I wanted to give some time for responses in order to see how to proceed. In all, two responses showed up; both giving different angles on the issue. It's my thought that both provide us with good places to dialogue, so here goes...
Respondent #1 was to the point, saying something along the lines of, "I think [homosexuals] would just prefer you to leave them alone." The unstated point was leave them alone as opposed to my position, which I believe my first respondent might (I say might because he/she did not say) label as me "attacking", "challenging", or "harrassing" them? For the sake of discussion, I would have preferred they had made known to me what exactly they interpreted as my point, but be that as it may, it's okay. They were civil, and for that I thank respondent #1. But here's my rebuttal to this comment of homosexuals wanting to be left alone. I am not one for witch trials by any measure. However, when a particular group chooses to push both their life style and the sense of priviledge for special rights upon our culture at large, I find there to be a need to stand up and challenge such assumptions. And for any of us, God's Word is the only place we can stand. Anything else, inspite of what extreme deconstructionists might demand, is purely subjective. While we may read God's Word and come away with different opinions, it is the erroneous reading that states that God is okay with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. It is from God's Word that we find homosexuality to be in opposition to both God's ideal (as stated in Gen. 1, for starters), as well as incompatible with God's call upon humanity in Jesus Christ (as revealed in Jesus Christ, and further commented upon by the apostle Paul). While I would agree with anyone who stated that homosexuals have been unfairly marked as the worst of all sinners, and have been unfairly mistreated (the point of the pendulum having been so far to one extreme for so long), I would say at best it is poor logic to state that this therefore makes it okay for our culture to seek penance in the form of traveling to the other extreme, whereby we accept homosexuality out of some warped sense of guilt. We are doing no one, not the least of whom are the homosexuals, in culturally embracing homosexuality than were we to condone and okay pedophilia. My fear here is that just as have already done for divorce (making it highly accessible and culturally "okay"), we are doing for homosexuality, and will do with the likes of sexual child abuse. I think the slippery slope principle is accurate in this case, and I believe the likes of Ockham's Razor supports such a point. So to respondent #1, I say that were the homosexual agenda not so in our cultural face, I would not make it such a point to challenge it.
Respondent #2 was equally to the point, expressing some concern that we are, in a sense going after homosexuality because it is a sin that we ourselves don't happen to struggle with. At the same time he states, quoting a piece from Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz (an excellent book, if you've not read it), that we should be more concerned with overeating, or the sin of gluttony, which seems to be the problem for most American Christians in the United States. Because respondent #2 is a friend, and therefore left their email for me to respond back to them, I was able to say that whole-heartedly agree with part of Miller's point. As Christians, we should be seeking to pull the plank out of our own eye (or at least ask for some help), even as we seek to address the splinter in our neighbor's eye. When Jesus spoke those words, he was addressing the person who is so full of self-righteousness that they are ignorant of, or just plain ignore their own sin. Where I am guilty of that, I do apologize. I do have my own struggles with sin, and I can honestly say that gluttony to some extent is one of my sins. However, I think it again poor logic to say that until I have self-control over my own sins, I have no right to challenge anyone else's sin. In fact, I was not addressing any particular person in my previous article. Purposefully, I challenged a particular lifestyle, a specific sin. I sought, however imperfectly, to keep the spot light on the sin, and not blind the eyes of any particular sinner; after all, but for the grace of God go I. What would Donald Miller's take on the sin of homosexuality be had Jesus uttered a few statements in clear opposition to it? Many people, Christians and non-Christians, take such silence to be in the least Jesus' lack of judgment, and at most His silent but tacit approval for that choice. But that's just the problem with such logic, it is an argument from silence. This is where we need to read Jesus within the context of his being Jewish, and therefore, we have to understand Judaism's disapproval of homosexuality [inspite of the exegetical attempts of people like Mel White to prove the contrary]. There are many things that Jesus doesn't come out and spell out or say directly. Why? Because His followers and hearers were from the same religio-cultural background. Homosexuality was not an issue for the Jews of Jesus' day because it was plainly understood to be wrong. Were there men and/or women who practiced homosexuality? Honestly, I don't know. But I can very much tell you that they would very much be in the minority, and would have understood that their behavior was against what they knew and were taught from Tanak. My point to respondent #2 is that we must challenge the advocation of any sin in our culture. Last I saw or heard, no one is pushing over-eating as a justifiable life-style choice. Do people suffer from it, or gladly give into it? Yes. It is certainly one sign of a culture that is over-indulgent and too self-focused.
