Tutu in Trenton
October 10, 2004
This morning we went and worshipped at Trinity Cathedral (Episcopal) of the Diocese of New Jersey. Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town was breahing, and we figured we wouldn’t get many chances in our life to hear Tutu speak. We arrived at 8.45am for a 10am service, and the place was packed by 9am. Tutu didn’t speak for as long as I had hoped, but it was a wonderful sermon, a reminder of God’s love and grace for us, as well as our responsibility to help people realize their place in the family of God. Tutu has a very wide, open view of God’s kingdom/family and it was refreshing to hear that. He reminded us that “Christ came to speak about a God with shockingly low standards” and that “My enemies are not God’s enemies.” In fact, Tutu said that God doesn’t have enemies…all are part of God’s family; Bin Laden, Saddam and George Bush (he said them in that order). Here is a photo when Tutu is giving the benediction.
In the back of the bulletin was a quote from Tutu: “Everyone is an insider, there are no outsiders, whatever their beliefs; whatever their colour, gender, or sexuality.”
The whole concept of insiders/outsiders is interesting. To think that we would have the right, authority, power to claim who we know to be the true insiders and the true outsiders…how screwed up is that? Thank God there are no outsiders…
Tags: desmond-tutu, Outsiders, south-africa, trinity-cathedral
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
October 10th, 2004 at 3:42 pm
Sounds very universalist.
October 10th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
Shit…it does. I guess it’s one of those questions…on which side do we err? Do we error on the side of being too universalist, too open, too graceful, too loving, too accepting? Or do we error on the side of too closed, narrow-minded, too dogmatic, too fundamentalist…? I know I’m painting two very black/white pictures there, but…if I had to choose one of those, I’d take the open route and leave it up to God…
October 10th, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Isn’t that the challenge though? How can we hold in tension Jesus who is full of grace with Jesus who is also full of truth? It is an issue of balance and it is difficult but not to be passed over (not suggesting that you are passing it over).
October 10th, 2004 at 6:25 pm
Pictures in Church?
October 10th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
I don’t think that there are outsiders at all when it comes to the love and grace of God. But doesn’t the New Testament mention our responsibility to accept that love and grace?
October 10th, 2004 at 8:02 pm
I’m not what one would describe as a Christian but I’d definitely jump at the chance to see Tutu speak. As a sidenote, Tutu was funny and charming last week on ‘The Daily Show’.
October 10th, 2004 at 8:08 pm
That balance is something I struggle with. I think we need to be more open and excepting of people, but at what point is too far? Is there a too far? Should we not risk going too far because we don’t know where the line is? We’re just too comfortable with either side I think.
October 10th, 2004 at 10:52 pm
I think we are all in, until we are all out.
October 11th, 2004 at 2:13 am
There’s plenty to admire about Tutu, but the teachings that God had no enemies and that everyone is “in” fly in the face of both Scripture and the historical teachings of the Church. Scripture (OT and NT) makes such delineations, and the orthodox tradition of Christ-following has always made those distinctions. Respectfully, it seems backwards to imply that folks who follow those teachings and traditions are in some way “screwed up,” presumptuous, or somehow lacking in grace. I don’t claim a unilateral right to determine who’s in and who’s out, but I am willing to lean on Scripture and virtually every mainstream Christian teacher of the last two thousand-plus years (and a lot of Judaic teachers for more years than that) to believe such distinctions can and will be made. Frankly, it seems more brazen and arrogant to dismiss with such simplicity and condescension the biblical and historical precedents for believing that there are those who are God‚Äôs enemies (no matter how we feel about the connotations of that term) and that they are (and, absent God‚Äôs rescue, evermore shall be) “outsiders.”
That doesn’t mean I’m happy about either truth, and I submit that we ought to be motivated by those realities to live lives worthy of Christ’s sacrifice. We aren‚Äôt the ‚Äúwinners‚Äù left to gloat over the losers. We aren‚Äôt enlightened to the end of exercising persecution over the ignorant. The belief that some weren‚Äôt yet ‚Äúin‚Äù motivated the Moravian Brethren to sell themselves as slaves to a group of people who were clearly living in opposition to Christ and his teachings. When asked why they did this, they replied: “To win for the Lamb the reward of his sufferings.” To embrace the notion that there are no outsiders not only minimizes the sacrificial faith of the Moravians and Christ-followers like them, but it does a disservice to those who Christ longs to bring home.
Maybe that sounds a little too evangelical, but it’s possible that we’ve erroneously thrown evangelism out with the evangelicals. I believe we can be graceful, gracious, and utterly loving while still seeking to “win for the Lamb the reward of his suffering.” I believe that’s the way Jesus lived — He was grace and love in the flesh, but you’d have to cut out big chunks of your Bible to pretend that he didn’t acknowledge insiders and outsiders, especially in an eternal sense.
