Our troubled denominational marriage

We here at Foundry have just completed our second Pre-Cana Weekend (a term we stole from the Catholics; I hope they haven't put a copyright on it).

It is a marriage/commitment preparation weekend we put together last fall to give those planning to marry at Foundry or elsewhere an alternative to meeting for 4 1/2 hours of sessions with the officiating pastor. We are still developing it, but the two times we've done these weekend workshops they have gotten very good reviews from participating couples.

My wife Jane and I are certified to do Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator work, so we spend some time helping couples understand their types and how they can use type theory to understand their differences. Debra, Foundry's associate, does Bible study and leads couples through a process of discussing the mission and priorities of their marriage. We do short lectures about sex, children, money, in-laws, and sharing space.

One of the tools I  introduce to couples is Thomas-Kilmann conflict theory. Thomas-Kilmann theory suggests there are five styles we tend to use to respond in conflict situations. The people at Otto Kroeger Associates who taught me this theory have added animal images to make them easier to remember.

The five conflict styles are:

• avoiding (the turtle)
• accommodating (the teddy bear)
• competing (the shark)
• compromising (the fox)
• collaborating (the owl)

Thomas-Kilmann theory includes two especially important points:

1. Each of these styles is appropriate in certain situations. If you know someone at the end of the block has a weapon, avoiding them may be a good idea. If you don't care that much, accommodating may work fine. If your child is determined to run in front of a car, competing with him or her,  and winning, makes a lot of  sense. This is not a time to accommodate or compromise.

2. Most of us gravitate toward one style that is our favorite without considering whether this style will be the most effective in this situation. When we use a style habitually, over the long haul it tends to lead to unhealthy, non-mutual relationships.

We use Thomas-Kilmann theory to try to help couples think about their preferred styles, how these styles work together, the consequences of using these styles habitually, and the possibility of learning to think about using appropriate styles rather than habitual ones.

Some couples have told me this has been one of the most useful parts of the weekend for them. Sharks have learned how to sometimes choose to be teddy bears. Turtles have sometimes been able to act like  sharks when the stakes were high enough. Couples have decided that there are times to accept a quick compromise, and that there are times when the long complex process of figuring out how to collaborate is worth it.  (Collaboration means trying to understand the deeper  needs beneath the surface  so that the couple can figure out a way  that both partners can have their needs met for a win-win.)

In our denominational conflicts it is clear to me that our church is full of  sharks right now. Yes, we have managed some compromises in which each side wins something, but each side also loses something. The compromises don't seem very satisfying any more. We --on both sides-- are acting more and more like sharks.

The Watershed Information Network says about collaboration:

This results from a high concern for your group's own interests, matched with a high concern for the interests of other partners. The outcome is "win/win." This strategy is generally used when concerns for others are important. It is also generally the best strategy when society's interest is at stake. This approach helps build commitment and reduce bad feelings. The drawbacks are that it takes time and energy. In addition, some partners may take advantage of the others' trust and openness. Generally regarded as the best approach for managing conflict, the objective of collaboration is to reach consensus.

I have this conviction that if we could just get beneath our surface conflicts to understand the deeper values and needs that shape our positions in this conflict, we could collaborate on a way to honor both side's needs and deepest values. Unfortunately, we seem so busy chewing each others' legs off that we can't get anywhere near this possibility.

Comments

[Revwilly]

Dean,
Thought provoking post. I'm not sure I can look at this as being about my sides needs, but I will give it some thought.

[John Wilks]

Dean,

I hope you are right. In fact, I have repeated said that we need to go deeper than the sexuality debate and get into our core theological convictions and Biblical assumptions that drive it. Essentially, that is where your approach must take us or else we'll just be spinnign our wheels.

But I am concerned that the percived needs and core vaules of both sides are working at cross purposes.

Collaboration is only possible in so far as two or more parties share goals or at least have goals which are somewhat mutually beneficial. If the goals are in fact mutually exclusive, then there is not room for collaboration.

So I am willing to pursue the process but I am not so sure it will lead to continued unity- at least not unity as currently intended in our Discipline.

[Revwilly]

Dean,
Is marriage correct mataphore for our relationships in the UMC? Have we taken a vow of lifelong faithfulness to one another in the UMC? Is staying together the most important thing? Could we accomplish more seperately?

You don't necessarily need to answer my questions. I'm just thinking outloud about your post on how to solve our differences.

[Tony Rose]

Dean,

I think John’s comments on going deeper to the root beliefs and convictions is where we will find clarifications on what drives (motivates) our alternate views. In doing so, we may find more we can compromise on (opinions), or we may find we have to just “agree to disagree” on some things (truth).

Some things are simply not “compromise-able;” specifically, foundational doctrines of the faith.

As Christians we are certainly called to, “if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18). Likewise, we are also called to dialog with people in a gentle way, full of humility, and with respect (1 Pet. 3:15). However, this does not mean that we should compromise on Biblical truths in so doing.

F.F. Bruce once counted and concluded that over 47% of the New Testament was apologetic in nature. The early church and the apostles were very concerned with what was “true” and what was false. The Scriptures command us to stand up and defend, in love, those sacred truths. On these we are to have no compromise.

We don’t have to read far in the New Testament to see that we are to interpret the Scriptures in a “true” way:

“Do you best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).

Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, continued in an “uncompromising” way, to call out names and to correct “those who have swerved from the truth” (v18), saying their errors “spread like gangrene” (v17).

Notice also that Paul does say in this dialog that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone,” but that also does not mean to compromise with error. He continues to say that we must “patiently endure evil, correcting our opponents with gentleness” (v25).

Notice how beautifully he demonstrates the proper conclusion of “not compromising” on truths, where: “perhaps God may grant them (those who are in error) repentance, leading them to a knowledge of the truth” (v26).

The goal for Paul is not for those with alternate opinions to equally negotiate a workable solution of equal compromise. Rather, Paul says that the one who holds the position of “truth” should gently correct the one in error, and thus leading them to repentance and to knowledge of the truth. Also note how to Paul, “repentance” and “knowledge of the truth” are hinged together and are a result of God’s granting them together to the believer. Scripturally speaking, repentance means “agreeing with God,” and therefore we are not to be in error regarding Scriptural truths if we are repentant. If we disagree with the Scriptures, it is our minds that should change to “what is true.” Those who teach sound doctrine are not to compromise, for a fake peace, with those who are in error.

John chimes in on this attitude of truth vs. compromise in 2 John, and explains that we are “commanded by the Father” to be “walking in the truth” (2 John 4). He warns Christians to “Watch yourselves so we don’t lose what has been worked for” (sound doctrine). And he concludes that everyone who does not have the correct teachings “does not have God” (v8). Moreover, check out this for narrow-minded and uncompromising: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house (in our culture: give him a platform to speak error,) or give him any greeting (in our culture: wish or encourage him success in teaching his errors), for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 10). Now there is a warning for us! Not only are we commanded to have correct doctrine and to correct those in error, but if we encourage error in any way we become guilty of its wickedness!