All in all, I think we as Christians need to approach and oppose homosexuality wisely. Too much recent history shows so-called Bible believing Christians falling into extremes of either demonizing homosexuals on one hand, or denying the godlessness of the practice, or even trying to advocate its propriety in the case of those homosexual relationships which show fidelity and are monogomous at the other end. Both of these extremes show a number of problems in the Church today. First, we overall a very biblically illiterate Church. We read only those passages we like, and we ignore those passages we either don't understand, or that we don't agree with. Second, we are poor biblical exegetes, both in the pulpit and in the pew. We don't do the background and contextual homework that we should we read and seek to interpret and apply God's Word to our context and day. Third, we disdain the importance of doctrine, confusing it with demonizing dogmatism. There is a point to doctrine. Whether we understand it or not, every Christian holds to some form of doctrine or another. Unfortunately, too many hold to a doctrine that is formulated in the "Iacademy" - sounds like something from Apple - where "I" decided on what is right, good, and godly. The problem of each of these is that each of these three problems results when we both assert ourselves overagainst God's Word, and when we put greater stock in our own humanly abilities to tease out and/or discern what God's Word says or doesn't say. We ignore both the leadings and witness of the Holy Spirit, and the Church Univseral, both historic and beyond our borders.
We are called, first and foremost, to live as Witnesses of Jesus Christ. Jesus challenged those issues which served as obstacles between humanity and God. We are called to do nothing less, and all of that through the power of the Holy Spirit, all to the glory of the Father.
Any thought? Leave me a response.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Friday, June 08, 2007
why there's nothing "gay" about homosexuality
I realize in opining this topic I'm opening myself up to a lot of criticism. In this so-called "englightened" age, we are supposed to bow to the wonders of science, which in the minds of some, has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore, it's entirely natural. Even some Christians who are Biblical claim that homosexuality today is far different from the misunderstood "sin" of the so-called Bible times, and therefore, we should embrace those whose orientation is different from the heterosexual majority.
I want to say that it is not my intent to "gay bash". I will be the first to admit that historically, homosexuals have unjustly suffered particularly hard line prejudice and punishment, treated as if their sin were worst than anyone elses. But while the cultural/social pendulum has swung to the other extreme of blessing, if not out right embracing homosexuality (pardon the pun), it would be a mistake on the account of Christians, people I would define as God-fearing, Bible-believing, faithful followers of Jesus Christ, to think that because of this historical problem, we should think that trying to go to the other extreme would actually be the best solution.
In fact, taking hold of that pendulum and holding it to the middle would be the most Biblical solution.
What would that look like, you might wonder? First of all, we need to repent of our own sins. If that's treating homosexuals as modern day lepers, than so be it. If it's hating or despising them because we think their sin more gross than our own in the sight of God, then that, too, must be repented of. And yet, for us to misconfess homosexuality as alright is to not only misread the Bible, but to misrepresent the God who created us all. And that means understanding that to say that science has proven homosexuality as natural and therefore we should allow it is on the line of saying that AIDS is natural, and therefore we shouldn't treat it - after all, the AIDS virus is a life form. I think you see the poor logic that both arguments are built on. In fact, we can view any scientific "proof" for homosexuality on the same lines as proving that alcoholism is genetic, or pathological lying, a tendency toward violent behavior, etc. Just because we can prove the "nature" of these behaviors has not meant that society has therefore embraced them. Rather, it was the first step in some cases to properly treating them.
