I guess it would be okay for the twins to live under an overpass….

Well… er …. ah … you could have sold it to Samaritans instead? Levites?

I was really touched when I read Jonathan Merrit’s dad tweeting this to Jonathan: https://twitter.com/drjamesmerritt/status/449518008311230464

Sabrae wrote:

There is a flip-side to this that most Christians don’t appreciate ~ “We don’t serve Christians here.”
Given the present climate, you can bet that is the first thing that would happen.

Yes, it will. And you can bet that “Christian” bigots will be the first ones whining to the govt. about their rights being violated.

@ Mandy:
You rock!!!!!

My wife (of course heterosexual) and mother of our many children, was asked to the high school prom many years ago by a homosexual female friend. My wife did not have a date (we were going to go together, but I had an unexpected commitment thousands of miles away and had to back out). My wife said “Yeah, sure”, and there in front of the school she was escorted to the prom and danced with an open lesbian. My wife had been a Christian for three years at the time (and she did not and still does not believe the practice of homosexuality is right–she believed at the time and still believes it’s an abomination) and her date knew full well that the matter would be strictly platonic, just friends dancing. “A” knew my wife was a Christian and she certainly knew my wife wasn’t a lesbian–but “A” learned that at least some Christians are capable of just being kind and not caring a whit about what the moralists of the world think of them.

I don’t believe my wife-to-be sinfully encouraged “A” in her sexual struggles, as nothing went on, she just wanted to be kind to a friend and give her a chance to go to prom. I think a lot of Christians, “in the name of God”, perpetuate a tremendous amount of cruelty when they sanctimoniously judge the world and nitpick over public policy–and yet the Bible is explicit in saying not to judge the world (but rather to look inward first, then towards our brothers or sisters last). Jesus said nothing about public policy (expect pay your taxes) and the writers of the New Testament said nothing either, except the simple admonition to not be scofflaws.

I believe simple kindness would probably cover a multitude of sins and might well touch peoples’ hearts.

Daisy wrote:

@ Sabrae:
I think it can also be a form of discrimination to force a Christian baker to bake a cake specifically for a homosexual wedding ceremony if he regards homosexuality/ homosexual marriage as sinful.
Why does the homosexual couple have to let the Christian baker know they are homosexual? Why not just the one man come in and order a wedding cake and not mention it’s for a homosexual marriage?
Why does the homosexual couple have to seek out a specifically Christian, baker who they probably know is opposed to homosexual marriage, why not go down the street to patronize ‘Big Gay Joe’s House of Super Great Gay Wedding Cakes’ bakery?
I don’t think some of these couples are truly interested in a wedding cake, but they are interested in stomping on Christians who may be opposed to homosexual marriage. It’s an excuse to bully people who don’t share their views.

Daisy, much agreement here. Either way, the gay couple or the baker could have shown ‘bigness’ by exercising choices that avoid rancorous conflict. Now they have forced the state to play Solomon with the infant on his dais. Don’t get me wrong, I am a great admirer of our court system and would argue that it’s the best and fairest on the planet. Most of the others are about what the King’s men can and will do to you. Ours is about what the King’s men may not do.

Sabrae wrote:

There is a flip-side to this that most Christians don’t appreciate ~ “We don’t serve Christians here.”
Given the present climate, you can bet that is the first thing that would happen.

Tit for Tat, if nothing else.
“They refuse to serve us? Two can play at that game!”

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Of the homosexual couples I know, they go to great lengths to not draw attention to themselves. They know most of society has already condemned them. I seriously doubt most of them will flaunt their marriage to a cake baker.

But then the Loud Crazies like to showboat.

And the Professionally Perpetually Offended flock to places and situations where they can be Offended in Public. Specifically so they CAN be Offended. Especially to the Big Audience of a sympathetic Media. Otherwise, they’re Nobodies.

Daisy wrote:

I have noticed that when you are the only non-drinker in the room, or the one person who is not dropping the F bomb, or not laughing at all the obscene jokes – and you’re not drawing attention to this fact and not judging others for them doing it – they never- the- less get very agitated and uncomfortable.

Because you’re DIFFERENT.
Doesn’t matter what the DIFFERENCE is.

There’s some research somewhere that shows when a group gets around 80% commonality, it forms a critical mass; groupthink sets in HARD, and the chickens flock around and start pecking the defectives to death.

Tim, appreciated your blog post, and your exchange with Joe (who I thought behaved in a less than mature manner, I thought the unicorn/horse bit, in addition to serving as a poor analogy that brought nothing substantive to the discussion, was off putting). So the bible calls homosexuality an abomination, and these guys run with it to make it their platform. Yet, when Jesus talks about hanging millstones around the necks of those who cause children to stumble, they’re content to stay silent, or in worse case, even defend CJ. It is truly sad, and despite all of their appeals to peoples intellect, their approach to CJ is logically inconsistent with their approach to homosexuality. I don’t expect anyone to be perfect, certainly not my pastors/teachers, but if you’re going to put yourself out as a moral arbiter, you better be consistent in your application. These guys have lost so much credibility in my eyes.

@ Tim:

Daisy wrote:

Women Muslims who refuse to take their driver’s license photo without their burkas (their faces are hidden, making the point of the license a little moot).

The compromise solution where I am is to wear hijab (the full headscarf that shows the face) instead of chadoor or burqa. The Islamic Modesty argument got a setback when the Muslim woman who brought the suit and insisted on the burqa was found to be on the lam — wanted for some serious felonies in another state.

Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up customers who have service dogs (dogs are considered unclean) and customers who have a bottle of alcohol with them.

That is why in Islamic Third World countries, you have seeing-eye SLAVES instead of seeing-eye dogs.

@ Daisy:
Daisy, you seem to be using an odd definition of bullying and applying a standard to homosexuals that you don’t apply to any other discriminated against group. The states where these cases occur have antidiscrimination laws on the books that cover homosexuals. Any business operating in those states does so under the condition that they offer services without regard to their customers’ sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. The gay couples who were denied services took the same exact remedy that black people, mixed race couples, Jews, Christians, and individuals with disabilities use routinely. Yet you term it bullying because they’re gay. You propose that they could just conceal that the wedding is between two men (ignoring that people pften make assumptions about race and how truly unusual it is not to reveal the identity of both members of the couple to a wedding vendor) or go to another vendor. But the whole point of antidiscrimination law is to relieve the minority or less privileged of the burden of having to hunt down an accommodating vendors or deceive vendors about their identities or beliefs. Your suggestions echo what was and has been told to black people, women, members of minority faiths, the disabled, interracial couples, and everyone who is inconveniently different for centuries. Following them perpetuates injustice.

There is a tension between the rights of free exercise and free association and the rights of minorities to participate fully in society. I get it, I really do. But the problem is that if you say a baker’s right to religuous freedom trumps antidiscrimination law whwn it comes to homosexual weddings, you don’t have a principled legal basis for denying him the same right when it comes to interracial or interfaith weddings. And it wouldn’t stop with bakers or weddings. Antidiscrimination law would become toothless, an empty promise, as the exceptions swallow the rule.

It seems that everywhere Jonathan Merritt shows up, controversy follows. I don’t know this guy. What is up with him?

I don’t know Joe Carter, either.

I don’t think that either of these guys really represents any significant leadership in the Christian community. It all causes me to say, “Who cares?” I can get opinions from the people in my church on a variety of issues. They may differ. They may agree. But what they think really doesn’t matter.

That’s how I view these comments.

Professor Bock seems like the only sane person in the room.

Finally, I would give complete leeway for people who spend their own capital and energies to start a business to decide whom they will serve and whom they will not serve. I believe in economic freedom. I believe that coercing people to do things with their property is both morally wrong and ultimately harmful economically.

There is a sushi bar near my office. The guy runs the place like the soup Nazi. He has ousted some of my friends because they don’t order what he likes, they stay too long etc. He now has a sign on the door that says, “Only good customers.”

That’s his right.

Bakers don’t have to bake for any celebration that wants a cake. To refuse does seem counterproductive, but again, that is the owner’s decision.

I am sure that I don’t know all of the facts in the case, but my understanding is that the baker serves gay customers (how in the world would a baker know who is gay or not?), but that the baker doesn’t want to bake and decorate a cake for a so-called gay wedding. I suppose the baker wouldn’t bake the cake for a heterosexual customer who wanted to order and present a cake for a so-called gay wedding.

This goes on all over the country all of the time. There are just so few times when the issues are brought to a point that controversy erupts.

I find all of it sort of funny really. Of all the subsets of meetings in the U.S., the assertion that gays can’t find bakers or florists to provide products for their weddings is absurd. If I hear that these participants in the celebration can’t find a hair salon, then I am really going to get suspicious!

If a customer came into a Jewish bakery and ordered a cake for a celebration of a young Jew who had converted to Christianity, it would not bother me one bit if the baker did not want to make a cake. Maybe the cake has an inscription such as, “Welcome to the Kingdom from the Tribe!” As an aside, many Jewish people I know are very into business, so there may not be many objections. But if a Jewish baker objected, I can’t imagine forcing him to bake the cake.

And I can’t imagine any group of Christians then complaining that there is simply no one that will bake the cake of their desires, or further, that if this bakery is not forced to bake the cake, it will cause bakers everywhere to not bake cakes for Christians.

@ Deb:

When it comes to being above reproach, those congregations who worship TGC celebs seem to subscribe to the standard: “All [Christians] are equal, but some [Christians] are more equal than others.” I have seen members publicly disciplined and shamed for personal, private sin, while elders commit far worse (and illegal) sin and remain in power with the support of the church members. The worship of authority in these churches truly borders on cultish.

And lest we forget who the rock stars speakers are at Anchored 2014:

http://www.anchoredconference.org/speakers.html

Common denominator: The Master’s Seminary.

Guess who is the man behind this conference’s curtain.

@ burntnorton:

I agree that the state should decide who/what is a protected population. However, was it not that the recent case in, where was it Arizona?, was in a state where those denied the cake were not in a legally designated protected group at the time? I am not saying that makes it right or wrong, only that the law may not apply as widely as some might think.

I do not think that the cake bakers should bake the cake for the gay wedding if it violates their conscience. However, I do think they should go do something else for a living, There are some things in the practice of medicine that I would not have done, not ever, no how, no way, not in this life. Those things, however, are legal. “But and so” I chose a medical specialty where no such issues arose. I believe, with Daisy, that christians have to refrain from participation in sin as much as possible, and the fact that such cannot be done 100% is no excuse for not trying. And refusing to publicly condone sin has to be an option. But where there is a matter of conscience then the owner of the conscience must “own” the responsibility for making some hard choices for themselves. Demanding that society change to suit the individual will not work.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That is why in Islamic Third World countries, you have seeing-eye SLAVES instead of seeing-eye dogs.

