OK guys here we go with my first try at this thing. Let me start off by saying in no way shape or form do I think I have all the answers or even some of them for that matter. I am just trying to learn more then I teach in this lifetime. I just have thoughts that run in my head and I need somewhere to spew them out, for lack of a better term. I started this blog to get people talking. A conversation is two sided. When in a conversation remember, to attack someone else in that conversation, makes it now an argument and not a conversation. We are not here to argue but to discuss. I hope that we can learn from each other and help each other grow.
Now on to today's question:
If Jesus truly loves the little children, ALL the little children of the world, as the Sunday school/VBS song has taught so many of us, then what is with the phrase hate the sin but love the sinner. Do we as Christians not understand how degrading of a phrase that is? It is putting conditions on our love. It would be like me saying my son does something that I cannot stand, but I am going to hate what he does and not who he is. In a culture where what we do so closely ties into who we are can you see where this statement is a joke. It is a sad attempt at us trying to be clever and instead of addressing an issue we saying well we love you, but not what you are doing. When what we should be saying is, we love you and want to come along side you in your journey called life. True ministry only comes inside of a relationship. It is hard to have a relationship when we continue to tell someone, man I hate what you do, but I love you.
I most often hear this phrase attached to the homosexual lifestyle. The damage here is that people who are attracted to persons of the same sex can no more cease to be attracted to the persons of the same sex as I can cease to be attracted to my wife (which I am VERY attracted to by the way...she is HOT). So for us to use a statement like hate the sin and not the sinner in this context is an attack on that person's core. The funny thing about the homosexual lifestyle is that Christians have hierarchies (if that is a word) for the sin of the world today. Don't believe me, then why is it that we cannot accept homosexuals into our churches but we have no problem with drunkards, divorcees (which Jesus speaks more harshly about in God's word, since he never even mentions homosexuality), adulterers (again one of those that Jesus speaks harshly about), idolaters (which is America's sin of choice), and basically anyone who has fallen short of the glory of God (don't get me wrong we should be accepting all of these people with the Love of Christ), but we refuse to accept those that have a same sex attraction with the same love and acceptance that we accept other "sinners" (of which I am one of the worst).
I believe that Jesus has called the church to Love without limits, serve without prejudice, worship with total abandon, and to live without being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The part that we often miss is this, homosexual or heterosexual, ALL of us have been made in the image of God. We are ALL Children and creations of the one true God. Is living in a sexual homosexual relationship sin, yes, (not the attraction, but the sexual relationship) but no more then living in a heterosexual sexual relationship outside of marriage, or being a drunk, or getting a divorce, or holding something as an idol in your life that causes your relationship with God and people to be broken. The good news is that God forgives SIN! He sent His Son Jesus to redeem the world and ALL of creation back to Him.
It is time for the Church to stop using little statements like hate the sin and love the sinner as a crutch for actually being the Church. Loving God with all we have and loving people as we would love ourselves. Let us look at each person no matter their sexual preference as a child of God, one that has been created in God's image. Love is the only true change agent!
Rom 5:6-11
6 When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. 7 Now, no one is likely to die for a good person, though someone might be willing to die for a person who is especially good. 8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. 9 And since we have been made right in God's sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God's judgment. 10 For since we were restored to friendship with God by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be delivered from eternal punishment by his life. 11 So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God — all because of what our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us in making us friends of God.
Rom 13:8-10
8 Pay all your debts, except the debt of love for others. You can never finish paying that! If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill all the requirements of God's law. 9 For the commandments against adultery and murder and stealing and coveting — and any other commandment — are all summed up in this one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to anyone, so love satisfies all of God's requirements.