I think these questions ["on which side do we err? Do we error on the side of being too universalist, too open, too graceful, too loving, too accepting? Or do we error on the side of too closed, narrow-minded, too dogmatic, too fundamentalist...?"] are built on a false premise. The assumption is that to make insider/outsider distinction requires trading grace and love for dogmatism and fundamentalism. Again, respectfully, I just think that’s nonsense. Follow the logic‚Ķ Jesus was the incarnation of God, who is love. None of us are likely to accuse God of lacking love or grace or of being too closed or dogmatic. But if we were already insiders, what was the point of Jesus coming live among us? It turns out that “God so loved the world” that He sent Jesus to rescue people who would perish without him. And if his mere appearance on the scene was enough to make everyone born after him an automatic insider and friend, why the cross? Why so much teaching about lambs, goats, heaven, hell, and a pointed commission for his followers to go into all the world with the Good News? Why so much talk about persecution from those who oppose Christ and his Father, much less books full of stories about believers suffering at the hands of those enemies? It doesn‚Äôt make sense. Perhaps the most authentic and abandoned way to follow Jesus is to follow his incarnational example and love those outside of his fellowship enough to introduce them to Jesus. And, in case some of this is a semantic issue, I agree that there is none so far outside that s/he can’t be brought in. “The vilest offender who truly believes…” indeed.
…and if you read that as a defense of modern evangelicism, you’re just reading what you want to read. I don‚Äôt really fit in that camp, and I’m not an apologist for their view of the Gospel. I just think it’s a bad idea to use them as an excuse to give the world a big hug and pretend everything’s alright.
October 11th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
great comment thad.
October 11th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
You go Thad!
October 11th, 2004 at 7:03 pm
OK, so this was the whole discussion that errupted in my small group at EC in Nashville! Spencer B. offered the theory that all of us are “IN” unless we choose to be “OUT”. Have you ever just been so overwhelmed with confusion and doubt that you just want to say SCREW IT ALL???? Well,I gotta tell ya…after about 10 minutes I had to get up and leave because I that is where I was…not to mention that one of my glorious God given gifts is to cry when I get mad(so I totally faked an allergy attack-embarassing!!).
Anyway, I love your point, Thad, about the categories of “insider vs. outsider” being based on a false assumption of trading grace for dogmatism….but(and there is always that inevitable but!)there has to be some way to delineate people who believe in Christ or don’t. Don’t get me wrong, I am probably way more Universal in thought than I realize(and I guess that is bad based on your “shit…it does” comment Adam). I want to believe that there are some of us that call ourselves followers of Christ because of conscious choices we make everyday, but on the flip that would mean that those that don’t must have a consequence(and don’t even get me started on that discussion because it really freaks me out!) OK, now I am yet again so blazin confused that I need to shut up and go drink a beer :~)
October 12th, 2004 at 10:02 am
I believe the gist of Tutu’s beliefs originate with the belief that nobody is “out by definition”, i.e. “you’re gay/black/whatever so you can’t be a Christian/good person/my friend”. Thus, Christian groups that attempt to put caveats on membership are wrong. You can join us if, and only if you do this/say this/renounce this…
This in contrast to whether we choose God or not (or perhaps more to the point - whether God chooses us or not).
The notion that you can’t be gay (for instance)AND Christian is so ingrained in many cases that gay people automatically exclude THEMSELVES from religious life because they KNOW they won’t be accepted (thank you Jimmy Swaggart for another stunning demonstration of the depths of homophobia and lack of acceptance in the evangelical church).
See, for example, Bruce Bawer’s A Place at the Table. When he “realized” he was gay around age 20, IIRC, he automatically assumed he was unwelcome in church and couldn’t be a Christian. It took ten years for him to get past that. I’m sure he’s the rare exception that even found a way back to the church.
Bottom line for me - of the two religious figures in the news recently for remarks about inclusion/exclusion, would I rather be more like Desmond Tutu or more like Jimmy Swaggart?
No contest, I’m afraid.
October 12th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
Whilst always wanting to welcome homosexuals, people with anger problems, greed issues etc etc, there is again the need to balance grace and truth. I personally believe that there will be homosexuals in the new creation (heaven). However, a much bigger question is that if the new creation is an embodied renewal of creation (heaven and earth coming together), will there be homosexuals acts in the renewed creation (heaven)?
October 13th, 2004 at 1:26 am
Well, interesting that you should choose to equate homosexuality to anger and greed. But maybe the bigger question regarding sexual practices is “are the sexual practices ascribed to homosexuals also forbidden to heterosexuals?”.
Given that there is nothing that two people of the same sex can do that can’t be done (or pretty much approximated) by two people of opposite sexes. I don’t see any big campaigns to revive the old Deep South sodomy laws (well, apart from a few hard core old Southerners anyway) - which I might point out included oral sex (apparently there’s a Jimmy Swaggart “get out of jail free” card on this one.)
I’d just like to point out that anyone who starts with the notion that homosexuality, per se, is a sin is starting in the wrong place.
But anyone can make a mistake, as the Dalek said climbing off the dustbin…(*)
(*)obscure Jasper Carrott/Dr Who joke. Don’t ask.