Have never ever heard of nor seen this in practice – have lived in several Islamic countries (and live in one now) AND have had the pleasure of working with advocacy groups for the blind in the course of my job, too.

Daisy wrote:

Other churches have in fact put in stripper poles and shirtless, hunky male dancer guys on stage to get more members at their churches.

Do you have any more specific information regarding this fact, i.e. name of churches, denominations, locations?

Carter wants proof that Jesus hung out with unrepentant sinners, does he?

OK: Judas.

On the night he was betrayed, Jesus washed Judas’ feet, ate with him and revealed who he was to Judas and the other disciples.

He did not avoid Judas, refuse to hang out with Judas or reject Judas. So, I guess that is our cue with sinners.

Mr. H:

I really like your post. That is an excellent way to think about things.

Your post allows for the person to decide where their conscience leads them.

In a free society, if we let people choose based on their own consciences, we are going to be o.k. Some will choose one way. Some will choose another. Commerce works that way. And freedom flourishes.

It’s usually a very bad thing for Christians, of all people, to end up on the “anti-freedom” side.

@ Anonymous:

Indeed. If I stamp out your conscience (by law or intimidation) and you stamp out my conscience, where does that leave us as a nation?

@ Daisy:
Agreed. I think the problem is that the cake baking for a sinful ceremony has a definite celebratory feel to it. Yes, we should love all and want their good, but it does cause problems of conscience to participate in the celebration of a sinful action. (I posted above about being judged for selling a house to Mormons. Mormons shouldn’t be denied fair market housing because of their beliefs, nor does my selling them a house indicate my approval of their beliefs). I would not want to be the florist for an Aryan Nation celebration. On the other hand God does not require me to delve into private business of people before I serve them. I wonder if there will be any cakes or flowers at the conference where Mahaney will speak? Would it be OK to deny serving that gathering, or would showing love by serving (with its implication of approval) be the right thing?

@ Val:
So let’s all hang out with CJ Mahaney.

@ mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort: good post!

I want to try to, if not expertly, respond to some of the contentions I have read in the thread here. To try to keep it concise and readable I will paraphrase some general statements I read and respond to the best of my ability …

1) Christians would be hypocrites if they refuse to participate in a same sex wedding, but then turn around and get mad if they are “discriminated” against.

Response: I don’t disagree. I think individuals/groups should be allowed to exercise their consciences and have freedom of association(which also implies freedom to NOT associate). I am not for a lifestyle of “bubble” Christianity where we avoid all non-Christians at all times. I am for the freedom for an individual Christian to say, “for me, here I draw the line”. And this cuts the other way.

Where I logically disagree is with the assertion that not participating in a wedding equates to not being served simple BECAUSE of gender/orientation/race/religion. While this is possibly absurdly extreme…I would gladly serve a white power supremist my general “goods”, but I wouldn’t come along to a cross burning, or, knowingly prepare my products for the express purpose of being used in that activity.

For many people that balk at this “comparison”, I would contend that this is an important point. In many cases in our culture today we have “sanitized” certain sins while remaining firm against others. And sadly, it seems, the deciding factor between what willingly we accept is not the Word, but the world. It is “easy” to speak against racism because our culture does so(which is a good thing), but it is difficult to speak against sexual sin because our culture celebrates it.

2) Evangelicals/conservatives/Calvinists/etc are making homosexuality the one sin they make a big deal about which is detrimental to the cause of the Gospel as a whole.

Response: While it is completely fair to point out a lack of honest accountability about a whole host of other sins(cheating, lying, gossip, etc), there is a big difference. Namely, no one is “celebrating” these particular sins. And, in general, if someone was confronted with this sin, they don’t try to pretend or advocate that their (lying, cheating, etc) are actually GOOD things. Sexual sin(in all forms) is a destructive force in society.

I think the guilt of the Church actually traces back to not making more noise in opposition to the “no fault” divorce movement a generation ago. The thinking was let the world do what the world wants, it’s not our business. Sadly, it is now our business. Nearly half of all kids are growing up in single parent homes. Divorce(and the resulting damage) is rampant. Commitment and fidelity are becoming antiquated concepts. Churches are full of divorce “causers” and divorce “victims”.

3) Paul’s advocation to avoid immoral practices was addressing idol worship and pagan religious practices. We are talking about a wedding, which is about love.

Response: While it is absolutely true that Paul was specifically addressing idol worship and pagan ceremonies….what is a wedding/marriage then? I would contend, based on a high view of the purpose, design, and Gospel truth of marriage, that a marriage is a Holy Sacrament and Religious Ceremony. And it is either a reflection of God, or it is a reflection of something that is NOT God(an idol) Therefore, in my view and interpretation of scripture I feel strongly that a “ceremony” that is meant to solemnize and call something “good” is a direct rejection of God and a worship of something completely different.

In addition, I am sure you might be wondering how I would respond to a marriage of a Muslim couple. There is a very essential difference. Even in their false beliefs they are entering into a relationship that is STILL reflective of God’s purpose and design. Their marriage is still a visual representation of God’s purpose for marriage. And, they, AS A COUPLE, are capable of being redeemed as not just individuals, BUT also as a couple. The Muslim couple may not start off as Christians(clearly), but, if they became Christians their marriage would still be intact and take on a richer meaning. For the same sex couple, their marriage would never have that potential. They obviously can individually come to the Cross, but their marriage cannot come to the cross.

Concerning divorce and remarriage…..Each situation obviously is case by case. Speaking for myself, outside of clearly outlined and known biblical grounds for divorce I would not conduct a wedding ceremony. For the baker, if they know the details of what is going on there are a few important factors to measure.

1) Are they even Christian—if not, their divorce doesn’t “mean” anything spiritually, and, in the course of this new marriage there is the hope of redemption and Christ centeredness.

2) If they are a Christian, yet formerly divorced I think you can defer to their local Church leadership. Of course there are plenty of churches who just rubber stamp anything, but if the Pastor/elders are satisfied that this is a God honoring marriage(since there is the possibility of divorce/remarriage biblically I would contend) then you can rest easy.

3) Claimed Christianity, but clearly, the divorce/remarriage is not biblical. I just recently had to deal with this. Women in my church kicked out her 2nd husband and had her new boyfriend move in. New boyfriend moved in by leaving his wife who was currently in the middle of chemo. Because she had “changed”….This is a completely true story. I sat down with her(since she was a member and claimed to be a Christian) and was gentle and clear. I said, this is not ok, you are both welcome to attend our church and come to our events. But regardless of what happens with both of your current marriages we will never acknowledge this new relationship as God honoring and acceptable. We will not ever host a wedding for you two at this church, nor can you be an active(voting) member as long as this relationship continues.

Did they come back? Nope. But beyond just dealing with them I was worried about both of their multiple kids. Knowing the families somewhat I knew that their kids were a mess. Their lives were marked by this kind of selfish and unhealthy behavior by adults in their lives. No matter what their parents ended up doing I wanted them to know that at least one person was willing to say, “This is not ok”. For too long no one had ever spoken up for truth or these kids(constantly shuttled from relationship to relationship in their young lives).

So, I guess, if you, as a baker, knew these sorts of details, I would defend you saying, “I cannot in good conscience participate”

These scenarios cover pretty much all cases of divorce/remarriage(in my opinion). Either they are Christians who have the affirmation of their Church for marriage, or, they aren’t Christian at all so the same concerns do not necessarily apply. Or, they are Christians who are running from Godly and Biblical conviction and discipline.

@ Adam Borsay:
On the cross burning – gay marriage comparison, there is no equivalence. The difference isn’t that one is currently culturally condemned and the other is gaining approval, it’s that one is an act of terror associated with violence and murder and the other is a celebration commitment between two consenting adults that doesn’t involve violence or any other crime against third parties. The song “One of These Things is Not Like the Other” should be running through your head right now.

Adam Borsay wrote:

3) Paul’s advocation to avoid immoral practices was addressing idol worship and pagan religious practices. We are talking about a wedding, which is about love.
Response: While it is absolutely true that Paul was specifically addressing idol worship and pagan ceremonies….what is a wedding/marriage then? I would contend, based on a high view of the purpose, design, and Gospel truth of marriage, that a marriage is a Holy Sacrament and Religious Ceremony. And it is either a reflection of God, or it is a reflection of something that is NOT God(an idol) Therefore, in my view and interpretation of scripture I feel strongly that a “ceremony” that is meant to solemnize and call something “good” is a direct rejection of God and a worship of something completely different.

I’m not sure if others made a similar argument to mine, but given that I made similar comments above, I’ll offer a response.

First, my point wasn’t that “a wedding is about love” (which I never actually said). My point is that using Pauline admonitions against idol worship to advocate that Christians shouldn’t participate in a gay wedding is extremely poor exegesis and, contrary to your claim, exhibits a very *low* view of Scripture. (Individuals with a deep respect and love for God’s word do not misapply portions of it to further their own exegetical goals).

Second, you create a red herring when you begin to argue about the spiritual imagery of the institution of marriage. This is very tricky ground and a theologian places himself on tricky ground when he or she begins to draw fast and sharp theological distinctions from metaphorical imagery.

Third, you undermine your own gay-marriage-is-akin-to-idolatry argument when you admit that you feel differently about Muslim marriage. Muslims do not affirm the deity of Christ, and yet you would consider participation in their marriage more theologically acceptable than participation in a gay wedding? Are you then not appearing to “affirm” the non-deity of Christ? (And so here you begin to see the numerous difficulties in considering participation in a wedding to necessarily be a religious/worship experience).

Fourth (and this is closely related to the third point): your argument that an Islamic marriage is different from a gay marriage is predicated too heavily on the concept of gendered sexuality. Forgive my language, but you are essentially asserting that the most important distinction between two marriages, when considering whether or not to be involved in any way, is whether or not the couple both have the same genitalia. I would argue that there are a number of other ways for a marriage to be dishonoring to God (unkindness, lying/deceit, adultery, abuse, etc.), all of which have nothing to do with one’s sex.

Fifth, I would reiterate a point from one of my posts above: what is your heart’s desire in all of this argumentation, and in this issue in general? What do you really want? What do you think Jesus will say to me on judgement day for going to my relative’s gay wedding? What do you think Jesus will say to you on judgement day as you and he review your actions and especially your heart motives regarding gay marriage?

mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

This wall of words just reminds me of why I bailed on evangelical Christianity. So many words, so little Jesus.

I think it’s ok to bail on everything. In fact, I think that’s what Jesus told us to do. Bail on all of it… except Him. Then you’re a “Christian.”

Godith wrote:

I would not want to be the florist for an Aryan Nation celebration.

Neither would I. But are you really trying to compare a gay wedding to an Aryan Nation celebration? Do you feel that this is a credible and fair comparison to make?

@ Godith:

Thanks for clarifying. I was a bit confused as to your argument. I appreciate the response!