Some Videos of Isaiah
14 years ago
Man, I think you are spot on with your statements about hierarchy of sin within the church. I do believe that i used to buy into that myth especially with the concept of homosexuality. Sin is sin and love the sinner hate the sin-yup said it many times. And of course homosexuality was THE sin. I am not sure where the church will go with this one-it is still so divisive unfortunately, but I know I was forced to deal with it when one of my teens who I sincerely believe has a desire to serve and follow the Lord told me he was gay. Talk about changing one's world forever. How could I now turn my back on this student as unfortunately I did so many times before? I guess for me I am still wrestling through how to deal with this issue in the church today because the Bible is so clear about homosexuality-but the Bible is also clear about so many of our other sins. It's a one step at a time thing I guess...for me all I can do is love this kid through his life and trust that God is bigger than my understanding of things. I've got to let Him to the work in this kids life. A great resource I was recently introduced to was a guy by the name of Andrew Marin. He has done extensive research and I think is at the frontlines of reaching those who struggle with homosexuality. His website is http://love-is-an-orientation.blogspot.com . Those are just my thoughts...
ReplyDeleteThanks Matt! I really appreciate your honesty and your experience! Your right about "I am not sure where the church will go with this one-it is still so divisive unfortunately". Thanks for the resource. There is a lot here that we can all learn.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my favorite topics, because the church sucks so badly at it. The church as we know it today would more accurately represent pharisees than Jesus followers. I agree with you 100% on the issue of attraction. You can't help who you're attracted to and who you're not. I also agree that we put conditions on sin, where as Christ does not. He doesn't see lying or gossiping any worse than murder or adultery. It's all the same to Him, although I do understand that all of those things have different earthly consequences. Looking at homosexuality, people love to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah, but what they fail to remember is that the "offenders" were not in love or even attracted to the male angels that were being hidden. They were lustful and perverted, and some versions of the Bible even say that these men said, "Bring those men out here so we can rape them." Lot even offered his own daughters to these people and they didn't want anything to do with them. These men were obviously not attracted to or in love with or wanted to share a life with these two angels. It seems to me that by the church rejecting this community and not allowing membership or allowing them to teach children (so what about a straight person? Are the male teachers going to molest all the little girls just because they're in the same room?!) is completely closed minded and exactly opposite of what Jesus taught. I know many homosexual Christians, and by that I mean that they believe that Jesus was the only Son of God and that He was crucified and rose three days later, and they represent the Christian community better than most straight Christians do. If we say that gays and lesbians cannot be Christians and it's a sin to be homosexual, does that not completely discount grace? Is Christ's blood not enough to cover all sin? Including the sin we commit everyday and ignore? I believe by making this statement that the church is choosing to say that they know all and the blood and grace of Christ is insignificant and that Jesus' dying on the cross was in vain.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I praise God daily that his grace is bigger and great then all my sins. Lord knows without grace I would not be the man I am today (maybe not even alive today, you know how I use to roll, Cammie Beth, Lol).
ReplyDeleteI guess my follow up question is...What now? What and where does the church go from here? I am not ready to forsake the Church. The Church (the body of Christ) is still God's answer to the world. I guess I want some sort of reform and not revolt. I am not sure if I have any answers but I have some ideas. I just know that God is calling me right now to love on a higher level if that is possible or makes since. I know we need more churches. Churches that are not tied up in church dogma, but that will love like Christ loves and be known more for what they stand for then what they stand against.
ReplyDeleteI have long been frustrated with the church view of us and them on many levels. I do not believe that Jesus even set the example of seperating himself from any group of people. He spent time with the "best" and "worst" of people every day. But the church has come to this place of needing a person, a sinner, to be fixed before they enter the doors. And at the same time they have decided that they are not called to go to those people but to keep them at arms length. They don't want "those kids" around their own sinner children. They don't want "those people" in their ratty clothes in their sanctuaries. It is just not an option to reach ALL people of this world for Jesus, it is a command. To be true disciples of Christ, to be Christ followers, don't we have to do what he did? Isn't that what striving to be more Christ like is all about? Loving all-no matter what the sin?