October 13th, 2004 at 5:57 am
Linking homosexuality to anger and greed etc etc comes from Paul’s arguement in Rom. 1:18-32, following his outlining of his thesis, that ALL people are seperated from God. He cites examples (also using a vice list) of this separation.
October 13th, 2004 at 11:00 am
Most interesting!
This is Chris, the one with the bitter blog :-) Thank God for Thad and Andrew, who actually read what the Lord has to say before commenting. So we cannot refer dogmatically to Scripture, but Tutu and Adam can dogmatically proclaim universalism. I’ve been worshipping the wrong guy! Tutu is a politician and a socialist, so I tend to discard most of his wonderful theology.
Here is a couple of things that I have been able to glean from this post. There are two kinds of pomergent folks. I believe that Adam posts with tongue in cheek most of the time. I really don’t think he believes half the stuff he lays out there. Dave P. on the other hand is one of those who actually thinks he is in on the new move and believes the propoganda wholeheartedly.
Your comment,
“I’d just like to point out that anyone who starts with the notion that homosexuality, per se, is a sin is starting in the wrong place.”
is an indicator that you left the track a long time ago.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-11
Romans 1:22-28
Leviticus 18:22
Should you wish to jump all over me, please read these first and explain to me how homosexuality is not sin.
If you can prove that it isn’t, then I am going out to run a few con games or sleep with somebody’s wife, as I cannot trust the Scriptures to mean what they say they mean.
I can see Stalin and Hitler walking hand in hand on the streets of gold,with all of the “in” crowd.
October 13th, 2004 at 11:52 am
Chris, thanks for assuming that you know the motivation behind my posts & thoughts…that’s helpful for the dialogue. And yes, I am with Dave on the issue of homosexuality. As for me and my beliefs right now, I don’t think that homosexuality is a sin. And the question is if you can take that position, understand maybe where I’m coming from, and still acknowledge me as part of God’s family and the fellowship of the Church…this is what I’m trying to do with you, Chris…
October 13th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
Adam, My reference to what I discern as to your motivations is just an observation. Perhaps that will help you see where I an coming from? I have never said that you are not a part of the church i.e. God’s family.
I still want to know how, in view of the Scriptures I cited, you can say homosexuality is not a sin? That is my real point. Opinion and feelings don’t count. How about a concrete exegesis from the Word?
October 13th, 2004 at 1:38 pm
Also, how about Scriptural basis for universal salvation, other than our thoughts on what a perfect world looks like? Did GOD reveal Himself i.e. His ways and thoughts, nature etc. in the Bible;or does He limit Himself to our defining, or should I say redefining, Him? Was man made in His image and likeness, or are we “deconstructing” and making Him into ours?
October 13th, 2004 at 3:59 pm
This is a VERY difficult issue and all of my thoughts are in process! I have much to listen to and learn from! There are heaps of things to consider. Protestantism, since the Reformation, has always had a problem in deciding where authority lies (if not in the living magisterium then where??). This is the same on this issue. If we are willing to say that texts that oppress women are no longer authoritative because they are bound to the first century Jewish context, then what about texts that oppress homosexuals? At the same time, I do believe that Paul would say that homosexuality is a sin and is indicative (along with many other vices!) that ALL PEOPLE (Jew and gentile in the context of Romans) have no excuse (because we all have some knowledge of God) but are are seperated from God and need the redeeming gospel of Jesus. Richard B Hays has written some helpful articles. His perspective is conservative on this issue - probably why I mention him, but he is an internationally recognised biblical scholar (although there are many excellent biblical scholars who do not agree with him)).
Adam, if this conversation is inapproprite (or is heading in inappropriate directions) at this time on your blog then please say so. I do not see myself as “the great defender of orthodoxy” but a tiny part of a massive (and much needed) conversation on a controversial topic. I certinaly would not want your blog hijacked in ways that you don’t appreciate!
October 13th, 2004 at 4:03 pm
In response to Chris’ comments on Desmond Tutu, I want to say that I stand in awe of Desmond Tutu and see him as someone that God has used amazingly and I would not want to discard his theology!
October 13th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
I think part of the “problem” with the “conservative Christian” (or if you prefer fundamentalist) viewpoint is that they too often think that our first priority is to be like Paul, preaching, denouncing, and pointing out the sins of others & labeling them as enemies of God. The problem I see is that Christ’s command to love our enemies is forgotten. In the end it doesn’t really matter what we think is sin in the lives of others. We’re called to work out our own salvation, repent of the sin in our own lives, and try to live in a way worthy of Christ so that others might know Him more fully. I fail to see how our judgments of the perceived sin in the lives of others accomplishes that.
