I think that many cultural Christians might be shocked at the concept of God before family. The church of N. America is largely a church of pudding cups and hamburger helper. (This is the milk for baby Christians vs. meat for adult Christians metaphor). Confronting the hard stuff is just something that most Christians don't do. Life has been structured for the past couple hundred years here so that it's easy to be a Christian. That is starting to change.
Because I grew up in a fundamentalist ish church, we were taught straight up that God was the first priority, followed by spouse, then kids, then other stuff. As I recall, the pastor wasn't emphasizing the difference between God vs. spouse, but more that spouse and kids came before work and friends and likewise. In most circumstances, following God involves following your husband and caring for your children.
For two hundred years, the church in North America has been blessed - or cursed - to live without persecution. "Christian" and "nice" used to be used as similes, and still are in some ways. Folks who are nice folks and vaguely believe in God consider themselves Christians. They might have no relationship at all with Christ and know virtually nothing about what He stood for, but they consider themselves Christian.
Right now, today, we are starting to move towards the North American society becoming a society where you have to make the choice of where you stand, and maybe make some sacrifices along the way. That's part of the gay marriage foo-foo-rah. I *really* don't expect gay marriage to become illegal. I'll vote for a constitutional amendment against it - but I can see the writing on the wall.
You were saying, "oh it doesn't matter, it doesn't affect Christians" but it does. The doctors who delivered my children are in a court battle that's gone up all the way to the Cali supreme court. You see, they wouldn't artificially inseminate a woman because she wasn't married. It went against their religious beliefs. They a) treated her infertility b) told her how to do the insemination at home c) gave her the name of a doctor who would do it d) offered to pay the difference in costs, as her insurance didn't pay for that doctor... but that wasn't enough for her. And she's suing, because she feels that she's been discriminated against for her sexuality. (Discriminating for sexuality is against the law, discriminating for marital status is not). So - when she and her partner are legally married (assuming they are going to be, I wouldn't know.. though they have three children now) in June... how would the doctor choose not to do something against their conscience?
What's going to happen is that Christian doctors are going to leave the OB business in droves. And city clerks - who warned *them* that their line of work might contain a crisis of conscience? You don't go into that line of work expecting it... but what if they're not allowed to pass the duty of marrying gay/lesbian couples on to a clerk that doesn't mind?
I hear pastors in Canada have been arrested for just *reading* Romans 2 from the pulpit - no commentary - just reading. That *will* come here, sooner or later.
Do I not feel sorry for people who are attracted to the opposite sex? Of course - what a heavy burden to bear! But you *don't* have to choose to make your attraction your identification. Sexual choices are CHOICES. You are born black or white - you choose whom you kiss. Would it be a terrifically hard life, to choose to be celibate because you had no desire for the opposite sex? Yes. Would it likely be impossible, outside the strength of the Holy Spirit - also yes.
But even saying that - that it's a choice - makes me a very unpopular person. But that's what *God* says. *He's* the one who says that none is tempted beyond that which they can bear. And *He's* the one who says that any sexual contact outside of marriage is sin.
And that's kind of the deal... see, the big deal (outside of the points already made) for *me* is that someday *real soon* I'm going to be guilty of discriminatory speech, maybe even hate speech, for saying that homosexuality is sinful. For speaking the truth.
Which brings us back to the start... two hundred years of ease. It's rotted half the church, and when it comes time for persecution - folks are going to have to make that choice. Will I keep my job? Will I make waves in my family? Will I choose to follow Christ? What's more important to me - truth or comfort?
I don't think our war is going to be a war like the one your ancestors waged, where they drag the Christians out and shoot them. I think it's going to be a war of words, where if you won't bow down to the dominant value system, you'll be pushed to the side. Eventually we're promised the extreme of that, when the Antichrist won't allow you to buy or sell without his mark. It has to start somewhere.... and the choice is beginning to manifest itself.
I hope this was vaguely clear, my head has been stuffed with cotton for days.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
God before family?
I had sort of an interesting experience over the weekend. A friend of my husband's dropped by with an article he'd clipped from a European magazine, "explaining" to Europeans, American Christians.
What had caught his eye in the article was the idea that Christians ought to put God before everyone, including family and friends.
Luke 14:26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
He said he'd never heard of this before. He's a simple man, a farmer, and I have no idea what sort of religious background he has but he has been in this country a long time and is familiar with Mennonites, since they are mostly his neighbours.
Now what struck me as odd is this: wouldn't most people, if the preposition is that there is a God, by definition assume that God has to come before all else? Or is it the word "hate" that freaked him out? I don't know why he thought this was strange.