How is it that people want to believe what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage and do not want to believe what he said about “for this cause” about male and female as regards marriage. Or conversely accept “for this cause” and overlook the issue of divorce and remarriage. Especially since he said all of it in the same discussion. Either take the whole argument he was making or leave the whole statement, but this other is weird.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

But then the Loud Crazies like to showboat.

And the Professionally Perpetually Offended flock to places and situations where they can be Offended in Public. Specifically so they CAN be Offended. Especially to the Big Audience of a sympathetic Media. Otherwise, they’re Nobodies.

Good point HUG.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Finally, I would give complete leeway for people who spend their own capital and energies to start a business to decide whom they will serve and whom they will not serve. I believe in economic freedom. I believe that coercing people to do things with their property is both morally wrong and ultimately harmful economically.

It’s certainly your right to believe that. However, a business owner trying to enforce that perceived “right” may find him/herself in a bit of trouble.
https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

This is why we have (among other things) the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because if left to themselves, some people would not serve women, people with disabilities, minorities or people of other religious beliefs. Some states have expanded on the Act by including GLBT persons in their own state Civil Rights Acts, which is where we end up with the issues involving cake bakers and florists.

@ mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort:
Nirele, many of these so called christians should not serve a woman out alone. Where is her husband, father, brother, son that is supposed to ‘protect’ her. Is she allowed to conduct commercial transactions on her own?

@ Mr.H:

So what is your definition of idolatry? I have heard so many sermons about idolatry not being limited to some carved image somewhere but also being whatever a person values more than he values the one
god. Then the sermon would go on about people deciding for themselves what is right or wrong as one form of worshipping the self, as a variant of idolatry. If that is correct, then Paul’s comments about idolatry must be understood in a somewhat different manner than if one believes that idolatry is limited to the specific (or similar) religions that Paul was coping with in his day. And the way that arguments go on various things these days, I think this is a valid issue to be considered and decided.

Okay time to weigh in!!!!!

First I think Joe Carter wants Jonathan Merritt to be like Michael Servetus. Can’t you feel the bonfire they are building in Louisville? I can feel it from Washington, D.C.!!!

Second this crowd takes anyone they disagree with and do one of 2 things. They either proclaim him to be an open theist OR they call him a universalist. It’s a tactic and a method that they do to tar and feather people. I wanted to comment on the TGC article and noticed how Joe closed the comments.

What a wus…I guess I won’t bake a cake for his birthday if I am asked!! In my book going to a Hyper-Cal conference is as questionable as going to a strip club. However, the people in the strip club are more down to earth and honest.

Mirele:

You are right about the proof thing.

I don’t want a religious conscience claim to be a sham.

It should be real and provable.

But courts are pretty deferential in that regard, unless it is patently ridiculous.

@Mr H

Thanks for the thoughtful reply;

1) I am sorry if I implied you were implying that its all about love. I was conflating the statement you made with what I commonly hear asserted in these discussions. I guess I would just have to disagree with your view on misapplication of Paul’s admonitions. Clearly we aren’t being invited to a lot of “Baal” parties these days, but the framework, I would contend is the same. But if we disagree on the sacramental meaning of marriage, then we of course will be at an impasse. And that’s ok. Your view on marriage isn’t a deal breaker for me. I would contend with you, but I am not super concerned if you never agree.

2) Related to the first point, I don’t agree at all about the “tricky ground” relating to the spiritual imagery of marriage. Since the earliest days of the church marriage has been a powerful symbol, and the Christian marriage is supposed to be a reflection(albeit hazy one) of the Gospel and Christ’s love for the Church. I have trouble seeing marriage as NOT a reflection of that.

3) I guess I am not sure where you are coming from. Do you not think gendered sexuality is at least a part of the design and context of marriage? If you don’t think so, I am not sure where we can find common ground. It is not the end all and be all, but it is a non-negotiable. For example, not beating my wife isn’t the ONLY important thing about how a marriage should be, but my beating my wife is a breaking of what marriage is supposed to be. So even if I had a bunch of other “marriage” points, beating my wife invalidates it. Therefore, I could have a bunch of the outward signs of a marriage, but, it is invalidated (scripturally, spiritually) by it being of a same sex couple.

The reason I would contend there is a difference between a Muslim marriage and a same sex marriage is that they, as a male and female, can by their union be a reflection of God’s design and purpose in marriage, AND, they as a couple are a redeemable institution. This does not mean I would officiate their wedding, but I would not withhold my “baking” from their wedding.

4) My hearts desire is twofold;
1) I think it is valuable to have “in-house” discussions and debates about weighty and contentious matters. Especially in areas where one or the other individual could be in error. It is good for us to think rightly about God and God’s word. Being challenged to continually reevaluate what we think we know is of great benefit. As I said earlier, good theology doesn’t save someone, but bad theology can be damaging. So, if I think a Christian brother or sister is in error, I would love to be able to have an open discussion to discuss it with them

2) Not everyone has the same conviction level on secondary issues. And that is ok. But this debate(not necessarily here, but nationally) has seemed to taken an approach of shaming those who feel convinced by scripture that they can’t in good conscience participate. I rarely see a biblical argument for why they should go against their conscience. But I do see a lot of name calling and ad hominem attacks. If you, in good conscience, feel you could and should go to a same sex wedding, I would love to discuss it with you, but, in the end, I don’t think you turn in your “Christian card” if we don’t ever see eye to eye. But on this topic I sense a lot of faithful Christians who are struggling with what to do are being coerced into behaving opposed to their convictions for fear of criticism and being called names. Which is frustrating, because I am convinced there is a reasonable, biblically, and consistent, reason for them to maintain that conviction.

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

Ok, you have just stepped on my last nerve, so the short answer is: YES.

My explanation: I believe GLBT persons have the same civil rights (and responsibilities) as are held by straight, asexual, etc., persons. I am tired, very, very tired of Christian exceptionalism that seeks to get out of basic common decency towards other human beings.

Agreed! I am sick of people using Christianity to get out of being decent people.

Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

I find the interchange interesting and informative. This is what MALE theologians do. It really is pretty much a guy’s debate. Our male linear thinking is on display.

Oh bleep the bleep off with your ‘this is superior man way of thinking’ junk. It’s insulting and asinine.

@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
Mirele, don’t let the @$$h01es get you down. I think of all of this as the raging of a dying animal. They won’t go easily or quietly, but they will die.

Adam Borsay wrote:

Concerning divorce and remarriage…..Each situation obviously is case by case. Speaking for myself, outside of clearly outlined and known biblical grounds for divorce I would not conduct a wedding ceremony

Technically speaking, I find nothing in scripture that implies two people must be joined together by a minister or pastor. It seems they agreed to be married. Civil laws today require marriage certificates to prove the relationship is legal for the sake of tax benefits and possible inheritance disputes, but there are numerous persons certified to perform the ceremony. Some states even allow family and/or friends to officiate.

So for a pastor to refuse to marry a couple doesn’t prohibit the marriage from taking place.

@ Victorious:

So what are you saying? That it is OK because Moses did it?

@ Josh:
I don’t believe anti-gay discrimination will be rare.
Two bakeries that gained attention for refusing to make cakes for gay weddings “were quite willing to provide baked goods for celebrations of divorces, unmarried parents, stem-cell research, non-kosher barbecues and pagan solstice parties.” http://tinyurl.com/o9sf7er

I respect Christians with a genuine conviction, but I’m afraid this has simply become a cause du jour for some.

@ Nancy:

Hi Nancy,

Scripture must be understood and interpreted in its original context (social, cultural, spiritual, textual). This is the foundation for good exegesis.

My point is that to take passages of Scripture which were written by Paul to 1st century Christians about whether or not to partake of meat offered to idols, and then to try and directly apply them to the question of whether or not modern Christians should go to (or provide a service for) a gay wedding, is exegetically unsound.

I, too, have heard many sermons that simplify the concept of idolatry and then try to apply it to the average Christian’s life by asking, “So…what is your idol?” This is not a very good interpretation and application of Scriptures pertaining to idolatry, because idolatry, according to Scripture, is the acknowledgement and worship of deities other than the Lord.

In other words, if someone is greedy, they are not literally worshipping some sort of currency deity. They are simply being greedy (which is a sin in and of itself). If someone is being controlled by their sexual desires, they are lustful and they lack self-control; they don’t literally worship some sort of sex deity.

There is a reason that the first commandment is the first commandment. In the world of ancient Israel, idolatry was a very real threat to the relationship between God and his people. It is disrespectful and irresponsible to God and to his word to take the first commandment (and all Scriptural references to it, including Pauline passages) and misapply it to a completely different issue.

Well said, Mr. H!

I grew up fundie Baptist, so I got an A+ in legalism, and I know my way around the bible. I’m currently what they call a “hopefull agnostic.” I’ve heard all the arguments. I’m also something of a pragmatist at heart; it’s just part of my personality according to Myers-Briggs 🙂

So I’m thinking about this…

If I am a Christian of a certain persuasion, trying to decide what career to enter, how do I choose a life path that aligns with, or at least does not conflict with, my beliefs?

I could become a pharmacist, but what if I had to fill a birth control prescription? Nope, out of the question.

Okay, I could be an accountant. But what if an imam wanted to pay me for my services? No, can’t do that.

Well, I could be a grocery store manager. Except, I might have to sell beer and wine. Well, that’s out of the question.

Maybe I could be a teacher. But if the school district insisted I teach evolution, and it believe in young earth creationism, well that’s a deal breaker right there.

Maybe I could just be a computer tech, and avoid as much human contact and sinful behavior as possible. That should be safe, right? But what if I find something on a customer’s hard drive that offends me?

I could go on and on, but the point is, just like the Deebs have been asking, where do you draw the line? At some point, you may as well join a convent or monestary if you can’t handle being in the world and dealing with people who don’t believe the same things you believe. Where do you draw the line, indeed? Will you be a witness or a hermit?

@ Josh:

Thanks for that perspective, Josh.

@ Josh:

Josh I want to thank you for your comment. I appreciate and agree with so much of what you have said. The consequence of these discrimination bills is way beyond the bakery.

1. Can a landlord refuse rent to a gay couple?
2. Can a Christian auto garage refuse service to a gay person?
3. Can a Christian who owns a gym refuse to sell a membership to a gay couple?

On and on it goes…..the one thing you need to remember and many people don’t like to think about this is that many evangelicals are notorious for discrimination. It’s in their blood, their DNA. For example….look at how the Southern Baptists were founded. The entire SBC was founded on the premise that African-American slavery was Biblical and they severed from the Baptists in the north prior to the American Civil War.