October 13th, 2004 at 4:49 pm
ufff… chris p rides again. i was beginning to miss your posts, chris! i wish i could discern like you! i think a good start would be to buy that concordance you have and bust out those verses to make people think i’m pulling them off the top of my head. right now my spiritual gift is getting angry watching the presidential debates…
October 13th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
So Paul didn’t follow the commands of Christ? How interesting. So we aren’t to call sin, sin? You aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with Scripture. I guess standing against unbiblical doctrine is a dead ministry. Missed you too Eli. FYI, I use a concordance about twice a year. I never use notes when I teach. That does not make me special. All who claim to be the LORD’S should not only know Scripture, but have a thorough understanding of how it all fits together, because it does. Just like HE planned it to be. It is only as ambiguous as you want it to be. In the issue of avoiding sin, it is convenient to blow it off as outdated or beyond understanding. Quit watching the debates as it is of no matter who wins the election. If you really missed my posts, go to my blog. I just put up two on Babylon and the times we are in.
October 13th, 2004 at 7:48 pm
BTW I believed Adam raised these issues by making universalism and sexuality the real focus of his post. Tutu is just the medium. Also I find Eric’s comments contain the experiental/relativist doctrine down to the T. Quite scary. Especially the part about “perceived sin”. Whatever is sin for you is not necessarily sin for me? :-0 Still see no one addressing this from a totally Scriptural pov.
October 13th, 2004 at 8:30 pm
Chris, Scripture is so last-millenium. This millienium the only sin is intolerance and the only attribute of God is omni-tolerance. “Thou shalt not be intolerant!”
October 14th, 2004 at 12:10 am
Dude, Chris…what’s your deal? Christ was a universalist. His invitation was and is universal. His authority is the only thing that focuses down and identifies what is truth and what isn’t. Your assertion of truth does only one thing… Puts you in the light and says “look at me, I can be definitive”. I think Eric is right in saying that we need to follow the direction of Jesus and love the your our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and then love our neighbors as ourselves. It is completely self indulgent and self agrandizing to go on the way you have. We can all decide and discern, with careful thought and revelation from the scripture, an idea of what the will and purpose of God is, but to paint an overly simplist and ideological view does little justice to Christ’s life and the thought that it is not truly possible to define” I have grace on who I have grace” To do so in the way you have lacks any humility from which true teaching or learning comes from.
October 14th, 2004 at 12:58 am
Since we’re apparently playing Chris P’s “let’s quote random proof text verses out of context” game, how about this one (very much like Lev 18, but with a twist):
Lev 20:13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
So basically the biblical thing to do is kill homosexuals - and it’s their own fault - how cool is that?
If you take the bible literally, then why aren’t the Chris P’s of the world advocating the execution of homosexuals wholesale ( I realize there’s Fred Phelps out there who pretty much IS doing that, but he’s a dying breed apparently - there’s a whole bunch of squeamish fundies who can’t go the whole hog, so to speak…)
Please, someone explain how you interpret your way out of this one if you believe the bible is true, inerrant and all the nitpicky laws of Leviticus still apply (and don’t make me invoke polyester and shrimp…)
October 14th, 2004 at 10:17 am
Chris…thanks for twisting my meaning, I think David understood what I was saying much better. All you’ve done in your posts is make it clear that you’re very good at stereotyping, categorizing, & twisting the words of others. It’s much easier to deal with people you disagree with if you can make them and their views fit into a nice little box labeled “THEM” or “OTHER” even “ENEMY”, it makes it easy for them to not crowd you in your box labeled “God’s chosen”. In reality all you’ve done is created a box that allows you to not deal with them as real people. I find it hard to find the love of neighbor that Christ calls us to in your words.
October 14th, 2004 at 11:35 am
James 2:
10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
How can people so completetly miss a point? Mercy is only found in Christ. We all sin and fall short of the glory. I have never advocated the killing of any sinner for any sin. Who’s twisting words now, or rather trying to make it look like I am saying something that I am not? One of the favorite tactics of the post-modern and mostly liberal folks, is to resort to name calling and personal attack because you have no other argument. I presented a legitimate question which you choose ignore. But oh you’re mean, you’re unloving, you’re a relic because you believe the Bible. This is discussion? Christ came to live, die, rise, ascend and send the Spirit. He came so that we would no longer have to enforce the law as HE actively keeps it for us, today, this minute. The Law has never been repealed, it is still in force. (Matthew 5:17-20) He, and the apostles, quoted the Scriptures extensively so my quoting Scriptures makes me first millenium, not last. So Timbo based on your comment, you can never quote anything that Jesus said, as it is Scripture. So your redifining GOD is based on what? I think, I feel, I had a vision, a dream, Jesus came to my house last night and told me?? Where do we get off thinking we can voice any pov and then spout it as if it is true? I asked a question out of Scripture, I was not offering my opinion. Where did Jesus say it would be okay in the future to amend the definition of sin to whatever makes us feel better? Jesus did not alter the wording, or meaning, of any scripture, including the Mosaic Laws. The “Sermon on the Mount” shows us that none of us are capable of righteous conduct, so He must do it for us as the Law of GOD still needs to be satisfied.
So to Dave P., my texts are not randomly selescted and we now go to Christ to remove the curse of death on our heads. Jesus never contradicted that Scripture. We are covered by HIS blood alone. Put the Scriptures together for a change. At least try reading them.