The greater problem in my mind, however, is the false hope that some Christians have given to the homosexual movement, whereby some brothers and sisters insist on discrediting all past interpretations of Scripture that hold to homosexuality as a sinful behavior. These people have sought to prove that the true sins in the case of these biblical stories are really such things as inhospitality, a great sin in the Ancient Near East. But what such a simplistic interpretation ends up doing is losing its credibility upon closer examination of the whole context of the Old Testament specifically and the whole Bible in general. These accounts are inter-connected with the moral guidelines found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to mention the creation accounts of Genesis, which are ultimately affirmed by Jesus Himself. No doubt, such critics will claim that Jesus never taught against homosexuality. Neither did he teach against atomic weapons, slavery, or the death penalty, but I think its safe to assume that He would have had they been issues in His particular context. And that's just the point, homosexuality was not a flash point of culture in Jesus' day because culturally/socially/religiously it was understood to go against the very character and nature of who God was.
In saying homosexuality is okay, we are, in fact, going against the very grain of who God is, as the Triune God of grace. And we can see this on a number of levels. First, naturally speaking, the way human beings are made, it is just plain common sense that men and women were sexually designed for one another. I have heard homosexual men claim that anatomically, the anus can function the same way - considering that the anus is for waste removal, I don't think one can claim equality in that regard. Second, the totality of Scripture testifies to the ideal of God as sex being for the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This is not a penalty upon homosexuals, much to some arguments I've heard. This holds all people to God's standard, hetero and homosexual. If sex is for marriage between one man and one woman, then it meant that when I was a single guy, it was wrong for me to seek out sexual activities. Now that I'm married, it means that I must limit my sexual behavior to my wife. Lust is a problem for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Abstinence is God's ideal, not giving into our lusts. Third, when we grasp the import of a Trinitarian understanding of who God is, we can see that homosexuality as a particular sin goes against God's character. This is illustrated for us through the imagry of the Economic Trinity, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit participate in the life of the other through self-giving love that is the very essence of what it means to create. While I would never say that sex between a husband and wife is purely for procreation, I submit that when one enters into marriage, there must be an openness to children. That is, procreation is the quintessential expression of love between a husband and wife whereby through their physical union, that self-giving love is expressed through the very dynamic of creating a new life. Only through sex outside of marriage, artificial insemination, or adoption can homosexual couples have children. One might weakly protest what about heterosexual married couples who cannot naturally conceive of children - isn't this the same issue? To hide behind such an argument is to muddy the waters. The heterosexual married couple, having failed to conceive for any number of reasons, is encouraged to seek after adopting a child. The point is that homosexuality cannot naturally create. It is also based on the selfish love that does not wait for the proper parameters of marriage. Ah, but you might protest that such a problem as that would be removed if our culture would merely allow for homosexuals to "marry". But this goes back to the core issue that such a union goes against God's ideal as set forth in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament through Jesus and Paul.
This is not an easy issue. There is more to say. To project homosexual rights onto the same level as gender or race is so ridiculous that I will not even waste space here. But needless to say, we as Christians must learn how to love homosexuals, even as we claim to love all sinners, and seek to demonstrate that love in a manner that accepts them while seeking to minister to them as they will accept. In living in this manner, we demonstrate respect for the divine image in everyone.
I want to say that it is not my intent to "gay bash". I will be the first to admit that historically, homosexuals have unjustly suffered particularly hard line prejudice and punishment, treated as if their sin were worst than anyone elses. But while the cultural/social pendulum has swung to the other extreme of blessing, if not out right embracing homosexuality (pardon the pun), it would be a mistake on the account of Christians, people I would define as God-fearing, Bible-believing, faithful followers of Jesus Christ, to think that because of this historical problem, we should think that trying to go to the other extreme would actually be the best solution.
In fact, taking hold of that pendulum and holding it to the middle would be the most Biblical solution.
What would that look like, you might wonder? First of all, we need to repent of our own sins. If that's treating homosexuals as modern day lepers, than so be it. If it's hating or despising them because we think their sin more gross than our own in the sight of God, then that, too, must be repented of. And yet, for us to misconfess homosexuality as alright is to not only misread the Bible, but to misrepresent the God who created us all. And that means understanding that to say that science has proven homosexuality as natural and therefore we should allow it is on the line of saying that AIDS is natural, and therefore we shouldn't treat it - after all, the AIDS virus is a life form. I think you see the poor logic that both arguments are built on. In fact, we can view any scientific "proof" for homosexuality on the same lines as proving that alcoholism is genetic, or pathological lying, a tendency toward violent behavior, etc. Just because we can prove the "nature" of these behaviors has not meant that society has therefore embraced them. Rather, it was the first step in some cases to properly treating them.