To me, it seems just common sense that if you accept, even just for the sake of argument, that God, as defined by an all-powerful creator, exists, then of course, he has to come before everyone else.
It would be like arguing with a cop over your right to speed. Meaningless. He's got the power and the law on his side.
Maybe not a debate in this, I just found it all very curious. I didn't answer him (he came to visit my husband) but I was rather shocked by his shock.
Layla
What had caught his eye in the article was the idea that Christians ought to put God before everyone, including family and friends.
Luke 14:26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
He said he'd never heard of this before. He's a simple man, a farmer, and I have no idea what sort of religious background he has but he has been in this country a long time and is familiar with Mennonites, since they are mostly his neighbours.
Now what struck me as odd is this: wouldn't most people, if the preposition is that there is a God, by definition assume that God has to come before all else? Or is it the word "hate" that freaked him out? I don't know why he thought this was strange.
To me, it seems just common sense that if you accept, even just for the sake of argument, that God, as defined by an all-powerful creator, exists, then of course, he has to come before everyone else.
It would be like arguing with a cop over your right to speed. Meaningless. He's got the power and the law on his side.
Maybe not a debate in this, I just found it all very curious. I didn't answer him (he came to visit my husband) but I was rather shocked by his shock.
Layla
Same sex marriage and christians
Well, I sometimes read your other things and wonder why you don't post them here, even if some of them are reflections and such, as opposed to a debate. So feel free to reiterate your comments about same-sex marriage.
You have a point when you say that homosexuality often identifies more than a sexual orientation and indicates a life-style and people don't tend to describe themselves as gossiping drunkards whereas they might identify themselves as gay. However.
People tend to identify themselves by what they consider significant to their identities, which often includes what they feel is in some way discriminated against. It is a different thing to say, in America, "I am a man" and "I am a black man." The latter describes a history without the necessity of describing the history of the black man in America.
I do sometimes identify myself as a socialist and a pacifist, sort of depending on the situation, when I feel it will shorten a discussion, or even by-pass a discussion I don't want to have, like if I'm being introduced at a gathering of mostly political junkies, and most of them are right-wing, I might - in a self-deprecating way that is intended to let people know where they stand with me right off the bat in case they too want to avoid conflict - say something like "I'm Layla, the token socialist/pacifist."
I usually do not identify myself as a Christian, rightly or wrongly, until I know someone very, very well. In the first place "Christian" has so many interpretations that I am afraid of a born-again/evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic Christian grabbing me in a bear hug (I don't do hugs) and singing out, "Praise, Jesus!"
I had the misfortune when I was sixteen of encountering the pastor of a church that my girlfriend's boyfriend attended, at a McDonald's. I didn't know him and he didn't know me and in that overly-enthusiastic way that so many of the Charismatics I have known have, he bellowed out, "Are you a Christian?"
I wasn't sure then how to answer it, since I figured chances were good we saw eye-to-eye on nothing, but neither did I want to be placed in the position of having him proclaiming loudly to all and sundry that he would pray for me if I said I wasn't. Since I figured with him, if I didn't say yes I was, I would be placed in the "heathen" camp, which I wasn't either.
And at sixteen, I just wasn't prepared to tell a man in around forty that it wasn't his business. So I muttered, "yes" only to find myself grabbed and swung around in a bear-hug, "Praise Jesus!" He was, of course, American. We didn't have many of that type who were Canadian.
I've been very hesitant to identify myself as a Christian to people I don't know ever since. I don't do hugs, people. Sheesh. Keep your paws off my person.
I don't understand really, the part of your argument where you say you worry about having to explain it to your children. Sex is a part of life and with young children, you answer as is age appropriate and not necessarily more than they ask. Abortion is also part of modern life, whether we like it or not.
I don't know how people can explain murderers to children, or wars, or divorce or death. The hardest conversation I've ever had is with a four-year-old whose mother died and I had to explain that. It isn't enough to explain that they are "with Jesus" when they can see their mother's body in a coffin. All a four-year-old knows is that he wants his mother. It doesn't dry their tears at night.
And I don't think that just because something is legal, like same-sex marriage, that people who would otherwise have come to Jesus will suddenly not come. God is greater than that. I don't think it works that way. That's like saying that because adulterers aren't stoned anymore, then how will you explain that to your children, and that everyone will start thinking that adultery is all right and nice Christian wives and husbands will turn away from God.
They could not turn away permanently, if they were God's to begin with. That people can fall into sin, certainly I believe that. And certainly I believe that it is far better not to put yourself into a place of temptation, lest you have occasion to sin, as I believe it states somewhere in the NT. There are places no Christian belongs.