Look how Paul shares these concerns:

Talking about qualifications of an elder to Titus, he says:
“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9).

And he continues exhorting: “You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1)

To Timothy he also commands to (notice, with his command for truth, that his motivation is love): “Stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines… The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Tim 3-7).

Here is Paul’s view on those “in error.” It certainly is not on of compromise: “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim 6:3-4).

And this is why we don’t compromise on truths (notice Paul’s emphasis on “turning from the truth”): “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim 2:3-4)

It is true, no pun intended, that we are to be charitable and gentle in opinions, but over truths, we can not compromise. Those seeking to compromise Biblical truths will never achieve “compromise” with those who are upholding the Scriptural command to defend them.

A quote attributed to St. Augustine notes: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." To that I say, “Amen!”

[Douglas Asbury]

Marriage may not be "the correct" metaphor for the church, but it is certainly an instructive one. When Paul writes a description of the Christian marriage in Eph. 5.21-33, his call for each partner to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ"(21) echoes his discussion of life in the Church in Romans 12. There he stresses not only that we each bring important gifts to the body, but he also puts it in context by noting that we are "individually...members one of another." That sounds very "one flesh"-like to me. As in the Ephesians passage, in Rom. 12 he calls us to "love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor..." I could go on quoting more, but this gives the idea. In addition, he makes similar points in 1 Cor. 12. In that section in which the metaphor of the "body of Christ" is also prominent, I am always intrigued by his comment that "the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (22-26). This is not even to mention the prayer of Jesus in John 17 for the unity of his disciples and other references and allusions elsewhere to a call to mutual care and accountability. So, yes, I would agree with Dean that marriage is one of several helpful metaphors to inform our life as the Church of Jesus Christ. The challenge of being the Church, then, is no less great than the challenge of developing a successful marriage. And as difficult as that is, the challenge of being the Church is probably greater. Even so, since Christ has called us to meet that challenge, he will also give us the resources to do so, not the least of which is himself.

[Douglas Asbury]

Tony,
After I posted my comments above, I discovered that you had been preparing your post at the same time. I wanted to add one comment on what you wrote.
Much of your focus is on not compromising with error and upholding the biblical witness. Yet in Dean's blog on whether our idea of evangelism is too narrow, Dean at one point in a response cited some scripture that contrasted Jesus' way of dealing with sinners who came to him with that of the Pharisees. Craig reacted to that by asking whether Dean was accusing him (and, by implication, those who share his perspective on the importance of holiness of life) of being Pharisees. Yet I read Dean as pointing out a way in which many who focus on living a life of fidelity to the biblical witness are no less selective than those they criticize in terms of the scriptures they use to support their positions. This is why I stressed in a previous post the necessity of our putting ourselves at the foot of the cross TOGETHER. In your response to that, Tony, you saw only yourself at the foot of the cross, but you missed my point about that being a position that put us all on an equal footing before God and in the presence of one another. You focus on "gently" guiding those who are in error about the truth, yet you don't seem to entertain the idea that you yourself might be in error in terms of just the doctrines you are trying to uphold. I don't know that I'm correct in my take on Christian doctrine. In fact, I'm sure my own sin clouds my judgment, and I'm thankful for sisters and brothers in Christ who are willing to try to correct me gently. At the same time, until I am convicted of my own error, I, like Martin Luther, must advocate for the witness of my conscience, trusting that such a witness will be used by God for the good of the Church. My guess is that you feel the need to do the same. This combination of the value of the individual witness and yet the necessity of living together in harmony is a tough nut to crack, and yet Christ has called us to it, and we must obey.
I pray we will continually seek Christ's truth and allow him to uncover those things within each of us that threaten to keep us on the perverse path to destruction.

[Dean Snyder]

“Do you best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).

This it seems to me is the heart of it. What does it mean to rightly handle the word of truth? This is what I strive for, and I am sure, where I often fall short.

The Bible is a collection of inspired writings that reflect the revelation of God as articulated in the situations in which it was written. Scholars have shown quite clearly, for example, that the first chapter of Genesis was written using Babylonian scientific understanding of creation, the most sophisticated cosmology that existed at the time of Solomon when these creation accounts were composed. Babylonian science was rewritten, however, very carefully to demonstrate that the source and power and intention of creation resting in the Creator.

In our time when the resources of biblical study are readily available to us, it is the responsibility of the biblical teacher and preacher to have done enough study to make sure that he or she is teaching the message behind the way Babylonian science was used to propound the word of truth rather than the Babylonian cosmology itself. Our role is not to use the Bible to freeze scientific learning about cosmology at the point is was at the time Solomon was king of Israel, but to teach and preach the message of God's sovereignty and love the writers used Babylonian cosmology to communicate.

Much of the Bible was written in a time when the common understandings were based on political monarchy, patriarchy, and ethnic segregation. The job of the biblical teacher and preacher is, however, not to teach political monarchy, patriarchy or ethnic separation.

In the current discussion, of course, the big question is whether heterosexuality is the only acceptable expression of human love and whether heterosexuality is the only sexual identity God has created. The biblical question is whether heterosexuality is part of the assumption of the situation (like Babylonian cosmology) or whether it is part of the word of truth like the sovereignty and love of God.

This is the core question we need to discuss. It is not helpful, I think, when persons who believe that heterosexism is not part of the word of truth within Scripture are automatically dismissed or scorned as not teaching "sound doctrine."

This accusation is especially ironic since much of the unsound doctrine at stake in New Testament times had to do with arguing that Gentiles had to get circumcised and become Jews before they could be followers of Jesus. So, now, those of us who are suggesting that persons should not have to somehow change sexual orientation to be followers of Jesus are accused of teaching false doctrine.
I think history might suggest that those who are confident they have the Bible on their side on issues such as whether the sun revolves around the earth, whether kings have a divine right to their thrones, whether slavery is God-ordained so that slaves should be obedient to their masters, whether the successors of Peter have the keys to the kingdom, whether women were permitted to speak in church, and whether procreation was the only purpose of marriage may have benefited from a tad more humility and openness.

I think sometimes it is possible in interpretation of Scripture to miss the forest for the trees.

[Craig Moore]

Dean

Thanks for the pre-marital counseling insights, I will use them in my own ministry. No doubt they work well in helping couples settle their differences and disagreements. BUT, I can see a scenerio where these various techniques will not work. Say for instance a woman is unfaithful to her husband and has given herself over to another man. I am not sure that being a "turtle" (avoiding), a "teddy bear" (accommodating), a "fox" (compromising) or a "owl" (collaborating) is the best way to confront this serious problem. The only sensible approach for the husband is to take the shark approach. If he takes the turtle, teddy bear, fox or owl position he is left with the prospect of living with an unfaithful spouse. This is an unnatural and unhealthy arrangement. Maybe divorce is a an option in this case if she refuses to repent and forsake her unfaithful ways.