ReplyDeleteHere is what I think about where the church is going. Since the issue is so divisive, I would not be surprised to see schisms begin to happen. it already has happened with the Anglican (episcopal) church and I do believe there will come a time within the denomination I am serving in right now (the UMC) where unfortunately splits will occur. I have heard it said that homosexuals are the new civil rights group-just as african americans and minorities had to fight for rights both politically and socially (even within the church)the homosexual community will have to do the same. it is already happening with the issue of medical and visitation rights. I do not believe that the term "marriage" should be attatched to those relationships, but civil unions. I guess where I see the church going is in two different directions...unfortunately I expect it to be just like with the minorities we will worship separately...just as there are "black" churches I believe you will see the same thing happen within the church. I do believe we will see thes defining moments and our generation will be the one's to draw the line. I think the one area that is black and white for me would come in the area of someone who is a practicing homosexual within ministry. I just don't know how I could okay that. I know I have rambled a bit, but hopefully it makes sense. We need to extend grace, be welcoming, and not judge as far as I am concerned, but most of all show Christ's love just as we have been shown his love. None of us is better than any others. Just my thoughts...
ReplyDeletesome thoughts for clarification:
ReplyDelete(1) love has no room for hate?
what do we mean by hate? if we mean, "disapprove of" then we are saying love has no room for disapproval or correction.
love must be corrective.
it is one thing for someone to get on your nerves. it is another for that person to do something destructive to themselves or society. sin is always destructive to the person and the society.
it must be corrected, disapproved of, and therefore "hated" (defined as strong disapproval).
iv'e noticed a trend among postmodern christians. they clothe everything in love. but they don't know what love is. love has a corrective aspect to it. that is one of the primary functions of the parent/child relation - correction.
maybe that is why god calls us his children. we need correction. he can love the person and hate (disapprove of) sin.
(2)the church is full of sinners. but one difference in the homosexual discussion is this: homosexuals want their sin to be open for everyone to see.
whereas most are striving for deliverance, homosexuals are striving for full acceptance. "i can't help the way i am therefore you must accept me like i am".
like me saying i can't help but to have a mistress on the side. accept it.
homosexuality is a sexual perversion. so is: adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.
openly sexual perversions must be condemned in the church. now does that mean you kick someone out? i don't know. but if i had a man in my church that was bringing his mistress to our small group meeting every week just to try to get everyone to approve of it, while his wife sat there broken hearted, then i would tell him that until he can cut off this part of his life, there is no room for him here.
he knows what to do. we are not refusing treatment. we are telling him this is not a game. read paul on the matter.
we paint homosexuals as helpless people who don't know what they are doing. that isn't true. they know exactly what they are doing. and they like it. they want to continue in it. and they want the church to approve of it.
and because of church peoples guilt toward them, we do! its unbelievable. i don't feel guilty because i don't treat them any different. it is a sin. period.
i mean if we are going to define homosexuality as a normal sin, then it can be "put to death" just as easily as any other sexual deviation - sin.
(3) yes god forgives. but he also changes us. if there is no change, then there is no point for the cross. if you love me, keep my commandments. very simple.
(4) is the black lettering in my bible not god's word?
if jesus didn't say anything against homosexuals then neither should we?
jesus said it because he approved of the old testament (something christians refuse to read and accept as a normal corrective in their life) - and the old testament is gods word. and jesus is god.
he didn't say it because he already had said it.
(5) sorry if this comes across the wrong way. (this is the failure of blogsphere conversations, you can't see my face or heart as well).
but i see a huge flock of people just swallowing all that the radical homosexual agenda has to offer. yes, they have an agenda and its radical. and its anti-god, anti-scripture, anti-history, anti-social, anti-family, anti-marriage, etc.
love them. yes.
but don't give them special treatment and special concessions. remember, we are to love all the children of the world.
btw,
ReplyDeletei completely agree that the world is only changed by love. (but lets define that love).
and i know from experience that no person changes without relationships. that is why we must build relationships to all kinds of sinners.
but there should not be an over correction. we always swing the pendulum too far.