But as far as homosexuality goes, even though it isn't against the law and we've had same-sex marriage here for years, I have never felt the slightest urge towards my own sex and no law would change that or lead me into that temptation. For those who have those leanings however, no law will prevent that.
We have a domestic partners law as well, but again, I'm sort of of two minds about it. In the first place, I don't believe that marriage is a sacrament. It was given to all of humanity in the symbolic union of Adam and Eve as first parents. It wasn't something that was set apart like Holy Communion for only Christians, or Passover and dietary laws for Jews. The animal kingdom and humanity were told collectively to "be fruitful and multiply." There was no stipulation as to how many partners that implied as is shown in the OT fathers with their multiple wives.
Christianity took a turn when Jesus said, "but in the beginning it was not so." Therefore we know that when we want to know how we ought to be, we need to look at how it was in the beginning. In the beginning there was one man and one woman and that is God's ideal. But Jesus also says that God allowed certain things, like ferinstance, divorce, "because of the hardness of your hearts."
Christianity is supposed to remedy that hardness of heart and allow a man and a woman to forgive each other often enough to enable a marriage to last. But sometimes it isn't possible, since we aren't perfect. Nothing changes the ideal though, but it is, as I see it, the ideal. What is less than the ideal comes from our hardness of heart, but we aren't perfect, and I believe God understands that and forgives us for all our failings.
All are allowed to be part of a marriage, and in many cultures, "marriage" itself is little more than an agreement to live together. A ceremony and a judge wouldn't make it more or less of a marriage.
You notice that Paul doesn't take issue with multiple wives when he talks about marriage and the Christian except as it concerns pastors and other leaders in the church - that they should be married to one wife and have a good reputation.
There are people who do not take live-together relationships as seriously as marriage but I think that a live-together relationship can be every bit as committed as any ceremony performed in a legal way.
As to God's laws and the vote, yes, we differ there, because I know of no laws that God gave that apply to non-believers and of no example in the Bible where a believer is told to impose the laws that God gave the believer on the unbeliever.
Layla
You have a point when you say that homosexuality often identifies more than a sexual orientation and indicates a life-style and people don't tend to describe themselves as gossiping drunkards whereas they might identify themselves as gay. However.
People tend to identify themselves by what they consider significant to their identities, which often includes what they feel is in some way discriminated against. It is a different thing to say, in America, "I am a man" and "I am a black man." The latter describes a history without the necessity of describing the history of the black man in America.
I do sometimes identify myself as a socialist and a pacifist, sort of depending on the situation, when I feel it will shorten a discussion, or even by-pass a discussion I don't want to have, like if I'm being introduced at a gathering of mostly political junkies, and most of them are right-wing, I might - in a self-deprecating way that is intended to let people know where they stand with me right off the bat in case they too want to avoid conflict - say something like "I'm Layla, the token socialist/pacifist."
I usually do not identify myself as a Christian, rightly or wrongly, until I know someone very, very well. In the first place "Christian" has so many interpretations that I am afraid of a born-again/evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic Christian grabbing me in a bear hug (I don't do hugs) and singing out, "Praise, Jesus!"
I had the misfortune when I was sixteen of encountering the pastor of a church that my girlfriend's boyfriend attended, at a McDonald's. I didn't know him and he didn't know me and in that overly-enthusiastic way that so many of the Charismatics I have known have, he bellowed out, "Are you a Christian?"
I wasn't sure then how to answer it, since I figured chances were good we saw eye-to-eye on nothing, but neither did I want to be placed in the position of having him proclaiming loudly to all and sundry that he would pray for me if I said I wasn't. Since I figured with him, if I didn't say yes I was, I would be placed in the "heathen" camp, which I wasn't either.
And at sixteen, I just wasn't prepared to tell a man in around forty that it wasn't his business. So I muttered, "yes" only to find myself grabbed and swung around in a bear-hug, "Praise Jesus!" He was, of course, American. We didn't have many of that type who were Canadian.
I've been very hesitant to identify myself as a Christian to people I don't know ever since. I don't do hugs, people. Sheesh. Keep your paws off my person.
I don't understand really, the part of your argument where you say you worry about having to explain it to your children. Sex is a part of life and with young children, you answer as is age appropriate and not necessarily more than they ask. Abortion is also part of modern life, whether we like it or not.
I don't know how people can explain murderers to children, or wars, or divorce or death. The hardest conversation I've ever had is with a four-year-old whose mother died and I had to explain that. It isn't enough to explain that they are "with Jesus" when they can see their mother's body in a coffin. All a four-year-old knows is that he wants his mother. It doesn't dry their tears at night.