This is the position we conservatives are forced to take with liberals who we believe are unfaithful to scripture, tradition and orthodoxy. We believe that playing the turtle, teddy bear, fox and owl leaves us in an intolerable position of living in a so called communion with those who we consider unfaithful to scripture. This battle between liberals and conservatives has been going on for years and a peaceful co-existance is not practical. Some who are more pluralistic in their beliefs would have no problem with living with conservatives as long as they are free to practice their beliefs freely without any restrictions. But as conservatives, we by nature have it within us not to be open to false doctrines and a lax view of sin. So Dean & Doug, beware before you get into the water, the sharks are lurking!

[John Wilks]

Dean,

Your observation that the early Church was wrong to force circumcision is part of the reason I try to remain open to this debate.

At the same time, there were already those in the early Church, as many of Paul's letters speak to, who thought that Christianity was a "blank cheek" in terms of morality. It was thsi misconception that lead to gnositicism.

Paul's arrpaoch to the issues of circumcision and lawlessness was to strike a balance. We must not enculturate people to evangelize them, and yet the core moral teachign of the Old Testament remained.

And so in the Old Testament, we see laws wrapped up in keeping Hebrew culture distinct (diatary restrictions, for example) and enforce justice in a theocracy (an eye for an eye) and laws intended to show the best way to live (laws about how to treat widows and strangers and yes, laws about sex.)

The witness in the New Testament continues those moral laws and in fact increases them. (For instance, Jesus doesn't stop at adultery but cuts to our hearts and addresses lust.) At the same time, cerimonial and civil laws are relaxed or lifted to accomodate the shift from state (Israel) to the Church, which is the earthly outpost of the Kingdom which is here and yet still to come.

So I gladly have these dialogs with you because I see how the circumcision issue should make us stop and think and I certainly see the emotional appeal in embracing homosexuality on that basis.

But in the course of having this dialog with people over and over and over and over and (you get the idea) I have yet to see any reason to think that we should water down the moral laws of the Bible now simply because the early Church did away with the cerimonial and civil laws. The logic to support that step just isn't there.

[Tony Rose]

Dean,

Thanks for your reply. In reading it, I am not sure if you saw my last post on the previous discussion regarding the narrowness of evangelism. I posted it Saturday afternoon, and instead of repeating it all here, I’ll refer you to that post

In that last post I explained that I do not place myself alone at the foot of the cross, and agree with you and Dean that we are all equal in the eyes of God as far as sin is concerned. The point I made is not that one person is of higher regard as far as “under the cross” is concerned, but that one who is “repentant minded” is not hypocritical in telling one who isn’t, that he needs to repent.

My discussion in that last post also explains how the lifestyle a repentant person regards sin as error and something to be repentant of, and the lifestyle of a person in habitual sin, regards sin as “ok.” It is not hypocritical for someone who is repentant and struggling with the sin nature, to tell someone who is not repentant at all, that repentance is required to be right with God. For a deeper explanation of this, please read, or re-read my last post from Saturday (link above).

Please remember, the original discussion was evangelism, and in that context I was demonstrating that one doesn’t have to be perfect in order to proclaim the gospel. Proclaiming the true gospel of repentance does indeed require a repentant person, but it does not require a perfect person. If that were the case Jesus would have had to stay on the earth because he would have been the only one qualified to do it. Also remember, that the original discussion was about whether we should be preaching repentance first or at all, and it evolved into this dialog from there.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we all are to “confess to one another” and are to hold one another accountable. Not one of us is better than the other. I also do not think that any of us should ever look down on another’s sin as being worse than their own. In our evangelism, it is very true that we have to make sure that we do not portray an attitude of condescension to the person we are witnessing to, because it is indeed true that we all need the cross to cover our sins. To this we are not at all in disagreement. (It is ironic to have to make this point here, because I taught a class on Sunday about how to witness to Jehovah Witnesses, and this was one of my major points of emphasis – we have to not appear “more holy” or condescending to those we witness to).

In regards to your comments on Dean’s Scripture quotes, I think I demonstrated quite well that Dean’s usage of those passages were conveniently taken out of context to prove his pre-existing ideals (he even admitted that his goal in using them was “finger-pointing), whereas compared to the Scriptures I used which were in context and supported the views I was using them to support. In fact, I went on to successfully demonstrate how, not only was Dean’s usage of those passages incorrect, but also that when placed in the proper context, they actually supported what I was saying regarding the necessity of repentance instead. If you missed that, again, I refer you back to that post.

The issue here comes to a head in this point. I am not saying that I am infallible or that I can’t make a mistake. In fact, I am not even saying that my opinion matters at all! My opinion doesn’t matter a bit. What matters is what the text says. And this brings our discussion to the crucial point of the matter: What do we think of the text and how do we use it? I don’t pretend to have any authority or higher view or opinions on my own. What I think is irrelevant. What the text says is important, regardless of what I think. We do not have the permission to preach what we think the text says, but only, what the text says. Biblical hermeneutics is used to determine not what the text means “to me,” but rather, what the text “means.” More precise: what did the original writer of the text mean when he wrote it and what did the original audience think about it when they read it? Anything else is irrelevant.

For example, let’s say you wrote me a letter and said that you went to Detroit on Saturday. If in a hundred years someone read it and concluded that you went to Miami on Thursday, well, he would be wrong. Why? Because that isn’t what you meant or said when you wrote it and that isn’t what I understood when I read it one hundred years earlier. The goal of the reader one-hundred years later would be, not to come up with what he wanted it to say, but to determine what was actually meant by the writer, in the proper context. Anything other than “went to Detroit on Saturday” would be wrong. This is the same we must do with the Scriptures in discovering truth from them. Original authorial intent is what they mean, and that is only what they mean. If it means something else “to me,” then I am wrong and that meaning is irrelevant.

So in our discussion, I don’t assume that I have all the truth or that I can never be wrong. If you show me from the text, in context that I am wrong, I will change my mind. But in the other post, I fully supported my statements, with text in context, and demonstrated how Dean did not. The matter isn’t up to opinions or “interpretation.” The text means one thing: either what I said, or what Dean said. It can’t mean both, and it is up to us to figure out which view is in line with what the original author intended to say.

I don’t at all maintain that I am always right and everyone else is wrong, but I do maintain that in those examples, my position is in line with the original author’s intent and Dean’s wasn’t, and the burden is on him to demonstrate otherwise. This is called the science of Biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics, and to say that the text can have two meanings that contradict, and they both can be true, is to defend relativism. Either there is objective truth that can be ascertained from the Scriptures (which the Scriptures maintain), or it is all up to opinions and there is no truth, and all truths are equally valid. Christianity states that the latter is absurd.