To me, "Love the sinner, but hate the sin" is not a call to action, but rather a philosophy of perception. It's not meant to be used as an attack against others, but rather as a personal, inward separation of what a person does from who they are. A person's actions may reflect the state of their being, but their actions are not who they are. Saying someone's actions are their essence is categorizing them, which strips away their uniqueness and their value. To me, this phrase is accurate and helpful to prevent that.
ReplyDeleteNow you could also look at it like the sin is their sinful nature rather than their sinful action. And in this case, the separation is less obvious, but I believe the phrase also has philosophical merit. Because all of us have been twisted by sin. Even as a Christian, I struggle with tendencies and leanings, the result of the sinful nature I carried for so long, that occasionally lead me to sin. God loves me, the person, but He also does not allow me to be complacent about the various twists and bends caused by that past sinful nature. He wants me to keep trying while He works on them. He hates what the sinful nature caused in my life, but He loves me.
With someone who has not crossed the line of faith, their sin nature dominates their actions, but it doesn't define their essence or value (only their choice to rebel against God, the choice which we all made at some point). If you love that person and hate their sin nature, then you'll want to add value to their lives, build influence, and try to show them how they can get rid of that burdensome sin nature... not in a judging way, as that's not loving them... but at the same time that doesn't mean you have to forsake Godly principles of what's right and what's wrong.
Ultimately, the person has to decide whether they want to accept or reject Love (God). God will meet a person exactly where they are, but He loves us enough to try to help us continually change towards a perfect love.
Personally, I would be ashamed to be in a church that would not welcome a homosexual in with open arms. But I would be equally ashamed to be in a church that allowed ANY person who is in open sin to be in a position of authority in that church. Whether that sin be living together before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, etc., if the person is openly and willfully sinning with no intent to change, they should not be allowed to try to lead others in the church while they are in that state. They are not trying to follow God, so how can they teach me to better follow God?
Good comments here. I've enjoyed the reading. I like the corrective part of love. As a parent I will never cease to love my children, but at times I am displeased, or disapprove of their actions. If I don't seek to correct them I am failing them as a parent.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complex issue, which requires thought and discernment. Too many times we are looking for a quick answer to help us deal with issues like this in the church. The reality is that we must deal with people on an individual basis. We must treat each situation with care and love. There isn't a blanket answer or solution for this issue. Within the structure of the church we must seek to love others and influence them for Christ. I guess we have to answer this question. Do we simply want to accept them, or do we want to help them? Do we even view them as needing help? If we determine that we must help these people, or that we need to take them somewhere, then those leading them can't be bound by the same chains. It simply won't work. Someone who has come out of the homosexual lifestyle, might be a good leader, but someone still struggling has nothing to offer. This is in response to those in leadership, not membership.
I also believe that lives are changed by relationships, but I have also found it easy to become complacent in those relationships. At times it is like I have forgotten that I am suppose to be spurring them on in the journey to Christ, and I have relegated myself to merely another "friend". If we are going to be agents of change we can't forget the destination. We can't become so complacent in the relationship that we forget, we began the relationship with the idea of helping the other person. Complacency on our part can kill the "change" agent of our relationships.
With this said I think it would be hard for someone to spur someone on to Christ, or influence them, or be an agent of change, if they are openly and without resolve practicing homosexuality. Not because it is a greater sin than the others, but because it clouds their judgment and keeps them from effectively leading others.
This isn't my blog, but I do have a question that relates to this topic. Are their degrees to sin? It appears that most here have assumed that sin is sin. Is that true? Not in our eyes, but in God's. Does he see view murder the same as lying?
Man do I love the interaction we are having on this topic. I really appreciate everyone openness and honesty. I think Chris is right when he states, "This is a complex issue, which requires thought and discernment. Too many times we are looking for a quick answer to help us deal with issues like this in the church. The reality is that we must deal with people on an individual basis." Well said Chris.