And I don't think that just because something is legal, like same-sex marriage, that people who would otherwise have come to Jesus will suddenly not come. God is greater than that. I don't think it works that way. That's like saying that because adulterers aren't stoned anymore, then how will you explain that to your children, and that everyone will start thinking that adultery is all right and nice Christian wives and husbands will turn away from God.
They could not turn away permanently, if they were God's to begin with. That people can fall into sin, certainly I believe that. And certainly I believe that it is far better not to put yourself into a place of temptation, lest you have occasion to sin, as I believe it states somewhere in the NT. There are places no Christian belongs.
But as far as homosexuality goes, even though it isn't against the law and we've had same-sex marriage here for years, I have never felt the slightest urge towards my own sex and no law would change that or lead me into that temptation. For those who have those leanings however, no law will prevent that.
We have a domestic partners law as well, but again, I'm sort of of two minds about it. In the first place, I don't believe that marriage is a sacrament. It was given to all of humanity in the symbolic union of Adam and Eve as first parents. It wasn't something that was set apart like Holy Communion for only Christians, or Passover and dietary laws for Jews. The animal kingdom and humanity were told collectively to "be fruitful and multiply." There was no stipulation as to how many partners that implied as is shown in the OT fathers with their multiple wives.
Christianity took a turn when Jesus said, "but in the beginning it was not so." Therefore we know that when we want to know how we ought to be, we need to look at how it was in the beginning. In the beginning there was one man and one woman and that is God's ideal. But Jesus also says that God allowed certain things, like ferinstance, divorce, "because of the hardness of your hearts."
Christianity is supposed to remedy that hardness of heart and allow a man and a woman to forgive each other often enough to enable a marriage to last. But sometimes it isn't possible, since we aren't perfect. Nothing changes the ideal though, but it is, as I see it, the ideal. What is less than the ideal comes from our hardness of heart, but we aren't perfect, and I believe God understands that and forgives us for all our failings.
All are allowed to be part of a marriage, and in many cultures, "marriage" itself is little more than an agreement to live together. A ceremony and a judge wouldn't make it more or less of a marriage.
You notice that Paul doesn't take issue with multiple wives when he talks about marriage and the Christian except as it concerns pastors and other leaders in the church - that they should be married to one wife and have a good reputation.
There are people who do not take live-together relationships as seriously as marriage but I think that a live-together relationship can be every bit as committed as any ceremony performed in a legal way.
As to God's laws and the vote, yes, we differ there, because I know of no laws that God gave that apply to non-believers and of no example in the Bible where a believer is told to impose the laws that God gave the believer on the unbeliever.
Layla
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Dissension at last!
Having read my blog on myspace, I'll assume I shouldn't repeat the argument that I made there, about the government tacitly giving its seal of approval to actions that it performs ceremonies in celebration of. I was not *really* going to burn my driver's license, I assure you. And you *did* make rather the point of saying you didn't consider yourself particularly loyal or associated with the worldly government of whichever country.
So let us begin with homosexuality as a individual act vs. identifying oneself as a homosexual person. People who do the latter frequently primarily self-identify as gay/lesbian as their PRIMARY self-identification. ("Describe yourself"). When was the last time you heard someone identify themselves as a "gossiping drunkard", whether or not that happened to be true?
I completely agree that homosexual relations are no worse than fornication - and I'm far from saying I've never sinned in that direction. Sins of the flesh are sins of the flesh. And we all have weaknesses in one or more areas!
My concern with gay marriage is 1) that the government will give its approval and then I have to explain to my children that the government might say that this is fine and good, but it's not (which is less easy than you might think) and 2) that the individuals who marry (or otherwise commit themselves) will then permanently turn from our Savior.
Repentance of sin generally comes as part and parcel of conversion, but if one is involved in a sin and has made a life of it... how likely is it that that person will feel the lash of conviction and change course? How will it be that someone will hear that still small voice calling them to come to Jesus and think, "maybe..." and then look at their spouse's face, and the face of their children and walk away from that? Even Christian married people are tempted with every breath to put their spouses' happiness above obedience to God (see 1 Corinthians 7).
Having previously made it simplicity itself to simply *live* in sin (California has a domestic partners law) for either hetero or homosexuals, we have now provided a way for those who are living in sin to make it feel like they are not. Otherwise why does the word matter?
It's not as if I didn't expect this to happen. And it's not as if I expect the vote in November to take us out of this. But shall I not mourn? Flexible morality is the bane of our nation! Jesus is the Way, the ***Truth***, and the Light. He's the TRUTH - there is such a thing as truth. Shouldn't someone stand up and say, "here it is"? Aren't we *called* to be lights on the hilltop?
