chess | (no subject)

Current Mood: thoughtful

(no subject)

The other day, our church was reading passages from James, and we hit James 2:13, and the last sentance of it struck me:

Mercy triumphs over judgement!

Yes, the exclamation mark is part of the NIV text. And I think it's a very difficult issue. What is the difference between discernment and judgement?

I discovered what my mother has against the Methodists; it's that they were the first to let homosexuals become priests.

Our church at home, sad to say, appears to be going from bad to worse. As part of their new partnership with New Frontiers International, who seemed fairly harmless (except for the Incident Of The Staged Tongues, where someone spontaneously interpreted a spontaneous speaking-in-tongues and then the person doing the talk 'interpreted' it entirely differently; I'm slightly biased towards the honesty of the first person because I actually know them), everyone has to do an eight-week course, one evening a week, called 'Visions and Values'. And they are not allowed to ask any questions which involve 'dissent'. Um. I mean, there are a couple of people in our church which are prone to shouting matches, but. They also seem to have entirely the same baggage of dodgy theology that our church has been carrying around for a while now (that all of people's sins / phobias / problems are caused by the sins of their direct and fairly recent ancestors / possession by evil spirits). But all of the other close alternatives either have rubbish music or are too tolerent of homosexuals for my parents' liking.

I have said, in the past, that it appeared to me, from quite a bit of research, that there was an extant prohibition on homosexual relations. I've read more widely on the subject, and it has not convinced me that it is not at least one of those grey areas one should not tread into unless one absolutely has to, but it has left me significantly less vehement in my disapproval. God is larger and more loving than we can imagine, after all.

And there are many more warnings not to judge others than there are not to be homosexual; and we are tasked to warn others there may be a problem, and point at the things that are said, but if they have made their peace with God and they are not directly harming themselves or the church, there seems to be no further responsibility to harass them into compliance with our interpretation of God's will.

(My original plan was one of those colour-banners in the traditional rainbow style with 'Mercy triumphs over judgement!' as a link to James 2:13 as the text. However, I thought a nice balanced and long-ish essay was less likely to make people explode incoherantly and more likely that I would have a cogent debate.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Quite.

James 2:13, last sentence, should be on posters in prominent places. Brightly coloured, and in bold.

Absolutely, we should make sure we keep it out of context though, the whole verse is a little bit dangerous, because it reveals that the focus of this verse is on our action. We should be especially carefully not to let anyone read back three verses, if they did that they might leave with a dangerously biblical view of sin and atonement quite at odds with the "Eh, whatever" apapthy-dressed-up-as-tolerance view we're trying to propogate.

It's not so simple as that.

The Derby resolutions in 1993 came about because people said 'there is no way in Christian Conscience we can deny the ministry of homosexual people without compromising our Christianity.'

If we focus on a label, then we are denying the person involved. We don't just have sins, we also have flaws - all of us. They don't have to lead to sin, it's how we deal with them. And we don't ask that ministers be perfect. Part of the ordination training includes an affirmation that the traditional relationships encouraged by the church are between a man and woman, but that it does not exclude other relationships from being Godly, in the way that it is phrased.

That attitude to scripture, that ecclesiology - THAT is why I am a Methodist.

(there's an interesting exegesis around about the healing of the Centurion's slave. The first thing is that it's only in Luke, which is a gospel devoted to the social issues of the day. The word used for Slave isn't Doulos but Pais - one that a jewish reader would have nodded knowingly at, as being indicative of a relationship between the two that wasn't exactly kosher. Such relationships were a known feature of the army of occupation in Palestine.
It's key, because in the passage there is no mention of sin. No, the only thing commented on is the Centurion's faith and his nationality.)

isn't Doulos but Pais

I didn't know that...

That is interesting.

Um. I went away and did a bit of research on this, and 'Pais' means 'son' - and is translated that way elsewhere in the Bible. It *is* used in some contempory documents that talk about homosexual relationships, but only as an indicator that the age of the boy in questions is that of 'a child' rather than a fully-grown young man. 'Pais' is apparently also the word used in the line 'this is my Son, with whom I am well pleased' at Jesus' baptism, although I only have one online source for that.

Have you read "A Question of Truth", by Gareth Moore OP? If not, I can recommend it.

Having looked at a couple of reviews and synopses, it looks like he's attempting to argue by discrediting Paul, which isn't a great way to start. (For instance, I quite agree with what Paul says about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and feel another short essay coming on about 'the baby cult' I've encounted in a couple of places.) OTOH, I wouldn't mind having a look at a copy if I can get my hands on it without paying any money, because I have Poor Student Syndrome (i.e. I have quite a bit of money but that's because I don't spend it on anything).

I think that's a substantial over-simplification of his case. I have a partly-read copy, or the UL doubtless has one.

*atheist sneaks quietly into Christian discussion*

This is, of course, not too far removed from the humanist creed "Vengeance is not justice"; it's also entirely the same thought as Analects 2.3:

"If you govern with decrees and regulate with punishments, people will evade them and have no sense of shame. If you govern with virtue and regulate with duty, people will have a sense of shame and flock to you."

