beaconchurches

Amen Chip.

I question the love the AWAB has for it's listeners. From their message we conclude, "Live and Let Live", but unfortunately, the ultimate message is, “live and let die”.

We have the cure for AIDS but won't use it or even acknowledge it. The cure is to stop messing around sexually and stop using dirty needles. Does every one who has AIDS get it through immorality? Absolutely not. But if we as a society were less tolerant of immorality, (indluding the practice of homosexuality) the disease would be much less pervasive.
Now we hear that MRSA is being spread through out society by the practice of homosexuality and we should brace ourselves for the outbreak. It has already swept through several communities in Indiana.
If AWAB loved people of same sex orientation they would be helping them to not practice the death dealing life style, not affirming it. And the society that tolerates the life style, not only does not love people of same sex orientation, they do not love their own children, (who seem to be among the first to get MRSA).
Art

Okay, I'm coming into this conversation late. One of the things I think needs to be said is that the AWAB arguments can often be shown to be internally contradictory. In the middle of chuckl's extensive quote from the W&A argument about the Genesis texts we find this sentence:

The ancients were acute observers of their natural and social surroundings, and we can reconstruct their ideas of that world with a fair degree of accuracy.

I agree with that statement, even to the point of saying that the ancients knew much more than we normally give them credit for. Chuckl's quote ends with this:

[The ancients] were unaware that some people, as part of their innate personality structure, have a sexual orientation that is different. To put it bluntly, we know more than they did about human psychology and sexuality, just as we do about the structure of the natural world.

Now, I have to ask, which is it? Were the ancients acute observers of their social surroundings, or were they totally oblivious of the fact that some people have an innate difference in their sexual orientation? The only other option is that they acutely observed there is no innate difference.

Not only are their arguments based on faulty exegesis, they are often inconsistent. If I ever get some time, I'll try to find a better one to examine and see how it might be refuted.

Ok if some are geneticaly predispositioned to be homosexual just as 1 in 12 are predispositioned to be alcoholics does that mean that we should celebrate practicing alcoholics during our worship or encourage alcoholic pastors to preach in an enebriated state?????

Ehud

JK, you expressed it seems the W&A crowd contradicts themselves. Do the ancients have a good understanding or not. I think they would say, "Nothing has changed. The battle is still the same". Here is my stab to how I think they would respond. Someone tell me if I am not understanding their world-view correctly.

GLBT people have been persecuted since the time of cavemen (“persons of cave” to be P.C.). The ancients understood the plight of people blessed with different sexual orientations. Over the years the scriptures have been tainted by patriarchal, monarchal, homophobic warmongers. Because of homophobic influence, the modern-day fundamentalist is who he is.
Science and redaction criticism will help understand the physiology and sociology of the GLBT people. We can speed up evolution with love and proper understanding of scriptures in their original intended meanings. Jesus died for all people. He was the weeping prophet who died for all and we should be thankful and live for all too. To be inhospitable to anyone, for any reason, is and has always been against God and the original intent of the scripture (pre-homophobe tainting).

From the arguments I have read it is not the scripture, per se, that they see as warped and patriarchal as much as it is the societies from which the scripture arose. I have actually read the argument that the authors of scripture could not address the issue of sexual orientation because nobody in their culture could conceive that something other than heterosexuality was possible. "It was so far out of their worldview," they say, "that they never even considered it." Yet, in order to support their position that homosexuality is natural, they have to maintain that there has always been a percentage of the population that is of that orientation. This group then is always portrayed as oppressed and suppressed. Homosexuals of the time, we are told, always had to hide their orientation, and so the ancients never noticed or addressed it.

This argument falls flat on two points. First, there is evidence of an awareness of homosexual orientation in the ancient world. Certainly they did not use those words, but that does not mean that the concept did not exist. Even more, we know that it was discussed. According to a "gay encyclopedia" (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/hadrian.html) the Emperor Hadrian was well known for his deep devotion to one particular male slave. The encyclopedia says it was not that both were men that was the issue, but the intensity of the love and devotion shown by Hadrian on the boy's death. If homosexuality is natural, as the glbt folks assure us it is, then the ancients, as the astute observers of their world they were, could not have failed to notice it--and it seems they did.

Second, when was the switch thrown? When did we suddenly become able to conceive of the idea of homosexuality as an orientation and not just a social activity? When was it suddenly not only okay to be gay, but the change in society was such that they could conceive of the presence of gays? Here, I have no answer. I keep my eyes open for any answer they may have to this question. I may have to explore the "gay encyclopedia" further to see how it addresses the issue.

"So," they say, "the scriptures cannot be faulted for simply being the products of the unenlightened societies from which they come. Still, they cannot be accepted as binding on us in those areas where our culture and understanding have surpassed those of the societies in which the authors wrote." In other words, "It's not Paul's fault he had such an incorrect view of human sexuality. Everyone did back then."