ReplyDeleteMarshall and Kasey, dudes, do I miss you two guys more than you know, thanks for you input and insight. When I started this "question" my first thought was never should we debate whether homosexuality is a sin or not. I think the Bible is pretty clear that God sees the practice of homosexual sex as a sin. My thought was how do we better minister to those who are in the lifestyle without condemning them before having enough relationship equity built up in a person to help them make a change if needed. I do want through a few cautions out though:
1. Be careful lumping "ALL" homosexuals into the same group. It was stated that all homosexuals have "an agenda". Not all of the homosexual community have "an agenda". I personally know quite a few homosexuals and if I were to ask them their "agenda" I am not sure they would understand. I also know quite a few people who struggle with same sex attraction and are lovers of God, his word and commands, and love to serve people to further God's kingdom.
2. There are different levels (not sure I like the word levels here, but it's all I have) of homosexuality here that I think we need to discuss.
a. The person who is attracted to someone of the same sex, but is struggling with that attraction. I am under the perception that you cannot help who or what you are attracted to. Just like I cannot help being attracted to my hot wife, a homosexual is attracted to someone of the opposite sex because of their make up. (whether it by a traumatic experience had as a child or a genetic make up, which there are more and more studies pointing towards this for certain homosexuals, then there is a reason for their attraction that is beyond their immediate control). I do not believe that, to be attracted to something or someone, is a sin. I am attracted to Angelina Jolie but I am not going to try and sleep with her the first chance I get. So this is where I believe the battle can be fought and should be waged.
b. There is the homosexual who wants to have a monogamous homosexual relationship with all the right and passages of a heterosexually marriage. Sex included. This is where "most" of the homosexual community is that we see on the news everyday. Here is where "most" of the battle lines are drawn. Here is where the church has decided to take its stand for the sanctity of marriage between and man and a woman (which the Bible is pretty clear on and I agree with 100%). This is where I believe the thoughts of "most" people are on when you discuss the homosexual lifestyle.
c. Their are those in the world that use the homosexual lifestyle as a means to sexual gratification. They only practice homosexuality to "get off" sexually. This stance is a perversion. This is where I believe "most" of both sides of this argument would agree that this is a perversion. The homosexuals I know would even go as far as saying just to have homosexual sex for sexual gratification is wrong and perverted. (I could make a good case as to this is the homosexual practice Paul most talks about in the Bible, as this was common practice in the cultures of both Greece and Rome).
3. Be careful defining hate as "disapprove of" I am not sure that is what the definition of hate would be in today's society. If I told someone I hated them, they would not walk away from that discussion thinking, "well he just disapproves of me". Hate to me is the opposite of love, I am not even sure if that is a great definition, but one I could live with in this context. We will never build a relationship and a bridge to people with hate in the room. There are two BIG issues the Church is dealing with in today's culture weather we like it or not we have to deal with it: 1.the notion that we preach hate against things and people 2. that our words and deeds do not match up making us hypocrites. Now we can say well that is the perception of the world and its their problem or we can do something about it. And changing that perception is going to be tough and not something we will solve on a blog. Defining hate as "disapprove of" is a very scary proposition to me in today's world.
4. I know what you meant here Marshall, but I am going to play Devil's advocate here:
"Jesus said it because he approved of the old testament (something Christians refuse to read and accept as a normal corrective in their life) - and the old testament is Gods word. and Jesus is god."
I totally agree that Jesus did not speak against some things. I also believe just because he did not speak against somethings does not mean it's all fair and game. I do though believe that somethings in the Old Testament where set in place to "protect" the Israelite people and not as a blanket doctrine for the whole Church to follow in the 21st century. If that were so then we should not eat pork, we should be stoned for working on Sunday, we should stone any and all people who break God's commands, women should only speak at home (some of this is even true in the New Testament, or women would not be allowed to speak at all in church and I'm not even going there, LOL). If someone reads this who is not a biblical scholar such as yourself this is another one of those areas that is under attack in today's world for Christians. Because we pick and choose which battles to fight and then use the scripture to "back up" what we are fighting against it is seen as the Bible has contradictions and we live as hypocrites cause we do not do exactly what the Bible says on ALL things.