I think that's where you and I differ with our respect towards the governments we live under. I think it's a responsibility given to me to use my vote to uphold the laws that my God has given me. I am not particularly attached to succeeding - in fact, I think it's unlikely that I will. But I have been given that vote and I think I'll be called to account for how I've used it. Ultimately, God is in charge. Ultimately His will WILL be done.
Until He returns - our duty is to get the Word out to every person on this earth, and we are in no way helped in that sacred charge by those who choose to say that light is darkness and darkness is light.
So - that's my objection, part two.
PS - no worries about the brilliant posts, personally I've been crazed busy this week and you're lucky I'm having a lazy Saturday!
So let us begin with homosexuality as a individual act vs. identifying oneself as a homosexual person. People who do the latter frequently primarily self-identify as gay/lesbian as their PRIMARY self-identification. ("Describe yourself"). When was the last time you heard someone identify themselves as a "gossiping drunkard", whether or not that happened to be true?
I completely agree that homosexual relations are no worse than fornication - and I'm far from saying I've never sinned in that direction. Sins of the flesh are sins of the flesh. And we all have weaknesses in one or more areas!
My concern with gay marriage is 1) that the government will give its approval and then I have to explain to my children that the government might say that this is fine and good, but it's not (which is less easy than you might think) and 2) that the individuals who marry (or otherwise commit themselves) will then permanently turn from our Savior.
Repentance of sin generally comes as part and parcel of conversion, but if one is involved in a sin and has made a life of it... how likely is it that that person will feel the lash of conviction and change course? How will it be that someone will hear that still small voice calling them to come to Jesus and think, "maybe..." and then look at their spouse's face, and the face of their children and walk away from that? Even Christian married people are tempted with every breath to put their spouses' happiness above obedience to God (see 1 Corinthians 7).
Having previously made it simplicity itself to simply *live* in sin (California has a domestic partners law) for either hetero or homosexuals, we have now provided a way for those who are living in sin to make it feel like they are not. Otherwise why does the word matter?
It's not as if I didn't expect this to happen. And it's not as if I expect the vote in November to take us out of this. But shall I not mourn? Flexible morality is the bane of our nation! Jesus is the Way, the ***Truth***, and the Light. He's the TRUTH - there is such a thing as truth. Shouldn't someone stand up and say, "here it is"? Aren't we *called* to be lights on the hilltop?
I think that's where you and I differ with our respect towards the governments we live under. I think it's a responsibility given to me to use my vote to uphold the laws that my God has given me. I am not particularly attached to succeeding - in fact, I think it's unlikely that I will. But I have been given that vote and I think I'll be called to account for how I've used it. Ultimately, God is in charge. Ultimately His will WILL be done.
Until He returns - our duty is to get the Word out to every person on this earth, and we are in no way helped in that sacred charge by those who choose to say that light is darkness and darkness is light.
So - that's my objection, part two.
PS - no worries about the brilliant posts, personally I've been crazed busy this week and you're lucky I'm having a lazy Saturday!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Christians and Homosexuality
Your mention of me in another place gave rise to this subject, Hearth.
First of all, I want to preface any discussion on homosexuality by saying that yes, I know it is a sin against God as referenced in the Bible. As is adultery, gossip, people who are habitual drunkards and a whole bunch of other things. I don't see that homosexuality is someone different from all these other sins.
Paul, when he speaks of sexual sins - not homosexuality, specifically, but generally, says it is the one sin a man commits against his own body, and that all other sins are committed outside of the body. Well, that's not quite true but he didn't know that then. Alcoholics and smokers are also doing harm to their bodies. So all in all I'm not too sure what Paul meant by that.
With regards to same sex marriage, we've had that in Canada for several years now and have been somewhat of a gay tourist destination for gay Americans seeking to get married. One of the judges responsible for ruling that disallowing same-sex marriage was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very close friend.
I think that in part you misunderstand my position on church and state when it comes to the state taking positions that are not Christian positions, at least not traditional Christian positions. I don't see my earthly citizenship as anything more than an accident of birth. It has no meaning to me. I do not need to renounce it or move. I do not see myself as being part of the government of the people and therefore entitled to have the state value my values. For the most part, because I am fortunate to live where I live, the state does mirror my values.
But not always. I am a citizen of Heaven first, and have to make sure that my values mirror Heaven's values. It is not my concern necessarily how the state governs those who do not share my citizenship in Heaven.
This is the gist of my problem with voting as a Christian: do I not vote for Party A because they support same-sex marriage or do I not vote for Party B because they propose changes that would make divorce easier? Christians are constantly having to decide between Evil A and Evil B. Same-sex marriage is the least of it all. It isn't possible for any democratic state to mirror Christian values, nor would I trust any state to do that. I don't want any state to interpret the Bible for me and impose that interpretation on me.