The greater problem in my mind, however, is the false hope that some Christians have given to the homosexual movement, whereby some brothers and sisters insist on discrediting all past interpretations of Scripture that hold to homosexuality as a sinful behavior. These people have sought to prove that the true sins in the case of these biblical stories are really such things as inhospitality, a great sin in the Ancient Near East. But what such a simplistic interpretation ends up doing is losing its credibility upon closer examination of the whole context of the Old Testament specifically and the whole Bible in general. These accounts are inter-connected with the moral guidelines found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to mention the creation accounts of Genesis, which are ultimately affirmed by Jesus Himself. No doubt, such critics will claim that Jesus never taught against homosexuality. Neither did he teach against atomic weapons, slavery, or the death penalty, but I think its safe to assume that He would have had they been issues in His particular context. And that's just the point, homosexuality was not a flash point of culture in Jesus' day because culturally/socially/religiously it was understood to go against the very character and nature of who God was.
In saying homosexuality is okay, we are, in fact, going against the very grain of who God is, as the Triune God of grace. And we can see this on a number of levels. First, naturally speaking, the way human beings are made, it is just plain common sense that men and women were sexually designed for one another. I have heard homosexual men claim that anatomically, the anus can function the same way - considering that the anus is for waste removal, I don't think one can claim equality in that regard. Second, the totality of Scripture testifies to the ideal of God as sex being for the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This is not a penalty upon homosexuals, much to some arguments I've heard. This holds all people to God's standard, hetero and homosexual. If sex is for marriage between one man and one woman, then it meant that when I was a single guy, it was wrong for me to seek out sexual activities. Now that I'm married, it means that I must limit my sexual behavior to my wife. Lust is a problem for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Abstinence is God's ideal, not giving into our lusts. Third, when we grasp the import of a Trinitarian understanding of who God is, we can see that homosexuality as a particular sin goes against God's character. This is illustrated for us through the imagry of the Economic Trinity, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit participate in the life of the other through self-giving love that is the very essence of what it means to create. While I would never say that sex between a husband and wife is purely for procreation, I submit that when one enters into marriage, there must be an openness to children. That is, procreation is the quintessential expression of love between a husband and wife whereby through their physical union, that self-giving love is expressed through the very dynamic of creating a new life. Only through sex outside of marriage, artificial insemination, or adoption can homosexual couples have children. One might weakly protest what about heterosexual married couples who cannot naturally conceive of children - isn't this the same issue? To hide behind such an argument is to muddy the waters. The heterosexual married couple, having failed to conceive for any number of reasons, is encouraged to seek after adopting a child. The point is that homosexuality cannot naturally create. It is also based on the selfish love that does not wait for the proper parameters of marriage. Ah, but you might protest that such a problem as that would be removed if our culture would merely allow for homosexuals to "marry". But this goes back to the core issue that such a union goes against God's ideal as set forth in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament through Jesus and Paul.
This is not an easy issue. There is more to say. To project homosexual rights onto the same level as gender or race is so ridiculous that I will not even waste space here. But needless to say, we as Christians must learn how to love homosexuals, even as we claim to love all sinners, and seek to demonstrate that love in a manner that accepts them while seeking to minister to them as they will accept. In living in this manner, we demonstrate respect for the divine image in everyone.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
rediscovering my childhood
I don't know what provoked me, but the other day I decided to 'google' MEGO, makers of my favorite childhood toys: 8" superhero action figures, and then the Micronauts. Anyhow, these toys were the essence of my childhood. Sadly, they were completely and (at the time) completely superseded by the explosion known as Star Wars, which just violently overshadowed all things imagination.