Lastly I would like to say thanks to all of you who have commented. I really love the fact that we can do this and love each other still the same. I love what Marshall wrote: "this is the failure of blogsphere conversations, you can't see my face or heart as well", well said. I love the fact that this gets us talking and thinking about things that we might not have thought of yet. I just hope personally that I never come to a place where I think that I have "it" all figured out and that I cannot grow by listening, reading, and studying. I love God's people and thier passion for what they beleive in.
I still want to be known more for what I stand for then what I stand against!
Love, hope, peace, grace, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, gentleness, and change.
PS. Since we have just started and this topics is just now building some momentum I will wait until next week to post a new question. Maybe every other week is a better bet then every week that way it gives a question time to be discussed. Thanks again everyone for your discussions. May God bless you and keep you!
Just though I would share this Dr. Jim Garlow, Pastor at Skyline Wesleyan Church, and one of the front line people in California for Prop 8, the initiative on same sex marriages in California, will be on Dr. Phil this week debating this issue. Just thought you might want to check it out:
ReplyDeleteDear Friends,
I will be on the Dr. Phil show this Friday (CBS stations). But first, allow me to give some background.
If you are following the national news regarding Prop 8 in CA, read on. If you have no interest in it, hit delete & I will have cost you only 3 seconds, I hope. Most of you who receive this are outside CA. Those of you from CA already know most of this. (And for that I apologize for writing you.) But I am writing this for the benefit of my many friends outside our state.
BASIC FACTS
With a solid victory (52% to 48%) on election night which restored marriage as “one man - one woman,” many of us assumed – mistakenly – that the “No on 8” campaign would recognize that the voters had expressed themselves on this, twice, in fact.
As you may know, thirty states have voted on this issue, and thirty states have affirmed that marriage is one man – one woman. The national average “pass rate” is 68 percent - meaning that almost 7 out of 10 Americans have voted that marriage is one man – one woman in 30 states. However, as we shall share later, what the anti-marriage crowd cannot get by the democratic process they try to coerce by judicial tyranny and by mob action.
The percentage of people who voted for Prop 8 is the same percentage as the national popular vote for Barak Obama. Yet the “No on 8” people refuse to accept that fact.
This issue was thoroughly vetted in the electoral process. This is the largest amount spent for a non-economic proposition ($80 million). In fact, more people voted on Prop 8 (for or against) than the total number of people who voted in California for both Obama and McCain put together.
Democracy has winners. It has losers. They lost. But the “No on 8” side will not accept that, even after two elections (2000 and 2008) on this same topic.
THEIR RESPONSE
They are now refusing to accept it, asking the CA Supreme Court to overturn our new constitutional amendment.
Secondly, they have taken to the streets. There were 20,000 marchers on the streets here in San Diego last Saturday, only one of some 300 cities.
Thirdly, religious bigotry is happening across our state with so many acts of violence – towards both persons and property. We are asking people to report these to ProtectMarriageCA@4sd.net As soon as we can, we shall post these Persecution Alerts on www.ProtectMarriageCA.com Bricks have been thrown through church windows. Church buildings have been defaced. Pastors have been threatened. Cars damaged. Likely a quarter of a million signs were stolen. Worst of all, some people have been beaten.
Spilling out into other state, the radical pro-homosexual lobby disrupted a service at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, MI, literally taking over the service, as parishioners sat there stunned. See http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2302-gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html
I want you to see the mob action that occurred in San Francisco, CA last Friday night. Thirteen twenty year olds from a ministry known as the Justice House of Prayer (Part of the Kansas City based “The Call” ministry) gather every Friday night to sing worship songs and play guitars in the Castro District, just like they have done each weekend for three years.
