quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
OK Balaam,
can you give us a definition of the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist? I thought they were the same thing, just the former is used by enthusiasts, and the latter by detractors.
They are both people who believe that the bible is a historical document and contains everything you need to decide on any present day moral issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
People slide in both directions. My experience is that some drift into greater degrees of obscurantism whereas others gradually become more liberal.

---

What do you mean by "liberal", and in what way is "obscurantism" the converse of it?
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not an Evangelical myself, but I found this book rather interesting, somewhat along the lines that Svitlana sets out above.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I s'pose that by 'liberal' I mean a more nuanced approach to the scriptures and the awareness/acceptance of some modern critical scholarship - allied to a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality and other issues.

I am aware that there are shades along the liberal continuum too.

By 'obscurantism' I main the adoption of entrenched views over often fairly peripheral issues, such as particular 'takes' on eschatology or an insistence on the centrality of particular experiences, versions of the Bible or some other faddish concern. This can happen in all traditions, from what I can gather. There are RC and Orthodox equivalents.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Albertus - yes, that book by Mark Noll is very good and ought to be compulsory reading for all evangelical ministers in my view ...

Not that I'm getting all prescriptive and Papal about all this ...
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Baalam,

I find your post confusing. Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.

Definitions are a problem and I can think of at least 3 definitions of fundamentlist:

1. The historical one which refers to the actual group of people who started the Fundamentals movement, which as you probably know included at least one theistic evolutionist, alongside more traditional conservatives such as Robert Anderson, who to me at least is a very perceptive and subtle thinker, though I reject many of his conclusions.

2. People who would be classified as belonging to the Fundamental Baptist Churches, who would be dispensationalist pre-millenarians, creationists, hell-fire believers - the full monty - and usually anti charismatic and cessationist. I got to know someone of this ilk very well in Spain.

3. Anyone who takes the claims of christianity (or Islam) with little/no concession to modern thought and (as they would say) so-called proven scientific fact. So a rankly supernatural view of the world in which inter-alia asses talk (well I think we all know that
) people get turned into pigs etc, and the vast majority of biblical miracle stories are taken at face value. Many charismatics are classed now as fundamentalist. And people talk of fundamentalist Catholics.

Probably the last sense is the most widely used in the media, and people like Jim Packer would be in this class, as would the evangelicals I got to know in Spain, who were very left wing due to Franco and the civil war. Even some communists.

There have always been charlatans, and indeed some who live permanently on the borderline, as wonderfully portrayed in the film The Apostle, written directed by and starring Robert Duvall. Go see it, it's very moving. I think possibly Amie Semple MacPherson lived on the borderline, possibly also Billy Sunday, and plenty have accused Billy Graham of that. He's became a multi-millionaire after all and supported the Viet-Nam war.

What actually are you worried about? Quite probably, in my book, you yourself are a fundamentalist. Most likely, you are against charlatans. Rightly so.

If so you need to get your aim on the right target. Read also Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, for a more nuanced view of fundamentalist christianity. You should read it anyhow since it's one of the very few great books to truly "get" religion. MR self identifies as a Calvinist, albeit a liberal one, socially at least.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
I'd still identify myself as evangelical (and charismatic) but would reject most of what has been recently assumed as evangelical.

It's been mentioned a number of times on other threads (see Daed Horses) but there are x4 aspects that define evangelicalism.

Christ Centred
Cross Centred
Word Centred
Activism centred

(I think this is correct off the top of my head and not looking back on my College notes!!).

I'd agree with Gamaliel that the spirituality of Evangelicals is broader than perhaps it has ever been.

Steve Chalke and Joel Edwards are probably two of the most well known evangelicals outside of Anglicanism. They are very different in their theological thinking.

@Gamaliel - You mentioned that little of the diversity in theological thinking filters through to the pews. Is this possible because many people in the pews would see this as irrelevant to their lives?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Polly, perhaps, but does this mean that these things shouldn't be preached and taught?

There ought to be a fifth aspect added to Bebbington's famous 'quadrilateral' which you've outlined above - it seems to me - and that - alongside, crucicentricism, conversionism, Biblicism and activism is surely PRAGMATISM ...

It strikes me that there's something very utilitarian about much of evangelicalism. Our vicar, for instance, despite being quite 'artistic' in many ways - he likes painting and is keen on photography - appears only to value the stained glass in the church building that lends itself to being a didactic visual aid. There ain't much room, it seems, for 'art for art's sake'.

Ok, I know the same could be said for Orthodox iconography as they have a liturgical/didactic purpose but at the same time they are somehow deeper and more 'mysterious' than that ...

At least with some of the older strands of evangelicalism there seemed to be an emphasis on 'stretching' people's minds a bit. The Puritans, apparently, forebears/ancestors of what became evangelicalism, would offer put something deliberately challenging or stretching in their sermons to make people think.

Contemporary evangelicalism, to me at least, for all the welcome openness to other traditions and emphases, seems almost incurably paternalistic and patronising. It spoon-feeds people, it insults their intelligence, it dumbs things down into iddy-bitty bite-size chunks and does everything it possible can to make things sound 'fun' or 'relevant'.

I'd also maintain that the things I'd listed - Patristic Christology etc etc is absolutely relevant to people's lives.

It OUGHT to be the job of these evangelical preachers to make this stuff accessible and relevant - but not in a patronising or infantilising way ...

Rant over.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
@Gamaliel - You mentioned that little of the diversity in theological thinking filters through to the pews. Is this possible because many people in the pews would see this as irrelevant to their lives?

---

Maybe it's also because sermons are a really ineffective teaching method.

So even if preachers do include some of these diverse theological ideas in their sermons, the ideas quickly get forgotten.
 

---

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
OK Balaam,
can you give us a definition of the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist? I thought they were the same thing,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Read also Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, for a more nuanced view of fundamentalist christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
@Gamaliel - You mentioned that little of the diversity in theological thinking filters through to the pews. Is this possible because many people in the pews would see this as irrelevant to their lives?

---

Maybe it's also because sermons are a really ineffective teaching method.

So even if preachers do include some of these diverse theological ideas in their sermons, the ideas quickly get forgotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:

Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
There has to be responsibility from both sides. The Preacher and listener just like when in lectures etc. Most people in the pews listen (sort of) and then don't go away and think through the sermon and do further study. There's lazy preachers but also lazy listeners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
It's also an old illustration but I like it. I man writes into a Christian magazine and says that he has heard loads of sermons in the last 30 years and does not know what good they have done.

The following month someone else writes in saying he can;t remember the meals he has eaten in the last 30 years but knows he has been fed and he has benefitted from them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:

Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.

---

Do you think so? I'm not sure about that. Is it simply the fact that he devoted his public life to evangelism that makes him a fundamentalist?

I understand that he's upset a few conservative evangelicals (fundamentalists?)with his ecumenicalism (namely his respect for the previous two popes) and with his reflection that God might have a welcome for people of other faiths. If you google Billy Graham you'll see that most of his detractors are not really from the liberal end of the church. Maybe that used to be the case, but things have moved on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Billy Graham a multi-millionaire after all and supported the Viet-Nam war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan may forgive me (or he may not ...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Baalam,

I find your post confusing. Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.

Definitions are a problem and I can think of at least 3 definitions of fundamentlist:

1. The historical one which refers to the actual group of people who started the Fundamentals movement, which as you probably know included at least one theistic evolutionist, alongside more traditional conservatives such as Robert Anderson, who to me at least is a very perceptive and subtle thinker, though I reject many of his conclusions.

2. People who would be classified as belonging to the Fundamental Baptist Churches, who would be dispensationalist pre-millenarians, creationists, hell-fire believers - the full monty - and usually anti charismatic and cessationist. I got to know someone of this ilk very well in Spain.

3. Anyone who takes the claims of christianity (or Islam) with little/no concession to modern thought and (as they would say) so-called proven scientific fact. So a rankly supernatural view of the world in which inter-alia asses talk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JP.:
1. Do we need new terminology for us sensible people in the middle? Or is it better to just be individuals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If all the hours a typical church-goer puts in to listening to sermons (never mind all the time folks like you spend preparing them!) just keeps us at our current level, like food does in the physical sense, then I think something's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
plenty have accused Billy Graham of that. He's became a multi-millionaire after all and supported the Viet-Nam war.

---

quote:

---

Do you mean Open Evangelical? Don't know much about it but looks interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To summarise then, an evangelical is one who preaches and believes in a need for personal faith in Christ as the Saviour, and a desire to make that know to all people, who themselves need that salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To summarise then, an evangelical is one who preaches and believes in a need for personal faith in Christ as the Saviour, and a desire to make that know to all people, who themselves need that salvation.

---

I think you are confusing being Evangelical with being evangelistic. Not the same thing.

---

Indeed, one can be 'evangelistic' about saving the tiger. To be evangelical, one is evangelistic about the Gospel - that which saves
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Another one:
4: Believing that certain tenets in Christianity are fundamental to your faith (Death and Resurrection of Jesus etc.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
To me Fundamentalists would believe in Young Earth Creationism, and in a pre-millennial view of eschatology, insisting that you cannot be an Evangelical, or even a Christian, if you don't believe in both of these.

Evangelicalism is a much wider than this, with a variety of views on both these two and other issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Open Evangelical thing - it's certainly got legs and looks interesting but my own experience is that it isn't as impressive up close as it looks from a distance. But I daresay that would be true of most traditions.

---

quote:

---

Although the term had not been invented at that time, I think open evangelical is where I came from (see my first post above). My issues with it were:

1. As I outlined above, most church members didn't know where they were on the spectrum of evangelicalism or that other options existed.

2. The church's method of approaching the Bible was not specified, explained, published or preached on.

3. There seemed to be no fixed rules or consistency on how to interpret the Bible. Often it seemed that it was interpreted literally (in a fundamentalist manner?) until it became inconvenient to do so, at which point one starts to introduce cultural context and criticism as reasons to reach another interpretation.

It was these reasons that led me to taking the further step of questioning the actual nature of the Bible and led me to my "liberal evangelical" position (although that term doesn't seem to be used much these days and often refers to early 20th-century approaches now seen to have had their day).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[Billy Graham] has always been very unpopular with Calvinist evangelicals, also.

When I was in my university's Evangelical Union during the late sixties, just prior to a Graham crusade in Australia, a Calvinist student protested that, "It's wrong for him to go around telling people that God loves them, because it might not be true!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
I think you are confusing being Evangelical with being evangelistic. Not the same thing.

---

Indeed, one can be 'evangelistic' about saving the tiger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, indeed, although the Wesleys were a lot 'higher' in their ecclesiology than many of their spiritual descendants - and they also had a more 'developed' eucharistic theology than would be the norm about many 'memorialist' evangelicals ...

Of course, the Wesleys drew on Puritan sources as well, but they were effectively old fashioned High Churchmen of an Arminian rather than a 'High and Dry' Calvinistic bent.

All these people we're talking about were effectively pre-evangelical rather than evangelical in the contemporary sense.

---

quote:

---

It wasn't for nothing that the now-defunct evangelical book retailer was called Wesley Owen - it was meant to reflect the twin strands - Wesleyan revivalism and Puritanical biblicism (as represented by John Owen).

---

quote:

---

The Arminian strand has entered evangelicalism largely from Wesleyan routes. I sometimes wonder, though, how much John and Charles Wesley would recognise within contemporary evangelicalism. Older Arminians,such as Archbishop Laud would certainly shake their heads at it ...

---

Well, what would the Wesleys recognise in contemporary Methodism? According to the Methodist Church Life Profile 2001 far more Methodists identify as 'evangelical', and also as 'moderate' than as 'liberal' - but the majority of those questioned didn't identify with any of the options given.

What this thread shows is that a term like 'evangelical' can change its meaning considerably over time. It also seems to mean different things in different contexts. This interesting blog gives some indications as to the differences between evangelicalism in Anglican and Methodist circles - although pinpointing the exact differences isn't straightforward:

http://pambg.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/what-is-methodist-evangelical.html
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@SvitlanaV2, I'll look up that blog when I have more time. My impression is that evangelicalism within the Anglican communion is a different beast to its Methodist cousin, but I'd be hard pushed to put my finger on exactly what the differences are ...

On the Calvinist thing that Kaplan mentioned, I suspect the comment came from a particular form of dyed-in-the-wool double-predestinarian 'Black Calvinist'. Most Calvinists I know would say that God loves people and that 'common grace' ie. the sun and rain upon the righteous and the unrighteous is proof positive of that.

So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...

A Calvinist will come along in a minute and tell us how it is possible for God to love mankind (beyond the threshold of the Elect) and yet predestine the Reprobate to eternal punishment at one and the same time. It probably has something to do with his justice and sovereignty, the 'Crown Rights of Jesus Christ' and so on ... some Scholastic legal nicety or other ...

@Matt - yes I would. I think it's anachronistic to use the term evangelical in the modern sense before the 1750s.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Wesley would not have recognised mid-Nineteenth century Methodism either! These Methodists would almost certainly not have agreed with his sacramental theology either and one of the reasons that General booth found it easy to dispense with sacraments is that Methodism had largely done it as well! The step of ceasing to practice them already was just one more logical step from Methodism in the 1880s anyway.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Gamaliel:

Does it matter when you decide judgement if you always know with certainity what someone will do?

There are problems with omniscience for any Arminian. Either God is omnisicient in which case he is just giving judgement that he always knew he would give or God isn't omniscient.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There is a Third Way, Jengie Jon, Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit ...

The whole Arminian/Calvinist thing only works in the context of a Westernised, Augustinian influenced theology ... it's not an issue at all for our Orthodox brethren as you well know. I might be naive but it is one of their tendencies that I find most endearing (equally, though, they have tendencies which drive me up the wall).

The whole 'pray like a Calvinist, work like an Arminian' thing seems right to me.