So this is an issue, and many evangelicals don’t see this as discrimination which is sad. Many evangelicals create their own enemies, and beat the wounded. I for one think many evangelicals have permanently forfeited their right to talk about sexual sin or homosexuality when at the same time they are covering up child sexual abuse. I would challenge you to spend a few minutes and read the details in the lawsuit below and you will wonder why does Sovereign Grace or any other evangelical organization have a right to discuss homosexuality when they are engaging in illegal behavior and cover up

http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/storage/documents/second%20amended%20sgm%20lawsuit.pdf

I went through burn out and a 6 year faith crisis that was hell. The evangelicalism I knew was the source of much of the problems. In the process of being in secular humanism I attended the largest atheist rally in the US – the Reason Rally in the Washington, D.C. area. I decided to move back to the Christian faith but I am on the edges. I stil but heads, and look at things from a different perspective.

You’re perspective is valuable and indeed a gift to everyone here. I hope you’ll stick around and participate and engage in discussions. There is a lot we can learn from each other and that only happens if we discuss and get to know each other and see where each person is coming from. So I hope I’ll see you engaging and commenting here at TWW and I-Monk.

LOL!!!!! Okay I’ll stop with this College Humor Parody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MM3KkF5urY

In other news, a biiiiiiiiig test of Liverpool’s title credentials this afternoon. Our rivals have all dropped points so far this weekend, which of course gives us an opportunity to steal a march on them. But it’s a tough game against a strong Spurs side, and in league fitba’ you often see title-chasers failing to capitalise on slip-ups around them. (Celtic are past masters at dropping points whenever Rangers do.)

But here’s the heady mathematics as they currently stand: Were we to win our remaining seven games, we would be champions regardless of other results. In reality, of course, that’s all stuff and hypothetical nonsense – we’re highly unlikely to win all of them and all of the top three will likely drop some points between now and the end of the season. It remains an interesting race!

I hope this is helpful.

@ Eagle:

Another rocking post!! Thank you everyone for being here! It helps me feel better in the midst of a rough week, healthwise.

I have been discussing this issue strictly from a religious (not Christian) and market freedom issue.

I am not looking at it through WWJD glasses. (Exception for whether Jesus would want the Romans to throw bakers in jail for refusing to bake cakes for the right people!)

I am not arguing for or against Christian freedom. I am not arguing about any particular religion.

I believe that leaving World Vision out of this discussion, and not limiting the discussion to “Christians” makes for a healthier discussion with a lot less acrimony.

I have followed, somewhat, the bills that have been introduced into various state legislatures about the protection of religious rights. I believe that most of those bills have been pulled by supporters after receiving legal counsel that state law already protects that which those bills are seeking to protect, and that introducing a new law would only create confusion.

No. I do not think so. But he was saying that it is detestable to divorce “for any reason (aka for no reason)” without providing the paper, because it would cause the woman to be shamed as impure or adulterous. Jesus condemned the unnecessary harm that such a divorce would cause, for want of a paper. He recognized why the divorce was in the Mosaic law — the hardness of men’s hearts — and was obviously not endorsing the hardness of men’s hearts.

@ lemonaidfizz:

We all have our own analogies, of course, in the effort to explain things, but I think I have one that works for me in this instance.

Allergies.

It looks really weird that one christian will have issues of conscience about, let us say situation A, while the christian next door has no problem with A. But the christian next door cannot or will not deal with B, and the guy with the A problem is good with B. It looks like some inconsistency within the whole area of whatever reasoning it is that christians do that some other folks do not.

But then there is the idea of allergies. People can have areas of weakness (thing temptation) in their lives and they have to stay half away from, let us say alcohol. Well, we understand that and just say “bless ’em” and go on. So how do we know what goes on in some person’s inner self when it comes to something in the greater culture that seems to be more than they can or will deal with?

For example, there were certain problems which one or both of my parents had (nobody’s business but mine) and those areas are places where I know that my thinking and feeling are not the same as someone who did not have exactly those things to deal with in the past. I can intellectually think this or that about something, for example, but even thinking about it causes such a roar of personal pain that I just have to give it up and move on and let somebody else just be–without my interference.

So if somebody can’t deal with this or that, maybe it is not some sort of religious malfunction or maybe it is not some sort of mental illness or maybe it is not some sort of hard heartedness or lack of intellectual understanding. Maybe it is something that kicks them in some old scar and the pain is too much to bear.

I am saying this, because sometimes people say they can’t stand christianity because they can’t stand christians but somehow they still might find something

continues

I don’t know how that printed when it did.

…but still they might find something more or less decent to say about Jesus. Let me suggest, that some of that anger might be misplaced. Surely if the “I left christianity because” crowd expects understanding from the christianity they left, they must be willing to require the same level of understanding from themselves, seeing that they deem it a virtue. Perhaps even a “right.” Let’s even the field here a little.

@ Nancy:
That’s OK. I like being asked my opinion. As one who appears occasionally in court and often find myself on the short end of the stick, it is nice to be asked what I think about a situation involving Mosaic law. BTW, I like the fact that mosaic means a complex picture made from little pieces and Mosaic Law is also a complex picture made from little bits and pieces, some of which seem difficult to see in relationship to the big picture.

Anonymous wrote:

I believe that leaving World Vision out of this discussion, and not limiting the discussion to “Christians” makes for a healthier discussion with a lot less acrimony.

So, let me get this straight. You think that non-Christians, ex-Christians, disaffected Christians, etc., don’t have a right to say something here? I really, really hope I’m misunderstanding this.

As for World Vision, it’s absolutely part of the discussion because it showed the depths that some Christians would go to–to the point of taking food out of children’s mouths–to hit back at LGBT persons. That is a *very bad* witness of Jesus, in my post-churched opinion.

I have followed, somewhat, the bills that have been introduced into various state legislatures about the protection of religious rights. I believe that most of those bills have been pulled by supporters after receiving legal counsel that state law already protects that which those bills are seeking to protect, and that introducing a new law would only create confusion.

From someone who lived in a state that tried to introduce one of these laws: While the law here does not protect LGBT persons, passing SB 1062 would have given those inclined to discriminate a green light to do so. And, I might point out, this was a useful exercise in governance because the staff of our governor, Jan Brewer was busted. They were found to be working with the Center For Arizona Policy (a very right-wing “Christian” lobbying outfit) to write SB 1062. They knew what they were doing and they had every intent to give bigots the right to discriminate against LGBT persons. Thankfully the business community, the chambers of commerce, individual citizens such as myself, and let’s not forget, the NFL*, hammered some sense into Ms. Brewer and she vetoed this execrable legislation.

And let’s be clear, the purpose of the bills was LGBT discrimination. The people behind the bills had no other reason but their “religious convictions” and animus towards LGBT persons. I’m really, really tired of people failing to own their convictions and instead try to weasel around. If you want to discriminate against LGBT people, you should be out and proud about it and be ready to give an answer as to why you feel it’s necessary to have this kind of discrimination. However, I suspect that this open bigotry would cause customers to take their business elsewhere.

* The NFL moved the 1992 Super Bowl from Tempe, AZ to Pasadena, CA after the state legislature repealed enabling legislation for a Martin Luther King holiday. So there was precedent to move the 2015 Super Bowl from Glendale.

Help! I totally misunderstood what Anonymous was saying! Can someone edit out the first paragraph and response?

Mr.H wrote:

We are still trying to figure out the organizational principles governing Mesopotamian and Anatolian law collections. In some cases, it is beginning to look like some law codes were actually organized phonetically, rather than topically, which threw many scholars off for a long time. We were scratching our heads looking for some sort of common thematic element, when in fact the original compiler was simply grouping laws together based on words that sound alike!

Wow. I would have *never* thought of organizing laws phonetically. That’s a new one!

Can you imagine case law thrown together phonetically? LOL. The thought of shepardizing a case (pre-computer) makes my head spin.

mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

The people who are saying that those who offer public services (e.g., floral services, bakery services) should be able to pick and choose based on their religious beliefs need to think beyond their attempts to hurt GLBT persons. Because that’s not where it will stay. I live in Mormon country–how long would it be before an evangelical Christian said they wouldn’t bake a cake or provide flowers for customers marrying in the Mormon temple because, well, the temple is satanic. (One need only read certain varieties of evangelical anti-Mormon literature to pick that up.) And that’s really what our country needs is services Balkanized along religious lines because people feel like they can’t serve X group. *rolls eyes*

Considering that several of my old Evangelical friends refused to attend my wedding because it was in a Catholic church, I could see some people refusing to do business with Catholics if they had a choice. This could lead us down a really bad road. I don’t want to have to fill out an application divulging my religion, marital status, and personal beliefs every time I need to get the oil changed or whatever. But we could easily come to that.

@ mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort:

Is your comment now edited per your request? Because I think your perspective as an Arizonan is important here!

No editing for you, Mirele FKA!!!! 🙂

@ Mr.H:

He does not need his brothers and sisters to love him. He needs them to listen to his reasoning, much of which. in using your example of alcohol, may have nothing to do with scripture or christian freedom or his own past experiences. (I know that is not exactly your illustration.) However, from my professional background, for example, there are lots of things to say about alcohol, for instance, that have nothing to do with anything except the human body and mind.

One of my arguments is against the very thing you are arguing for. That if a christian says something it must somehow be linked to religion or personal anguish or something and could not be understood or tolerated any other way. Well, in a pigs eye. If people want to argue from scripture, or if people want to lament their woes that is one thing. But to assume that either one is needed for a christian to have an opinion and an argument and rationale is off base.

Marie2 wrote:

What concerns me is whether pastors could be jailed for not agreeing to marry same-sex couples.

That would be flat wrong, and I hope nobody ever pushes that. I believe that is another example of the confusion between what is private and what is public. A church is a private association based on specific religious beliefs. A church should not be forced to participate in a ceremony that opposes it’s beliefs. However, if that church opens, say, a wedding service *business* offering all the accoutrements of a wedding package for sale, they may face some issues that will have to be settled in court. But, I don’t believe the average gay person is trying to go there. They just want to be treated equally.

Nancy wrote:

He does not need his brothers and sisters to love him. He needs them to listen to his reasoning, much of which. in using your example of alcohol, may have nothing to do with scripture or christian freedom or his own past experiences. (I know that is not exactly your illustration.) However, from my professional background, for example, there are lots of things to say about alcohol, for instance, that have nothing to do with anything except the human body and mind.
One of my arguments is against the very thing you are arguing for. That if a christian says something it must somehow be linked to religion or personal anguish or something and could not be understood or tolerated any other way. Well, in a pigs eye. If people want to argue from scripture, or if people want to lament their woes that is one thing. But to assume that either one is needed for a christian to have an opinion and an argument and rationale is off base.

First of all, I was startled to read your assertion that a believer “does not need his brothers and sisters to love him.” This sounds quite absurd when juxtaposed with Scripture’s perspective, which is that love must be the primary concern above all else when it comes to Christian relationships!

Secondly, I am confused as to exactly what you are arguing for or against. My comments that you respond to above were actually in response to your own assertion that in some cases Christians may argue about a certain issue because: “Maybe it is something that kicks them in some old scar and the pain is too much to bear.” I was agreeing with you that this is often the case, and that when it is the case, much confusion can be caused by not acknowledging that the argument is indeed stemming from a personal issue involving much pain, rather than a theological stance or a Biblical interpretation.