--P.S. Just to be clear, I am trying to portray the gltb viewpoint as I understand it in the above. I believe the Bible is completely true, being the product of the Holy Spirit guiding the writers. I believe "that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter." (to quote the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message)

Jon,

I was implying that some W&A folks would impose a "homosexual hermeneutic" into the scriptures.

David and Jonathan
Ruth and Naomi
There are even texts out there questioning Jesus' sexuality
Sodom was no perverse society but inhospitable toward the angelic guests.

It starts with the line of thinking that "people were not enlightened back then, and science will enlighten folks to the truth". I think they will add "there were enlightened ancients who because of ideological persecution needed to live underground"--"Now we moderns, who know better and have evolved as a society to this enlightenment, can bring those oppressed ancients out from darkness and articulate their original, intended meanings". In other words, our W&A friends would try and say what the ancients couldn't say because of pervasive societal and religious homophobia. In short, they will rewrite the scripture. It will start with commentators footnotes; lead to a paraphrase; that will lead to a new translation. "New World" translation is already chosen--need to think of something new. I like The Sophia Translation.
You will notice too they claim any genius from society as having homosexual tendencies. If you can stretch holy scripture then stretching secular info into sexual innuendo will be a piece of cake.
chip.

Jon, it isn't just the Bible that has to be twisted by W&A promoters to say that the ancent societies rejected homo sexual acts, but varifiable history as well. From the time of Herod the Great to Constitine no less than 9 Emperors openly practiced homosexual and bisexual acts the Roman orgies were know for these and other strange activities and were generally accepted as "normal" behaviors. The Greeks before them also were know for the same. So for Christians to reject homo sexual behaviors and call them sin in those societies was actually counter-cultural. and very PC inncorrect.

Ehud

DrE
My Old Testament history professor said increased GLBT behaviour and tatooing/body piercing of all things were often sign of a declining, civilized culture. Wonder if there is any truth to that pattern. One's liberation could be another's sign of declination of his empire. Hmmm....
chip.

Here is a page I found linked as an ad on the Index page last week: http://progressivereligion.bravehost.com/

It's one progressive's take on what "Fundamentalists" believe and how to counter them. He both engages in the sort of wrong headed thinking of which he accuses his opponents, and he makes judgements based on shaky evidence at best. Perhaps my favorite is the following from near the bottom of the page:

Preachers have a lot to gain by preaching. They get a lot of money from donations. They also come to wield a lot of power. Some of them have political agendas that might have little or nothing to do with Christianity, but are just pretending that it does, because they realize that, if they talk about Christianity and make their political motives seem Christian, they can manipulate people into fighting for their politics.

The emphasizing italics are his, not mine. I will grant that there are some pastors who make a lot of money and who have a lot of power over their congregations. I suspect, however, that they are in the vast minority.

I would think that most pastors are like me. I gave up a secular job, went to 4 more years of school, earned a graduate degree, underwent three years of on the job training (during the last three years of school), and then took a position in a church for about half of what I was making before. It took six years with the church before my salary was back up to what I made as a security guard, and by that time I had three children. Oh, this includes the estimated rental value of the parsonage. Just cash salary, I am now around 70% of my secular pay 13 years ago.

Do I say this to win pity or kudos? No. I just suggest that the vast majority of the pastors with whom I speak actually fought the call and did not desire to be where they are. We are happy to serve where God calls us, but we generally do not choose the pastorate. Indeed, the few people I have heard demand that they have a right to be a pastor tend to be of the "progressive" persuasion.

As far as power is concerned, I don't know where the author of the article works, but I would gladly trade my headaches for his any day. My father always said, "Income is directly proportional to influence." (I don't know where he learned it.) I've got no power. I'm happy when the Holy Spirit moves through me, but the power is all His and I've got no conrol over how it gets used. I just try to influence people toward faith in Jesus Christ wherever and whenever I can. I don't want anybody to follow me, except where they may see me following Him.

In a way I think the page is humorous. I also feel sorry for an individual who seems to have had a couple of bad experiences with the church. May God save us from ourselves.

Hi Chip,
You write:

My Old Testament history professor said increased GLBT behaviour and tatooing/body piercing of all things were often sign of a declining, civilized culture. Wonder if there is any truth to that pattern. One's liberation could be another's sign of declination of his empire. Hmmm....
chip.