I am teasing some of our more Calvinist friends, of course, I'm certainly not one of those who demonises Calvinists - heck, I was that way inclined myself at one time - largely in reaction against a kind of anthropocentric Arminianism that tended to prevail in charismatic evangelical circles.

The best way to deal with both full-on Arminianism and full-on Calvinism is to kick both into touch if you ask me and declare the whole thing a Divine Mystery. Then we don't have to bother ourselves about it unduly ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Qualifying my earlier comments about when it would be historically correct to refer to 'evangelicalism' in the more modern sense, then I'd probably put it back into the 1730s - with Wesley's 'Aldersgate experience' of 1738 - 'My heart was strangely warmed ...'

Although, I would see precursors of this in Puritan spiritual biographies/autobiographies such as Bunyan's 'Grace Abounding'. That said, as Jengie Jon once reminded us, the Puritans didn't put such great store on definitive 'conversion experiences' as they felt that one could be misguided in such matters if it was left to warm, goo-ey feelings and subjectivity.

I'd agree with them on that.

But then, Wesley's own Journals are fairly ambiguous and open to interpretation on the whole issue - his own experiences/spiritual journey certainly don't fit any neatly reductionist evangelical schema. Nor does anyone else's, I suspect. We're all very complex and nuanced individuals and the three-minute sound-bite 'testimony' rarely does justice to the complexity of all this stuff.

I'm not sure it would only be the sacramental issue that Wesley would have found problematic with later evangelicalism. Elements of it he would certainly appraise, I am sure. But he'd feel that there was 'something' missing, but I suspect that this 'something' would vary a bit from place to place and time to time.

But Mudfrog's right, 19th century Wesleyanism had become far less sacramental and so it was only a hop-skip-and-a-jump to William Booth's position.

Booth, Moody and their ilk would have been horrified, I'm sure, though, at the kind of easy-believism fideism that has become the characteristic of certain sections of evangelicalism ... even though their particular evangelistic methods undoubtedly led in that direction ...
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...

---

Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...

---

Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.

---

Er, not every Christian is a Calvinist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Everyone bar universalists are faced with the issue that God says he loves everyone, he looks like he could save everyone, but not everyone is saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...

---

Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.

---

Er, not every Christian is a Calvinist.

---

Er, it is perfectly consistent to be a Calvinist universalist.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Isn't this getting into Dead Horse territory?

Going back to the OP, I don't see much evidence that evangelicalism as a whole is sliding into fundamentalism ...

It seems to me it's a two way street and that people travel along that continuum at various stages - not quite in a neatly cut-and-dried 'Fowler Stages of Faith' way, necessarily ... but according to a whole range of factors and experiences.

Certainly I don't see evangelicalism here in the UK sliding into fundamentalism - although there are some strongly fundamentalist strands within certain evangelical circles here, even among those who would vociferously reject the fundie label.

But as Kaplan has wisely said, the term 'fundamentalist' has largely become short-hand for 'anyone who is more conservative theologically than I am.' So on that measure, most evangelicals are going to look pretty fundamentalist to someone of a more full-on liberal persuasion.

I've observed this before on other internet boards (not this one so much) that many of the Orthodox converts I meet seem very fundamentalist in outlook and temperament - and not necessarily only those who come from Protestant evangelical backgrounds. I suspect a certain amount of 'convertitis' comes into play.

I suspect, though, that right across the board there is very little theological education at a popular level so the people in the pews (or lack of pews) are going to tend towards more literal approaches as they haven't been exposed to anything more nuanced.

People believe all sorts of funny things. I met someone from the very liberal and quite erudite catholic-lite parish here a few months back who took the Nostradamus prophecies at face value - not something she'd have picked up from the pulpit.

On the evangelical side of things most people get their theology from the popular paperbacks and, these days increasingly The God Channel and similar TV networks ...


 

---

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Another one:
4: Believing that certain tenets in Christianity are fundamental to your faith (Death and Resurrection of Jesus etc.).

---

You mean, like the Nicene Creed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

There have been Calvinist evangelists...

---

quote:

---

... yet if, as Kaplan said, Calvinists don't believe that God necessarily loves everyone, it must make the Calvinist approach to evangelism a different kind of thing. Or maybe it depends on the kind of Calvinist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Does it matter when you decide judgement if you always know with certainity what someone will do?

There are problems with omniscience for any Arminian. Either God is omnisicient in which case he is just giving judgement that he always knew he would give or God isn't omniscient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
To me Fundamentalists would believe in Young Earth Creationism, and in a pre-millennial view of eschatology, insisting that you cannot be an Evangelical, or even a Christian, if you don't believe in both of these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
...and the vast majority of biblical miracle stories are taken at face value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There have been Calvinist evangelists, yet if, as Kaplan said, Calvinists don't believe that God necessarily loves everyone, it must make the Calvinist approach to evangelism a different kind of thing. Or maybe it depends on the kind of Calvinist?

---

Yes, it does.

Calvinists are not homogeneous, and I have even met a strongly Calvinist minister who rejected the Calvinist dogma (Edwards, M'Cheyne)that the saved are going to rejoice and exalt for eternity in the sufferings of the reprobate whom they knew and loved in this life.

The undergraduate to whom I referred came from a Presbyterian splinter group, and might well have been going through an extremist adolescent stage.

As Ken and others have pointed out, there have been many Calvinist missionaries (what is your evidence for Taylor's Calvinism, Ken?)and evangelists, and no doubt some of them believed the Bible's message of God's universal love.

Calvinist evangelism is distinctive, however.

As Packer points out in his Evangelism And The Sovereignty Of God, because he is bound to a limited atonement, a Calvinist evangelist cannot preach that Christ died for the sins of each member of his audience, and has to therefore preach that his unregenerate hearers will ask God to save them by enabling them to put their trust in Christ.

This might well result in a subjective experience of conversion, but a Calvinist can never rest the assurance of his or her salvation on the objective word of God ("and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world") and can therefore never be sure whether he or she is really saved.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's interesting, Kaplan, because, as you'll be well aware, the Calvinists would say the same about the Arminian position ... it holds out no ultimate assurance of salvation.

The logic of the Calvinistic schema is that it is ultimately 'kinder' than the Arminian one in that at least SOME people are going to be saved (in whatever quantity the Elect happen to be) whereas it's the Arminian one that is 'cruellest' in that is doesn't ultimately hold out any water-tight possibility of anyone being saved ...

These are all circular arguments. I'd also suggest, in a thread that I am about to start, that the various positions (and Ken'll hate this) tend to appeal to different personality types.

The Calvinist one seems rather 'aspie' and Mr Spock-ish to me ... the Alan Turing of the Protestant spectrum ...



@Janine

Well, yay - but I think you'll find that some of the Fundies claim that some of the 'more reliable manuscripts' are older than they actually are. The converse is true, of course, at the more liberal end where they feel duty bound to give later dates.

Get thee to a seminary ...

Inerrantism is SO 19th century ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's interesting, Kaplan, because, as you'll be well aware, the Calvinists would say the same about the Arminian position ... it holds out no ultimate assurance of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The word or the Word, Hairy Biker?

I don't get what you are driving at. Plenty of evangelicals would sign up for the Nicene Creed, if not the vast majority of them, even those from non-formally creedal settings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

That's one of the reasons why I don't think that either full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism cut the mustard. They both end up going round in circles.

I'm happy to live with a big dose of Mystery and a certain degree of agnosticism about all of this.

---

That's where Wesleyanism comes in - it's neither 'full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism'.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, but I've known Calvinists who've said that the Wesleys were at their best when they inadvertently strayed into Calvinistic territory - some of Charles's hymns certainly do - or at least, can be sung by Calvinist's without them having to cross their fingers behind their back ... oh, I forgot, they wouldn't ever cross their fingers ...


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

That's one of the reasons why I don't think that either full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism cut the mustard. They both end up going round in circles.

I'm happy to live with a big dose of Mystery and a certain degree of agnosticism about all of this.

---

That's where Wesleyanism comes in - it's neither 'full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism'.

---

This may well be true, but I've come across some interesting articles and commentaries that seem to be fairly critical of John Wesley's influence on later generations of evangelists and church movements.

The feeling seems to be that Wesley's the granddaddy of some far more decidedly Armenian movements which, notwithstanding the fame of the Calvinist evangelists mentioned by ken above, pervaded late 19th and 20th c. evangelical Christianity. I'm thinking particularly of Pentecostalism and of popular approaches towards evangelism, both of which went on to influence the charismatic movement, and consequently many mainstream Protestant churches.

One Calvinist Anglican clergyman holds the very interesting view that Wesley's understanding of the gospel contained the seeds of both liberalism within the Methodist Church and Pentecostalism (which is certainly evangelical) outside it.

I suppose that both Calvinism and Arminianism can develop in either liberal or evangelical directions, but in the modern world, it seems to me that evangelicalism is now mostly dominated by Arminian perspectives.

(I should add that despite a lifetime of churchgoing, I've never heard any clergyman or woman I know speak on this subject, which suggests that 'the experts' don't consider it to be a terribly important issue....)
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism but pushing preach it like Wesley believe it like Calvin to the max.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
That's particularly impenetrable even for you, Martin!
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 
Why do so many threads degenerate into a Calvinist-Arminianism debate? This thread could have been interesting, and now co-opted by people who want to debate the unknowable.

[ 17. July 2012, 14:25: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
@ Gamaliel: God remains inerrant. I never have been. That's good enough.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Why do so many threads degenerate into a Calvinist-Arminianism debate? This thread could have been interesting, and now co-opted by people who want to debate the unknowable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Why do so many threads degenerate into a Calvinist-Arminianism debate? This thread could have been interesting, and now co-opted by people who want to debate the unknowable.

---

If you're accusing me of making the thread less interesting, I apologise. I certainly don't want to debate the unknowable, and I don't have much use for abstract theology. I was simply wondering how Calvinism and Arminianism might influence the development of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, which are real, visible and growing parts of the world church.

As I say, I've never known any preacher in my denomination preach on Calvinism v. Armenianism, and maybe it's rare in other denominations too. Maybe this means that the distinctions have become totally irrelevant to modern Christianity. Fair enough! Maybe the forces of secularisation are so great (in the UK at least) that the churches have to overcome their ancient differences in order to come together to keep churches open and to prevent Christianity from disappearing from the public sphere. Even so, it's apparent that there are still theological differences between churches, although the boundaries are blurred, and denominational distinctions matter less.

In the media, discussions about evangelicalism and fundamentalism are rarely discussed in denominational, or even theological terms. Homosexuality and maybe abortion are the only issues that seem to matter. Nothing else counts. So if public perception is the issue then it's hardly worth talking about anything else, really!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's particularly impenetrable even for you, Martin!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard and repointed by me:
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism, but pushing "Preach it like Wesley - Believe it like Calvin!" to the max.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism but pushing preach it like Wesley believe it like Calvin to the max.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
HC?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism but pushing preach it like Wesley believe it like Calvin to the max.

---

I've asked this before: what does that mean??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I met an old lady in South Wales once whose main boast was that she'd prevented the corner shop opposite the chapel from selling sweets to the kiddies on a Sunday ...

I knew a Pentecostal lady who was hauled up before the pastor in the early 1960s for going to the cinema with one of her friends. Someone had seen her in the queue rushed around to the pastor and the pastor had cycled around to her house before she got home. She arrived to find her mum in tears and the pastor grimly warning her that she would have to be put out of fellowship if this continued ... and she'd been to see a pretty innocuous film in the first place.

Heck, one of my wife's ancestors had a her rag-doll thrown onto the fire by her strict Wesleyan father because she'd dared to play with it on a Sunday ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Very rarely do we find prophets or apostles in the Bible doing the same, and of course Jesus refuses to condemn someone caught in adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately there are two commandments - love God with everything we have, and love our neighbour. To try and identify individual actions as being contrary to one or other of those, and hence 'sins', is highly problematic.

As an example, I almost preached on the beheading of John the Baptist (I had to be out of the country on work, so left the sermon unfinished and someone else had that pleasure). John was imprisoned by Herod because he'd told Herod off for marrying his brothers wife (who also happened to be his niece). One could easily have laid the charge of adultery on Herod (not to mention marrying a close relative, of which his brother was equally guilty). But, the Gospels tell us that that wasn't what John did - his accusation was that Herod was putting himself above the law. He was playing the role of 'king' as understood by his Greek and Roman contemporaries, he was king and he could do whatever he liked. John effectively says "you're king, you should be the servant of the people working in their best interests not your own" (the OT lesson was from Amos, and he says pretty much the same thing about the rulers of Israel a few centuries earlier).

Evangelicals can often be seen jumping up and down in self-righteous indignation about people sleeping together before getting married, or having a pint too many on a Saturday night. Very rarely do we find prophets or apostles in the Bible doing the same, and of course Jesus refuses to condemn someone caught in adultery. God seems to have very different sets of priorities to many of us, priorities that usually relate to how our actions affect others - especially the poor and powerless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Very rarely do we find prophets or apostles in the Bible doing the same, and of course Jesus refuses to condemn someone caught in adultery.

---

1. Nathan and King David.

2. Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more, not that her sin wasn't actually a sin and 'there are worse things my dear'.

I think you take a very selective view of the bible if you think that it doesn't actually tell us those things that are wrong. The 10 commandments are not 10 suggestions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I met an old lady in South Wales once whose main boast was that she'd prevented the corner shop opposite the chapel from selling sweets to the kiddies on a Sunday ...

I knew a Pentecostal lady who was hauled up before the pastor in the early 1960s for going to the cinema with one of her friends. Someone had seen her in the queue rushed around to the pastor and the pastor had cycled around to her house before she got home. She arrived to find her mum in tears and the pastor grimly warning her that she would have to be put out of fellowship if this continued ... and she'd been to see a pretty innocuous film in the first place.

Heck, one of my wife's ancestors had a her rag-doll thrown onto the fire by her strict Wesleyan father because she'd dared to play with it on a Sunday ...