I agree with you that Christians can argue for a certain position on an issue based on a number of different rationales, and I agree with you that Christians don’t always have to argue from Scripture or personal experience (and so, for example, can argue from a medical or scientific perspective). My point is that in heated discussions, all parties must be made aware of the underlying motives on all sides (whether medical, rational, philosophical, theological, or personal). Many problems and hurts are caused by two people arguing based on radically different assumptions which go unidentified. (In other words, if Jim argues based on a personal hurt, while his opponent John argues based on a scientific study, there will be miscommunication and confusion).

Marie2 wrote:

What concerns me is whether pastors could be jailed for not agreeing to marry same-sex couples.

Marie, why, specifically, does this concern you? We do not have a state religion in the U.S. thank God and we also have a First Amendment (see BTDT’s comment above).

Frankly, in the context of some of these current legal actions by churches regarding insurance coverage for birth control and gay marriage, it strikes me that it is religious organizations that are seeking to expand the definition of “church members” to include businesses and their employees.

Mr.H wrote:

(In other words, if Jim argues based on a personal hurt, while his opponent John argues based on a scientific study, there will be miscommunication and confusion).

OK. I am not the best explainer. If Jim, regardless of his personal hurt has a good scientific argument, his scientific argument should not be discounted simply because of his personal hurt.

I made one argument in my original comment–that we all need to be less critical of people who do seemingly inexplicable things because they may have personal reasons for doing so. One ought not leap immediately to negative conclusions based on the fact that the person may be christian.

Then you responded with, basically, lets dig around and see if we can find some personal experience (under the guise of touchy feely it seems) with which we can identify that area and thus discount anything the person might say even if it is based on scripture, for instance. I object to that also.

I am trying to say that christians have brains and pains like everybody else. Leaping to negative conclusions just because someone is a christian is nuts. There are also other ways that people do that, of course. These just seem to be the two ways it pops up sometimes in some folks comments here.

@ molly245:
One portion of a later comment upon Kraft’s confession stood out, and I agree: “Finally, why haven’t you or any other former pastors brought up the sin of bold faced lying? According to the official, current history of MH, MH was founded by Mark and Grace Driscoll. There is no mention of a Pastor Lief or a Mike Gunn. When I see this history returned to a factual history (where it was just a few years ago), then I will know that MH has finally gotten back on the rails.”
To head Headless Unicorn Guy off at the pass— “Comrade Moi never existed! There never was a Comrade Gunn!” From Moi’s story, we can get a glimpse of the devastation from his being made an *unperson*.

Nancy wrote:

OK. I am not the best explainer. If Jim, regardless of his personal hurt has a good scientific argument, his scientific argument should not be discounted simply because of his personal hurt.

Hi Nancy,

Thanks for responding patiently and not giving up on me! 🙂

I agree that his scientific argument should not be discounted because of a personal hurt. I am saying that the scientific argument should be heard and discussed, while at the same time acknowledging the personal hurt. It’s both, not either-or.

Your solution is too simplistic for the average human being. That is to say, humans are complex creatures and it is difficult, if not impossible, for most people to compartmentalize themselves to the extent that they can set aside a personal hurt and simply have a rational conversation about an issue. For example, I would not expect a person who has been violently mugged to be able to have a “rational” conversation about neighborhood safety. That is not fair to them, and it is not fair to the discussion process. Instead, we should lay out all arguments on the table and so fairly address each one. I would never discount someone’s statistical argument because they have also been personally hurt. But to attempt to compartmentalize is unfair to all parties involved, and also intellectually dishonest.

This is, of course, a tricky topic, because of the problem of insight. Not everyone has the same level of insight – and some individuals have quite low insight – and so are unaware of the full range of factors that influence their reaction to a given topic. It is precisely in these low-insight situations that some of the most hurtful, confusing arguments take place. That is why it is very important to constantly pursue personal insight in highly-charged discussions.

I made one argument in my original comment–that we all need to be less critical of people who do seemingly inexplicable things because they may have personal reasons for doing so. One ought not leap immediately to negative conclusions based on the fact that the person may be christian.
Then you responded with, basically, lets dig around and see if we can find some personal experience (under the guise of touchy feely it seems) with which we can identify that area and thus discount anything the person might say even if it is based on scripture, for instance. I object to that also.

Respectfully, you are misrepresenting what I said in a number of different ways. First, I would never be critical of someone for having a personal hurt regarding a specific topic! On the contrary, I am quite clearly advocating for priority to be given to empathy and love in all circumstances.

Second, I never leap to a negative conclusion about someone because they are a Christian. I am not sure who or what you are responding to here.

Third, it is disrespectful, condescending, and unhelpful to use a term like “touchy feely” to refer to the concepts of love and empathy. I will refrain from pushing on this point too much because it is very possible that you happen to personally struggle with these concepts.

Fourth, I am not saying that we should “dig around” to find some personal hurt that will negate someone’s argument. It sounds like you are very worried about having your more rational, fact-based arguments discounted by personal experiences and hurts. Please, be assured that this is not at all what I am advocating! I am making the case for openness, honesty, and empathy, not some sort of trickery for the sake of “winning” an argument.

I am trying to say that christians have brains and pains like everybody else. Leaping to negative conclusions just because someone is a christian is nuts. There are also other ways that people do that, of course. These just seem to be the two ways it pops up sometimes in some folks comments here.

This may be what you think you are saying, but it comes across more like, “Christians have brains and pains, but only the brains should be brought into the discussion and the pains should be ignored.”

And again, I am not sure who you think is “leaping to negative conclusions just because someone is a Christian.” I am certainly not doing this, nor encouraging others to do this.

An Attorney wrote:

The choice to be a public accommodation — to put your business in front of the public by a storefront, advertising, signage, etc., — is, in effect a commitment to serve all who come without regard to race, sex, gender, nationality, disability, etc., etc.

That’s interesting. I was traveling through a New England state and stopped in a business that served food. Inside by the entrance, there was a sign that read we reserve the right to refuse service to any one and you will be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave the police will be called (name of local police dept.) and you will be charged with trespassing.

I’m aware a business my ask a customer to leave say due to disorderly conduct, but that was not the situation here. It was simply a blanket statement.

Totally completely off topic. My husband didn’t get to go to church today because he had to make a delivery. The delivery was shopping carts for a brand new Hobby Lobby in Orlando. As my daughter, who has set up new stores before says, it is usually a corporate team and the local employees who do the set up on a new store. So Hobby Lobby has their employees working on a Sunday as well as my husband and other truckers delivering stuff to the store. I want to say what hypocrites! I could be wrong. By the way, anybody hear what happened with their Supreme Court hearing last week?

Mr.H wrote:

And again, I am not sure who you think is “leaping to negative conclusions just because someone is a Christian.” I am certainly not doing this, nor encouraging others to do this.

That is true. You are certainly not doing that. But just read this blog and you will see that there are those who do. And note something here, my original comment was not addressed to you. It was something different all together. So I made an argumentative error. I thought, based on a number of comments, that if i gave people something emotional and personal then I might get my point across better. Little did I know. I experimented with argumentative style, to illustrate what I think was a perfectly good point, and I got myself in quicksand doing that. So I scratch that off the list and try something else in the future.

So, OK. we need to be through with this now. I am sure you have a lot of good stuff to say, and I am convinced that you seem to be a good hearted person. And you can quit already with not understanding what is going on with me. I am, as I have said before, a classic textbook case of ISTJ. We are those who by instinct live in a world of “analytical pragmatic realism” according to the describers of that paradigm. We make up about 7-10% of the population, and we have our uses. That does sometimes take people by surprise because I am physically small and female and now really old. They do not expect it. Or understand it. Or approve of it, apparently. As far as I can tell we do not play the same “religious games” that sometimes flourish in churches, and we have to find ways to “do church” without compromising ourselves or traumatizing other people. Sometime that does not work out too well, but that is how it is.

Let us declare peace and go forward. You are you and I am I and surely there is room in the kingdom for both of us.

@ Josh:

Oh, Josh. I just saw your post and link. That is so awful.

Wisdomschaser wrote:

Totally completely off topic. My husband didn’t get to go to church today because he had to make a delivery. The delivery was shopping carts for a brand new Hobby Lobby in Orlando. As my daughter, who has set up new stores before says, it is usually a corporate team and the local employees who do the set up on a new store. So Hobby Lobby has their employees working on a Sunday as well as my husband and other truckers delivering stuff to the store. I want to say what hypocrites! I could be wrong. By the way, anybody hear what happened with their Supreme Court hearing last week?

Considering that keeping stores closed on Sundays is part of their whole “we are a Christian company following Christian principles” claims…what hypocrisy. Basically, what they mean is “we follow Christian principles when it is convenient for us”. Go figure.

dee wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:
@ Wisdomschaser:
Just so you know, I go into moderation myself. I suffer the same indignities as our readers. I am in solidarity with you!

I have ended up in moderation myself! Then I had to ‘approve’ my own comment. 😆

@ Mr.H:
@ Nancy:

Bit late in – in other news, we beat Spurs 4-0 and are now top of the league with 6 games to go – but I’ve been following your conversation with interest.

A common theme in certain corners of the UK church is to dismiss a person’s arguments because they are “hurt”. Oddly enough, this is usually done with misguided good intention, and not with the swagger associated with Morgoth Duncan’s entreaty that believers “pay no attention to the attacks of wounded people…”. It’s more a case of: you’re hurt, and so it’s understandable that you would think these non-standard thoughts: it’s not that you have a well-argued reason for it, it’s just that you’re driven by your pain to try to avoid being hurt again.

Still disappointingly patronising, though.

Rafiki wrote:

Mind you, the corporation is so busy in court declaring their employees to be legally akin to “church members” and fighting against the “persecution” they’ll suffer by following the ACA, I suppose they just don’t have time to focus on the whole slave labor thing.

Hard to focus on “the whole thing” when YOU’re the one personally benefiting from that whole thing. Slave labor is always a personal benefit when you’re the one Holding the Whip. (Or benefiting from those who do; many who can’t stomach the butcher’s trade eat meat.) I believe the original Southern Baptists had a lot of chapter-and-verse Word Of God to back up their Peculiar Institution regarding Animate Property.

Dave A A wrote:

To head Headless Unicorn Guy off at the pass— “Comrade Moi never existed! There never was a Comrade Gunn!” From Moi’s story, we can get a glimpse of the devastation from his being made an *unperson*.

Don’t forget unperson Comrade Frisbee from the original Calvary Chapel.

Sabrae wrote:

How many pew sitters are divorced? How many pastors have officiated in the remarriage of divorcees?