What do I like about Captain America? Although he was physically enhanced through receiving the 'Super Soldier' serum, he really had no "Super Powers". Instead, he just had incredible discipline and determination. While we might look at America today and see the good and the bad, and perhaps more bad, Captain America always seemed to stand for all the best parts of America. He was the first major super hero to have a non-white partner - the Falcon - who would go on to have his own comic (though short-lived). Cap was cool, because even though he couldn't fly or shoot lasers out of his eyes, he was cut, and he could beat up an opponent who was twice as strong as he was. And if that wasn't enough, he had this incredible shield that was virtually indestructable, made out of some almalgamated metallic substance that was stronger than even adamantium. And he could use that shield to its full potential. Defensively, he could deflect bullets and shrapnel; as well offensively, he could throw the shield (and it would return like some frisbee on monster steroids!). What is important is that Cap never affiliated himself politically (as far as I know - though there was an issue where he almost ran for President - back in the 1980 race that was eventually won by Ronald Reagan). He always represented what was best about America - he was its ideal hero in the truest sense.
As a kid, I wanted to be him. As an adult, I think I still do. Anyone have any super-soldier serum laying around?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
my depression(s)
I like to look around at other blogs, to see (and read) what other bloggers are thinking about, consumed by, or sharing from the heart. Some are obviously interesting, while others are ... 'nuff said.
One such blogger had an entry that has caused some extra percolation in my heart/mind/soul that is me. The Real Live Preacher (www.reallivepreacher.com) had this entry concerning an article he read in the Christian Century by a fellow who talked about depression as 'brainstorming'. I've not read the original article because I wanted to consider this notion before I delved into someone else's ideas and opinions. But I have to say that this idea is fascinating, and in some ways, very encouraging.
I say that because I'm someone who struggles with what most people would probably consider as melancholy, or a mild form of depression. Now, I've not been clinically diagnosed, and I write this full-knowing that some who do struggle with this might possibly take offense at someone "using" the label. Not my point; not my intent. In reality, I probably struggle with the seasonal depression stuff, as well as with melacholy brought on by a nagging sense of fear/anxiety and lack of self-confidence mixed in with a ridiculous desire/need to be or do something really important in my short life. There it is. It's out there for all the world to know, see, read, and make fun of. May God love you and bump you if this describes you. Honestly, I'm enough in touch with my emotions/feelings/thoughts to not really care - does that mean I have self-confidence?
Back to my point - I read this blog by Real Live Preacher where the article described depression as 'brainstorming', and I think this is very intriguiging. Just off the cuff, I think there could be some serious merit to this idea. I mean, personally speaking, there have certainly been times where it is out of the depths of my sense of depression that I'm able to write some really good papers, or have some deeper insights. At the same time, there are dynamics to my depression that I don't like. I don't like the false messages that it feeds into my brain, my sense of self, that is so shattered. Perhaps depression is less 'brainstorming', and just a fight between the 'Me' who really is, and the 'Me' who really isn't? Perhaps depression is the deepest yearning within my soul for the new heaven and the new earth that I read about in Revelation, but struggle to see around me due to all of the sin that is meted out by so many.
In the mean while, I'm going to try and brain storm for a while. Please jot a message, and let me know what you think about this.
One such blogger had an entry that has caused some extra percolation in my heart/mind/soul that is me. The Real Live Preacher (www.reallivepreacher.com) had this entry concerning an article he read in the Christian Century by a fellow who talked about depression as 'brainstorming'. I've not read the original article because I wanted to consider this notion before I delved into someone else's ideas and opinions. But I have to say that this idea is fascinating, and in some ways, very encouraging.
I say that because I'm someone who struggles with what most people would probably consider as melancholy, or a mild form of depression. Now, I've not been clinically diagnosed, and I write this full-knowing that some who do struggle with this might possibly take offense at someone "using" the label. Not my point; not my intent. In reality, I probably struggle with the seasonal depression stuff, as well as with melacholy brought on by a nagging sense of fear/anxiety and lack of self-confidence mixed in with a ridiculous desire/need to be or do something really important in my short life. There it is. It's out there for all the world to know, see, read, and make fun of. May God love you and bump you if this describes you. Honestly, I'm enough in touch with my emotions/feelings/thoughts to not really care - does that mean I have self-confidence?