---

Those are the worst types, straining out gnats swallowing camels. Arrogant, backbiting, condescending gossips. Spoilsports, as C.S. Lewis called them. Plenty of those here in the U.S. South, a false piety, quick to "tut tut" surface sins and bad habits, blind to the really diabolical stuff that lives within.

They love to humiliate those they think are beneath them. I was once in a Southern Baptist church and as the communion was being passed around, a boy of about eight asked "What's this?" Pastor M------- sneered loudly (yes, sneered, I was just a couple pews away) "If you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be partaking of it!" He didn't disguise his disgust for the "awful" parents who'd not properly educated their "ignorant" child.

Many of them--perhaps most--wouldn't know Jesus if He walked up and kissed their cheeks; 1,980-odd years ago they'd have been leading the chants of "Crucify him!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I met an old lady in South Wales once whose main boast was that she'd prevented the corner shop opposite the chapel from selling sweets to the kiddies on a Sunday ...

I knew a Pentecostal lady who was hauled up before the pastor in the early 1960s for going to the cinema with one of her friends. Someone had seen her in the queue rushed around to the pastor and the pastor had cycled around to her house before she got home. She arrived to find her mum in tears and the pastor grimly warning her that she would have to be put out of fellowship if this continued ... and she'd been to see a pretty innocuous film in the first place.

Heck, one of my wife's ancestors had a her rag-doll thrown onto the fire by her strict Wesleyan father because she'd dared to play with it on a Sunday ...

---

Those are the worst types, straining out gnats swallowing camels. Arrogant, backbiting, condescending gossips. Spoilsports, as C.S. Lewis called them. Plenty of those here in the U.S. South, a false piety, quick to "tut tut" surface sins and bad habits, blind to the really diabolical stuff that lives within.

They love to humiliate those they think are beneath them. I was once in a Southern Baptist church and as the communion was being passed around, a boy of about eight asked "What's this?" Pastor M------- sneered loudly (yes, sneered, I was just a couple pews away) "If you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be partaking of it!" He didn't disguise his disgust for the "awful" parents who'd not properly educated their "ignorant" child.

Many of them--perhaps most--wouldn't know Jesus if He walked up and kissed their cheeks; 1,980-odd years ago they'd have been leading the chants of "Crucify him!"

---

OK Let's just stop there before we start suggesting that our little anecdotes of crabbed old women and intolerant minuisters somehow reveals the shocking truth about the entire edifice of evangelicalism (paedophile RC priests anyone?).

Any group could parade a whole regioment of bad examples - it's easy to do that whilst ignoring the untold multitudes of lovely, warm, saintly souls who, devoted to their evangelical faith, were nevertheless beautiful examples of Christikeness who encourages and inspired young people and others throughout the church.

---

I'm not saying all evangelicals are like that. I'm an evangelical myself. I'm merely referring to a subset of people--not just evangelicals--who are pharisees at heart, as described by those examples (and I have many I could add, as could we all). These people may be Christians with serious issues, perhaps the types who we should have little to do with, or they may not be Christians at all, just people who hold to a set of precepts (like belief in the principles of republicanism or socialism or the merits of tennis over golf) but have experienced no heart change given by God.

[ 18. July 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Where am I singling evangelicals out for particular censure, Mudfrog, and ignoring issues like paedophile priests?

Goodness me, you really are so binary at times. As if by listing some examples of crabby evangelicals I'm somehow letting paedophile priests off the hook ...

All I am suggesting - and it is merely a suggestion - is that by focussing on some of the issues that older forms of evangelicalism focussed on as being sinful we run the risk of the kind of Pharisaisism I've highlighted.

No-one is suggesting that binge-drinking is acceptable, that there is something 'right' about contemporary club culture.

As it happens, I think the Street Pastors intiative and groups like the Salvation Army (who regularly go around giving out bottles of water, I understand, to prevent people becoming dehydrated) and flip-flops to women who are tottering around drunkenly on high heels ...

I enjoy a pint and a glass of wine, but I also think that the legislation that helped create today's town-centre binge-drinking culture is among the daftest that any political party has recently introduced - and my personal political instincts lie with Labour even though I stopped supporting them after the Iraq War.

I'd be the first to applaud the Sally Army for its work - not only the work it does today but the work it did in the 19th century when teetotalism made perfect sense in the context it was operating in - and its exemplary work on behalf of 'match-girls' with 'phossy-jaw' and so on.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Bit touchy aren't we?
You really shouldn't assume that every comment is directed at you alone - CSL1 is here too.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Bit touchy aren't we?
You really shouldn't assume that every comment is directed at you alone - CSL1 is here too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Bit touchy aren't we?
You really shouldn't assume that every comment is directed at you alone - CSL1 is here too.

---

Oh so, you're directuing it towards ME, eh? Then fire from heaven upon you, bears charging from the bushes to devour you, etc. etc.

---

*runs into the hills...*

No offence to either of you, honest
 

---

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
You can run, but you can't hide
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
1. Nathan and King David.

---

quote:

---

2. Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more, not that her sin wasn't actually a sin and 'there are worse things my dear'.

---

quote:

---

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that God doesn't mind about personal sins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

---

1 Cor 6:9-10
These words are written to the church - but note it goes on to say 'And that is what some of you were.' So the truth is that people who do these things won't make it. The challenge for the church is how to present this truth. The two opposing approaches are that of Wesley, frightening people into repentance, and the modern tradition of loving them into it. The danger of the former approach is that sermons become a celebration of terrible 'they' are; sadly seem commonly in the gay issue. The danger of the latter is that people don't hear the whole truth, and assume their bad behaviour doesn't matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Sexual morality is only talked about a lot in the church because that's what the world itself is obsessed with! That same world hates what the church teaches and so kicks against us - and indeed, much of the non-evangelical and non Catholic church, has actually given up the fight against the world and the flesh and sidses with immorality and calls it lifestyle and equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


As far as the secularisation of sin is concerned, I do not agree with Svitlana that the later Victorians wanted to make good behaviour more important than spiritual regeneration.
The Salvation Army, perhaps beyond most, were heavily into the salvation of the soul but the culture they worked in was the lowest of the low where drunkenness and vice and the attending poverty, were seen as the devil's instruments of bondage for men, women and children. In the case of the 'salvation soldier' teetotalism and a rejection of worldy pleasure was not mere puritanical self denial and good behaviour, but the outworking of being redeemed from these dreadful lifestyles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that God doesn't mind about personal sins?

...

I am somewhat astomnished that you appear to be saying that personal sins are ignored by God as long as you're not rich!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there's an undercurrent there of when you've helped the poor man out of the gutter, given him a reason to live and hope for the future, when you've given him bac his self-worth and shown him he's a valued member of society that then he will no longer need to drink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Sexual morality is only talked about a lot in the church because that's what the world itself is obsessed with! That same world hates what the church teaches and so kicks against us - and indeed, much of the non-evangelical and non Catholic church, has actually given up the fight against the world and the flesh and sidses with immorality and calls it lifestyle and equality.

---

When you mean homosexuality perhaps you should say that, because I very rarely hear conservative evangelicals saying much about divorce or remarriage, but a lot of time condemning people who love each other and happen to be the same sex for wanting to build a shared life. And it tends to be conservatives who refer to a "homosexual lifestyle" as if being gay was something you choose like being vegetarian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Sexual morality is only talked about a lot in the church because that's what the world itself is obsessed with! That same world hates what the church teaches and so kicks against us - and indeed, much of the non-evangelical and non Catholic church, has actually given up the fight against the world and the flesh and sidses with immorality and calls it lifestyle and equality.

---

And it tends to be conservatives who refer to a "homosexual lifestyle" as if being gay was something you choose like being vegetarian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I am struggling to decide whether to say that last post should be taken to Dead Horses or its poster to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I am struggling to decide whether to say that last post should be taken to Dead Horses or its poster to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I am struggling to decide whether to say that last post should be taken to Dead Horses or its poster to Hell.

---

Well then, tell me what I said that was wrong or unbiblical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I am struggling to decide whether to say that last post should be taken to Dead Horses or its poster to Hell.

---

Well then, tell me what I said that was wrong or unbiblical?

---

Well, basically, you lumped in sex between two people of the same gender in a committed, lifelong relationship with cheating on your wife.

EDIT: I don't disagree with the denouement, I object to the material that came before it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I am struggling to decide whether to say that last post should be taken to Dead Horses or its poster to Hell.

---

Well then, tell me what I said that was wrong or unbiblical?

---

Well, basically, you lumped in sex between two people of the same gender in a committed, lifelong relationship with cheating on your wife.

EDIT: I don't disagree with the denouement, I object to the material that came before it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pre-marital sex and adultery, along with divorce (and indeed abortion, drunkeness, gambling, violence, hatred, slavery, and a whole host of others), have a logical basis for being called sins which can be derived from the two great commandments. The same simply cannot be said of a lifelong committed relationship between two people of the same sex. Surely if all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments (as Jesus said), then anything that does not hang on those cannot be considered part of the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pre-marital sex and adultery, along with divorce (and indeed abortion, drunkeness, gambling, violence, hatred, slavery, and a whole host of others), have a logical basis for being called sins which can be derived from the two great commandments. The same simply cannot be said of a lifelong committed relationship between two people of the same sex. Surely if all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments (as Jesus said), then anything that does not hang on those cannot be considered part of the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] gambling, violence,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pre-marital sex and adultery, along with divorce (and indeed abortion, drunkeness, gambling, violence, hatred, slavery, and a whole host of others), have a logical basis for being called sins which can be derived from the two great commandments. The same simply cannot be said of a lifelong committed relationship between two people of the same sex. Surely if all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments (as Jesus said), then anything that does not hang on those cannot be considered part of the law.

---

Yes indeed it can. Romans 1 is surely a part of your Bible as well as mine. You're just flat wrong here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, no.
We're talking about evangelical opinions about what is and what isn't sin.
the H sin is just a part of those things that are sins and those things that some see are not sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pre-marital sex and adultery, along with divorce (and indeed abortion, drunkeness, gambling, violence, hatred, slavery, and a whole host of others), have a logical basis for being called sins which can be derived from the two great commandments. The same simply cannot be said of a lifelong committed relationship between two people of the same sex. Surely if all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments (as Jesus said), then anything that does not hang on those cannot be considered part of the law.

---

Yes indeed it can. Romans 1 is surely a part of your Bible as well as mine. You're just flat wrong here.

---

Dead Horses. Seriously. Take it there, where you will find incredibly detailed debate about what Romans 1 MEANS and how many verses of Romans 1 and 2 need to be read together...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, no.
We're talking about evangelical opinions about what is and what isn't sin.
the H sin is just a part of those things that are sins and those things that some see are not sins.

---

Mudfrog, I'm not suggesting that the entire topic heads to DH. My point is simply that one cannot expect to assert on the Ship that homosexual activity is, in absolutely all contexts, sinful, or use it as an example of sin, and have that assertion sail by unchallenged.

The discussion about what evangelicals/conservatives focus on is one thing. The debate, here on the Ship, about whether homosexuality is sinful is another, and CSL1 well and truly ventured into that territory. I probably made a mistake by engaging further on that territory, but really all I wanted to convey here was that the sinfulness of homosexuality is not universally regarded on the Ship as self-evident and it wasn't especially helpful to act in Purgatory as if it was self-evident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Hold your (dead) horses!

This isn't dead horse territpory because the discussion is about evangelicals and fundamentalism and has moved onto the topic of sin. I mentioned the idea that there is no sin any more - it's all lifestyle and equality, etc - and when i mentioned sexual morality, it was acctually 'arethosemyfeet' who brought the H word into the conversation. I was making a much broader point than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Jesus' opinions on how to respond to violence are clear, both from his teaching and his example. "Render to no-one evil for evil" "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you". The Gospel is, among other things, a radical call to non-violence.

---

Not always. Told His disciples to be sure and take swords for self-protection, went after a crowd of thieves and those using the faith to line their pockets with a whip. It's not so simple, can't just reduce Jesus to a Tolstoy-esque pacifist. Came to bring a sword, not peace. Just like God, always defying our conventions or simple formulas.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 
By the way, I shall lay down my arms and allow this thread to go back on topic. Carry on about the evangelic slide into fundamentalism, people, will be glad to join you in spirited debates there.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I know no Christian, liberal or otherwise, who think adultery is ok. I know of none who would defend divorce as being about "lifestyle and equality" (though I have every sympathy for those who divorce an abusive partner). The only situation I've heard equality brought up in relation to sexual morality by Christians is in relation to homosexuality, which is why I assumed that was what was being addressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Then you assumed incorrectly.

There are many Christians who justify their divorces because they fancied someone else.

There are many, many Christians who fornicate.

A lot of these situations are engaged in because many people dont dare say it's a sin anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, no.
We're talking about evangelical opinions about what is and what isn't sin.
the H sin is just a part of those things that are sins and those things that some see are not sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[O]n top of that there is a question of which sins are worth putting time and effort into preaching about. The prophets and Jesus put very little, if any, time and effort into addressing sexual morality. They were much much more concerned about faithfulness to God and social structures and injustices which kept the poor down. If the OT prophets were to step into modern nations the sins of our society would be so occupying their message that they'd have no time to even mention sexuality - systems that put profit above human dignity, over exploitation of resources that robs from our children and degrades the environment to the extent that the entire climate is changing uncontrollably destroying the lives of billions in poorer countries, etc. Which are also the sins that all of us are party too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Where, precisely, does God say its a sin?


(sex before marriage I mean, not adultery)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think that is pretty clear from references such as Tobit 4: 12 --> 1 Thessalonians 4: 3 --> Cephalion (list 5).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[O]n top of that there is a question of which sins are worth putting time and effort into preaching about. The prophets and Jesus put very little, if any, time and effort into addressing sexual morality. They were much much more concerned about faithfulness to God and social structures and injustices which kept the poor down. If the OT prophets were to step into modern nations the sins of our society would be so occupying their message that they'd have no time to even mention sexuality - systems that put profit above human dignity, over exploitation of resources that robs from our children and degrades the environment to the extent that the entire climate is changing uncontrollably destroying the lives of billions in poorer countries, etc. Which are also the sins that all of us are party too.