To Timbo, you are a humanist. You spout the doctrine of the one worlders. These are the ones who will kill and persecute the true Church, thinking that they are doing the service for GOD. Don’t know what else to say about that. (John 15:18-27). Oh I forgot, you don’t acknowledge Scripture.
Eric you are all guilty twice over of what you accuse me of. Why don’t you go back and reread this entire post, comments and all to see just who is unloving and intolerant, twisting words and meaning. I know the pomo thing is to have no regard for words or what they literally say, so lets all get webcams and pantomime if you wish.
Finally David:
Matthew 22
11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”
The call is universal, but not all get “in.” You are right He is Truth and so are His words, which I have to read in the Scriptures to know anything about. I defer to His Word to the Father’s Laws and commands. I am not offering my thoughts. So who is not displaying humility? The ones who throw their opinions out there as dogma, or the ones who say I have nothing of my own, only Christ. Jesus was only harsh to the Pharisees,i.e. the religious, the ones who twisted the Law to accomodate their own sin. So “fill up the measure of your fathers.”
Matthew 23:29-36
October 14th, 2004 at 11:57 am
This whole debate began with a discussion of “insider” and “outsider’ with no clear definition of what it means to be an insider or an outsider, no discussion of the criteria and qualifications are for being plopped in one category or another, and no discussion of the ramifications and consequences that follow from being in one category or the other. All that I can learn from the above posts is who has a positive emotional identification with the inside/outside distinction and who has a negative emotional identification with the inside/outside distinction. Is the distinction supposed to tell us who goes to heaven or hell after they die? Is the distinction supposed to tell us who is a part of “god’s family” or loved by god? Is the distinction supposed to tell us who is a “true” Christian and who is not? Is the distinction supposed to tell us who you would accept into your particular community and who you wouldn’t. Until some definitions get fleshed out, this is all smoke and no fire.
If the distinction is based on the heaven/hell paradigm, then we need to critique that paradigm before we can start discussing who’s in and who’s out. If the distinction is based on such abstract, empty notions as “love” and “god’s family” then we need to get a lot more specific as to what we mean by those terms before we discuss who’s in and who’s out. If the disctinction is based on “true” christianity, then we should drop the distinction altogether because the notion of “true” christianity is laughably absurd and usually only employed to assert one’s own interpretation of the gospel over and against every one else’s. We’d do better to stop talking about “true” christianity and start comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the various different mutliplex versions of Christianity that exist, without putting one version forth as superior until long after the comparative discussion has occurred, if even then. If the distinction is based on who’d you’d accept in your community, then that question is so particular to your community that no one should try to determine that for someone else without in depth knowledge of the nature of the community.
There’s a worthwhile discussion to be had around the insider/outsider thing, but it has to be based on definitions of the terms, not how we all feel about calling someone an “outsider.”
October 14th, 2004 at 12:37 pm
For a brilliant (well at least I think so) look at words and the Word, as she puts it, check out Maggi Dawn’s blog, starting here…
October 14th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
While Chris missed the sarcasm in my previous comment, I believe he has a point in the reference to the wedding banquet parable. Christ was far from universalist. He was discerning as well as loving, and it seems that everyone here is caught up in the false dilemma of omni-tolerance vs. cold-hearted discernment rather than a more Christ-like approach, which is discerning and loving at the same time and in the same proportion. We need to remember that Christ hung out with prostitutes, but also that He told them to “Go and sin no more.” Scrappers were invited to the wedding banquet, but they had to be changed to be acceptable to the king. The contemporary idea that God is omni-tolerant misses the fact that God is first and foremost holy. To say that homosexuals have no need for grace is to miss this important fact. But likewise, to say that homosexuals cannot even approach the throne of grace is to miss the fact of God’s great love. They need to allow God to change them, as in the parable. We all need to allow God to transform us (Rom. 12:1-2).
October 14th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
Timbo,
My humble apologies for not getting the meaning of your comment and for anything I may have inferred about you from my misunderstanding. I do get where you are coming from now. Attribute it to anger which I repent of as of right now. I am soooo glad you really don’t think that way, as I know there are some who do. In fact I agree with your last comment entirely. However, I am not saying that homo-sexuals cannot approach the throne of grace. I am saying that if they believe in the name of the Lord Jesus, this will be evident in the cessation of the practice of homosexuality. I am not picking on any group or individual. My point is, how do we justify calling something the Bible (God’s Word) calls sin, to be good now? We have several folks in our church who are admittedly homo-sexual, and who do not now participate in its practice. We teach this “practice” to be as sinful as adultery, idolatry, murder etc., and gosh they are still in our church taking active roles in church life. How unmerciful and judgemtental of us. (1John 3:7-10;1 Cor 6:9-11) As for Steve; who’s in and who’s out is God’s decision and His business. We simply recognize the fruit of their lives and avoid participating in sinful practice with them. (Matthew 7:19-20 and John 15:1-2). The cross and the blood cover all of our stumbling that we do in ignorance. 1John 1:5-9 and 2:1-1-6. Ptracticing implies a willfull disobedience i.e. rebellion.