So yes we should all together, “under the cross,” continue to confess our sins in repentance and to seek Christ’s truth. But we have to acknowledge that absolute truth exists and is not evolving and changing. We might change, and our understanding might change, but the truth does not change.

Either the Scriptures are authoritative, or they are not.
Either Jesus is God in human flesh, or he is not.
Either homosexuality is sin, or it is not.
Either we are supposed to defend the truth against error, or we are suppose to compromise.

All of these are things that contradict, and either one or the other is true, but not both. It is our task to figure out which ones are “true,” and believe them, and which ones are “false,” and disregard them. If we have been to the cross and are repentant, then as Paul states, we will come to “the knowledge of the truth” in these matters. If we come to the cross with preconceived notions that “my particular sin is not sin, regardless of what the text states,” then we are “suppressing the truth” (Rom 1:18) and the truth of God is not in us.

In closing, I have noticed a recurring theme here that continues to state that I am not considering myself to be a sinner or that I think I am the only one “under the cross.” For the record, I do not believe that. I, like all, have sinned and fall short. I have confessed my sins, and continue to do so daily. I do not consider myself to be any more holy than the next person, but the pattern of my life is one that continues to seek to be more holy than the day before, through repentance and fleeing from temptation and repulsion of my sin. Apart from the blood of Christ, I have no righteousness, and all of my “righteousness” are as filthy rags. My stating absolute truth or defending those truths from the Scriptures should not imply or indicate otherwise. Likewise, my current struggle with the sin nature does not exempt me from the ability to state truths, nor does the truth change just because it comes from the mouth of a sinner. Truth is true and error is false, regardless of who states it or their motivation. I do believe however, that the preaching of repentance should be reserved for those who have repented themselves.

[Tony Rose]

The previous should have been addressed to Douglass, not Dean. Sorry for the typo.

[Tony Rose]

Dean (this time I really mean Dean),

It is good to hear you say that you too are striving for understanding how to rightly handling the Word of truth. I appreciated your last post where you talked about your view of Scripture and I think that that description might help us to understand why we come to different conclusions in these discussions.

Although I agree with you about the Scriptures being written in time, buy a Creator who is outside of time, you seem to indicate that as civilization has progressed in knowledge that we have discovered in our improving knowledge that some of what is in the Scriptures is wrong. This I disagree with. Although Babylonian science was primitive at the times of some of the writings, it does not necessarily indicate that things written at that time are wrong. Because we have advanced scientific knowledge in our day, does not indicate that we have “additional revelation” or advanced knowledge that contradicts Scripture. In fact, this type of thinking is what produced the Gnostic heresy that John refuted in his letters to the church.

Some people who want to teach that homosexuality can be reconciled with the Scriptures using this type of logic often recite the example of slavery and the church. Their goal is to say, “See the church taught that slavery was acceptable, but we know now it isn’t. So the church was wrong and our advanced knowledge undid that error the church taught.” But the premise that the church taught that slavery was proper is incorrect, making the example not follow the conclusion the proponent would like for it to follow. Paul wrote to slaves who had become Christians, and instructed them to how to behave as Christians. He recognized the cultural situation that they were in, and gave them instruction on how to operate morally in that context. In doing so, he was not condoning the practice of slavery itself, but rather was teaching how Christians should act within their culture. In fact, it was the New Testament church, and Paul’s teachings, that eventually demonstrated the error slavery, and through his teachings (the “one another’s”), and people becoming “new creations,” the practice was eventually abolished within Christianity based on the convictions of the changed people.

To claim our advanced knowledge of science and reason means we can reinterpret or change historical doctrines is to undermine the inspiration of the Scriptures. Either the Scriptures are inspired and infallible, or they contain errors to which we are up to our own opinions to decipher. Our view on that issue will dramatically affect where we fall on doctrine, and I appreciate your clarifying your view for us.

[Douglas Asbury]

Tony,
Thank you for your thoroughgoing critique and commentary.

Regarding your final point relative to slavery having been shown to have been wrong in the New Testament church based on Paul's writings, I would commend to your reading the book "Slavery Defended: The Views of the Old South" ed. by Eric L. McKitrick published by Prentice-Hall in 1963. I will quote the final three paragraphs of the Rev. Thornton Stringfellow's essay entitled "A Scriptural View of Slavery" written in 1856, which are contained in that volume:

"We will remark, in closing under this head, that we have shown from the text of the sacred volume, that when God entered into covenant with Abraham, it was with him as a slaveholder; that when he took his posterity by the hand in Egypt, five hundred years afterward to confirm the promise made to Abraham, it was done with them as slaveholders; that when he gave them a constitution of government, he gave them the right to perpetuate hereditary slavery; and that he did not for the fifteen hundred years of their national existence, express disapprobation toward the institution.
"We have also shown from authentic history that the institution of slavery existed in every family, and in every province of the Roman Empire, at the time the gospel was published to them.
"We have also shown from the New Testament, that all the churches are recognized as composed of masters and servants; and that they are instructed by Christ how to discharge their relative duties; and finally that in reference to the question which was then started, whether Christianity did not abolish the institution, or the right of one Christian to hold another Christian in bondage, we have shown, that 'the words of our Lord Jesus Christ' are, that so far from this being the case, it adds to the obligation of the servant to render service with good-will to his master, and that gospel fellowship is not to be entertained with persons who will not consent to it!..."

Thus, it seems an "unrepentant" rebellious slave would have been labeled a sinner in the early church, as he or she was in the churches in the South in the 19th century; and he or she should rightly be called to account as a Christian to conform his or her life to the plain truth of scripture, which would have been understood by those slaves of the first century much as Rev. Stringfellow has explained.

To me, this is but one illustration of the difficulty of claiming that Scripture presents absolute truth that is easily discerned from a simple reading. Hermeneutics is carried on within cultures just as much as was the writing of the scriptures in the first place. Our cultural presuppositions will always affect our understanding of what the "absolute truth" looks like; and it is only in the fellowship of other Christians who are also seeking the truth to guide their own lives and in the light of the historical record variously understood that we have any hope at all of discovering the truth that applies to us in our time.

Anthony de Mello included a story in "The Song of the Bird" that goes like this:
The devil once went for a walk with a friend. They saw a man ahead of them stoop down and pick up something from the ground.
"What did that man find?" asked the friend.
"A piece of truth," said the devil.
"Doesn't that disturb you?" asked the friend.
"No," said the devil. "I shall let him make a belief out of it."

Since reading that story many years ago, I have always been reminded that my understanding of the truth is partial (1 Cor. 13.9), and that, though I may be moved to correct one I believe to be in error, I always need to know that the "truth" upon which I base my correction could, itself, be in error, partially or even completely. I take this to be an experience of what Paul describes as "working out my own salvation with fear and trembling," seeking always to consider that what I have been given is not something to be exploited for my own gain but poured out for the salvation of the world, and yet subject to revision. I fall short of this all too frequently because of my pridefulness and my need to justify myself, but I pray that sometimes in the existential realities of my life it is not I but Christ who lives in me and speaks through me. I appreciate the efforts of all those who seek to help me find or to stay on the straight and narrow path.