---

Hmm - nice debating point, but will it actually stand up to a deeper analysis. Prophets speak against the sins that are messing up a society, therefore it is reasonable to argue that it's because sexual sin wasn't a major problem at the time when the prophets were speaking, or even in Jesus' time, they weren't going to focus on it. It is notable that Paul puts a lot of effort into challenging the sexual mores of the classical world that he's addressing - which is closer to what we experience than what the case in the 1st century Judea and Galilee. And it can be perfectly well argued that the present pattern of 'serial monogamy' blessed by the church has the effect of encouraging adultery by making the consequences of 'choosing happiness' over faithful to vows solemnly entered into before God so limited. In effect the same sort of selfishness that is seen in bankers etc is being practiced by people who abandon their spouses...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think there are issues of sexual morality that need to be addressed, but I don't think gay people in lifelong monogamous relationships are among them. Casual sex and serial relationships probably are.

I also think that the issues of social justice highlighted in the Bible are just as, if not more, pertinent. Inequality in modern society is vast. We have social movements where people will cheer when it is explained that someone is going to die because they can't afford healthcare. We have an economic system found on the love of money, with people justifying it by saying it is "human nature". And worst of all, the people who push this message the hardest claim to be Christians, and more particularly tend to be evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, no.
We're talking about evangelical opinions about what is and what isn't sin.
the H sin is just a part of those things that are sins and those things that some see are not sins.

---

systems that put profit above human dignity, over exploitation of resources that robs from our children and degrades the environment to the extent that the entire climate is changing uncontrollably destroying the lives of billions in poorer countries, etc. Which are also the sins that all of us are party too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But here in the UK there is not that political issue and so evangelicals believe, practice and publicise their beliefs and morals from a purely religious and ethical foundation.

---

• allegations that Christians are being "persecuted" by secularists.
• the claim that the nation is a "Christian nation," together with a campaign to force the public sphere to privilege one (Evangelical) particular expression of Christianity, excluding all others.
• xenophobia, in particular extreme hostility towards individual Muslims.
• and, of course, denunciations of gay people as no better than thieves, alcoholics, and adulterers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Where, precisely, does God say its a sin?


(sex before marriage I mean, not adultery)

---

By the time we get to the 1st Century 'porneia' refers to any sex outside of marriage.

I think that is pretty clear from references such as Tobit 4: 12 --> 1 Thessalonians 4: 3 --> Cephalion (list 5).

---

quote:

---

Therefore, while there is no proof text for sex before marriage being a sin, I think it is implicit throughout the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

'Illegitimate children' is a translation of 'born out of porneia'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But here in the UK there is not that political issue and so evangelicals believe, practice and publicise their beliefs and morals from a purely religious and ethical foundation.

---

That wasn't true in your last election, Mudfrog.

IMHO, I have every reason to think the alliance between Evangelicals and the political hard right is forming up in the UK, in imitation of the allilance in the US. Many of the same issues are being promoted:

• allegations that Christians are being "persecuted" by secularists.
• the claim that the nation is a "Christian nation," together with a campaign to force the public sphere to privilege one (Evangelical) particular expression of Christianity, excluding all others.
• xenophobia, in particular extreme hostility towards individual Muslims.
• and, of course, denunciations of gay people as no better than thieves, alcoholics, and adulterers.

I haven't seen much to suggest that UK Evangelicals oppose Prime Minister Cameron's "Big Society" policies; opposition (in my across-the-pond view) seems to come mainly from MOTR Anglicans. (Leaving aside a few Evangelicals who post mainly on the Fulcrum Forum, and here, that is.) Cameron is of course offering a greatly expanded civic role to religious organizations, a temptation Evangelicals in the US were unable to resist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If the best you can do is interpret a single verse in the NT in the light of a couple of non-scriptural texts, you're not going to impress many literalists and inerrantists!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its an important point because nowadays we so often talk about "Christian marriage" when in fact we're describing a rather sentimentalised ahistorical version of traditional English (or northern European in general) marriage, and assuming that somehow it is part of Christian doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

In context surely more likely to mean adultery?

Anyway, this argument for extending the meaning of porneia is often partly driven by an argument for extending grounds of Jesus-permitted divorce beyond adultery, which is clearly included in Scripture. Which is where we came in.

---

Are you sure? The context strongly suggests the idea under discussion was that the Jews talking to Jesus thought they were legitimate children of Abraham.

If the idea (of being illegitimate children) is rendered by the literal phrase 'born out of porneia' then surely porneia cannot be narrowed to adultery but would naturally refer to any sexual union outside of marriage?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the idea (of being illegitimate children) is rendered by the literal phrase 'born out of porneia' then surely porneia cannot be narrowed to adultery but would naturally refer to any sexual union outside of marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the idea (of being illegitimate children) is rendered by the literal phrase 'born out of porneia' then surely porneia cannot be narrowed to adultery but would naturally refer to any sexual union outside of marriage?

---

I suspect the problem, Johnny, is that if you're talking about a married person, "adultery" and "sexual union outside of marriage" are one and the same thing. It's the only kind of sexual union outside of marriage that a married person can commit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, no.
We're talking about evangelical opinions about what is and what isn't sin.
the H sin is just a part of those things that are sins and those things that some see are not sins.

---

systems that put profit above human dignity, over exploitation of resources that robs from our children and degrades the environment to the extent that the entire climate is changing uncontrollably destroying the lives of billions in poorer countries, etc. Which are also the sins that all of us are party too.

---

Fascinating to me. It would seem as if the ethos of the Almighty coincides precisely with that of the modern secular liberal: socialism, environmentalism, utilitarianism, rabid egalitarianism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If you seriously think liberalism aligns with socialism, then you have some serious historical catching-up to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the idea (of being illegitimate children) is rendered by the literal phrase 'born out of porneia' then surely porneia cannot be narrowed to adultery but would naturally refer to any sexual union outside of marriage?

---

I suspect the problem, Johnny, is that if you're talking about a married person, "adultery" and "sexual union outside of marriage" are one and the same thing. It's the only kind of sexual union outside of marriage that a married person can commit.

---

I agree but don't follow where you are going with this.

---

quote:

---

Areosemyfeet: Not to mention utilitarianism. The work house was a product of utilitarian ideology, and was the direct mirror of the right-wing hand wringing today about the undeserving poor. It also has parallels in right wing real politik - that any action is justified if it serves your ends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, no.
We're talking about evangelical opinions about what is and what isn't sin.
the H sin is just a part of those things that are sins and those things that some see are not sins.

---

systems that put profit above human dignity, over exploitation of resources that robs from our children and degrades the environment to the extent that the entire climate is changing uncontrollably destroying the lives of billions in poorer countries, etc. Which are also the sins that all of us are party too.

---

Fascinating to me. It would seem as if the ethos of the Almighty coincides precisely with that of the modern secular liberal: socialism, environmentalism, utilitarianism, rabid egalitarianism.

---

Clearly there's hope for society when secular liberalism has aligned with the will of God.

---

It would be true, were it so. But of course, you know my meaning perfectly well.

Liberals have taken the mood of the last couple centuries and transposed them onto the Will of God.

People feel: "But it must be alright so long as it hurts no one else!" This is Bentham and J.S. Mill, it is not St. Paul and the Almighty God he represented. Sin is sin.

People feel: "It's the structure of society that makes people knaves, the oppression by the bourgeoisie, what do we expect of the proletariat under such conditions, they have no choice but theivery, drunkenness, violence!" This is Carl Marx, it is not the Lord God. Sin is sin.

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world, they crave the approbation of friends too much, fear the judgment of the Almighty too little.

[ 21. July 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If you seriously think liberalism aligns with socialism, then you have some serious historical catching-up to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
The fundamental object of Utilitarian action is to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number...but is a social theory that underlies much of public policy in modern welfare states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If you seriously think liberalism aligns with socialism, then you have some serious historical catching-up to do.

---

I do not mean "liberalism" in that way, I know full good and well what it means historically inasmuch as I've taught about that history at the university level. I suspect you know the manner in which I meant it, not classical liberalism, but "liberal" as defined by Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Huey Long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
People feel: "But it must be alright so long as it hurts no one else!" This is Bentham and J.S. Mill, it is not St. Paul and the Almighty God he represented. Sin is sin.

---

quote:

---

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
CSL1 again proves my point: the "Evangelical" position* is merely hard-right politics, to which a thin gloss of selective Biblical quotation has been applied, disguising it as religion.

This is politically convenient. Once right-wing politics are redefined as "religion," the tenets of the Right can't be questioned, because to question them is to question God and the Bible.

As for his other point:

quote:

---

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world,

---

how does that not apply to Evangelicals?

What's the average service in a megachurch all about? Provoking calm, rational reflection? Not. On the contrary.

And there, I think, is the answer to the OP's question.

* In the US, though I remain unpersuaded that Evangelicals in the UK are somehow "different." The argument that there are too few of them in the UK to cause much damage somehow strikes me as not really answering the charge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
People feel: "But it must be alright so long as it hurts no one else!" This is Bentham and J.S. Mill, it is not St. Paul and the Almighty God he represented. Sin is sin.

---

I would rather say that it's not the place of the government to enforce sin, but rather to protect its citizens from one another and promote their welfare and the well-ordering of society (we the people, in order to form am ore perfect union, etc.). Victimless crimes are not the government's lookout in a secular society where the government is not the agent of any church (or vice versa, as it usually ends up devolving into).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QB]
As for his other point:

quote:

---

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world,

---

how does that not apply to Evangelicals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QB]
As for his other point:

quote:

---

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world,

---

how does that not apply to Evangelicals?

---

It applies to the bulk of them perfectly, we're holding hands there. And that is why I reject both the liberals many of whom not only take part in immorality themselves but also "approve and applaud those who do so" as well as the Religious Right who seem to have become so unmoored that they can't see their own sinfulness and have become transfixed on altering government--as if that, not personal witness, the power of the Holy Spirit, changes hearts!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QB]
As for his other point:

quote:

---

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world,

---

how does that not apply to Evangelicals?

---

It applies to the bulk of them perfectly, we're holding hands there. And that is why I reject both the liberals many of whom not only take part in immorality themselves but also "approve and applaud those who do so" as well as the Religious Right who seem to have become so unmoored that they can't see their own sinfulness and have become transfixed on altering government--as if that, not personal witness, the power of the Holy Spirit, changes hearts!

---

I reject the label of "immorality." It's simple question-begging, as surely any law professor ought to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QB]
As for his other point:

quote:

---

People just feel too much and think too little. transfixed by the buzz of the world,

---

how does that not apply to Evangelicals?

---

It applies to the bulk of them perfectly, we're holding hands there. And that is why I reject both the liberals many of whom not only take part in immorality themselves but also "approve and applaud those who do so" as well as the Religious Right who seem to have become so unmoored that they can't see their own sinfulness and have become transfixed on altering government--as if that, not personal witness, the power of the Holy Spirit, changes hearts!

---

I reject the label of "immorality." It's simple question-begging, as surely any law professor ought to know.

---

So, you reject the notion that the many behaviors described in the latter part of Rom I constitute "immorality"--or am I misunderstanding you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
CSL1:

You are also not answering my main question, which is:

How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?

or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?

or to put it another way: What has made this formerly minor point of the Holiness Code become of such overriding importance to the Evangelical mind, that to deny the filthiness of homosexuals is to deny God Himself?

I ask, in other words, not whether homosexuals are so peculiarly filthy, but why it has become so important to Evangelicals to say so, to insist, to imply that the whole of Christianity is summed up in this one formerly minor point.

And I say that the reason it is so important is that Evangelical Christians have been propagandized into thinking so by the Religious Right, because the Religious Right sees political gain for itself in this propaganda.

I say also that an Evangelical can be successfully propagandized by the Religious Right without being, consciously, a member of the Religious Right himself.

That is: the person's other opinions are, strictly speaking, irrelevant. What's important is where the propaganda is coming from, who is putting it out, and to what ends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.

So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.

---

That is so hilarious you say that!

I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!


 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think there are issues of sexual morality that need to be addressed, but I don't think gay people in lifelong monogamous relationships are among them. Casual sex and serial relationships probably are.

I also think that the issues of social justice highlighted in the Bible are just as, if not more, pertinent. Inequality in modern society is vast. We have social movements where people will cheer when it is explained that someone is going to die because they can't afford healthcare. We have an economic system found on the love of money, with people justifying it by saying it is "human nature". And worst of all, the people who push this message the hardest claim to be Christians, and more particularly tend to be evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.

So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.

---

That is so hilarious you say that!

I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.

So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.

---

That is so hilarious you say that!

I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!

---

Look, guy, I know the syndrome. Day of week + time of day + "up for tenure" = just one thing. And looka me, I'm doing it, too. Though not with a law review article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
CSL1:

You are also not answering my main question, which is:

How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?

or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.

So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.

---

That is so hilarious you say that!

I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!

---

Look, guy, I know the syndrome. Day of week + time of day + "up for tenure" = just one thing. And looka me, I'm doing it, too. Though not with a law review article.

---

I come up next year.

Trying to go from being a lowly, untenured biz law assistant prof in a state uni biz school to a mediocre tenured biz law associate prof in a state uni biz school. God help me to become mediocre!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.

So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.

---

That is so hilarious you say that!

I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!

---

Look, guy, I know the syndrome. Day of week + time of day + "up for tenure" = just one thing. And looka me, I'm doing it, too. Though not with a law review article.

---

I come up next year.

Trying to go from being a lowly, untenured biz law assistant prof in a state uni biz school to a mediocre tenured biz law associate prof in a state uni biz school. God help me to become mediocre!