There is only One who will govern righteously, and it is not the state and I'm not looking for righteousness from the state.
Jesus did not seek to impose Himself on those who didn't/wouldn't believe in Him. He spoke to those who sought him out. He didn't tell them to overthrow the Romans or address Roman values. He told each individual to individually seek the Kingdom of Heaven.
I don't think there is anything wrong with same-sex marriage on a secular, state level. The government of the world is there for all the people, not some of the people. It is there not to govern Christians - we are the heirs of the most High. As it pleased the Lord, the Creator of Heaven and Earth to make Himself a mere man and to allow His own creatures to put Him to death, so is the position of His followers in this world.
God at the present time, allows a certain amount of secular governance for Christians even though we are His children, not the children of the state. By obeying the law, we set an example for non-Christians. And where the law differs from what we see as the way of Heaven, well Christians aren't being forced into same-sex marriage. That would be the state usurping the authority of God.
This is the state governing the children of the world, as it is allowed to do. It is completely wrong to think that Christian values can be imposed on non-Christians. On a church level, churches chose different ways to deal with the issue of homosexuality. Some believe it is a sin and others don't.
What is good to keep in mind is that there were certainly homosexuals in Christ's day and yet he railed against the money changers, not against the homosexuals. If we look at how Christ acted towards sexual sins generally, from the woman taken in adultery, we see that Christ was much more generous in how he viewed the weakness of the flesh than he was towards moralizers like the money changers.
I do believe that homosexuality is a sin because it states in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. But sin only comes in where there is first faith. And I see nothing to indicate it is more of a sin than adultery or gossip or drunkenness, all of which I have been guilty of at one time or another.
At one point in my life, I would have judged more harshly but life has a way of wearing you down. I don't know why homosexuality is a sin. I know a number of homosexuals and know them well enough to know how much it has hurt them. Having been judged very harshly myself for a sin I certainly admit to having committed but would also say, without any attempt at whitening my conscience, there's few who walked in my shoes who wouldn't have broken long before I did, under the same circumstances, I can't bring myself to sit in judgement of others in whose shoes I haven't walked.
I see no reason to believe that the sin of the Christian homosexual isn't just as covered by the blood of Christ as my sin. And I know, and you know from our private correspondence, that in many ways, I was more sinned against than the sinner. I can't say that for myself and then turn around and accuse someone else of using it as an excuse. I don't have any homosexual leanings myself, so I find it hard to understand quite what the attraction is, but I have enough gay friends to have seen the pain first hand.
As a sort of P.S., I had like, this brilliant post in my head yesterday, but couldn't access this space, so this post isn't as concise and I'm sure I have forgotten most of the points I had in my head yesterday.
Layla
First of all, I want to preface any discussion on homosexuality by saying that yes, I know it is a sin against God as referenced in the Bible. As is adultery, gossip, people who are habitual drunkards and a whole bunch of other things. I don't see that homosexuality is someone different from all these other sins.
Paul, when he speaks of sexual sins - not homosexuality, specifically, but generally, says it is the one sin a man commits against his own body, and that all other sins are committed outside of the body. Well, that's not quite true but he didn't know that then. Alcoholics and smokers are also doing harm to their bodies. So all in all I'm not too sure what Paul meant by that.
With regards to same sex marriage, we've had that in Canada for several years now and have been somewhat of a gay tourist destination for gay Americans seeking to get married. One of the judges responsible for ruling that disallowing same-sex marriage was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very close friend.
I think that in part you misunderstand my position on church and state when it comes to the state taking positions that are not Christian positions, at least not traditional Christian positions. I don't see my earthly citizenship as anything more than an accident of birth. It has no meaning to me. I do not need to renounce it or move. I do not see myself as being part of the government of the people and therefore entitled to have the state value my values. For the most part, because I am fortunate to live where I live, the state does mirror my values.
But not always. I am a citizen of Heaven first, and have to make sure that my values mirror Heaven's values. It is not my concern necessarily how the state governs those who do not share my citizenship in Heaven.
This is the gist of my problem with voting as a Christian: do I not vote for Party A because they support same-sex marriage or do I not vote for Party B because they propose changes that would make divorce easier? Christians are constantly having to decide between Evil A and Evil B. Same-sex marriage is the least of it all. It isn't possible for any democratic state to mirror Christian values, nor would I trust any state to do that. I don't want any state to interpret the Bible for me and impose that interpretation on me.
There is only One who will govern righteously, and it is not the state and I'm not looking for righteousness from the state.