[Tony Rose]

Douglas,

Thanks for that reference and I will certainly take a look at that resource. However let me make a quick point regarding this issue:

Many people in many cultures have incorrectly taught things that are incorrect and have claimed scriptural authority while doing so. Stating their positions and claiming to be “Christian”, or “in the Christian church,” does not qualify their positions as being “Christian” or “of the church.”

For example, Jim Jones and David Koresh both claimed to get their teachings from scripture, but I am sure we can agree that both were wrong in their interpretations and that they were not Christians. Even so, for someone to look back 150 years from now and say that the church taught pedophilia, and then to cite David Koresh as an authoritative source, they would be misrepresenting the church and all of Christianity in so doing. Likewise, 200 years from now people will probably quote men like Dean Snyder and claim that “the church” taught that homosexuality was a Scriptural practice in 2005. However, in doing so they would be ignoring others who have proclaimed that the practice was historically not blessed by God. Quoting with an agenda can’t prove anything.

We can’t say that the Bible (or the church) teaches/taught polygamy and then cite Brigham Young on it as proof, because we know that the Bible doesn’t, and that he was wrong, even though he taught the doctrine. The issue is: do the Scriptures teach it?

When it comes to slavery, I am sure you can find plenty of people who say the church and the Scripture teach/taught it. But you would be hard pressed, using proper Biblical hermeneutics, to demonstrate from the cannon of Scripture that the practice of slavery was ever ordained by God as being “proper,” or that people entrapped as slaves were any less human than those who weren’t. Anyone who has taught that can be demonstrated to have been in error, for we know the Scriptures clearly proclaim that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28), and also “put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience” (Colossians 3:10-12).

Also, please remember that the Bible is a historical recording too, and in its historical recording of sinful man, mentioning something that man did is not equated to teaching that the thing is necessarily right or God ordained.

The Bible also quotes people, and entities, such as Satan. The fact that it records Satan’s words: “"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,” it is not proclaiming that those things are actually true. Context tells us this.

Paul uses the analogy of slavery when he talks about being a “slave to sin” vs. being “a slave to righteousness.” He even calls himself a “slave of Christ.” He uses these terms to relate to people in a way that they understand in their culture. Like above, Paul doing that so they can understand is not an endorsement of the practice.

Those who would like to demonstrate that the church (true Christians) taught that slavery was proper, to either demonstrate a need for doctrine change, or to just persecute the church in general, can only point to fallen men who have misinterpreted Scriptures throughout the ages. They can’t demonstrate it as being a condoned practice from Scripture, true believers, or ordained by God.

Tony

P.S. Note that in this post when I say “the church,” I am not talking about The Roman Catholic Church or the Methodist Church or any other man defined body of organization. I am talking about “those who have been redeemed through deliverance of sin by trusting in Christ alone for their salvation.” Such people haven’t taught that the Scriptures say slavery was proper. Sure there are historical cases of people who were slave owners who became Christians. And I am sure that one could cite such an example of a “Christian who was a slave owner.” I would still maintain that having become “a new creation,” one would certainly come to the conclusion through the sanctification of Spirit of God that this was an incorrect practice. I believe if you look at those cases historically you will see that much of slavery was changed through this type of change in people. Sure there were cases of people claiming to be Christian who owned slaves. I would maintain that if they were redeemed, God would grant them a changed mind and “knowledge of the truth” on such a practice. I think that position can be defended Scripturally and historically.

LOL, Anyone else thing we have gotten off subject again? :-)

[Douglas Asbury]

Tony,
I'm guessing you know that Rev. Stringfellow's interpretation was not just his alone but also was that of the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian and other clergy all over the South prior to the Civil War. It is said that when the various churches could not come to a common mind over the issue of slavery (e.g. the Methodists in their 1844 General Conference), the Civil War was made inevitable. Do you mean to imply that those "man defined organizations" were completely lacking in "those who have been redeemed through deliverance of sin by trusting in Christ alone for their salvation"? I'm afraid I simply can't agree with you there, since there is no "ideal church" such as you describe apart from the historically defined "bodies" we call "churches" and "denominations." Even if there were such an ideal church made up of such people as you describe who were scattered here and there throughout the various denominations like wheat among the weeds, how would you propose we discern which are which? If you say, "by their fruits," I would say, "I know many partnered lesbian and gay Christians who appear to bear fruit unto salvation." Then where do we go from there?
And we are not far from the original topic, because sometimes in a marriage, when both partners are in the shark mode, if they each want to remain faithful above all to their wedding vows (which they see as an expression of their commitment to Christ as much as to each other), they come to the point of asking whether they want to live in perpetual competition with each other, or if there is not some common ground they can affirm that will allow them to live together in peace. We in the church are not yet at that point; but I pray we'll come to it in my lifetime.

[Craig Moore]

Douglas

Couldn't the illustration of Rev. Stingfellow's defense of slavery and how it was a false view of scripture that eventually split the church and country be applied to the liberal position of gay rights today? False doctrines in the church always promote division, light cannot be joined with darkness.

The problem you have with proving your point concerning the validity of the gay lifestyle and convincing those of us who hold to the authority of scripture, is that there is no statement that one can find that gives support to your position. You are arguing from a position of Biblical silence. One can find statements that would strongly indicate that the gay lifestyle is sin and of course that has been pretty much the position of historic Christianity. I see you and guys like Dean struggling to prove your position by appealing to the love, compassion and non-judgmental attitude of Jesus, but I think Tony has refuted this position in his previous postings on the scriptural call for repentance. Appealing to previous errors by various Christians still does not bring convincing evidence that the Bible speaks in favor or acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Throughout church history the landscape is littered with heretics, false teachers and deceptive wolves in sheeps clothing who have mislead the church. I don't hate gays, I welcome them into my church and believe it or not, have had many attend my church, but I am honest with them and they know where I stand. I do not teach them what the Bible does not say.

[Tony Rose]

Douglas,

I want to be careful here as I don’t want to venture blindly into an area where I am historically ignorant, and appear to be trying to speak from a position of knowledge. I certainly know my own limits with regard to history, and I want to be honest and maintain intellectual integrity in my choice of words and positions. Also, I don’t want to be forced into an arena of defending or attacking denominations or organizations of believers. Neither is my point.

With that said, we must recognize that truth is not determined by a majority vote or a conference decision. Any time where decision is placed among majority, error is possible. There are true believers and non-believers alike in many denominations. Those who are true believers are the true church, regardless of their denomination. Likewise, those who do not believe are lost, regardless of their denomination. This is not an attack or a defense of any denomination. It is a Biblical assertion that those who have repented and trusted in Jesus Christ are saved, and those who haven’t aren’t. No denomination has a monopoly on salvation or doctrinal truths.