---

Amen and amen! Good luck to you! And let those who are not academics snicker at both of us, bro'.

---

Now, get back to work--the article! (and I will stop being a hypocrite and do likewise)
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?

or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Where I'm going with it is that illegitimate children of a married man and illegitimate children of an unmarried man have different implications. Only illegitimate children of an unmarried man would allow you to say "a-ha! we're not talking about adultery!"

Which is pretty darn hard to do when dealing with a figurative passage. How do you assess which reason is the reason for the illegitimacy when you're not literally talking about Abraham's biological children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?

or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?

---

Both these statements are absurd exaggerations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then, I suppose the best thing is to ask you this: what term would you use to describe a child born out of adultery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:


Evangelicalism is dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?

---

Given the actual damage that drink was and is doing to individuals and families, the situations are hardly comparable. The temperance movement needs a revival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then, I suppose the best thing is to ask you this: what term would you use to describe a child born out of adultery?

---

Do you mean then or now?

I'm not sure what term I would use now.

Back then they would probably have hushed it up and tried to pass the kid off as from the mother's marriage but if it was openly acknowledged then that child would be considered illegitimate too.

That is not a value judgement on my behalf, just a simple statement of how it worked back then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?

---

Given the actual damage that drink was and is doing to individuals and families, the situations are hardly comparable. The temperance movement needs a revival.

---

I would entirely agree with that.
And not just temperance in regards to alcohol, but temp[erance in all tuhings. the world in the west has just become one selfish, intemperate, licentious and immoral quagmire.

There is little self-restraint and certainly no notice taklen of God's laws.

the church is part of this and should be ashamed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?

or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?

---

Both these statements are absurd exaggerations.

---

I'm not quite sure about this: in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.

Might I suggest two reasons.

1. It is an issue on which Evangelicals can relatively easily show their distinctiveness from wider society.

2. It is a hermeneutic issue, and thus goes to the very core of what defines an Evangelical, i.e. their attitude to, and way of interpreting, Scripture. To me this is the crux of the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
So, one might suppose, 95% of Evangelicals would find it extremely easy to denounce the peculiar "sinfulness" of homosexuals, as they themselves would experience none of the "temptations" they are denouncing in others. And 95% of the population would find it extremely easy to join in.

---

quote:

---

Churches that degrade women through word or deed, overtly or subtly, tend to go the way of Marc Driscoll and Bob Jones, Sr.--they become domineering brutes. I've seen it first hand in a New Frontiers church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
CSL1 wrote:-

quote:

---

Churches that degrade women through word or deed, overtly or subtly, tend to go the way of Marc Driscoll and Bob Jones, Sr.--they become domineering brutes. I've seen it first hand in a New Frontiers church.

---

I didn't post anything on the Mars Hill thread as I have no experience in that kind of church, but the question that interested me was "why did this happen?". Was it there from the start? (there seemed to be no evidence for that) ie a pre-existing tendency. Or was it inevitable due to societal circumstances such as you outline above? Or do you need both?

It strikes me that there are parallels here with the way that predominantly male working environments can degenerate. I think most managers with experience in this sort of thing would agree that a workplace with a reasonable balance of both sexes is far less likely to descend into this sort of thing. At least the ones I have discussed it with do.

(Predominantly female working environments also have quite distinctive ways of degenerating too, though that's not really relevant here).

But how and why church environments can degenerate along these lines strikes me as an interesting line of enquiry on its own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Whether or not another language makes a distinction is something you can't figure out from only a single example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I suspect we've run that tangent from the main thrust of the thread long enough!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Temperance, what a joke. For whom ? How ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.

---

quote:

---

Might I suggest two reasons.

1. It is an issue on which Evangelicals can relatively easily show their distinctiveness from wider society.

---

quote:

---

2. It is a hermeneutic issue, and thus goes to the very core of what defines an Evangelical, i.e. their attitude to, and way of interpreting, Scripture. To me this is the crux of the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Believing otherwise demands a convoluted hermeneutical and exegetical sophistry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Diarmaid MacCulloch ... “it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If blog post by Fred Clark over at Slacktivist is any indication, then there is no point to having much hope for the future of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The point is not whether MacCulloch's position is right or wrong, but that it is not a dismissable idiosyncrasy unique to evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]

---

Goodness, we have a lot in common. That's where I teach as well, the "Evangelical South" in the U.S.. Wife and I have found what you say to be precisely true, and having come from the non-Evangelical Upper Midwest and lived out West, we find the segregation of genders stifling.

My wife, coming from an academic family where she wasn't taught that her thoughts were second rate due to her gender, has stepped on many toes since we moved here and gotten strange looks from those in the church who wondered just who this uppity curiosity thought she was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its strange... there seems to be a lot of interference on this channel... its as if I'm recieving a signal... from the eighteenth century...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]

---

Goodness, we have a lot in common. That's where I teach as well, the "Evangelical South" in the U.S.. Wife and I have found what you say to be precisely true, and having come from the non-Evangelical Upper Midwest and lived out West, we find the segregation of genders stifling.

My wife, coming from an academic family where she wasn't taught that her thoughts were second rate due to her gender, has stepped on many toes since we moved here and gotten strange looks from those in the church who wondered just who this uppity curiosity thought she was.

---

And if all that is true, why associate it with evangelicalism, rather then with the South?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Not an Evangelical myself, but I found this book rather interesting, somewhat along the lines that Svitlana sets out above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.

---

That it has become a "touchstone of orthodoxy" is a deeply sad and worrying development. Even more so that it's become that without entering into the formal statements of Evangelical belief. I consider myself to be Evangelical, I can still affirm my assent to the Doctrinal Basis of the UCCF and Evangelical Alliance. Yet, I believe that a) homosexuality is not a sin and b) that the church should affirm monogamous, loving relationships between people - including conducting weddings for homosexual couples. And, I know I'm not alone within Evangelicalism for believing that.

---

Agreed. (and for the rest of the post).
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which [Evangelicals] are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which [Evangelicals] are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind."

---

I came to faith through an evangelical group over 30 years ago. One of the things that initially attracted me, and led to my growth in the faith over the subsequent years, was that evangelicals (that first group, then CU at university and other groups and individuals I've known) encouraged me to think. A central feature of evangelicalism I grew up with was Bible study; small groups reading Scvripture and thinking through what it said together, and private quiet times of personal study. Questions were asked, thoughts and opinions listened to and discussed - but no one was spoon-fed The Answer™.

I admit I grew disatisfied with much of evangelical worship, and so for many years have not attended an overtly evangelical church. What I have missed as a result is the emphasis on thinking through issues of faith, as the churches I've attended have not had programmes of study and fellowship groups that would be typical of more overtly evangelical places (the Ship was a life-line for me providing a more than adequate substitute).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different?

---

quote:

---

The Gospels are entirely silent on the subject. The Epistles contain a couple of verses where it is not entirely clear exactly what they are about - but they're most likely related to something other than monogamous, faithful, loving homosexual partnerships.[/

---

Evangelical opposition to homosexual behaviour is based not just upon the relevant pericopes, but also on the utter absence, in both the Bible and the entire tradition of Christendom, of any support for homosexual behaviour, "monogomous, faithful, loving" or otherwise.

It has nothing to do with any panic-inducing recrudescence of "fundamentalism" and everything to do with orthodoxy across all Christian traditions.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It will be interesting to see 'what's next' on the agenda of liberalising sexual behaviour.

After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors? I mean, it was3 years ago that Peter Tatchell (then 57) called for sex with 14 year old boys to be legalised!

What next? Incest?

One of the main arguments for same sex marriage is 'why should the law stop two people who love each other from getting married?

Brother/sister?
2 brothers?

Bestiality? Where will it end?

After all, the Bible's injunctions against ALL these things evidently belong to a former age
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Mudfrog: After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different?

---

The Levitical holiness code is not, contra the popular myth, just about shellfish and beard trimming, but contains, inter alia, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, idolatry, theft, lying, oppressing and defrauding the poor and the alien, victimising the deaf and blind, slander, revenge, sorcery, dishonest business practices and prostituting one's daughter.

Which of them do you suggest we are free to "ignore"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It will be interesting to see 'what's next' on the agenda of liberalising sexual behaviour.

After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors? I mean, it was3 years ago that Peter Tatchell (then 57) called for sex with 14 year old boys to be legalised!

What next? Incest?

One of the main arguments for same sex marriage is 'why should the law stop two people who love each other from getting married?

Brother/sister?
2 brothers?

Bestiality? Where will it end?

After all, the Bible's injunctions against ALL these things evidently belong to a former age

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which [Evangelicals] are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind."

---

I came to faith through an evangelical group over 30 years ago. One of the things that initially attracted me, and led to my growth in the faith over the subsequent years, was that evangelicals (that first group, then CU at university and other groups and individuals I've known) encouraged me to think. A central feature of evangelicalism I grew up with was Bible study; small groups reading Scvripture and thinking through what it said together, and private quiet times of personal study. Questions were asked, thoughts and opinions listened to and discussed - but no one was spoon-fed The Answer™.

I admit I grew disatisfied with much of evangelical worship, and so for many years have not attended an overtly evangelical church. What I have missed as a result is the emphasis on thinking through issues of faith, as the churches I've attended have not had programmes of study and fellowship groups that would be typical of more overtly evangelical places (the Ship was a life-line for me providing a more than adequate substitute).

---

Yes, I would agree with this. The evangelical bookshops are filled to overflowing with Bible study aids, books, courses, etc.

The historical churches, ITSM, are not known for their Bible studies - or even for encouraging their parishioners to read their Bibles every day or even at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different?

---

The Levitical holiness code is not, contra the popular myth, just about shellfish and beard trimming, but contains, inter alia, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, idolatry, theft, lying, oppressing and defrauding the poor and the alien, victimising the deaf and blind, slander, revenge, sorcery, dishonest business practices and prostituting one's daughter.

Which of them do you suggest we are free to "ignore"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can't agree that the teaching of the church has to be subject to, affirmed by, and in line with the thinking of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Traditions of some churches may well be held onto because 'we've always believed this...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can't agree that the teaching of the church has to be subject to, affirmed by, and in line with the thinking of society.

The Word of God has always been counter-cultural - even in the days of the patriarchs the children of Israel were told to be different to the nations around them.

The Traditions of some churches may well be held onto because 'we've always believed this...' but the faith and morality of the Bible is not just a cultural snapshot of the 6 or 7 centuries before and just after the birth of Christ.

Evangelicals will tell you that this is the word of God, revealed to us, and that uncomfortable or not to modern society, this is the standard God requires.

The suggestion of using the Bible to support the thinking that european culture is superior is a red herring. Nothing in the Bible actually says that and therefore there is nothing in the Bible that we need to discard. I would say, rather, that any active prejudices against anyone by virtue of skin colour of gender actually betrays an ignorance of what the Bible really says and is an example of how we use culture to water down the Bible's teaching rather than using the Bible to bolster up our cultural practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I firmly believe that if we accept the premise that the traditional views of society, reflected in the teaching of the Church, may be wrong we will be forced to openly re-examine the teaching of the church. And, when that happens we will find that the Biblical support for the traditional view will be a lot less compelling than we thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In any case, wouldn't it be so much better if it was the Church who took the lead, radically declaring new ideas and insights from the Scripture, and bringing society round to its point of view - rather than, very grudgingly, being forced to examine what it believes.

That's what happened with folk like the Clapham Sect (in regard to factory working practices and slavery) or MLK (racism and segregation). But it seems rare nowadays: the Church is often reactionary rather than prophetic. Whatever happened to the Lord "shedding new light and truth upon his Word"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I'm with you on this one, Mudfrog. If society believes A, my general inclination is to believe non-A. The Bible is so clear on this as to be unmistakeable.

"Don't be conformed to the patterns of this world but be transformed..."

"You know how the rulers of gentiles (secular society of the time, of course) do it...but not so with you!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Wouldn't it be so much better if it was the Church who took the lead, radically declaring new ideas and insights from the Scripture, and bringing society round to its point of view - rather than, very grudgingly, being forced to examine what it believes.

That's what happened with folk like the Clapham Sect (in regard to factory working practices and slavery) or MLK (racism and segregation). But it seems rare nowadays: the Church is often reactionary rather than prophetic. Whatever happened to the Lord "shedding new light and truth upon his Word"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can't agree that the teaching of the church has to be subject to, affirmed by, and in line with the thinking of society.

---

Excuse me for jumping in, but I don't think this is what Alan is saying. Rather, he's suggesting that all churches can, at times, fall into the trap you mention:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Traditions of some churches may well be held onto because 'we've always believed this...'

---

And the point about using the Bible to justify racism / colonialism is that we don't know what mistakes of a similar nature we're making today. What beliefs that are held dear by some Christians nowadays will be looked at in future with a sad shake of the head, like we now view colonialism and slavery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I'm with you on this one, Mudfrog. If society believes A, my general inclination is to believe non-A. The Bible is so clear on this as to be unmistakeable.

"Don't be conformed to the patterns of this world but be transformed..."

"You know how the rulers of gentiles (secular society of the time, of course) do it...but not so with you!"

---

I kind of get what you're saying here, but isn't the implication of this that, if you were living prior to the legalisation of homosexuality, you'd be in favour of gay marriage? It seems to me that Christian belief should be independent of what the world says, neither automatically opposed to it nor in favour of it.

There are times that non-Christians can cause us to re-examine long held prejudices, and bring us to a new understanding of what is right - as Jesus illustrated with the parable of the good Samaritan. I think in modern times secular environmentalism has done a lot of good in prompting us to re-examine what stewardship means for how we treat the world, and to separate that from exploitation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can't agree that the teaching of the church has to be subject to, affirmed by, and in line with the thinking of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Since the advent of European colonialism until well into the 19th century the paradigm in Europe and North America, shared by all, was that it was self-evident that Europeans were superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since the fall of the Roman Empire, and for a while before that probably, until no more than 50 years ago it was universally accepted that homosexuality is wrong, and infact would be expressed even more strongly than that. Even today the majority of the population would still consider homosexuality wrong. The Church agreed with the rest of society, or maybe society agreed with the Church. Whichever way around, traditional Christian teaching on the subject was formed within a paradigm accepted by all that it is self-evident that homosexuality is wrong....