Jesus did not seek to impose Himself on those who didn't/wouldn't believe in Him. He spoke to those who sought him out. He didn't tell them to overthrow the Romans or address Roman values. He told each individual to individually seek the Kingdom of Heaven.
I don't think there is anything wrong with same-sex marriage on a secular, state level. The government of the world is there for all the people, not some of the people. It is there not to govern Christians - we are the heirs of the most High. As it pleased the Lord, the Creator of Heaven and Earth to make Himself a mere man and to allow His own creatures to put Him to death, so is the position of His followers in this world.
God at the present time, allows a certain amount of secular governance for Christians even though we are His children, not the children of the state. By obeying the law, we set an example for non-Christians. And where the law differs from what we see as the way of Heaven, well Christians aren't being forced into same-sex marriage. That would be the state usurping the authority of God.
This is the state governing the children of the world, as it is allowed to do. It is completely wrong to think that Christian values can be imposed on non-Christians. On a church level, churches chose different ways to deal with the issue of homosexuality. Some believe it is a sin and others don't.
What is good to keep in mind is that there were certainly homosexuals in Christ's day and yet he railed against the money changers, not against the homosexuals. If we look at how Christ acted towards sexual sins generally, from the woman taken in adultery, we see that Christ was much more generous in how he viewed the weakness of the flesh than he was towards moralizers like the money changers.
I do believe that homosexuality is a sin because it states in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. But sin only comes in where there is first faith. And I see nothing to indicate it is more of a sin than adultery or gossip or drunkenness, all of which I have been guilty of at one time or another.
At one point in my life, I would have judged more harshly but life has a way of wearing you down. I don't know why homosexuality is a sin. I know a number of homosexuals and know them well enough to know how much it has hurt them. Having been judged very harshly myself for a sin I certainly admit to having committed but would also say, without any attempt at whitening my conscience, there's few who walked in my shoes who wouldn't have broken long before I did, under the same circumstances, I can't bring myself to sit in judgement of others in whose shoes I haven't walked.
I see no reason to believe that the sin of the Christian homosexual isn't just as covered by the blood of Christ as my sin. And I know, and you know from our private correspondence, that in many ways, I was more sinned against than the sinner. I can't say that for myself and then turn around and accuse someone else of using it as an excuse. I don't have any homosexual leanings myself, so I find it hard to understand quite what the attraction is, but I have enough gay friends to have seen the pain first hand.
As a sort of P.S., I had like, this brilliant post in my head yesterday, but couldn't access this space, so this post isn't as concise and I'm sure I have forgotten most of the points I had in my head yesterday.
Layla
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Ah, more agreement!
I am always careful about saying, "I don't believe in prophecy" because of exactly what happened to your grandmother. I know more than a few folks who have had the same sort of experiences, and I wouldn't discount them. Nor would I ignore those nudges.
I have to say - yes - if there is a prophetic surge in regards to end times, I think it's going to be church by church, God speaking to the pastors in an abundance of churches and using their voices as His own. I can't imagine Him using warnings of the End to make anyone money! The question in my mind is... is He starting to do that?
When He nudges you, my sister, and says, "You should plant a little extra this year", and He nudges me and says, "Now is a good time to make a very extensive medical supply kit", and my pastor starts preaching on persecution just about every Sunday... am I to think that He's doing that for nothing?
I think that anyone with eyes open right now can see that the next few years are going to be *very* bad. The natural disasters of the last week (China, Burma, tornados, fires) combined with the front page news of months about food prices combined with yesterday's front page picture of a corn-belt farmer's hand full of mud... soil too wet to plant... 2008 will be tight, but 2009? I shudder. Add a few active volcanos (Hawaii, Chile), stir with the usual wars (too many to list) and you've a fine mess.
I sent you an article to your private email about how they've turned RFID into a tattoo process - quick and easy. They can read it -with current technology- at about a meter away.
So the stage is set. But it has been before, from what I'm told. And like Abraham, perhaps the next years are too hard to get through without holding to that Blessed Hope of Christ's return. I am *not* attached to my own notions to the point of thinking I hold the whole truth! Should I live to be 98, rocking my chair in the window of same California home I'm in now... that's fine with me.
And yet. And yet. I do have... well, not quite theories. But I expect the next years to be *very* rough, rough enough that we'll think we are in the tribulation. Will it be pre-tribulation warmup, from which we'll be snatched just before everything topples down? I don't know. I think though - it behooves us to use the communications networks to listen to one another, to listen to what the Lord has put on our hearts, and to act wisely and according to His will.
There is a fine line between being wise and preparing for anything and being foolish and getting excited over whispers and phantoms.