“NOW HE’S MEDDLIN’!”
(And besides, with divorce (unlike homosexuality) you never know when you might need that escape route yourself. Keep your options open and all that…)

dee wrote:

The hearing concluded. I think that the justices only allowed for 1 1/2 hour arguments. They will make their decision sometime in early June.

Forty-five minutes for each side is standard. If it’s an exceptional case (and there have been a handful), the litigants have been asked to prepare for a longer period. What actually happens is that the attorney for each side has the opportunity to get about a sentence and a half out before the first justice starts in with questions. And then it’s all questions until time is up.

I wish Supreme Court hearings were televised, but even the newer/younger justices are against it.

dee wrote:

Questions are being raised about $300,000 given by Elevation to the city to fight homelessness. Allegedly more money was also promised. Shortly after this, Elevation was given a zoning variance in order to build a church.

The disgraced mayor’s wife, a real estate agent, allegedly just handed in her realtor’s license. New questions being raised about the Furtick mansion and estate.

As I’ve visited the Queen City before on business, my ears pricked up when I heard that Patrick Cannon had been indicted. I spent my lunch hour reading the indictment. One thing that always gets me about this (and I’m not saying anything about the guilt or innocence of Mayor Cannon, that is up to the trier of fact) is that when these politicians are for sale–they are cheap. I figured that in between the cash, the luxury apartment, hotel room and event tickets, the guy was allegedly bought for $80,000. That’s *nothing* money to a big developer.

But this $300,000 donation by Elevation, plus the 2 hours (TWO HOURS) that Furtick and “Chunks” Corbett spent with Cannon–I don’t have a good explanation for this. Politicians of Cannon’s caliber do not have a two-hour period during a work day that they can just take two hours for a social call or religious counseling. The press is right to be on this.

Was Cannon’s wife involved in the purchase of the property that became Chez Furtick? Inquiring minds want to know! It could be a quid pro quo.

@ nmgirl:

I can attest to that part. My fiance and I were turned away by several pastors due to our inability to complete required premarital counseling sessions. We finally found a minister who understands the challenges that long-distance couples face, especially the fact that we are not in the same city for more than a few days at a time.

Just wanted to offer one tangled up mess where civil courts got involved in something and a long-term rector lost his job. I need to dig some more, but I was thinking of this case – the rector in question had voted a Bishop into office, and then the Bishop turned around and defrocked him over some sexuality issues.

Then it got messy because the Bishop was eventually fired for not reporting his sibling’s predatory advances on a minor in his youth group.

Yes this is pretty extreme, but some alliances are sure to shift around as this explosive issue gets more explosive.

Did not mean to sound so alarmist in my original point about imprisoning pastors. They just need to be savvy about what group to be allied with, sometimes.

see
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/08/judge-orders-removal-of-good-shepherds.html

Last part of a very extreme story – the big boss lost his job, the little parish priest lost his job, a very muddy story.

I actually am torn between the two sides – I believe if a parish priest/minister feels a need to go according to his/her conscience, there ought to be a way to work that out.

I do know of a PA Methodist minister that went in the opposite direction – she performed a wedding ceremony against an injunction not to.

I just agree with the DTS guy that this should be left as a decision of conscience. Otherwise, parishes can get jerked around a bit, and loyalties drawn, and it can just hurt the little guy, in the end.

Just my 2 cents – the Methodist minister ought to be allowed to perform the ceremony, the conservative Anglican priest ought to be able to not feel obligated to vote a gay Bishop in, and all should go home happy.

Starts out:

http://articles.philly.com/2002-09-09/news/25362401_1_episcopal-bishop-pittsburgh-diocese-defrocking

By Kathleen Brady Shea INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
POSTED: September 09, 2002
On the first Sunday after being stripped of his priesthood by his bishop, the Rev. David L. Moyer responded with resolve and defiance.

In the filtered backlight of the stained-glass windows surrounding the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, the embattled Episcopal rector strode purposefully to the pulpit, stretched out his arms, and told his congregation that he would not leave them.

He said that his defrocking Thursday “had lit a bonfire” in the worldwide Anglican community and that the person who needs to resign is his superior, Bishop Charles E. Bennison, who oversees 70,000 Episcopalians in the Philadelphia region.

As Father Moyer concluded his remarks yesterday morning, more than 200 members of his Main Line congregation sat and applauded.

Then they stood and continued to clap – long and loud.

Under suspension prior to his defrocking, Father Moyer has not been in the Good Shepherd pulpit for six months. He and his family had continued to live in the church rectory.

ending:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18386#.UziruqhdWSo

Ex-Episcopal Priest Settles Lawsuit with Former Lawyer over charges of Defamation and Fraud

By David W. Virtue DD
http://www.virtueonline.org
December 19, 2013

His closest ally and friend TAC Primate John Hepworth who ordained Moyer to the episcopacy in an elaborate ceremony at Good Shepherd found himself ousted from that body in Australia and sent off into the ecclesiastical wilderness. Moyer would later follow suit. Moyer once told a Good Shepherd parishioner about how TAC would eventually have a huge estate in the UK – a fabulous place where he and Rita (his wife) and Hepworth and his wife would live and from which they would govern their new Anglican sect – mansions and gates and lawns and long private driveways.

All the evidence only reinforced the hubris and narcissism of one man who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of his church’s money and that of the organization known as Forward and Faith only to end publicly humiliated and with a small group of followers meeting at a Lutheran church in a Philadelphia suburb. Short of an intervention (and that is unlikely) Moyer will play out his remaining years in the fantasy world he has created invoking Blessed John Henry Newman (who actually got to Rome after years in the Church of England) and hoping that his handful of followers never really sees him for who and what he really is.

A mental health expert watching Moyer from the sidelines said the playing out of the Moyer/Bennison drama was a tragedy after a certain kind of heroism. “He suffered from a religiously inspired grandiosity with a strong sense of his own importance. He became briefly important over his orthodox integrity in early 2000 when he received adulation from people who appreciated his stand for orthodoxy. That began to drive his grandiosity… a sense of his profound importance in church history.

“The adulation he received from others for keeping Christian orthodoxy reached a level in him of grandiosity that moved from the psychological to the psychiatric.

“It plunged the protagonist from a cult figure into the pathetic, creating a profound sense of unreality. What fantasies can he develop now to justify his place in history? What can he sell to his flock to keep them tithing to his doomed cult?”

With Bennison gone and now publicly disgraced, Moyer now must face his demons alone.

@ Marie2:

Pastors who commit or cover up child abuse (and in some states, have affairs with a church attender or counselee) belong in jail. Pastors who don’t take the necessary steps to cover their looting of the church till will end up in jail (the steps need a docile board to approve the money transfers, so the CEO does not end up a provable thief). With all that goes on in the evangelical and main line worlds that is legally actionable, I would not lose any sleep that some pastor, somewhere in the USA will be prosecuted for not performing a wedding for a couple who are not of opposite gender — it would not happen under current law or any proposed statutes with a bracket’s chance of being perfect!

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Hmm, interesting take – the church is too splintered to be fully effective. I agree, but if the only thing churches can agree on is political issues, as it seems to be in the Southern US, I’m not sure it is any more unified.

Although, I would love to see the church universal come together at least once a year despite the zillions of doctrinal differences. We could always choose Yom Kippur to do that – as that is when Israel was all united in fasting (day of Atonement).

An Attorney wrote:

Pastors who commit or cover up child abuse (and in some states, have affairs with a church attender or counselee) belong in jail.

YES!!! I fully agree with that. I finally had to go to Wikipedia for a shorter version of the story. I am relieved to be reminded that the First Amendment still has some protections for clergymen. I had to re-read the story to see that the Montgomery County Court of Appeals was dragged in for the Moyer case, after internal appeals were exhausted.

Also, I apologize for rushing through the story, so as to imply that I think it was ok for Bennison to avoid jail. It took from 2006-2013 for him to finally go away, and that was just involving church rules, and many appeals. I could not attend any PA Anglican church at the time, because so many announcements were caught up in the minutiae of this guy’s thousand lives of appeals. The story of what he did is horrifying.

There is a tiny possible parallel between Bennison and Moyer, and Mahaney and Brent Detwiler of SGM.

According to wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_E._Bennison

Moyer appeared to defy Bennison’s authority, so Bennison picked a fight with Moyer, and then Moyer and him could not resolve it amicably, then Moyer took on the fight of his life to stay where he was, and yes, it sounds like he looted his parish in that process.

Hopefully the Brent situation ends with him finding another career of some kind, and Mahaney finally gets what he legally deserves.

So YES I agree that people who cover up child abusers should be in jail. It’s a shame that so many people were poorly affected in Moyer’s parish.

Ok now back to Charlotte…

@ Val:

This narrative sounds so nice, it preaches well, and I’ve heard it so many times, that in some ways I’d like to just keep it around. However, in the interest of responsible scholarship, the historian in me must point out that we actually know very little about the specifics of 1st century rabbinic training in Palestine.

The system you describe actually belongs to a later time period (i.e. Mishnaic). It was popularized and applied to the New Testament narrative by guys like Rob Bell (cf. the chapter “Dust” in his book Velvet Elvis). I am, at best, only an adequate biblical scholar, so I’ll let someone much more qualified speak to this:

“First of all it seems clear that Rob, in his valid attempt to read Jesus and the NT writers in the context of early Judaism, has not used good enough sources to really help him understand the difference between Judaism prior to the two Jewish wars in the first and second centuries A.D, and later Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism.

Jesus was certainly not a rabbi in the later Mishnaic sense, much less like modern ordained rabbis. It is telling that the only time Jesus is ever really called rabbi by any of his followers is when Judas does so when he is betraying Jesus with a kiss. Jesus’ approach to the Torah is not like later rabbis in various ways, not the least of which is that he does not cite (indeed he often contrasts his teaching with) the oral traditions of the elders, such as Hillel or Shammai and the like. Jesus spoke on his own independent authority. At times Rob seems too uncritical in his reading of sources like the truly dated works of Alfred Edersheim, and apparently he spends too much time listening to folks like Ray Vanderlaan, a local teacher in the Grand Rapids area who doesn’t really much understand the differences between medieval Jewish rabbis and the context and ethos of teachers in early Judaism of Jesus’ day. Rob needs to read some viable sources on early Judaism, for example some of the work of Craig Evans or George Nickelsburg or Jacob Neusner if he wants to paint the picture of the Jewish Jesus using the right hews, tones, and features.”

[Source: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/rob-bell-hits-lexington-and-packed-out.html ]

@ Val: Nicodemus was a Pharisee. I have no doubt there were other Pharisees among the larger group of disciples, since it was one of the two leading schools of thought in Palestine in Jesus’ time.

Jesus’ wwoe to the Pharisees/Sadducees statements were about corrupt religious leaders, not about all Pharisees and Saducee. This is an area where more context and history would be extremely helpful in understanding the Gospels.