Finally, I guess Maggie Dawn is the final word on Biblical authenticity. She is probably a very fine lady, but she makes the mistake that most of you make. You never acknowledge a sovreign GOD who implements a plan that no one can stop. He wasn’t snoozing while we
were making mistakes in the translations, and He wasn’t snoozing while we were making a mess of the world and the Church. He is able to get His point across just fine, as it is the Holy Spirit who reveals the meaning of the text. This is what makes Scripture inerrant. However we do not get gnostic revelation from God independent of Scriptural confirmation. Our God is awesomely wise!
October 14th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
chris p. i greatly appreciate your participation in this forum and your views on the Scriptures. help me understand where you are coming from in continuing to post.
it seems that you feel it is your purpose to prove the pomos wrong (or at least misguided), why? i choose to say ‘wrong,’ because if you wanted to help direct them to a ‘true’ understanding, then shouldn’t you follow the biblical example of paul:
“though i am free and belong to no man, i make myself a slave to everyone to win as many as possible. to the jews i became like a jew, to win the jews. to those under the law i became like one under the law… [continue reading]”
??? “to the pomo i became a pomo to win the pomo.” ???
(if i’ve misinterpreted/applied Scripture then please help me out in a 2 tim. 4:2 kind of way.)
October 14th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
Exercise in missing the point - part 2
Chris P, let me state this as plainly as I can.
1) I actually noted that you are NOT calling for the wholesale execution of homosexuals. I am curious why not because Lev 20:13 is clear on the point and so:
2) How do you reconcile your view with Lev 20:13 if you truly believe, and I quote you from your own post, “The Law has never been repealed, it is still in force. (Matthew 5:17-20)”?????
Fingers on buzzers, no conferring…
October 14th, 2004 at 5:13 pm
Hi fellow discussants,
Chris P. I totally agree with the context of your use of Matthew 22. The point I would like to put forward for undoubtedly further discussion, is why Chris P. is taking the role of Jesus and saying who is “in” and who is “out”. As was the focus of my first post, Christ is the final word on this. Thank God Chris P. is not or else an invitation to side to a sinner on the cross might not have been extended and a clear view of Christ’s compassion and grace might never have been communicated. I also want to ask why, other than fixated fundamentalism, homosexuality is the overused example of sin. Whether you ascribe to the thought that sexual orientation is sin or not, why not choose a lifestyle or act that may be more common to the group. Have you ever masturbated? Is this a sin? Do you believe you are more intelligent than the other people on this blog? Is pride a sin? Why do we still do these things? Let’s personalize the issue and cut out incendiary dogmatic rhetoric. So, let the responses role in and let’s discuss. I bring these actions up to move the discussion from a theoretical high horse to the reality of yours and my own condition before a perfect God. How does He extend himself to us, not the theoretical homosexual that you or I will never share a meal with, but us, ourselves. Fire away friends. Shalom
October 15th, 2004 at 11:13 am
Does anyone actually read the entire content of my comments?
David, I am not saying who is in and who is out. This is exactly what I wrote:
“who’s in and who’s out is God’s decision and His business. We simply recognize the fruit of their lives and avoid participating in sinful practice with them. (Matthew 7:19-20 and John 15:1-2). The cross and the blood cover all of our stumbling that we do in ignorance. 1John 1:5-9 and 2:1-1-6. Practicing implies a willfull disobedience i.e. rebellion.”
I believe that anyone who is producing Kingdom “fruit” will not be openly rebellious and/or do anything that goes against His Law. Matthew 3:7-12. We are told in several of the NT letters to avoid such people, even the sinning brothers who want to share in fellowship while openly living in sinful situations. The point being that if we allow the “lifestyles” in the church, then we have nothing to show that we are any different than the world. So the universal brotherhood of man is not the goal of the church, but the one “new man” is. This is something the po-mergent folk are really skewed in. Why do I want to tell people that they are “safe” in the church while they are living in a way that will only produce death?
My point is not the pomos are wrong, but that universalist theology is. It flies directly in the face of a righteous and just GOD. The ec embraces, for the most part, any theological stance that is different than what they perceive as modernist, simply because it is different, without much thought as to how it actually fits in the Kingdom. Liberal theology makes homosexuality as much a hot button as the right wingers, of which I am not a devotee. My point is that Paul, in the first letter to the Corinthians, gives us a list of “practices” i.e. sins, of which he says those
who engage in these as a lifestyle, will not inherit the Kingdom. My question was and still is, how come homosexuality is the only one he made a mistake in mentioning? Now we are in the area of relativism and our own subject pov. If this is the case, what if I want to become a drunkard and mess around with other men’s wives ? You cannot selectively alter the Law or the Word of GOD merely because you don’t find it “fair” or believe that we are somehow more enlightened today than they were in the first century. We have the same Spirit, in the same measure as any of them.
To paraphrase Paul, who are you oh man to tell the Creator anything?