Back to my point - I read this blog by Real Live Preacher where the article described depression as 'brainstorming', and I think this is very intriguiging. Just off the cuff, I think there could be some serious merit to this idea. I mean, personally speaking, there have certainly been times where it is out of the depths of my sense of depression that I'm able to write some really good papers, or have some deeper insights. At the same time, there are dynamics to my depression that I don't like. I don't like the false messages that it feeds into my brain, my sense of self, that is so shattered. Perhaps depression is less 'brainstorming', and just a fight between the 'Me' who really is, and the 'Me' who really isn't? Perhaps depression is the deepest yearning within my soul for the new heaven and the new earth that I read about in Revelation, but struggle to see around me due to all of the sin that is meted out by so many.
In the mean while, I'm going to try and brain storm for a while. Please jot a message, and let me know what you think about this.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Faith - iv - the need for 'Dialectical' faith in Christ
To this point we have considered two different expressions of faith, the 'intellectual' and the 'experiential'. And we showed how in fact they were both extremes of true faith. The 'intellectual' approach tends to feed into a salvation by knowledge, and an emphasis of doctrine overagainst holistic faith. At the other end, the 'experiential' approach tends to subjegate all things to one's feelings, ultimately making God beholden to the believer. Both of these extremes are both unsatisfying and unacceptable.
After critiquing these two oft practiced forms of faith in Christ, we are left with the question of 'how do we believe?', or, 'what does true faith look like?' In fact, we might be tempted at this point to seek out some 'tertium quid'; one that provides with an out, an answer to avoiding these 'faith' extremes. Rather, the answer, I submit, comes to us in the form of 'dialectical' faith in Christ.
It is in their practice as extremes that each becomes problematic. However, as humans, we have a natural proclivity toward extremes. Therefore, we must recognize the valid role that both the 'intellectual' and the 'experiential' plays in faith development and formation. In grasping this truth, we recognize that true faith, then, is a dialectical tension. Each is held in equal tension with the other, refusing to allow the other to master the other; each refusing to give way to the other. This 'dialectical' faith in Christ recognizes that first of all, faith is first and foremost a gift from God. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God because He was first revealed to us through the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit as sent by the Father. The undergirding of this 'dialectical' faith in Christ, therefore, also informs us that faith is a trinitarian event, the activity of the Triune God of grace - faith is not under our subjective control (i.e., 'experiential' faith), nor is it merely something I gain for myself through rigorous study (i.e., 'intellectual' faith); and yet at the same time, I must acquiesce on some level and therefore know who God is, and I am invited to participate in it, experience who God is.
The 'dialectical' faith in Christ, then, holds the ontic (being) and the noetic (knowing) in beautiful tension, one that is uncomfortable at times, but also reminds us that faith is not our creation, not at our command. True faith in Christ is His gift to us that we may believe and enter into everlasting relationship (covenant) with the God who saves.
After critiquing these two oft practiced forms of faith in Christ, we are left with the question of 'how do we believe?', or, 'what does true faith look like?' In fact, we might be tempted at this point to seek out some 'tertium quid'; one that provides with an out, an answer to avoiding these 'faith' extremes. Rather, the answer, I submit, comes to us in the form of 'dialectical' faith in Christ.
It is in their practice as extremes that each becomes problematic. However, as humans, we have a natural proclivity toward extremes. Therefore, we must recognize the valid role that both the 'intellectual' and the 'experiential' plays in faith development and formation. In grasping this truth, we recognize that true faith, then, is a dialectical tension. Each is held in equal tension with the other, refusing to allow the other to master the other; each refusing to give way to the other. This 'dialectical' faith in Christ recognizes that first of all, faith is first and foremost a gift from God. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God because He was first revealed to us through the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit as sent by the Father. The undergirding of this 'dialectical' faith in Christ, therefore, also informs us that faith is a trinitarian event, the activity of the Triune God of grace - faith is not under our subjective control (i.e., 'experiential' faith), nor is it merely something I gain for myself through rigorous study (i.e., 'intellectual' faith); and yet at the same time, I must acquiesce on some level and therefore know who God is, and I am invited to participate in it, experience who God is.
The 'dialectical' faith in Christ, then, holds the ontic (being) and the noetic (knowing) in beautiful tension, one that is uncomfortable at times, but also reminds us that faith is not our creation, not at our command. True faith in Christ is His gift to us that we may believe and enter into everlasting relationship (covenant) with the God who saves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