If you can bear with the thread drift,
I don't know about GLBT behavior, but tatoos have been a sign associated with Toynbee's age of decadence since the Greek Republic. Toynbee outlined 6 stages that society (western society) goes through; the age of exploration, the age of conquest, the age of commerce, the age of intellect, the age of affluence and the final age of decadence. So from that perspective tatoos are a sign that the society is in a period of collapse. Tatoos do not cause the collapse, they are caused by it.
I would suggest that Romans 1:26 points to a similar dynamic with GLBT behavior. A people who worship the created rather than the creator put themselves in a position of susceptiblity to malapropriate sexual behavior. So GLBT behavior is a sin that points to a deeper community dysfunction. So it would stand to reason that a nation accepting GLBT behavior is on its last legs. Toynbee however did not identify (as far as I know) this trend a sign of the imanent fall of nations.
Art

Thanx Art. He explained it just as you have. It was 20 years ago and I was a horrible note taker. Tattooing, body piercing, and gender bending was some of what he mentioned. And we call that a "civilized" society
chip.

From Jon’s http://progressivereligion.bravehost.com/ link:

Many progressives have been influenced by such concepts as the writings of Dr. Joseph Cambell, who said that religion and myth can be seen as metaphors. For example, God can be seen as a metaphor for humanity as a whole. What follows is what many progressives think about religion.

In my limited experience rubbing shoulders with progressives, this issue, “metaphors”, seems to be the first point of attack. The thought-line goes that “Humankind evolved from a lower order to what we are today—schooled. Of course we had to use patriarchal, monarchal, kingdom-minded metaphors, because that was what we were. We have grown from those places and need to rethink how we describe God and our community with more relevant metaphors”.

In our generation we are seeing politically correct Bibles that neuterize masculine pronouns. Radically progressive theologians who use the Bible as their primary resource for faith constantly need to introduce more myths into what they already call Myth (capitol 'M'), the Bible, to justify their sociopolitical stances and behavior. Pro-gay Baptist clergy say Traditional Evangelicals hide behind the Bible. Evangelicals say Progressives hide the Bible behind themselves. What the liberal theoligian feels is more important than what Scripture says. Conservative theologians claim the Bible has been meticulously monitored over the centuries. They believe the writers were careful with what they transcribed. Radical Left theologians claim not only has our understanding (metaphors) of God and community evolved, but there has been a historical conspiracy all along to oppress others by changing the original intended meaning of scripture. By claiming we are evolving we state we know now more than previous faith communities did. Claiming “wicked people have tried to keep us from evolving faster” helps us restructure what we believe God’s original intended meaning is or should have been.
Bottom-line—“We know better now and can rewrite history”. With that premise, anything is possible. It’s a return to Babel. The only difference is the towers today are made of ivory.

JonKershner wrote:I would think that most pastors are like me. I gave up a secular job, went to 4 more years of school, earned a graduate degree, underwent three years of on the job training (during the last three years of school), and then took a position in a church for about half of what I was making before. It took six years with the church before my salary was back up to what I made as a security guard, and by that time I had three children. Oh, this includes the estimated rental value of the parsonage. Just cash salary, I am now around 70% of my secular pay 13 years ago.

Just a cursory glimpse through the Ministry Opportunity Listings published by ABPS confirms your thoughts here. I can experientially testify to the same.

So what are we to understand? That liberals or any other non-fundamentalists don't preach or pass a collection plate or express a political opinion/agenda?

Even though we recognize that they do not regard the Bible as authoritative, they do not disregard it entirely. (In fact, what a nifty segueway (sp?) into the new topic on "Red Letter - Black Letter Christians" found under Bible & theology). So I wonder what is the (this) progressive's point.

Someone once said the typical 4/3 year MDiv education plan has the educational equivalent for a lawyer. Is this true? It's hard for kids to fork over that kind of cash and accept dying churches or newly, growing congregations. Religious educational training needs a good, long, hard look. Theologians and Evangelists need to get together and pray how we train young whipper-snappers to serve.

chip.

Someone once said the typical 4/3 year MDiv education plan has the educational equivalent for a lawyer. Is this true?

Of course it's true. My son, a civil litigator was required to complete a B.S. + J.D. (3 yrs.). It just so happens that he also holds a MBA (you know those overachieving McFaddens!). But it was not required.

The M.Div. will probably remain the standard of excellence in some situations. But, for those wishing to revive smaller congregations, those intending to be "chaplains" of no-growth churches in isolated areas, or for those planning to minister where salaries are lower, we can do it less expensively. My argument is that we can more effectively and efficiently educate and train pastors at minimal cost in the following manner:

* Free Bible Software (combination of WordSearch's Cross platform, Libronix's free version, and e-Sword). That will still allow you a very solid library of several hundred books, including some fairly recent ones. Besides, you can build quite an impressive library with PDF versions of classics online AND Google Books will allow you to read a number of current books online as well.

* Personal mentorship by an effective master pastor, including working as an intern in that congregation. This aspect could even be strengthened by denominational participation for polity and Greek and Hebrew study tools courses done on a regional basis for several interns.

* iPod available FREE seminary classes (RTS and Covenant have the equivalent of a seminary education for FREE, minus Greek and Hebrew). If you want to beef up this dimension, you could have assigned readings and even ministry projects, accepted either by the master pastor or by a denominational official.