Dave P.;
In the “sermon on the mount” the Lord is actually expanding the Mosaic Law to cover not just action but the intents of the heart. This makes it pretty much impossible for men to ever save themslves. So we have Romans 5-6-7-8; Galatians 2:15-21 and 5:16-26; 2 Cor 5:16-21 etc. which tell us that we are DEAD. We went to the cross with Him and were judged there. So now I reckon myself to be dead, and let myself die daily because Christ is in me as life, and HE is keeping the Law on my behalf, as HE never abolished it. Our salvation is in Him who lives for us. These are not metaphorical musings, they are reality. Our problem seems to be that we are all still very much “alive”.
So if someone lives contrary to the Law either, a) he does not belong to the Lord at all or, b) or he loves the “body of death” too much and is not bringing his flesh into obedience. This is the working out of our salvation. So the answer is not to say the Law is no longer in force, or that it is wrong because we are unable to keep it. Any sinner who is truly “born again” i.e. a new creation walk will make that spirit walk, knowing full well that ultimate perfection only comes at His return, and the redemption of our bodies.
Finally, David; do not presume to know whom it is that I share meals with. Aside from my ministry on the Navajo Nation which has goings-on that even the world doesn’t like to talk about, I volunteer at the local food bank on Thursdays, I make regular visits to the prisons in both Colorado and N.M. Try going to the sex offenders unit sometimes. These are truly folks who need to know the love of GOD and His salvation. I work out on the streets as much as possible. I do not agree with church within the 4 walls. So I have broken bread with many, that neither you nor anyone else here will ever sit down with.
If you find this too long, remember you asked.
October 15th, 2004 at 1:07 pm
Chris,
I believe you’re probably a nice guy in person and you mean well, but you are so steeped in the old school evangelical mindset that you can’t write in a way that makes sense to me.
When you write a 2,000 word response to a six word question, for me it’s like listening to the adults in a Peanuts cartoon. All I hear is “wah wah wah waaah wah wah”. Your evangelical mumbo jumbo makes no sense to me and the logical twist and turns you take by piecing together random bible verses makes no sense to me either.
I’m not saying this to score points or anything and I’m certainly not trying to imply you’re stupid. I just want you to know that your communication style makes absolutely no connection with me, someone who has never lived in the “Evangelical World”. It’s a culture that’s completely alien to me and you might as well be writing in Croatian for all I can get out of it.
Finally, your listing of all your “good works” comes across as rather self-aggrandising (I’m sure boasting about good works is frowned upon somewhere in that Bible thingy you love so much) and your blanket demeaning of pomo folks comes across as extremely arrogant. You don’t know what any of these folks do and you don’t know what I do, and I’m certainly not going to list anything out of some stupid sense of one-upmanship.
FWIW.
October 15th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
Hi All,
Chris P. I appreciate the service you do, although it really is between you, the people you serve and God. I liked your last post Chris P. It took a step back to make sure that you communicated that you had some compassion. The part that confused me is where you say that the cross covers what we do in ignorance. I, at times, am rebellious and do commit sins of commission. Does this exclude me from the atoning blood of the cross? This discussion, in my opinion, still focuses too much on the “in”, “out” aspect, but I think that in Chris’ definition, I am out…crap. This may uncover my thought that it is still too close to usurping the place of Christ, as judge, to cover our tracks and say that He decides who is in and who is out. While we all agree that it is His authority to do that. I still think it is an inappropriate pasttime to make commentary on who is and who isn’t a part of whatever party God is throwing. Even with scripture lifted to “empirically” support. I am not trying to dog pile on Chris P., I would just like to challenge some deeper and more sincere thought to how conceptual truth works itself out in the real world. I also would like to be challenged in this way.
Peace,
David
October 15th, 2004 at 6:37 pm
I believe I’ll give it one last try as this has occupied Adam’s blog for quite awhile.
David ,you are still reading something in my comments that is not there, but your question does imply that clarification is needed. We all commit sins of commission as well as ommission. Do you make a practice out of wantonly sinning? Do you say I am going to this regardless of what the Lord says, and then continue to do it day in and day out, and completely reject salvation after already knowing it. That is rebellion. and it is defined in Hebrews 6:4-8. This is a person on the verge of apostasy. You cannot claim Him and then continue on in whatever sinful lifestyle you were living in. Boenhoeffer called it “cheap grace”. It is not grace at all. I am not judging. Jesus is the one who said we would know the false ones by their fruit. Apparently He thinks that the ekklesia is capable of this discernment. I find that the Bible does show me how conceptual truth works itself out in reality. It is not an exercise in the abstract. Instruction and prophecy spoken by Isaiah or any of the OT writers, is as valid today as it was then. Which brings me to the real crux of all this.