---

What of course is interesting about that statement is its recognition that it was the church that taught a pro-gay society - or at least one that had no issue with hebephile homosexual relationships - that they were wrong... Now the church is supposed to reverse itself.
 

---

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... It seems to me that Christian belief should be independent of what the world says, neither automatically opposed to it nor in favour of it ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, with eating shellfish we have other passages (notably the "do not call unclean what I have called clean" vision in Acts) that actually negate the dietary codes entirely. With idolatory, theft, oppression of the poor etc we have vast tracts of Scripture which restates these parts of the code. For a lot of the holiness code the rest of Scripture is practically silent. In those cases a morality based on those verses in the holiness code is built on very unsteady ground, and indeed you'd rarely find even the most fundie fundies arguing against wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I expect the world in general to tend towards establishing a moral code that is perfectly asinine and devised for utterly self-serving ends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... and just to ensure that we are indeed not flogging any deceased beasts, I would simply say in the context of the OP that the recent discussion here is an example of has something that was not an issue 40 years ago has become one now, and the evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic Church are actually trying to maintain and restate what traditional Biblical and Church teaching has consistently said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I am saying is that what others see as increased fundamentalism is actually an increased vocal defence of the traditional message and morals of the Faith in the light of growing hostility, ignorance and rejection from within and without the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I understand what you're getting at; it's not that I think Christians ought to reflexively and mechanically believe the opposite of whatever society believes, it's just that I expect the world in general to tend towards establishing a moral code that is perfectly asinine and devised for utterly self-serving ends. Therefore, I tend to look at the direction society is going and go the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It will be interesting to see 'what's next' on the agenda of liberalising sexual behaviour.

After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors? I mean, it was3 years ago that Peter Tatchell (then 57) called for sex with 14 year old boys to be legalised!

What next? Incest?

One of the main arguments for same sex marriage is 'why should the law stop two people who love each other from getting married?

Brother/sister?
2 brothers?

Bestiality? Where will it end?

After all, the Bible's injunctions against ALL these things evidently belong to a former age

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Eating shellfish does not lead to adultery.

---

Given the supposed aphrodisiac qualities of oysters, I'm not sure this was the ideal pairing to select!

[ 25. July 2012, 03:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sorry for the repeated posting, but a further addition:

You may well have a group of rules where there is a general rationale for all of them that falls away, but for some of them there might be other, additional justifications for the rule that means you want to keep those particular ones. It's not the case that everything has a single, sole reason.

Which is fundamentally the answer to the kind of slippery slope argument raised by Mudfrog. The collapse of one rationale underpinning a rule about sexual conduct does not mean that all rules about sexual conduct are inevitably abandoned. Abandoning a rule against homosexual activity because the rationale for it had to do with religious purity does not mean that all sexual practices are permissible, because it doesn't get rid of any of the other rationales for treating sex as requiring consent, or requiring commitment and relationship.

Indeed, the entire debate over homosexuality depends on the fact that the rules which CONTINUE to have support, because they continue to appear to have a sensible rationale for being in place, don't appear to exclude homosexuality.

[ 25. July 2012, 04:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Unlike temporary blips in church history, such as attempts devoid of any scriptural justification to assert the superiority of white or western "races" (attempts which were simultaneously opposed by other, biblically orthodox Christians), opposition to homosexual behaviour is one of those things "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est".

The issue has nothing to do with mythical resurgences of "fundamentalism".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm afraid I don't agree that the church's problematic attitude towards race has been a 'blip'. It seems somewhat dismissive to see the issue in this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And can we PLEASE get away from the comparisons between loving relationships between consenting adults and bestiality? For God's sake that's STUPID FUCKING STUPID FUCKING STUPID. What part of "consenting" don't people get? Is it because it has three syllables?

The whole "by golly they break God's law concerning X, therefore soon people will be breaking God's law concerning Y" argument is a mounded lump of vapor-emitting waste product. Unmarried sex does not lead to murder. Eating shellfish does not lead to adultery. Homosexuality does not lead to incest. Lending money at interest does not lead to ... Probably best not to go there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
First off, it's no more stupid that using guttural, puerile language.

---

quote:

---

I'm thinking perhaps your points might taken more seriously if you raise your language above that of the average adolescent boy in a locker room.

---

quote:

---

Second, where in thunder does the Bible--the thing we're talking about here--say that things are virtuous by dint of being "consensual"?

---

quote:

---

Please inform me of this. That's pure post modern thinking, a bending to the mood of the day, you will not find it in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
First off, it's no more stupid that using guttural, puerile language.

---

Yes, it is. The latter is a failure of character. The former is a failure of intellect. Which is what "stupid" is.

quote:

---

I'm thinking perhaps your points might taken more seriously if you raise your language above that of the average adolescent boy in a locker room.

---

By people for whom style matters more than substance. ITTWACW!

quote:

---

Second, where in thunder does the Bible--the thing we're talking about here--say that things are virtuous by dint of being "consensual"?

---

Never said it did. We were talking about whether one thing would lead to another.

quote:

---

Please inform me of this. That's pure post modern thinking, a bending to the mood of the day, you will not find it in the Bible.

---

Glad I never said you would. You are capable of reading for content, right? Time to start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Your occupation, then, should equip you very well to address the question I asked above: what do you think of the church's rolling over and playing dead with regard to its earlier condemnation of lending money at interest?

I'm still waiting (and trying to steer this thread away from the kick of a dead horse).

If you hold that Christian teaching has never changed and must never change to adapt to social conditions, then it looks to me that this issue is an embarrassing counterexample-- especially in that more harm has been done to society in the past several years by greedy moneylenders than by homosexual love from time immemorial. Does the church have anything to say about it anymore?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
As you wish, but by picking and choosing your favorite biblical sins to dwell on, you lose another bit of credibility with those whom you would like to convert, especially the young. My answer to the question I asked is that the prohibition no longer makes any sense, and even in Jesus's day was the occasion for elaborate ruses and workarounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
As you wish, but by picking and choosing your favorite biblical sins to dwell on, you lose another bit of credibility with those whom you would like to convert, especially the young. My answer to the question I asked is that the prohibition no longer makes any sense, and even in Jesus's day was the occasion for elaborate ruses and workarounds. Word is getting out that people who stubbornly refuse to see homosexuality as another case in point often have personal problems in that very area and are projecting. These denouements appear in the newspaper often nowadays. The truth will out, as they say...

Also, ontrary to the situation for hundreds of years (thanks in large part to the church), gay people are well known to us today. Any of us can assess their character just as easily as that of other acquaintances. We can and do befriend them.

When a get-ready man comes up to 15-year-olds and explains that betraying or turning their backs on one of their own friends is necessary to make God happy with them, it is more and more typical of them to gently tell the preacher where to shove it. As far as I can see, that is what any person with integrity would do. Good for them. How to lose a generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
As for style-substance, I suppose it'd be fair to say I think your post lacking in substance, the style was simply a confirmation thereof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
As for style-substance, I suppose it'd be fair to say I think your post lacking in substance, the style was simply a confirmation thereof.

---

Well, I guess that's easier than actually responding to my points. Cheers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see why Mousethief got annoyed, CSL1. If I were gay I think I would annoyed if anyone suggested that tolerating or legalising my position somehow opened the floodgates to paedophilia, bestiality or incest ...

Mousethief isn't gay but he did get annoyed by the implications of what some of the more conservative evangelical types here have been posting.

I'm reasonably conservative theologically and it made me cringe too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And Mudfrog did say, 'what next, incest?' as if homosexuality and incest were related in some way or as if tolerance of one might lead in some way to tolerance of the other. It doesn't follow.

I'm sure Mudfrog meant no harm but this sort of argument sets my teeth on edge a bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
As for the notion that I may be alienating 15 year old boys by telling them to turn their backs on friends, I'd do nothing of the sort.

---

quote:

---

But if you think that I must approach others with an attitude of "It's OK, do as you will, we're in a modern society, the Bible must evolve to fit it", then I'd be no different from those who fudged the Bible to fit within the discredited views of slavery and racism because it fit within the prevailing mores of secular society. Nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[qb]As for the notion that I may be alienating 15 year old boys by telling them to turn their backs on friends, I'd do nothing of the sort.

---

Good for you, but I've heard it with my own ears on this campus on several occasions. One street-corner preacher who always drew a crowd (mostly hostile) all but foamed at the mouth about the evil of homosexuality. His tirades were an embarrassment to this churchman. His visits abruptly ceased after he was convicted of repeatedly accosting a 14-year-old boy. The less money I can give to fund or encourage such folk, the happier I will be.
QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
But that doesn't mean--cannot mean!--that sin is not still ugly sin. And it is not made right or noble because it's "consensual" or "doesn't hurt anyone". Those are fair and proper arguments against making public policy restrictions against an activity, they are not fair arguments against counting an activity for what it is: sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Who says legalization of X won't lead to Y? Have any hard data there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... hypersensitive ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The intent of my post about other sins was this:

In the Bible there is a list of, let's say, 'prohibitions'.

Let's reduce them to 5:

Eating shellfish,
Mixing fibres
Adultery
Homosexuality
Incest

At one point in time all 5 were prohibited.

But people have, over the years, removed some them from the list of prohibitions, including homosexuality.

If the reason that is often given for the allowing of such practices is valid - i.e. the prohibition belonged to another age, a bronze age society, a nomadic society, a middle-eastern patriarchal society, etc, etc, then it might be argued by some that the other laws are also to be seen in that light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are we naive enough to believe that such practices - incest, intergenerational sex, etc are not already catered for in the 'adult entertainment industry'?

---

quote:

---

50 years ago no one would ever have imagined what would be acceptable today.
Can we really be so sure that in 50 years time the argument for all consensual sex, in whatever form, might be very strong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... It could be said, using the justification that now ignores the Biblical prohibition on homosexuality, that loving, consensual sex between adult siblings should also be lawful. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Isn't the issue with incest rather different because it's generally considered that informed consent is impossible ..

---

Yes, when there's incest involving a parent and a child. I was thinking of incest in the sense mentioned by Mudfrog ('loving, consensual sex between adult siblings').

I recognise that, when people see the word 'incest', they probably think of a parent/child situation rather than a situation involving adult siblings. (For what it's worth, the definitions of 'incest' in the Oxford English Dictionary and Wikipedia include both situations mentioned here.)
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I just hate it when a whole bunch of you come along and say something succinctly that I rambled on about endlessly just yesterday...
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... It could be said, using the justification that now ignores the Biblical prohibition on homosexuality, that loving, consensual sex between adult siblings should also be lawful. ...

---

Doesn't that depend on which justification for interpreting those Bible verses differently you use?

For me, applying a rule tends to involve considering its purpose. When I've heard Christians say that they don't see same-sex relationships as inherently sinful, they said that the purpose of the relevant Bible texts was to prevent harmful sexual conduct, involving abuse, violence, etc. The same person could conclude that the purpose behind banning incest was to prevent the risk of death and disability due to inbreeding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is absurd and offensive to suggest that homosexuals are any more likely than heterosexuals to engage in behaviours such as paedophilia, incest and bestiality, but it is also silly for the media to patronize gays by suggesting that they are less prone than straights to antisocial or pathological activity - as witness examples such as Nazi Ernst Roehm and criminal Ronnie Kray.

C.S. Lewis warned somewhere that the fact that Augustine believed that unbaptised babies would go to Hell was not evidence that he wanted them to go to Hell.

Similarly it is possible to believe that the Bible forbids homosexual behaviour without wanting the Bible to do so, or at least without understanding why it does.

(The Hell element in the analogy is a distraction; I am not making a judgment about the eternal destiny of anyone of any sexual persuasion, beyond the general assertion that those who will be lost will be those who have deliberately rejected God’s grace in Christ).

The mystery of why God allows some people to have a sexual attraction to the same gender while prohibiting them from exercising it, is actually a small subsection (gays making up about two per cent of the population) of the wider question of why God gives anyone intense sexual urges which they cannot fulfil.

This applies to all those unmarried heterosexuals who don’t want to be single; those in marriages which are sexless for various reasons; and those in the (possibly quite long) gap between the onset of puberty and marriage.

Why on earth does God give sexual feelings (along with the catastrophic possibility of bringing another human being into existence) to twelve and thirteen year olds?

It is no doubt ridiculously adolescent to ask why God doesn’t overrule to give out only heterosexual urges, and only to those within sound marriages, and I should have grown out of posing such questions many decades ago, but as Doctor Johnson said, “Sensation is sensation”.

I realize that the fact that some of us Christians who are in happy marriages sympathise with the sexual frustrations of homosexual and heterosexual Christians who are not, and can’t understand why God has ordered things in such a way, does not help those Christians one iota.

What it comes down to is that anyone with any sort of commitment to the Christian faith has to live with mystery and uncertainty somewhere and at some level.

Even those who claim that there is no mystery about homosexual practice because God has no problem with it, have to accept a degree of opaqueness in other areas of their faith.

In other words, those who believe that God in the Bible forbids homosexual practice, can’t understand why, but choose to trust that it is for some good reason beyond our understanding, might be fair game for atheists, but are not fair game for Christians who disagree with them on this particular issue, but who are forced to adopt a similar stance on other issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean, imagine if you'd tried to have a discussion in 1962 about the appropriate laws in relation to telecommunications. The list of things you wouldn't have been able to adequately take into account when saying what the law 'should' be in 2012 include mobile phones, e-mail, the internet...