If a person (or a body) believes and teaches something that the Scriptures do not teach, that person or group is in error on that issue. Period.

Jeremiah prophesied that the New Covenant would contain these truths for believers (individuals):

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (Jer. 31:31-34).

Those individuals who have their wickedness forgiven, and their sins are remembered no more, and have God’s law in their minds and on their hearts, will come to the “knowledge of the truth” if they are in error when conversion takes place. Why? Because they “all know me.”

I am not going to defend or attack the historical positions on issues of any particular denomination. I am simply stating that if anyone or any group believes or teaches errors, they are not representing “the true church.” The Scriptures simply do not teach that slavery is right, virtuous, or in favor with God, and anyone who teaches that they do has erred on the issue. When slavery is mentioned historically, it is in a negative light, such as when Joseph was sold into slavery and he said it was “meant for evil,” or when Moses brought the Israelites “out of slavery.” When slavery is mentioned culturally it is simply an acceptance of they are things are at that time, not as an endorsement. When slavery is used as a metaphor to convey a concept such as, “I am a slave of Christ,” it is not an endorsement either, but a cultural analogy that is used to make a point. Again, any group that teaches that the church or the Bible claims God approves of slavery is wrong. No matter whom they are: majority or not. From that you can conclude what you want in regards to denominational majority votes on the issues. I am sure the votes were not unanimously in error anyway.

You ask: if this is true then “how can we discern?” Good question. I thought you’d never ask! First John gives us lots of clues:

“We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4).

“If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:15-17).

“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning (habitually), because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:9-10).

“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us (the apostle’s sound doctrine); but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood” (1 John 4:6) – That’s clear! If you agree with the apostle’s sound doctrine you are of God, if you don’t, you arent’!

“This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world” (1 John 5:2-4).

“We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin (habitually); the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him” (1 John 5:18).

So as far as your mentioned “partnered lesbian and gay Christians” in question, I would say the same about them as I would anyone else, myself included. If the habitual pattern of their life is in accordance with avoidance of sin, and repentance of failures, then they are saved. However, if they are not “obeying his commands” and repenting when they fail, they are not. For anyone, gay or straight, if the command to abstain from sexual immorality is “not burdensome” for them, then they are “born of God.” If they are burdensome and ignored, or redefined to remove guilt, then they would not be. Only they and God know for sure, you and I are limited in judgment beyond stating those truths.

I know you and Dean will disagree with me on that conclusion, but your disagreement on it doesn’t negate its truthfulness no more than your disagreement that a truck I am warning you about will run over you if you don’t get out of its way.

So as I stated before, and will state again, the Scriptures do not teach that slavery is “of God.” In response to that statement, you have cited historical individuals and bodies who have taught that, but I am not interested in a historical discussion of the beliefs of sinful men. I am stating that “the church” is that body that “believes the Scriptures,” and that the Scriptures do not teach slavery is good. Do you believe that they do? If so, where?

And of course, I still maintain that since slavery, as a positive doctrine can’t be demonstrated from the Scriptures, it is illogical to say that a doctrinal change is necessary in the case of homosexuality, because the Scriptures once taught that slavery was ok. They don’t teach that slavery or homosexuality is an “ok” practice, so the logic doesn’t follow.

[Dean Snyder]

Tony

I don't understand. Are you saying that the Bible does not instruct slaves to be obedient to their masters? Or you saying that There are not old Trstament pqssages that say things like:

"When you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for six years; then in the seventh he is to leave as a free man without paying anything.
But if the slave declares: 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to leave as a free man, '"

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do."

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse, the owner must be punished.However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two, the owner should not be punished because he is his [owner's] property."

Are you arguing that these kinds of statements are not an endorsement of salvery?

Dean

[Craig Moore]

Dean

I will allow Tony to answer your question, since it was addressed to him and he is quite capable of handling it. BUT, it must be frustrating for you guys to be able to provide more direct Biblical support for slavery than homosexuality! Also Dean you still haven't explained how the verses you used out of context last week to imply that Tony and I are judgmental prove your accusation.

[Tony Rose]

Dean,

Christianity never sought to abolish slavery, but rather to make the relationships within it just and kind. There are reasons for handling the issue this way and proper Biblical hermeneutics can bring one to understanding the issue of slavery within the Bible. You claim “you don’t understand,” and I see why. You are not using proper hermeneutics to arrive at your conclusions, but rather, are yanking texts and statements out that serve your purposes.

In referring back to my letter example above and how I said “what was meant by what was written” must be arrived at by the reader in order to be “right,” we must consider things like the culture, who were the people being written to, and who was writing to them. Where were they and what conditions were they experiencing? These are all important to proper understanding and arriving at proper conclusions and teachings.

Paul recognized that under the law, slave owners could execute disobedient slaves, and when he wrote the letter to Philemon, he clearly explained that within the context of Christianity, such behavior was not acceptable. He admonishes Philemon about how to behave as a Christian within the culture of slavery, focusing on forgiveness as the key.

MacArthur’s commentary on this letter gives some good insight into the culture Paul found himself and helps our understanding of the issue:

“Philemon provides valuable historical insights into the early church’s relations to the institution of slavery. Slavery was widespread in the Roman Empire (according to some estimates, slaves constituted on third, perhaps more, of the population) and an accepted part of life. In Paul’s day, slavery had virtually eclipsed free labor. Slaves could be doctors, musicians, teachers, artists, librarians, or accountants; in short, almost all jobs could be and were filled by slaves.

Slaves were not legally considered persons, but were the tools of their masters. As such, they could be bought, sold, inherited, exchanged, or seized to pay their master’s debt. Their masters had virtually unlimited power to punish them, and sometimes did so severely for the slightest infractions. By the time of the New Testament, however, slavery was beginning to change. Realizing that contented slavers were more productive, masters tended to treat them more leniently. It was not uncommon for a master to teach a slave his own trade, and some masters and slaves became close friends. While still not recognizing them as persons under the law, The Roman Senate in A.D. 20 granted slaves accused of crimes the right to a trial. It also became more common for slaves to be granted (or to purchase) their freedom. Some slaves enjoyed very favorable and profitable service under their masters and were better off than many freemen because they were assured of care and provision. Many freemen struggled in poverty.

The New Testament nowhere directly attacks slavery; had it done so, the resulting slave insurrections would have been brutally suppressed and the message of the gospel hopelessly confused with that of social reform. Instead, Christianity undermined the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters. By stressing the spiritual equality of master and slave (Phil 1:6; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1,2), the Bible did away with slavery’s abuses.” (MacArthur Study Bible, pg. 1891).