Dave Paisley;
You are a textbook case as to why I reject post-modernism and the emerging church. FYI; I was not raised in evangelicalism. I left roman catholicism many years ago and lived a totally hedonistic life until roughly 1986 which is when I first set foot in a evangelical church. I reject most of what evangelicals call doctrine as only a small percentage of it is scripture based. I despise Christian tv and most of what passes irself off as ministry. I don’t believe that God will send me a $1000 for every dollar I send Ken Copeland, and I don’t believe Jesus is returning to rule from the oval office.I am sorry that its all “croatian” to you, but if you ask a question based on a scripture, I can only answer out of scripture, as only scripture interprets scripture. However I will try and give you the succinct pomo response you are looking for.
Your question again;
2) How do you reconcile your view with Lev 20:13 if you truly believe, and I quote you from your own post, “The Law has never been repealed, it is still in force. (Matthew 5:17-20)”?????
Gee I can’t, as God is a mystery and I don’t know why He would put such a law in His book. Besides who can really know what it means anyway, so why don’t we all forget it and just get along, as we are all going into eternity to the same place anyway.
Is that better? You are making the same wrong assumption that all post-moderns make. That if you exegete from Scripture you must be a modernist, evangelical and therefore subscribe to what is portrayed as evangelical theologies or the “dead thing. “I can’t fathom any believer throwing the Bible aside as a “thingy” and not gaining any understanding of how great a salvation we have. How do you know anything about what you claim to believe. (2Peter 3:14-16) The apostle Paul as well as the others spend most of their writing taking OT scripture and then showing through expositional study,their fulfillment in Christ. Jesus even did this time after time. I think we would be amazed by how much of the NT is actually OT. All I am doing is trying to follow in their footsteps by gleaning from the rich heritage we have in Christ. As for my “boasting”, I am doing what Paul did in 2Cor chapters 10-11-12. Especially 12:1 i.e. boasting to make a point. The point being, you cannot pigeonhole me, anymore than you say that I can do the same to you.
I will pray for you, “that the Father may open the eyes of your heart with the spirit of wisdom and revelation” I think I’m done!
October 15th, 2004 at 10:14 pm
seacrest…out
October 16th, 2004 at 5:02 am
Chris P, I don’t think Bonhoeffer is a useful person to quote for your arguement. He stressed that searching for personal sin was unchristian and a result of theologians and clergy trying to find a place for God in a religionless world. Bonhoeffer stressed the need for a religionless Christianity that focussed on righteousness and the Messianic Kingdom of God on earth (drawing on the worldly redemption of the Hebrew Bible) not ahistorical salvation of one’s soul. He argued that redemption is not ahistorical and mythical (saving souls) but historical (in the sense of drinking the cup of Christ’s sufferings in the world to the last dregs). A quote to help explain his dislike of searching out individuals sin: “There is also a parallel isolation among the clergy, in what one might call the ‘clerical’ sniffing-around-after-people’s-sins in order to catch them out. It’s as if you couldn’t know a fine house till you has found a cobweb in the furtherest cellar…Anything clothed, veiled, pure, and chaste is presumed to be deceitful, disgusted, and impure; people here simply show their own impurity. A basic anti-social attitude of mistrust and suspicion is the revolt of inferiority…Regarded theologically, the error is twofold. First, it is thought that a man can be addressed as a sinner only after his weaknesses and meaneesses have been spied out. Secondly, it is thought that a man’s essential nature consists of his inmost and most intimate background; that is defined as his ‘inner life’, and it is precisely in those secret human places that God is to have his domain!” Bonhoeffer goes on to reject this view. LPP (Enlarged edition), pp. 345-47.
I don’t think Bonhoeffer means the same thing as you.
Sorry for the length of this post but I thought it might be necessary.
October 16th, 2004 at 11:38 am
Boenhoeffer’s term “cheap grace” used in “The Cost of Discipleship” is used in the contxt of those who draw on God’s grace as their panacea, the old I’m under grace not the law bit. His belief and I believe a correct one is that grace is the costliest thing ever,as it cost the Father everything, and costs us our lives. In the same book he states,”when Christ calls a man He calls him to come and die.” I feel this entirely supports what I am saying.
No one is “sin sniffing” here. Just a cursory look at the world shows one how far we fallen as a men. We wear our sins on our sleeves and demand our God-given rights to keep sinning. I agree with his rejection of the above theology, however only those who have entered into the reconciliation and rest described in 2Cor 5:16-21 and Hebrews 4:6-13, (which show that the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, is the “sin sniffer”) are able to drink to the dregs of his suffering and participate in this ministry.
I am lamenting the fact that theology has fallen to the low of promoting our rights to anal sex above the Word of God, which of course must demand a belief in universal salvation, i.e. cheap grace. I have never read Boenhoeffer teaching such views
October 16th, 2004 at 11:54 am
I’ve been reading (skimming) many of these comments. I’m all for an open dialogue and all, but I don’t know that this conversation is going anywhere. And…it’s just getting a little bit old. Chris P., I’ve been pretty cool with letting you post whatever you want, and your view is valid or whatever…but the way in which you come across, especially in the last line of your last comment, I don’t want that on my blog and I ask that you respect my wishes. Time for a new conversation….