<snip>

The people of 2062 will have to decide for themselves what their views are about sex. I can't figure that out for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So sibling incest is ok if the right contraception is used, or either sibling is infertile?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean, imagine if you'd tried to have a discussion in 1962 about the appropriate laws in relation to telecommunications. The list of things you wouldn't have been able to adequately take into account when saying what the law 'should' be in 2012 include mobile phones, e-mail, the internet...

<snip>

The people of 2062 will have to decide for themselves what their views are about sex. I can't figure that out for them.

---

So mobile phones, a technology that wasn't around 50 years ago can be used as an an analogy for sexual practices which were around in all their forms a lot more than 50 years ago.

Sorry the comparison doesn't work for me. At all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The mystery of why God allows some people to have a sexual attraction to the same gender while prohibiting them from exercising it, is actually a small subsection (gays making up about two per cent of the population) of the wider question of why God gives anyone intense sexual urges which they cannot fulfil.

This applies to all those unmarried heterosexuals who don’t want to be single; those in marriages which are sexless for various reasons; and those in the (possibly quite long) gap between the onset of puberty and marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

I agree with Kaplan Corday that Christians live with uncertainty and that we need to trust God. Where I differ is that, for me, trust in God includes the idea that God is not a tyrant who imposes arbitrary moral rules. As I see it, it's up to us to work out the purposes behind the rules, to follow them as faithfully as we can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... hypersensitive ...

---

Really? How would you feel if someone linked acceptance of your sexual relationship to acceptance of paedophilia, bestiality and incest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... It's the "almost always" that undermines your argument, though isn't it? It is possible to envisage a perfectly consensual sibling incestuous relationship with no risk of reproduction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:


Even if I'm wrong on that, then Mudfrog's argument has moved from (a) 'acceptance of same-sex relationships leads to acceptance of paedophilia, bestiality and incest' to (b) 'acceptance of same-sex relationships leads to acceptance of very rare (if it ever exists) perfectly consensual incest between adult siblings that does no emotional harm to anyone'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

I agree with Kaplan Corday that Christians live with uncertainty and that we need to trust God. Where I differ is that, for me, trust in God includes the idea that God is not a tyrant who imposes arbitrary moral rules. As I see it, it's up to us to work out the purposes behind the rules,

---

---

quote:

---

It is possible to envisage a perfectly consensual sibling incestuous relationship with no risk of reproduction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
But on the other hand, when people talk along the lines of "How would you like your sins compared to [insert least favorite disgusting sin]?", they've completely missed it also. All sin is abominable, including mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... So what exactly are you saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...evangelicalism, at least in its more conservative guise
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... I was responding to your utilitarian hermeneutic for rules we find in the Bible - we obey those for which we can, at this moment, see a reason, where "reason" means producing our current definition of wellbeing. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... Your response seems to be that it does not matter to be consistent in your treatment of what the Bible says about homosexual acts and incestuous acts because you haven't got to deal with the latter as yet ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:


You previously seemed to recognise that I applied my view to incest in 'almost all' cases. Now, by accusing me of 'not dealing with' incest, you seem to be trying to move the goalposts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The argument offered is always that if it's OK to eat shellfish - as evangelicals now do; if it's OK to wear mixed fibres, as evangelicals do, then it must be OK to allow same sex relationships because they are all God's laws and evangelicals are beining inconsistent if they allow some and not others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
But on the other hand, when people talk along the lines of "How would you like your sins compared to [insert least favorite disgusting sin]?", they've completely missed it also. All sin is abominable, including mine.

---

The point you're missing is that, from the perspective that homosexuality is not sinful, what you're doing is the equivalent of suggesting that, for example, marrying a black person, or ordaining a woman, or eating meat, is equivalent to bestiality or paedophilia. If we were talking about things we all accepted were sins, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The question isn't about comparing your sins to other sins, it's about comparing behaviour that you don't believe to be sinful to the most objectionable sins you can think of. That's why you get the reactions you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
But on the other hand, when people talk along the lines of "How would you like your sins compared to [insert least favorite disgusting sin]?", they've completely missed it also. All sin is abominable, including mine.

---

The point you're missing is that, from the perspective that homosexuality is not sinful, what you're doing is the equivalent of suggesting that, for example, marrying a black person, or ordaining a woman, or eating meat, is equivalent to bestiality or paedophilia. If we were talking about things we all accepted were sins, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The question isn't about comparing your sins to other sins, it's about comparing behaviour that you don't believe to be sinful to the most objectionable sins you can think of. That's why you get the reactions you do.

---

Marrying a black person? Eating meat? Where in the Bible is that defined as sin? I believe that the perspective that the practice of homosexuality is not sinful is a perspective in utter and absolute error, therefore I suppose we have no common ground from which we can continue the debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... So what exactly are you saying?

---

You don't seem to have answered the question. The question was 'how would you feel if someone linked acceptance of your sexual relationship to acceptance of paedophilia, bestiality and incest?'

Yes, I know, Christians believe that sin separates us from God, so (in that sense) 'all sins are equal'. That doesn't mean that all sins do equal harm. Coveting your neighbour's smartphone is different from murdering them and stealing the phone.

Linking tolerance for someone's sexual relationship to acceptance of paedophilia, bestiality and incest involves associating a person's intimate relationship with sins that people find especially repugnant. For me, this like 'guilt by association' - an unfair debating tactic. It also seems to indicate a failure of empathy (hence my question, above). When people make this link, it seems like they're debating with someone while repeatedly kicking them in the shins - and, when someone objects, accusing them of having hypersensitive shins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The argument offered is always that if it's OK to eat shellfish - as evangelicals now do; if it's OK to wear mixed fibres, as evangelicals do, then it must be OK to allow same sex relationships because they are all God's laws and evangelicals are beining inconsistent if they allow some and not others.

---

There's a slight flaw in this analysis. All that is intended by raising this point is to point out that being in Mosaic law is not in and of itself considered sufficient reason to follow a rule by any noticable group of Christians. The need is then to explain why it is necessary to follow this particular law. In most cases, adultery, prostitution, idolatory etc. it is possible to justify the rule within the framework of the two great commandments, without recourse to arguing that "God says he doesn't like it so it breaks the first", because that same logic applies to the issue of mixed fibre clothing (the shellfish issue is irrelevant because it is specifically dealt with in Acts).

Analysing whether a particular behaviour violates the 2nd great commandment is not always easy but is at least something for which there can be a clear basis for discussion - if you act with love towards others could you undertake this act? Violation of the first commandment is harder to assess, because it relies on our understanding of God and what he values, which is necessarily incomplete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... So, for clarity, what is your view about a case of sibling incest that causes no discernible harm? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... And, out of interest, will your view change if the psychological evidence changes? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I wou,ld also add that it isn't necessary for the second commandment to be broken in order for the action to be a sin. it might be that only the first is nroken. Is it not enough that we have simply offended God, even if no one was hurt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... Please tell me by what standard do you judge this behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I believe that the perspective that the practice of homosexuality is not sinful is a perspective in utter and absolute error, therefore I suppose we have no common ground from which we can continue the debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn
To ignore changing evidence would seem like the rigid thinking that's characteristic of a 'slide into fundamentalim'.

Also, while the evidence has changed about same-sex relationships, the evidence hasn't changed about incest. I don't see any reason to treat the last 50 years of thinking on same-sex relationships as predictive of the next 50 years of thinking on incest ... do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn
To ignore changing evidence would seem like the rigid thinking that's characteristic of a 'slide into fundamentalim'.

Also, while the evidence has changed about same-sex relationships, the evidence hasn't changed about incest. I don't see any reason to treat the last 50 years of thinking on same-sex relationships as predictive of the next 50 years of thinking on incest ... do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... Please tell me by what standard do you judge this behavior.

---

You still haven't answered my question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But if "evidence "is ever changing then I would question the extent to which it can be relied upon as evidence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I believe that the perspective that the practice of homosexuality is not sinful is a perspective in utter and absolute error, therefore I suppose we have no common ground from which we can continue the debate.

---

Well, you'll probably find a way, because you clearly love to talk about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CSL1:
[qb] Here you are a professor of business law. For several pages your posts were lucid, circumspect, altogether fascinating. Then the H words comes up and suddenly you're not looking at the real life situations of real people anymore, only at caricatures and dogmas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
You were invited some time ago to comment on usury and the dramatic changes in Christian teaching that have occurred over it. Entire books have been written about this issue. That was before I even realized how well qualified you are to make some really erudite contributions. You replied that maybe the church should say more about it, but waved the subject away after barely a sentence to return to your hobby horse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
...but prefer to spend your time drawing cartoons of a group of people whom you say you have no particular interest in.

And you want us to believe you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But if "evidence "is ever changing then I would question the extent to which it can be relied upon as evidence

---

A better word in this case is "accumulating"-- at long last, after centuries of more-or less deliberate concealment.

---

quote:

---

there hasn't been a great deal of engagement on the issue of usury here, a few posts, doesn't get the liberals' or conservatives' blood here up apparently, at least not to the contention over homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

you and others seem to be engaging actively on the homosexuality issue as well. Both sides, not just one driving this debate. Physician, heal thyself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Yes, sir, to define the sexuality of a few as inherently evil, while providing ways for most of the human race to practice sex acceptably and virtuously, is a caricature-- at least, absent evidence of harm. And by attributing this accusation to an inexorable divine taboo, you excuse yourself from any need to seek such evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
That's really it, isn't it? The point is to attract attention, fill the pews with emotionally driven participants in as much ritual violence-- human sacrifice or semblance thereof-- as self-professed Christian folk can allow themselves without total embarrassment.
Never mind that there are victims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[QUOTE]Either you do not know the meaning of the word you're using or you're willfully misusing it.

---

quote:

---

Again, the shibboleth of "harm" rears its head. Again, nonsense. That is not a biblical standard. That is a postmodern standard,

---

quote:

---

This is truly a bizarre statement in context. It is also an absolutely sterling example of "caricature". It is also an absolutely sterling example of "caricature". I have caricatured no one, but you have caricatured me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[QUOTE]Either you do not know the meaning of the word you're using or you're willfully misusing it.

---

No, I'll stand by it. Physical characteristics aren't the only ones that can be represented in a highly distorted manner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Again, the shibboleth of "harm" rears its head. Again, nonsense. That is not a biblical standard. That is a postmodern standard,

---

I daresay that it is a modern standard, as well (meaning roughly since 1600), but whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm enough of a doubting Thomas to demand evidence for a claim, especially one that affects me intimately. And hundreds of faith systems out there commend themselves to our devotion. Why should I consider yours? Doesn't that question send us back to evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I hardly mentioned you in that paragraph. Yes, I probably caricatured the faith system that you have absorbed through preaching and other all the other formative apparatus. Or did you come up with it all on your own? But it is not intended as a caricature-- rather a generalization extending way beyond Christianity. This is not at all bizarre if the name René Girard means anything to you. The proper semblance of human sacrifice for us is the Holy Eucharist. Christians should have outgrown the others. It is a scandal if we have yet to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know these are issues that the likes of Mudfrog and CSL1 are likely to have to deal with pastorally at some point because they are - or have been - in leadership positions...I'm tempted to ask how they would deal with someone in a leadership position (or potential leadership position) within their church who confided in them that they had homosexual tendencies or inclinations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
...evos believe that divorce is a sin but tolerate it (true - or their churches would be empty) but won't go 'further' and accept homosexual partnerships.

All examples of legalistic rhetorical foundationalism.

---

Fair point.

Of course not all evangelicals tolerate divorce, many vigorously attempt to hold friends to their marriage vows, presumably made to God and friends/family. Had a friend in the church one time who left her husband and dragged their daughter away from father because, in her words, "Bob can't manage money, we've gone bankrupt twice, I can't take it anymore." It's been over a decade, but I tried--ultimately to no avail--to talk her out of it, it was morally wrong.

All sin is sin, but some sins may well have far more deleterious effects.

I think you've put your finger on a huge blind spot with many evangelicals, they've fudged the divorce issue and as a result children have been emotionally brutalized. My wife had to suffer through her mother's three divorces growing up, two of them after she became a believer.

It's a blamed tragedy, and the church is paying a heavy price for turning a blind eye, generations have grown up rejecting the faith of their parents--which I believe to be the only objectively true one--because it apparently wasn't enough to "keep mom and dad together".
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ...

It seems to me that the apostle Paul had something of a downer on marriage at one point - even though he'd probably been married himself at some stage previously in order to have qualified for the level he'd reached as a Rabbi ... mainly because he believed the Second Coming was imminent.

At any rate, he seemed to be advising against it but had sufficient pastoral compassion and savvy to suggest that people who wanted to get married, ought to get married ...

'It is better to marry than to burn.'

Whatever we make of all of that, it does strike me that there was a certain amount of 'economia' in his approach. Ok, so we don't know what he'd have done if a gay couple (in contemporary terms) had approached him for counsel. I suspect he would have had some harsh things to say. Who knows?

The point, though, is what do we do now?

On the divorce thing, yes, it is painful and awful thing - I grew up in a broken home - but it happens. And it happens to Christians as well as to anyone else - to people of all faiths or none. Just as Christians get killed in road accidents or die of deadly diseases just like anyone else does.

I apologise for the 'likes of' - simply a slipshod expression on my part. I certainly wouldn't lump you in with the likes of Hagin, Copeland or Aimee Semple MacPherson either - although I'd probably cut her more slack than the other two ...



What if people can't 'help' but be attracted to people of their own sex? Is that sin any more than to be left-handed is sin?

I really don't know where I am on this issue - I think it is well-nigh impossible to make out a biblical case that is in anyway sympathetic towards homosexual practice - but there's the letter of the law and the spirit of it and so on and so forth. I have friends in same-sex relationships. I don't treat them any differently to the way I'd treat people in heterosexual relationships. I'd rather they were in civil partnerships and monogamous relationships than in promiscuous ones, but it's none of my business ultimately.