But this past weekend, in the wake of Prop 8 successful passage, an angry mob surrounded them, knocked two of the girls down, hit them in the face, poured hot coffee on them. At that point, the men placed the girls in the middle of a “huddle” while the angry thugs encircled them.
Watch these two videos. The first was taken, we are told, by Channel 2. The second was taken by a homosexual in the Castro District. These will give you a feel for what is being experienced. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng
Secondly, watch this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGAs_09HLHs
LARRY KING
We have been trying to respond in numerous ways, including media interviews. I have done approximately 130 interviews on Prop 8. I was one of four guests on Larry King last Friday night, up against Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco.
DR. PHIL
I will be a guest on the Dr. Phil show, this Friday, Nov. 21, on CBS stations near you (it airs at 3pm in San Diego, but check local times for listing). We taped the show today. On my side are Maggie Gallagher (National Organization for Marriage) and Jeff Flint (Schubert-Flint Company directed the “Yes on 8” campaign). Opposing us are Mayor Gavin Newsome (San Francisco), Gloria Allred (leftist attorney) and Joe Solmonese (Humuan Rights Campaign, a national homosexual organization, the major funder of “No on 8”).
With these guests, plus a fired-up studio audience that hassled, yelled, catcalled and tried to drown us out at times, it made for an (how do I say this?) interesting experience. It was so intense that Dr. Phil – after the one hour taping had ended – decided to keep us there for another taping, for another show to be aired (we are told) in December).
You might want to encourage your friends to watch this Friday, Nov 21. As you watch, pray that truth, righteousness and justice prevail in our state and in our land.
Having done all, standing,
Jim Garlow
Interesting topic. I wish I had time to chime in about the "attraction" part of homosexuality. Maybe this weekend I will have time and respond.
ReplyDeletehoffster,
ReplyDeletehey man. i wrote a book of a comment and then tried to post it and it got deleted. i almost cried. then i realized that maybe god didn't want it posted. lol.
anyway, here is the shortened version.
(1) i didn't clump all homosexuals together. i was talking about the radical homosexual agenda (see my comment). there is a clear agenda and it is radical. that doesn't mean that all participate in it.
(2) the levels of differentiation are helpful. we always deal with individuals on an individual basis (as chris w. pointed out). but we also have to address movements, ideas, and agendas such as liberalism, feminism, collectivism (socialism), individualism, etc.
we are to always love the person and see them as someone that christ died for and someone that he cares about and someone that was created to bear his image. never ever should we lose focus of that. but we must be a corrective voice to the culture.
ideas have consequences. and ideas can be opposed and should be. yet, the person can still be loved. actually one shows more love by being honest and truthful than to shimmy around and try and be their "friend".
remember how christian germany turned into our generations greatest illustration of evil. and it happened because of ideas. ideas have consequences. that is why ideas must be critiqued and thought through to their ending conclusions (and must be biblically, theologically, philosophically grilled; some things ought to be charred and others ideas savored).
(3) concerning the hate definition. i understand that most people define hate today as revengeful or anger-filled. but i don't think that is the only definition. hate can be a strong disapproval.
god "dissapproved of" (hated) esau and approved of (loved) jacob. god didn't have some kind of angry/revengeful hate against esau. hate doesn't always have to have the connotation of anger or revenge.
but i do understand the importance of language and i would never say to a person i hate what you do but sure love you. i would say to them that i think their ideas (worldview;dogma) is destructive and off-track, wrong, etc. but hate may be misunderstood.
on a side note. i think today we don't hate enough. we approve of everything. we have no standards. we laugh at sexual immorality on television and drool over watching the news and all the bad things in the world. we have become desensitized. we don't hate sin enough. and yet sin still leads to death.