So to answer your direct question, I am arguing that the Bible does not endorse slavery. While never condemning slavery specifically by name, it consistently teaches against the precepts of slavery through relationship reform.

Dean you are unfortunately confusing instructions with endorsement of a practice. Let me give you a personal analogy. Let’s say someone in your church is accused of murder, goes to trial, is found guilty, and is serving a prison sentence. You have the facts and know he is actually innocent. You are also working for his release through the approved cultural standards (lawyers, etc.). When you visit (or write) this person, what would be your Christian advice? Would you tell this person to behave like a Christian even though he was in an unjust situation? Of course you would (if you followed Paul). You would tell him that God has a purpose for his undesirable circumstance and that he should act like a Christian, being obedient to his authorities (guards), so that he can witness and further the gospel through his Christian lifestyle. Likewise, if in your visit you discovered one of the guards was also a Christian, you would probably tell him to treat his unjustly imprisoned brother with Christian love. It would be unproductive to your cause to attack the guard for bring be a guard! Moreover, while you worked through the approved methods of the culture for his release, you probably would not go around bombing prisons, shooting judges, or creating a riot, and answering one wrong with another. Furthermore, you wouldn’t tell him that since he was improperly imprisoned that he should thwart his prison authorities. That would not be Christian. Now all analogies eventually fall apart, but I hope you can see my point. Your telling your church member who is unjustly in prison, how to behave as a Christian, would not be interpreted by him or by the church, as your endorsing his unjust imprisonment. The two issues are separate. You fail to make this distinction when you look at slavery from a historical perspective in the Bible, and in doing so; you are lead to false conclusions on it being “endorsed.”

Paul recognized that his purpose was the preaching of the gospel. The slavery system in the culture was so prevalent that if he had attacked it directly it would have confused his message. It is interesting that Paul had the ability to detect this, and used the “changing the heart” method instead, so his message of salvation wouldn’t be confused with social justice. It is ironic because we find today that many denominations and churches are making that very mistake, and blurring the waters of the gospel of Christ with a new “gospel” of social reform. Perhaps the church today could use a pointer from Paul here, and start preaching to change hearts through repentance, sin, and righteousness, and then the systems of evil today (greed, sex, abortion, homosexuality etc.) that cause the social problems, would go away as slavery did in New Testament times: through changed hearts!

In conclusion, I can make another point about slavery, and the pro-homosexual lobby’s failed logic in their attempt for analogy with its abolishment. When liberals cite 19th century US slavery and say that it is the same as the practice that was going on in the first century (or even Hebrew culture), they fail to understand the differences in the practices. I am not condoning either one of them or saying that the Scriptures teach that either are honorable, but rather, just making the point that the comparison fails in many areas.

Some of the first century slavery was a voluntary “debt management” system where the culture recognized a need for people to willfully pay back dept that was otherwise not payable. The system kept many people from being vindictive for the wrong-doings of others, if people were willing to voluntarily work for their debtors for an agreed amount of time in order to clear the debt. Although even that practice demeans the human equality of all humans, it is still wrong to compare its practice with 19th century US slavery where blacks were so wrongly treated.

Homosexuals want to say this: “The Bible teaches slavery was right, the church therefore taught it was good, and they were both wrong and rightly changed. Therefore, since the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and the church therefore teaches it is sinful, they are both wrong as in the case of slavery and it should be rightly changed.” This is the logic that they are promoting, and my point is that the logic does not follow.

The Bible does not teach the practice is good and God ordained, in either example. The church’s message taught that the practice of slavery was wrong, not by the attacking of slave owners, but by changing hearts through the teachings a changed life through Christ. Likewise today, the church’s message teaches that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, not by attacking homosexuals, but by changing hearts through the teachings of a changed life through Christ.

A good example of this is the story of John Newton, who wrote our great hymn, “Amazing Grace.” He was a slave trader who became a Christian. Immediately after his conversion he started treating his slaves humanely, but through his lifework from there, he eventually did much to influence the abolishment of the practice.

The following quote came from this link where this story is told:
www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b2newtonjohn.htm

“He died at the age of eighty two, but before he died, wrote a short statement to some friends that could perhaps sum up his life. “’My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Savior.’”. This was John Newton, a man who lived in a time of moral disgrace, but experienced such amazing grace that he influenced the global cessation of slavery. God's word does not return void.”

This is the message of the church to all sinners, including homosexuals. Unfortunately Dean, this is why preachers like you, using faulty hermeneutics, where you take an agenda to the Scriptures instead of reading what is says out from them, can’t understand them. This is why you can’t see that the precepts of slavery are not Biblical, even though the Bible doesn’t directly attack the practice, and it is also why you can’t see that the precepts of homosexuality are also not Biblical, even though the Bible strictly forbids them.

The former is not stated but implied, and you can’t see it. The later is forbid specifically, and you can’t see it either. Jesus said the issue is not that you cannot see, but rather, you will not see.

[Dean Snyder]

Tony

Your logic has now reached a point that surprises me. You get the Bible to come out where you want it to come out because you don't take any agenda to it, but it comes out that way because you know how to read it better than preachers like me.

If it is true, as I know based on experience, that for some people a same-sex orientation is a given and not negotiable, the logic of First Corinthians chapters 5 -7 is very clear.

Indeed, my hope and deepest faith is that God can change hearts. Dean

[Tony Rose]

Dean,

I must confess that I am not quite sure how to respond to your last comment. I detect an element of sarcasm and mocking in your first paragraph, but I don’t want to accuse you of that since I don’t know your motive in saying that the way you did. Regardless, in giving you the benefit of the doubt, if that is your synopsis or definition of how I have portrayed the science of Biblical interpretation, then it is clear that either I didn’t explain it well or you didn’t understand me.

I clearly didn’t say that I “know how to read it better” than you. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I know that my mind is finite and sinful. I know that I am capable of error, and I know that I have my own biases. In fact, it is because of this awareness of my own lack of ability, that I understand that I have to deny my own views, and separate them from what God says. My point was not, “my ability vs. your ability”, to interpret the Scriptures, nor was it “my preconceived beliefs vs. your preconceived beliefs,” in determining truth. My point was that when a writer writes something, it is our obligation to determine what that writer meant in his context, and only take that meaning from it. Anything we add or take away, which the original author didn’t intend, is false.

When we read the Scriptures, we must recognize that it is God’s Word if we are to derive truth from it that is applicable to our lives. The Scriptures proclaim that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Either that is true, or it isn’t. If God says it is God-breathed, then we make Him out to be a liar if we claim that some of it isn’t true. If some of it is true and some isn’t, then it is up to man to determine which, and we are all hopelessly lost.

Sometimes it takes me hours, days, or weeks, just to move from one word to the next in trying to determine its “real” or “true” meaning. To determine the author’s original meaning (truth) is something we are all commanded to do, it is not just for those who think they are “better” at it than others (which I do not think of myself as you imply). To be discerning is not an option, it is a command (1 Thess. 5:21).