In some ways the kind of argument that says that people 'shouldn't' be gay reminds me of the way some of the health-wealth people go around saying that people shouldn't be ill. I'm not classing you in with that lot, but there are some parallels to an extent. People are ill, people get sick. Ok, so you can cite texts like 'Trophimus I left sick at Miletus' to indicate that the NT sees nothing unusual or reprehensible about people being ill - 'Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thy frequent illnesses' - whereas every reference to homosexual practice in the scriptures is a negative one. Granted.

But we still have to deal with the fact that some people have homosexual tendencies whether we like it or not. Disapproving of them doesn't get us very far. Perhaps a 'do not promote, do not forbid' stance would be a pragmatic one - rather like the one that the old Church of The Nazarene took on the 'tongues' issue ...

I'm becoming increasingly liberal on this issue, but I can't cite chapter and verse to support that. But pragmatically ...
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Any further mention of homosexuality or same-sex practice has to be linked explicitly to the OP. Or the thread will be moved.

John Holding
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am saying that by that rule, unless we know of a valid non-religious reason, all other Mosaic prohibitions should be lifted. But of course we don't say that (hence the incest, etc) but we still allow for homosexuality because in the last 40 years it's become acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But if "evidence "is ever changing then I would question the extent to which it can be relied upon as evidence

---

A better word in this case is "accumulating"-- at long last, after centuries of more-or less deliberate concealment.

---

But I would nevertheless question its epistemological value if it is - for whatever reason - being continually revised. One is reminded of the tiresomely frequent changes - sometimes contradictory - in medical advice on this and that. The 'evidence du jour should not be taken as the Gospel truth, unlike the...er...Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Any further mention of homosexuality or same-sex practice has to be linked explicitly to the OP. Or the thread will be moved.

John Holding
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All 'becauses' are post-hoc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But if "evidence" is ever changing then I would question the extent to which it can be relied upon as evidence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I would nevertheless question its epistemological value if it is - for whatever reason - being continually revised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there was a proper study of this then maybe we would discover the dangers and hence see why God prohibited it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

This shows that my purposive approach isn't restricted to utilitarian ethics. For me, this is about being faithful to moral rules, using our best understanding of their purposes. I see this approach as preferable to applying moral rules literally, regardless of their purpose ... don't you? Of course, your approach may well be different from either of these views. What is your approach to applying the Bible's moral rules?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allwyn
If the evidence changes, I'm open to changing my mind - aren't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allwyn

As I said, this would depend on whether I could find a moral principle that justified the no-incest rule, regardless of harm.
To ignore changing evidence would seem like the rigid thinking that's characteristic of a 'slide into fundamentalim'.

Also, while the evidence has changed about same-sex relationships, the evidence hasn't changed about incest. I don't see any reason to treat the last 50 years of thinking on same-sex relationships as predictive of the next 50 years of thinking on incest ... do you?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Gamaliel

There is something worrying going on aboard Ship. Like Mousethief I have understood and agreed with several of Martin's comments recently.

Either I'm cottoning on to his writing style or he's expressing himself a lot more clearly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


In attempting to keep this in line with the OP, I agree with your point about trusting God implicitly enough to obey his commands even if we don't, as yet, understand the reason for them.

However, I would suggest that the issue isn't as clear cut as that. As Orfeo has suggested there is the whole issue of meaning and context and not a simplistic 'it says that so that settles it' argument. As has been said, there are texts that could be taken to imply that the world is flat, yet we don't read them that way anymore - at least, most of us don't ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
You still haven't answered my question.

---

I think I did a page back. But to address it perhaps more directly, if someone wanted to compare a man being married to a woman for 23 years to murder or beastiality, then I'd say they're 100% wrong, because there's nothing in the Bible that condemns such behavior. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
By your standards, who are you to judge a shepherd who decides to couple with a sheep and derive pleasure therefrom in the isolation of a meadow far away from civilization? By what objective standard do you judge this behavior? Is your judgment made right because "people find" such behavior "especially repugnant"? Really? That justifies your judgment of such private behavior that presumably does nothing but give a person pleasure?

Please tell me by what standard do you judge this behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

It's a relational approach - not one where we apply woodenly, neither one where I feel free to tell God that because I can't see the purpose of his rule he must be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I can't buy the harm principle because the Christian duty seems to me to be to follow both the first and second great commandment. As I think the framwork we have for sex is primarily about loving God, and marriage is ultimately a pciture of his nature, I think moving away from that model, even if we can see no harm to others being done, as ultimately disobedient to the first commandment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm tempted to ask how they would deal with someone in a leadership position (or potential leadership position) within their church who confided in them that they had homosexual tendencies or inclinations...

Some people are gay. Get over it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
The (apparent) implication that my view leads to being 'free to tell God that ... he must be wrong' seems to conflate 'what God thinks' with 'what churches teach that the Bible means'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
How is your relational approach different from an approach that would apply moral rules from the Bible literally, disregarding their purpose?

---

quote:

---

I don't 'feel free to tell God that because I can't see the purpose of his rule he must be wrong.' As I've shown, for me 'trust in God' includes the idea that there are purposes behind moral rules - it's our job to work them out as best we can.

The (apparent) implication that my view leads to being 'free to tell God that ... he must be wrong' seems to conflate 'what God thinks' with 'what churches teach that the Bible means'.

---

quote:

---

Would you say that Christians should always ignore information from secular sources when making moral decisions?

---

quote:

---

Here, it sounds like you are taking into account the purpose behind moral rules. You wouldn't necessarily need to 'buy the harm principle' to adopt a purposive approach to moral rules. Moral principles (without involving harm) can explain the purpose of moral rules. For me, an understanding of morality that always ignored harm would be incomplete; of course I realise that some people see morality differently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But you specifically said that we can discard the rule (not what a church says about the rule) should we no longer see the moral purpose behind it. Changing the discussion to be about the fact that there are interpretative questions too is simply obfuscating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If there is a slide towards fundamentalism in evangelicalism then I would say that an uncritical acceptance of an interpretation of Scripture would be a mark of such a slide.

---

The way some seem to be claiming that you cannot be a Christian if you don't believe in seven day creationism, or dispensationalism, or that homosexuality is always sinful - often all three - is evidence of this. At least amongst the conservative end of the evangelical continuum.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mudfrog, yes, I am aware of how the Salvation Army responds to people who might not, how can we put it, live up to its standards. I well remember how the Sally Army married a friend of mine from school and her boyfriend when she fell pregnant - something none of the other churches in town were prepared to do.

Neither were Salvationists.

I s'pose what I find difficult is the idea that whilst homosexual inclinations might be acceptable, their physical expression isn't. I'm not sure how I square that particular circle. It's something I would leave to the individual conscience - as indeed it would seem by your example of Salvation Army adherents who might be gay or who might not wish to be teetotal demonstrates in your case.

My own view is evolving but I think it would be very hard - contra Alan Cresswell - to make a case for the Bible being neutral or even supportive of homosexual activity. Every single reference to homosexual activity in the scriptures that I am aware of appears to be negative - and yes, I am prepared to accept that much of it would be referring to older fellas and minors, pagan temple practices and so on - but I'm not sure all of the references fit that interpretation so neatly.

The one NT reference to lesbian activity, for instance, Romans 1:26, doesn't seem to lend itself to that interpretation and strongly condemns such sexual expression as 'against nature'. What do we make of that and how do we deal with it?

I know a lesbian Anglican priest. Would it mean that I should treat her differently to other Anglican priests? That I should never hear her preach nor receive the sacraments at her hands? I haven't done either, by the way, but were I around when she was preaching or presiding, what would my attitude/reaction be?

In terms of Alan Cresswell's comments, though, if I don't accept - as he does - that scripture is capable of being interpreted in favour of homosexuality, where does that leave me?

There are only a few options, but plenty of nuances, I would suggest ...

1. We accept that the Bible is uniformly negative about homosexuality and say, 'that was then but this is now ...'

2. We try to make the scriptures fit our own more liberal views on the issue. Hard. They don't bend that much. However, there is always the 'spirit but not the letter' of the law.

3. We hold to the traditional view at the risk of being labelled fundamentalists, yet try to be as open and welcoming to people with a homosexual orientation as we can possibly be without compromising our convictions.

4. We seek another way ... something that draws on the insights of each ...

I hope that doesn't take us too far away from the fundamentalism issue ...
 

---

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Your approach as you expressed it before ... was to say that God's character and the rule conflict, and so we go with God's character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... you specifically said that we can discard the rule ... should we no longer see the moral purpose behind it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[QUOTE] ... But there is a difference (for example) between accepting that a psychologist will have useful insights into the relationships that tend to go along with incest, and saying that unless the psychologist can provide a reason why incest is wrong, on their secular definition of harm, that I won't accept it's wrong. That reduces the Bible to merely being helpful background to what we are capable of working out ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... I don't see it as a simple question of "there is a rule" and "this is what the church says about it". We're basically stuck with "this is what the church says" most of the time. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
You're right that God's character is part of how I'd work out the purpose of a rule. What should we do if God's character and a rule appear to conflict?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allwyn


My second reaction was to guess that you were referring to our discussion of the rule against incest. I see my comments on that as a discussion of the limits of the rule's application - not 'discarding the rule.' If rule X was never intended to apply to situation Y, then - if someone demanded that we must apply rule X in that situation, I wouldn't see that as a sign of obedience to the author of the rule.

---

quote:

---

I was discussing the limits of the application of the rule; I said that I'd need a moral principle to explain why the rule should apply even in that case.

---

quote:

---

I don't think my approach reduces the Bible to 'mere helpful background'. The Bible can provide vital insights into the purpose behind a moral rule. Many Christians believe that, to understand the Bible, we need to use our best understanding of what it meant to its original readers; only when we've done that can we faithfully determine its application for us. I see the purposive approach to moral rules as an application of that approach to the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
You still haven't answered my question.

---

I think I did a page back. But to address it perhaps more directly, if someone wanted to compare a man being married to a woman for 23 years to murder or beastiality, then I'd say they're 100% wrong, because there's nothing in the Bible that condemns such behavior. ...

---

You've told me what you'd say. You haven't told me what you'd feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
You previously asked:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
By your standards, who are you to judge a shepherd who decides to couple with a sheep and derive pleasure therefrom in the isolation of a meadow far away from civilization? By what objective standard do you judge this behavior? Is your judgment made right because "people find" such behavior "especially repugnant"? Really? That justifies your judgment of such private behavior that presumably does nothing but give a person pleasure?

Please tell me by what standard do you judge this behavior.

---

Here, you seem to imply that I'm a moral relativist.

---

I am.

So I think I've answered your question, will you answer mine now?
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Again (perhaps for the last time?) I wish we would not attempt to discuss the "Evangelical slide into fundamentalism" without discussing the political uses to which Evangelicalism has lent itself in the last thirty-forty years, and not only in the USA.

The cause is more likely to be found in Evangelicals' close alliance with populist politics, usually of a right-wing kind.

Populist politics deals in sound bites, simple yes-or-no answers, black-and-white moral judgments, emotionalism rather than thought. It is to political thinking what fundamentalism is to religion.

Contemporary Evangelicalism is conditioned at least as much by populist politics as it is by its purely religious beliefs. Thus it has taken on a fundamentalist cast, because populism, expressing itself as religiosity, becomes fundamentalism.

We would be paying no attention to any of this if it weren't so reliably easy to round up populist/fundamentalist Evangelicals at election time and get them to the polls. The ever-looming DH issue would be nowhere near so salient to the Evangelical mind if Evangelicalism was really a product of Bible-reading and Bible-reading alone, but "Adam & Steve" gets 'em going and gets 'em to the polls.

Just like the Bible verses that are against gun control? You all know those, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... Are you asking me to assume arguendo that my relationship was that of divorced/remarried, unmarried/cohabiting, practicing homosexual, incestuous, marriage to an unbeliever, or one of the other relationships that are generally considered to violate scriptures and believed to be sinful by those who have a fundamentalist or evangelical view on faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... I am.

So I think I've answered your question, will you answer mine now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... Because I think you say "I must have misunderstood God's character. The law of the Lord is perfect for its purpose of revealing God's character. My understanding was wrong."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... (One of the many ways I think the analogy doesn't hold - because I'm not sure parents particularly give us rules in order to reveal their character to us ...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... I am.

So I think I've answered your question, will you answer mine now?

---

I think I did so, in the last part of this post (the bit below 'You previously asked').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... by what standard would you judge the shepherd's behavior--or would you judge it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... Are you asking me to assume arguendo that my relationship was that of divorced/remarried, unmarried/cohabiting, practicing homosexual, incestuous, marriage to an unbeliever, or one of the other relationships that are generally considered to violate scriptures and believed to be sinful by those who have a fundamentalist or evangelical view on faith?

---

No - as I aimed to show when I answered own my question, I assumed that you're in a loving marriage (or imagining yourself to be, for the purposes of this question). Part of the point of this is that you don't believe that your relationship is sinful, even though another person is linking acceptance of your loving relationship to acceptance of abusive, sinful relationships. Does that help?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... by what standard would you judge the shepherd's behavior--or would you judge it?

---

As I said, my judgement wouldn't be based on 'whether people find the behaviour repugnant.' As you'd expect, I'd apply a purposive approach. I'd think about the purpose for the rule against bestiality. My understanding of the purpose of this rule would probably be something like this: a moral principle requiring compassionate treatment of animals and prohibiting abuse of them. On that basis, I'd conclude that the shepherd acted wrongly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
Do you think my approach is wrong? If so, then what, specifically, would you do differently and why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Buddists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
"suck"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... I don't believe that ipso facto a relationship between a man and a woman within marriage is sinful ...

---

... and you accuse me of sidestepping a question ! I asked how you would feel ... where in your response are there any words that people use to describe feelings? I showed how I'd answer my question (I'd feel confused, angry and annoyed that the other person was trying to link my loving relationship with abusive ones); even that didn't seem to help you. I'm genuinely confused.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
... Define "abusive" and "sinful".

---