An Attorney wrote:

@ Nancy:

There is a misunderstanding extant about the words of Jesus as it relates to divorce. The Mosaic law allowed for divorce of a wife (husbands only had power to get a divorce) under two different standards. One was being found to be impure, either not a virgin at the time of marriage or committing adultery after marriage. The other was a “divorce for any reason”, by merely giving the woman the boot from the household. To do the latter without giving the woman a certificate of divorce was to condemn her as having been divorced under the first standard, which would make her a pariah for having been impure or having committed adultery. Jesus taught against the second form very strongly as causing a woman to be “impure or in adultery”, even though she was not.

Thank you for this post. I knew about this, but lacked the words to express it properly. Your legal training made this crystal clear.
Thanks again.

@ zooey111:

Some of us come close to thinking that we have seen more christ-like behavior, if not necessarily always belief, in the hospital than in the church.

Joe wrote:

An Attorney wrote:

The choice to be a public accommodation — to put your business in front of the public by a storefront, advertising, signage, etc., — is, in effect a commitment to serve all who come without regard to race, sex, gender, nationality, disability, etc., etc.

That’s interesting. I was traveling through a New England state and stopped in a business that served food. Inside by the entrance, there was a sign that read we reserve the right to refuse service to any one and you will be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave the police will be called (name of local police dept.) and you will be charged with trespassing.

I’m aware a business my ask a customer to leave say due to disorderly conduct, but that was not the situation here. It was simply a blanket statement.

It was a blanket statement without teeth or enforceability. If tyhey are a place of public accommodation, as An Attorney says, they’re subject to the Fed CRA.

zooey111 wrote: I like your wife a lot. She sounds like what I like to call “good people”. (See applauding smiley here).

Thank you! I think my wife of 25 years (and counting) is “good people” also. We can understand that something is sin while also understanding that WE have sin and at the end of the day are no better than anyone else (maybe worse for all we know). My wife wanted “A” to have a prom date, obviously cared about “A” more than she cared about her own reputation at that school.

Too many Christians want to make the world into Disneyland, but it’s so backwards, because we’re not called to do a danged thing with the world, but with ourselves, then maybe, if we’ve gotten some boards out, taking the speck out of a brother’s or sister’s eyes. No time left to sanitize the world.

Marsha wrote:

I feel the need to say this. For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many Christians are so upset about homosexuality. I understand that people believe that the Bible classifies it as a sin, but why get so upset about this one sin?

I disagree with both you and LawProf on this one. People get “so upset” about a lot of stuff, things they call sin, things which the bible calls sin, doctrinal differences, and skirt link even. People who do not run in the same circles with people who get upset about a lot of stuff may not be aware of how much upset-ness there actually is out there. The homosexual issue is prominent because somebody took it to the streets and to the court room and the school house. Somebody made it a political issue. Somebody picked a fight. When you pick a fight you get a fight, whether or not you are justified in picking the fight in the first place. That’s how humans do.

Now you can agree or disagree with either side of this issue, but it is not anywhere near correct to think that this is the only issue for which a lot of folks are willing to go to the mat. This just happens to be the issue du jour and in the public eye right now.

Maybe a trace needs to be put on that money to verify its ending place 🙂

@ LawProf:

Are you saying that all the homosexuals are outside the church? Or that the issue of marriage is outside the business of the church? The scripture you cited has to do with”judging” those outside the church.

Or are you saying that christians cease to be humans? I thought that one of the arguments for the acceptance of alternative sexual matters was that they were, in fact, a normal variant of being human? If christians are no longer human, then they have no cause to accept other’s human-ness, being themselves in fact an alien being of some sort.

My point was and is that this is not the only issue. It may be the only issue of this magnitude of prominence to the general public (and I have said why that is IMO) but it is far from being the only issue. Think evolution vs creationism. Think calvinism vs arminianism. Think gender issues as a whole, and for a fact women preachers is really a big and divisive issue. Think abuse in the church. Think the economy even. I seriously doubt that most religiously conservative folks spend much time thinking about alternative sexualities as a whole or gay marriage in particular because there are other issues closer to home, so to speak.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:

Could you now go have a civil marriage ceremony, or however they do it, or are you stuck in this condition? Man, this is a can of worms.

Some folks have suggested that the system in UK be adopted in US, and that is probably a good idea.

I am going to be out for a while, so if I do not respond to you or anybody that is why. Verizon just gave me a new iPhone 5c free for a two year renewal of my contract with them. But I can’t work the thing. My son is going to show me how, and I will be over there doing that for as long as it takes.

I am sorry about your situation.

“On the other hand, I do not believe Jesus would have “baked a cake” for a same-sex wedding ceremony. In my estimation, that is a totally separate matter and should not be confused with an individual who markets his/her product or service to the general public.”

Jesus would not have baked a cake. He would have turned his corsage into one. 🙂

Having said that, this point of yours is excellent.

And I love how Carter continues to appeal to “logical conclusions/implications”. The irony of a someone at the $@&! Gospel Coalition engaging in such a tactic is a rich, rich irony.

Hey Carter, let’s debate the logical conclusions of the pastor “standing in the stead of God”.

@ Nancy:

But if we were to legislate discrimination against greedy people, then would the church and Christians raise H#LL against greedy people getting married, having wedding cakes, etc.? The Bible contains more condemnation of greed than of homosexual behavior!!! So where is the agitation against greed — pastor’s with million dollar plus compensation packages — other than on sites like this one. Not only did God put that in the OT, Jesus taught what to do with money, and it wasn’t to build large mansions and barns to store our wealth, but to give it away.

@ burntnorton:
Thank you! It never even occurred to me to have a civil ceremony on the same day as our anniversary.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:

And you could have gotten the license and had a civil ceremony on the day of the wedding, just earlier in the day, and then had the wedding, as is done in much of Europe.

LawProf wrote:

Therefore, it’s perfect for the person who’s “faith” primarily consists of pointing a long bony finger.

Like the mummy in that Aqua Teen Hunger Force short — constantly pointing with long bony finger and rasping “CURSE! CURRRRRRSE!”

@ numo: terrible grammar, but you get my drift.

I think most people are tempted re. things that are quite garden variety, but that’s just me talking.

@ numo: If LGBT people are “less than,” then we can all feel free to make all kinds of people “less than.”

As in Jim Crow days.

Has anyone seen or discussed this book? I think it addresses many of the issues that are coming up here.

I am enjoying it very much.

I apologize if one of my personalities is coming through too strong here – I really have multiple personality disorder revolving around this discussion – watching the infinite pain of a closeted homosexual, very close to me, just engage in many kinds of self-destructive behavior, and die a horrible, merciless death, vs. the people who have a strong conscience about it.

I very much enjoy engaging with the Anglican church. There was a wonderful minister who administered the Eucharist, and cared for my close relative, both before and after he was sick. It’s a great place for me to go when I want to engage with the rest of my family that feels comfortable there.

So while I am no longer worried about wrongful imprisonment, I just am sad that the issue is so divisive.

Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality Paperback
by Richard Beck (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Unclean-Meditations-Purity-Hospitality-Mortality/dp/160899242X

Description: “”I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”” Echoing Hosea, Jesus defends his embrace of the “”unclean”” in the Gospel of Matthew, seeming to privilege the prophetic call to justice over the Levitical pursuit of purity. And yet, as missional faith communities are well aware, the tensions and conflicts between holiness and mercy are not so easily resolved. At every turn, it seems that the psychological pull of purity and holiness tempts the church into practices of social exclusion and a Gnostic flight from “”the world”” into a “”too spiritual”” spirituality. Moreover, the psychology of purity often lures the church into what psychologists call “”The Macbeth Effect,”” the psychological trap that tempts us into believing that ritual acts of cleansing can replace moral and missional engagement. Finally, time after time, wherever we see churches regulating their common life with the idiom of dirt, disgust, and defilement, we find a predictable wake of dysfunction: ruined self-images, social stigma, and communal conflict. In an unprecedented fusion of psychological science and theological scholarship, Richard Beck describes the pernicious (and largely unnoticed) effects of the psychology of purity upon the life and mission of the church.

@ Sopwith:
Sopwith wrote:

  __
“The Homeless Helped In Charlotte, Perhaps?”
@ Dee ,
“…Questions are being raised about $300,000 given by Elevation to the city (ed. of Charlotte, North Carolina) to fight homelessness.” ?
hmmm…
Q: Did any of the Elevation money perchance (for example) go to any of the following type of groups listed below:

–
</blockquote

Dear Mr. Sopy,

I think your post is exactly right-it's a huge multi-faceted problem–far beyond the visible soup-kitchens we usually connect with the homeless.

I am most sorry you are having a rotten time right now and I really will pray for you! We don't always agree but on this we can: God listens to the prayers of His children!

I would even send you a joke but I don't know any that you probably haven't heard….I'm kind of limited lately to the 'latest' knock-knock jokes which convulse my young grandkids….

The whole body is affected when one is hurting so consider yourself prayer for by a Sister in Christ in N California 🙂

@ numo: Sorry for incorrect moniker in my previous post, Marie2.

numo wrote:

@ LawProf: everyone is tempted by something “abominable” sexually?
Not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds frightening to me.

Sin, every sin is “abominable” to God, sexual or otherwise, it’s flat out treason against Him. And that’s frightening to say the least.

@ Marie2: It was/is a book, then movie.

I haven’t read the book or seen the film – just too wrenching. Though at some point, I probably will try. As for many people who have AIDS and no treatment or support, it’s true and has been since the very beginning. Minority women (here in the US) have historically been ignored by the medical establishment and ostracized by their own communities when discovered to be HIV+. (Not that minority men have fared much better…)

@ Marie2:

But it still is another cause where Christians can jump in with compassion.

As some did from the get-go, but… I was in a group that condemned those with AIDS at that time. And I can well remember that even straight people who contracted it via blood transfusion, needle sticks, etc. were highly suspect and shunned by many.

I went against my gut for too many years, sticking with the “unclean!” groupthink. I know I am forgiven, but the reaction of the church as a whole was either condemnation or :crickets:, aside from those few who actually *did* do something to try and help those who were suffering.

numo wrote:

Err, I have been hearing fulmination and ranting about “those people” since the late 70s-early 80s, from the very folks you say don’t get bothered about them.

Frankly, there’s not a lot of religiously conservative folks I know who don’t muse often on this issue.

SOPY: sending you the very best thoughts at this time.

In your unique and wonderful style you’ve imparted wisdom, humour, and been an encouragement here at TWW. Wishing you much encouragement and comfort in return.

dee wrote:

@ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

Yeah-yawn away. Who cares that little churches can’t buy the same favors? Who gives a hoot if buying favors does not line up with the gospel? Let’s buy our favor with men. God doesn’t have to be bothered with such mundane matters.
I sure hope the entire $300,000 made its way to the homeless, BTW since Cannon seems to be fond of making money.