Solomon’s prayer to God was to “give your servant a discerning heart, to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong” (1 Kings 3:9). The next verse tells us that God was pleased that Solomon had asked for discernment instead of asking for things to please Solomon or to make his life better. It is the job of the man of god to separate truth from error, right from wrong, and to discern that which pleases God from that which doesn’t.

When I study the Scriptures and it exposes my own views as being false, then I have to abandon my views and agree with God. I am not saying it is easy, but it is commanded. This is repentance, “agreeing with God” when we are wrong, turning 180 degrees, and going in the other direction – towards God instead of away from him. If we are wrong, Scripture exposes that, and we should change our views to be in agreement with Him who is Truth. Just as the Law exposes our sin and leads us to the cross for repentance, the Word exposes our wrong views and leads us to the truth of God’s views.

This is not an attitude from arrogance as you imply, but rather one from humility. It is an attitude of respect for God’s revealed Word. It is a humble view that understands the importance of “rightly interpreting the word of truth” so that we “need not be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15). Did you catch that? If we don’t do this, Scripture says we should be ashamed!

Your second paragraph really exposes this issue at its core, and you probably didn’t even realize it when you wrote it. Your phrase, “If it is true, as I know from experience…” demonstrates what your authority is, where you base your beliefs from, and it is a precise example of what I have just stated:

The Scriptures say that “same-sex orientation” is changeable (1 Cor. 6:9-11), but “your experience” says that it is not changeable. You have a choice: you can believe the “God-breathed” Words which say it is changeable, and thus deny your own beliefs and experiences, or you can question the “God-breathed” Words, and rely on your own beliefs and experiences for truth. It is either/or, but not both. Mere logic states that “A” cannot equal “Not A.” Either God is right and you are wrong on this issue, or you are right and God is wrong. When I am faced with this dilemma, as I have stated above, I choose God’s way over my own beliefs and experience. I do not seek “progressive interpretation” that agrees with my views so I can justify my position.

Many people who are entrapped in a sin such as homosexuality (or any other), have the same opinion as you do on the issue of change. They believe that if God didn’t want them to “feel that way” that He would change their feelings in an instant. What those who believe this way fail to understand is that sometimes God does deal with our sin nature that way, and sometimes He doesn’t. Sometimes God gives us complete victory over temptation, and sometimes He allows us to continue to struggle with it. The fact that He sometimes chooses the latter doesn’t mean that we can’t be obedient to Him in purity.

I know some former homosexuals who God changed in an instant. They got married, had kids, and have not had the former temptations – “Gone! Healed! Amen! Praise God!” I know other former homosexuals who still struggle with the temptation because God hasn’t changed their “feelings.” They understand it is sin, confess it, and plead to Him to take it away. The fact that He sometimes doesn’t take it away, does not change the truth of its sinfulness nor His ability to forgive it. Because of that, they still proclaim: “Amen! Praise God!” The truth is that we still live in a sinful and fallen world, and are still sinful and fallen people. Sometimes God takes our temptations away, and sometimes He has a reason for us to have to continue to “flee” from them. Just because we still have to flee temptation doesn’t mean that if we don’t obediently flee, that it isn’t sin.

I have even experienced both of these types of forgiveness in my own life. I use to struggle with a filthy mouth. I tried for years to stop cursing on my own, only to find myself in the same gutter I was in before, over and over. I could not change it own my own no matter how hard I tried. When I finally confessed it to God and repented of it, it was gone! Victory! I never did it again. Praise God! I am still amazed at it daily because it is such a testament to His ability over my inability. On the other hand, I still struggle with lust. Like Job, I have to make a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl (Job 31:1). I have pleaded to God to take it away from me, but He hasn’t. Paul had a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble, and buddy is this mine! For this reason I do not go to places like Hooters or other places where I know I will be playing with fire. “But it isn’t fair! It is who I am! God made me this way! I cannot change it!” - But it is still sin and it has to be confessed!

Just like homosexuality, the temptation is not sin, but my reaction to it is if I treat it like “no big deal” and pretend that it is “ok” because God made me that way. God’s Word says I can change and that He will give me the ability to flee if I will be obedient. My experience tells me otherwise in this case, but I have to be faithful and obedient, and flee the temptation so that I don’t fall into sin, and confess it immediately if I do fall. That is the issue of repentance Dean, when we fall into sin it is because we “fall,” not because we are marching prideful about it in the streets, proclaiming it as “ok.”

If we approach God saying, “Your Word says I can change, but this is how You made me and my experience says I can’t change,” then we are not humble and contrite, and we are calling God a liar. The Bible says that “God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). Being prideful about sin does not bring grace, it brings law. Being humble brings grace. This is why Jesus gave grace to the woman at the well (John 4) but gave law to the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-22). The former was humble and the latter was proud. Notice in verse 21 of Mark 10 it says that Jesus “looked at him and loved him.” This was when he was giving him law, not grace! Love is not telling someone their sin is “ok.” Love is giving the grace of God’s gospel message to those who are humble, but love is also warning of God’s law to those who are proud – exactly as Jesus did.

Dean I do not hate homosexuals. I have had the opportunity to witness to homosexuals from Silicon Valley, CA to DuPont Circle in Washington, and all over this country. I have had the pleasure of knowing several homosexuals in my life and have befriended many of them. I have grieved over the suicide of homosexuals I have known. I love homosexuals and see them as souls for whom Christ died. I want them to come to know the grace of God’s forgiveness through repentance and trusting in Jesus Christ. But I will not lie to them about the seriousness of their sin in order to make them like me more as a person. This is why the Apostle Paul said to “speak the truth, in love” (Eph 4:15) It is not love if it is not the Truth.

Dean I know that we disagree on political issues, but we claim to love the same Lord. It is in that Spirit that I plead with you and pray to God that you will consider the truthfulness of the words I have said to you in these posts. I don’t know you, but I have read your blog and some of your sermons from your church web site. I can see that your church is involved in many good things and I see your motives are pure. I don’t think that any of us seek error on purpose. The way we arrive at error is by seeking the truth and simply missing the mark. Sometimes this is by letting our selves get in the way, and sometimes it is because we are deceived. I am not better than you, and do not proclaim that to be the case. We are both sinners commissioned with speaking God’s truth to the world (Matt 28:19).

In closing, a “reconciling ministry” is a good thing only if it truly reconciles sinners to God. If we do this “by meeting God at the foot of the cross together confessing our sins,” as Douglass would put it, that is fine and as it should be. However, if we encourage sinners to show up at the foot of the cross with their hands on their hips in prideful arrogance regarding their sins, we are inviting judgment on them, and we will share in their guilt if we do not tell them the truth that leads to their repentance.

In all respect and love of Christ,
Tony Rose

<))><