On grounds of being right and important, it probably ought to be encouraged. My opposition to most of the evangelical Chrsitian church is entirely based on its exceedingly judgemental, and hence divisive, nature. If more Christians were to take James 2:13 to heart, a significant number of humanists might be significantly better predisposed to the Church in general.

If any Confucian purists are reading this, yes, I have just horribly mistranslated the character li; or more accurately, I made a cultural as well as lingustic translation.

Yes!

And it's not just there, either! If you judge someone, you're implicitly saying you're better than them. "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone", John 8:7. And surely the very act of casting a stone is sin.

Certainly my reading of the Bible is that while we're here on Earth the idea is to be liberal, inclusive, nonjudgemental and understanding of others, while being what we consider a good example and providing advice on what we consider good if we are likely to be actually listened to. Did Jesus sit down with sinners in order to judge them, declare them miserable sinners and order them to repent? No, he did not. He set a good example.

I recommend Matthew 23 (any of a dozen passages would do the same job tho). Jesus doesn't tell the 'sinners' that they're sinners, they already know that. It would be like pointing out to drowning man that water in excess isn't neccessarily good for you - he already knows! What he needs is help getting out.

But with those who think themselves good enough to approach God on their own merits, with those who think they're not sinners Jesus is bitingly damming and judgemental.

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first sin.

The whole 'sins of the father thing' is very Catholic. You should tell your church that. THey might run screaming from it.

No church is going to get anywhere if it does not allow open debate, whatever the conclusion you reach you must reach it allone with your gods and not base it on the conclusions of other humans - for all humans are flawed and none without sin.

The arguments about homosexuality are some of the *Stupidist* arguments in existence ffs people leave other people's private lives out of it! Get a grip! Target sins that cause suffering - target rape, murder, domestic violence, genocide... leave people to their own devices. You do have a responsibility to controll other people's persuit of their happiness where it does not prevent you from pursuing your own. It is the right of every (wo)man to seek their own Will and to obey it, it is the right of every (wo)man to controll their own destiny, to seek their own happiness, to make their own way in life. Love is the Law, Love under Will.

And I agree with Stuart - if you (Evangelicals) would just stop being so fucking judgemental at everyone and keep yourselves and you worship to yourselves maybe people would be far less annoyed at you. Whilst my biggest argument with Christianity is 'For I am the Lord They God and there Is No Other God But Me' my biggest problem with the church is that you feel the need to tell *everyone* about it. But you knew that right.

The whole 'sins of the father thing' is very Catholic. You should tell your church that. They might run screaming from it.

Hope so. I run screaming from it, and I am a Catholic.

whatever the conclusion you reach you must reach it alone with your gods and not base it on the conclusions of other humans

... ?! Why? No human is without sin, but no human is without grace, either. If you hear someone else's conclusion, would never have thought of it on your own, you think it's right, and your God(/s) tell(/s) you that it's right - do you have to disregard it because that would be basing your own thoughts on someone else's conclusion?

Because everyone's reality is different, every individual is different and for no two people will the same answer be true in every way.

Yes, other people may have parts of the answer you are looking for but noone will have it all.

Bet your soul? ^_^

http://www.geocities.com/ediththehutt/Stone.JPG

*grins*

In line with many owed responses I ought to give something full and appropriate, for there is much here that in substance I agree with, yet I suspect an unhelpful spirit behind it.

However, in typical fashion I shall merely take one idle comment and demolish it. Perhaps because from maths I know that taking out the smallest details often let's the whole thing collapse. More likely because it's easier than a full reponse.

"and they are not directly harming themselves or the church, there seems to be no further responsibility to harass them into compliance with our interpretation of God's will."

True, but utterly irrelavent to the question of homosexual practice.

Incidently you should avoid double negatives, I still can't tell what the sentence

"I've read more widely on the subject, and it has not convinced me that it is not at least one of those grey areas one should not tread into unless one absolutely has to"

Is supposed to work out to. From the sentences before and afterwards I'm guessing it means 'My research has left my prior conclusion unchanged'.

Finally in my bid to put several small remarks were you being imprecise when you said the issue was "too tolerent of homosexuals"; did you in fact mean "too tolerant of homosexuality" - a subtle but very important distinction, or do you parents genuinely disaprove of love being shown to homosexuals (the final clause contains rhetoric, entirely because I couldn't be bothered to expend the effort to find a neutral form, treat it accordindly).

And they are not allowed to ask any questions which involve 'dissent'.

Gehee, urgle gump?

I hope dissent is defined very narrowly along the lines of howling at the speaker and throwing chairs at them.

Tell me are there passages in the Bible which association with NFI will require you to cross out, if they seem to dissent from the party view? Afterall we can't go disagreeing with the Bible and the easiest way to deal with the problem does seem to be 'change the Bible'.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only