(4) you know the old testament thing is a matter of untangling the principles for life. for, life principles never dissolve and go away. in particular sexual principles don't.
foods change. what we eat changes. and peter had a vision about that. but sexual principles don't change. and the principles of which the law are based upon don't change.
in the old testament god was using object lessons to teach people stuff (teach us stuff). i mean, if i knew that if i were caught committing adultery that i might be stoned, that is a powerful deterrent. what's more powerful is to see my buddy jimmy get stoned (with rocks) to death last week because he was caught in adultery.
it physically shows that sin leads to death. sin leads to real consequences. and my comment concerned how people today don't read the old testament because they don't understand it and don't want to. it is going to be hard work to decipher the principles. but it must be done. god is trying to teach us something.
(5) one last thought. the wider culture will never understand or accept us. screw the media. if the media defines us, which they have, then that means they have control over what we are/who we are. they are not what defines us.
jesus defines us. the life of the holy spirit in his church defines us. the fathers love defines us. the holy scriptures define us.
jesus never had great media coverage. we wont either. we watch and listen to and care about media way too much. we forget that all media is a production and not close to reality; not even close.
screw the media. but love those around you. love the unlovable. love because christ first loved us and gave himself. we ought to give ourselves to those around us. and stop worrying about our image.
i am always shocked that the incarnation, life, and resurrection of jesus was not covered by world report during his day. not many people knew about it. but certain people did. it was a grassroots movement.
as christians i think there is an aspect of concern we ought to have about our image. but more importantly we ought to be concerned with loving every person we come in contact with. i remember what my dad used to tell me when i was in school, "don't worry about what other people think about you, the truth about you will always come out in the end." that is a sobering thought (because what really is in us, motive-wise and all?) but it is helpful because if we really love people it will come out.
images don't matter as much as reality. reality, the truth, will always triumph.
(i too enjoy the discussion and i find it helpful, thanks for creating this venue)
Well stated Marshall , I love your passion and I know your heart above all else.
ReplyDeleteJustin, I would love to hear what you have to say, but I also know you are super busy. Maybe if you get a chance that would be awesome.
I have come to an epiphany lately and understand that I very well could be in a minority of Christ-followers/Evangelicals today.
ReplyDeleteAs I have studied the scripture (especially Jesus' response to sin) I have understood one command very clearly. We are called to love and reflect Christ's love to people. Plain and simple. It is our responsibility as Christians (those who reflect Christ) to introduce a relationship with Christ to those who are not currently connect with Him in this way. It is His responsibility to convict them of sin and "turn them from their wicked ways". At that point, we are able to help them through whatever sin is a struggle just as we do with each other.
I believe we as the Church have confused our roles with the role of Christ. We can believe that certain acts are sin and can have biblical backing for these beliefs. However, I believe that we are held just as accountable to "those with no sin throwing the first stone" as the characters in the New Testament story.
I believe that if we as Christ-followers would understand what part of "love" we are called to fulfill and allowed Christ to work in the lives of those who are "in sin", we would be more effective in our role of reaching those who do no know Him. God has not called us to judge sin or the sinner. We are not called to define who is a believer and who is not a believer by our definition. We are called to reflect His love to our neighbors, introduce them to a vital relationship with Christ and allow Him to work on them inside.
I have heard many people say that Jesus called sin out and told people to change using the story of the woman at the well to support their claim. However, one thing we all need to remember is that Jesus was God, he was fully man and fully God without sin. We are not and will not realize this perfect balance until we are in the presence of God.
It is less about accepting or hating sin or people and more about reflecting Christ's love to the world around so we may affect them for His purpose. He is great at convicting, changing and disciplining and, in my opinion, doesn't need help with those. He has created us to love and be relational. To be the practical example of what He can do in people.
In advertising, the most effective campaign is the one that uses real people explaining how "the product" changed their lives. I believe the most effective "campaign" to reach those around us with "the product" is to explain how He has changed and let Him do the transformation.
Hey Hof,
ReplyDeleteI love your passion for getting us all together in one accord. Thank you so much for getting us to use our minds on topics that need to be shared. You are such an inspiration to a lot of us. I wish I could be like MIKE.
I Love you,
Your wife