Dee, I do doubt your motives. If it wasn’t Steven Furtick but it was St. Vincent’s trying to get a zoning variance for a new hospital wing, it would never have come up. Your problem is with Steven Furtick – one of TWW established villains. I dbout your problem is really with the process.
*
And by the way, do you really think the little churches don’t attempt in various and sundry ways to influence politicians to their church’s benefits. Of course they do.
*
Reminds me of the ancient joke about the wealthy elderly man who asks an attractive young woman if she’d “sleep” with him for $100,000 dollars. She mulls it over in her mind and then say, “Okay.” He comes back with; “Will you sleep with me for $5 dollars?” She responds angrily, “do you take me for a common whore?” The older man responds, “young lady; we’ve already established your profession. Now we’re just dickering about the price.”
8
So the small church who honors Senator Smith with a plague, recognition in the service and a write up in the paper to influence his vote is really no different. It’s just dickering about the price.

Marsha wrote:

It makes no sense to me that they should have to be celibate and alone

But that is the parameter the Bible lays down for hetero, unmarried adults (ie, no sex prior to marriage; you must remain celibate), and some, such as myself (hetero, single adult), have in fact followed that biblical mandate our entire lives.

Why are people, Christians especially, so willing to make exceptions for homosexuals in regards to biblical mores about sex, marriage, and relationships and so forth, but some of the ones who do that, will not budge about hetero, unmarried adults having pre-marital sex or co-habitating?

I don’t see how a Christian person can pick and choose and say “one set of biblical standards applies to ‘Group 1,’ but we will make exceptions for ‘Group 2’.”

And I don’t see any support for the arguments that the Bible is peachy keen fine or vague about pre-marital sex, so pre-marital sex must be okay with God. It looks to me that, according to the Bible, that singles, whether hetero or homosexual, are to remain celibate, and that the Bible defines marriage as being between one man, one woman.

(The Bible mentions polygamy, but that is not necessarily tantamount to meaning God supported it, any more than the Bible’s mentions of slavery, kidnapping, lying, or theft, as practiced by some people recorded in the Bible, means God supports those activities either.)

Anyway, I repeatedly see Christians wanting to water down biblical sexual standards for all people, or apply one set of rules for homosexuals and another for heterosexuals.

A complete non sequitur, but I’ve decided that I had decent taste in music back in the early 70s. 😉

Have spent part of the afternoon listening to the Jefferson Airplane, Shawn Phillips, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. etc. Conclusion: these folks would *never* get a major label contract now, and it’s amazing that they were able to back then. Tons of creativity in the folk-rock genre at that time; equally so in soul, funk and gospel.

Wish I still had my LPs from back then!

LawProf wrote:

Everyone struggles with some manner of abominable sexual sin, whether homo or hetero, it’s far worse than that,

Everyone? This sort of plays into one of the common stereotypes I see among Christians that absolutely nobody is capable of sexual self-control.

Christians assume someone like me was specially “gifted” with celibacy or singleness, how else to explain my virginity at 40+? The truth is, anyone and everyone is capable of sexual self control (that concept is in the Bible) but most choose not to practice it for whatever reasons.

I may be a virgin at 40+, but I still have and experience sexual desire.

It’s a fallacy to assume all older celibates lack a sex drive, lack interest in sex, or God sprinkled fairy dust on them to remove any hankering for sex.

Dee-Deb…

Discrimination abounds!!! and on this very topic.. I strongly protest.
To allow a blogger to push Liverpool FC….to the detriment of Man Utd… is pure discrimination..
I am bound and determined that if the ‘scousers’ win the cup.. I will definitely not bake a cake for Mr Nick Bulbeck..

Lifetime Manchester United Supporter… Long live Rooney!!

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

In a typical church that would be a good option. I’m afraid, though, that my authoritarian, Shepherding cult would have never allowed us to do that.

“Shepherding cult” is best described as one friend’s definition of “Fascism”:

“Rule by Control Freaks.”

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: show me the current equivalents of Hendrix, Sly & the Family Stone, the Staple Singers, et. al. There were record execs then who were willing to risk money on creativity, but it didn’t (couldn’t) last. As today, everything good is either on independent labels or self-released.

@ Marie2:
I think this is the book I read when it first came out and the book opens with the author disclosing that he had already attended hundreds of funerals before he ws thirty. That right there broke my heart, and it didn’t get any better.

Daisy reported that someone said:

…. All of this, of course, raises the fundamental question of whether the state should be forcing the Church into changing its age-old definition of marriage — enshrined in the Bible — as the union between a man and a woman.

The state has had in place laws about marriage for centuries, often times at the behest of the relevant religious authorities. And marriage existed before and independent of the church. (If you quote the OT, remember that the church did not exist until later than that!!!) Because it is a legal relationship in which the state has an interest, due to issues like children, taxes, inheritance, etc., marriage is governed by the laws of the state. What churches do is solemnize marriage by conducting weddings. The church at at large, and local churches in particular, did not define marriage, at least in the USA.

If the church had wanted to have marriage to itself, it should have, centuries ago, asked the state to make its interest something different, like civil union, and not use the name marriage. But to untangle the laws about marriage, from federal taxation and benefits for a deceased partner to state regulation of divorce and property rights, would consume all of the time and energy of most legislative bodies for several sessions — years of work. Perhaps the religious community can adopt a different word easier than the governments can.

@ Josh:
Actually Josh, I think these ‘so called christians’ think that gays are incapable of having monogamous relationships. Otherwise who so much focus on sex? and not the other issues of maintaining a relationship.

Josh wrote:

I’m not asking for pity, because I like to think that I’m a big boy

Hey dude, here is a manly, big-boy hug for ya!!

You totally rock for engaging us online.

I would go to your wedding if invited, and bake you a cake, but I am a lousy baker.

Peace to your journey,
Marie2

@ Josh:

PS – Are you able to comment on the next thread? I would LOVE to hear your input some more…You are a valuable voice here, I hope you feel comfortable contributing some more….

Josh wrote:

But there are times like this where I can’t resist stirring the hornet’s nest, or poking the pot, or whatever you want to call it

Please keep that up….I have found here, even though I have not posted all that long, that folks don’t seem that much into checking people’s intentions at the door.

But I do have a bit of multiple personality disorder on most of the issues. I grew up in a very conservative kind of faith, which has gotten pretty stretched at times, but sometimes the conservatism is still there.

In my naive view, I hope for a world where everyone gets a voice.

But I probably am a bit of a kindred spirit, here, because I kinda like to stir the pot, too, I guess. Haha.

Thank you for the shout out. Your rhyme was just perfectly appropriate, like pajamas in bed…..(Marxism, a Marx Brothers reference.)

@ Nick Bulbeck:

(Explanation for non-UK folk: Wayne Rooney, widely considered the best player for Manchester United this season, hails from Liverpool.)

(Just in case any non-fitba’ fans are even remotely interested.)

(Which could happen.)

@ Nancy:

But it is still “marriage” and therein lies the issue between standards for religious marriage and civil marriage. Since each religious group can set its own standards!!!! there needs to be a different name for that form of relationship, as the state has a very deep and broad set of laws that affect marriage. So we need to call the relationship between a couple by something that does not use the word marriage — a different name and resolve the issue a bit.

  __

“Tak’in Doze Broken Wings And Learn’in Ta Fly Again!”

@ Rafiki, 

Thank you so much for taking time to help Jesus mend ma wings & help me Soar!

We here at Wartburg, are defined not by our discernment only, but by our compassion as well.

…your thoughts sopwards means a lot; as do your insightful words here at TWW. Thank you fro your ‘voice” here, as well!

ATB

Sopy

—

@ Nancy: I think you are referring to an annulment, which is done within the church itself. It’s a complex and often highly political procedure, and depending on who sits on the panel that determines whether or not a marriage can be annulled, it can be a painful (even humiliating) and fruitless process for those who petition for one.

Just read the post that you linked to at the top of the blog – about women taking meals to a strip club – and I want to ask what were they thinking? Don’t they know Jesus would NEVER go to a place where people are SINNING and not making one tiny bit of effort to change? (What’s that? He came to earth? Oh yeah… umm… that wasn’t just because we Christians were already mostly nice and not sinful?)

Sarcasm over. What grace those meal-bringers and Jesus-sharers showed to women who feel trapped and rejected. She’s somebody’s daughter, indeed. He loves her and does not despise her.

Thanks for sharing the story, Deebs.

Daisy wrote:

@ Through a glass darkly:
I don’t know if that is a one- on- one comparison, though, to the homosexual wedding cakes.

I agree, Daisy. It was Joe Carter who made the statement that Jesus would not eat with sinners who showed no sign of repentance. I don’t see how that is evident in any of the stories, nor do I see how it could possibly be practical in my life for sure, and I appreciated this story as the antithesis to that pont of view. Not merely being unable to avoid “sinners” but actively seeking broken people out to show them the love of Jesus. As far as the bakers are concerned, I would hope that they would take the opportunity to show love rather than judgement.

@ dee:
That is a heartwarming story, Dee. Thank you for the link. I look forward to your post about it.

I have a question … it’s actually personal and I’m walking through it right now.

My son and his fiance are living with each other. They are both professed Christians. Both are unrepentant of their sin. Neither have any intentions of changing their ways and are planning their wedding.

Here’s my question … how should I a) as a Christian b) as a Father engage them?

Would it be biblical for me to continue a relationship with them? If so how/why?

Would it be biblical for me to attend their wedding? If so, why?

I’m looking for honest BIBLICAL feedback. Put yourself in to my shoes and let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

And not attending the wedding which, in your eyes, should legitimize their relationship, would be the biggest mistake of all.

   __

“Sin doth Abound, Grace Much More?”

@ Somewhereintime

hmmm…

Anguish.

Embarishment.

What?

In ‘Your’ shoes, datz what they say.

I am do sorry for you. (sadface)

*

Q. Have they set the date?
Q. Have you told your Son, you love him?
Q. Have you pray’d and given this distressing situation to the Lord?
Q. Has He given you ‘peace’ that He will provide?

(I feel for you, this has got to be tough.)

Praying.

Don’t be cheesy, “I want them to be moved, N’ act like Christians” doesn’t play well when you are, perhaps perchance, acting “off da bus” yourself.

“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in Thy house eating CHEETOS®  and play’in foosball forever…”

-snicker-

“Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world…” ~ Jesus 

ATB

Sopy
__
p.s. I walk’d around in your Son’s nikies as well, and dis is what I felt: “For once in my life, I have one who needs me…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FApu12-BJNk

Bonus: “God of Our Fathers?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfXCiXZfpUg

;~)

—

Somewhereintime wrote:

Would it be biblical for me to continue a relationship with them? If so how/why?

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Our heavenly Father loves us even when we sin and fall short. You can continue to be a loving parent and that love reflects that which is extended to us even when we stray.

I agree with others that I would rejoice with them as they begin this new phase of their life.