What is God calling you to do? And what is He preventing you from concerning yourself with?
I have to say - yes - if there is a prophetic surge in regards to end times, I think it's going to be church by church, God speaking to the pastors in an abundance of churches and using their voices as His own. I can't imagine Him using warnings of the End to make anyone money! The question in my mind is... is He starting to do that?
When He nudges you, my sister, and says, "You should plant a little extra this year", and He nudges me and says, "Now is a good time to make a very extensive medical supply kit", and my pastor starts preaching on persecution just about every Sunday... am I to think that He's doing that for nothing?
I think that anyone with eyes open right now can see that the next few years are going to be *very* bad. The natural disasters of the last week (China, Burma, tornados, fires) combined with the front page news of months about food prices combined with yesterday's front page picture of a corn-belt farmer's hand full of mud... soil too wet to plant... 2008 will be tight, but 2009? I shudder. Add a few active volcanos (Hawaii, Chile), stir with the usual wars (too many to list) and you've a fine mess.
I sent you an article to your private email about how they've turned RFID into a tattoo process - quick and easy. They can read it -with current technology- at about a meter away.
So the stage is set. But it has been before, from what I'm told. And like Abraham, perhaps the next years are too hard to get through without holding to that Blessed Hope of Christ's return. I am *not* attached to my own notions to the point of thinking I hold the whole truth! Should I live to be 98, rocking my chair in the window of same California home I'm in now... that's fine with me.
And yet. And yet. I do have... well, not quite theories. But I expect the next years to be *very* rough, rough enough that we'll think we are in the tribulation. Will it be pre-tribulation warmup, from which we'll be snatched just before everything topples down? I don't know. I think though - it behooves us to use the communications networks to listen to one another, to listen to what the Lord has put on our hearts, and to act wisely and according to His will.
There is a fine line between being wise and preparing for anything and being foolish and getting excited over whispers and phantoms.
What is God calling you to do? And what is He preventing you from concerning yourself with?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Modern prophecy
I am sorry that I haven't posted sooner. I have written a thousand posts in my mind - they just never got put to paper. I don't normally write anything of a personal nature here but as you know from my private emails, my step-granddaughter was christening recently. Reading over the programme for the christening, and the call-and-response of it all, with the parents promising the raise her to love the Lord, I found myself hoping very much that it is true. My step-son doesn't have any faith of any sort in his background but his partner does.
Okay, so on to the possibility of modern day prophecies. You say that you are given to "feelings" and "nudges." It is absolutely Biblical to believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church. We are promised that this is so so I believe it is so. However when I speak about prophecy I don't put the guiding of the Holy Spirit to the individual in the same league as outright prophecy, particularly as it pertains to the end of the world or the second coming of Christ.
I don't know if I ever told you that my grandmother had visions on two occasions - and since to me she seemed completely devoid of imagination and ego, being a pragmatic Mennonite grandmother, I still see no other explanation. She wouldn't have invented it because I just don't think it would have occurred to her. And she had no need to feel "important" since the church I grew up in at that time, didn't have any of the charismatic type things (hadn't even heard of them) like speaking in tongues, miraculous healings or visions. I think she would never have told them to a pastor because any Mennonite pastor in our particular branch would have told her that she only "thought" she saw something.
And to the best of my knowledge, besides maybe my grandfather, she only told me and my mother about these two visions. The first time she had a vision she was in her teens and was milking the cows in the pre-electricity days, in winter, when the day is short. Her father had been sick for several months. In the barn, the lamp only lit part of the aisle in the barn. My grandmother was turning away from a freshly milked cow to milk another cow, when she saw as clear as day a coffin in the middle of the barn. She blinked, in her version of the story, and it remained there. She told herself it was a shadow, and milked the other cow before looking at the place but when she did, it was still there. And she "knew" that her father was going to die. That was the connection she made then and her father died the following day.
Her other vision came in her seventies. My grandfather wasn't home and my grandmother had lain down for a nap. She woke up "suddenly" and saw on the dresser opposite her bed, a tombstone on which she could see one of her children's names engraved with the date of birth and that day as the date of death. She immediately got on her knees to pray and stayed there until my grandfather got home. That evening, she got a phone call from the spouse of the child to the effect that the child had tried to commit suicide and very nearly succeeded. On the verge of unconsciousness, she had picked up the phone and called for help.
See, as long as my grandmother isn't having those kinds of visions on a daily basis, and as long as they make theological sense, I accept that. It is a form of prophecy in the sense of "this is what will happen or this is what could happen" but it is not a prophecy of the world ending on June 28th, 2008. It doesn't put her ego at the center of things, the way that I think it is important on the basis of national pride for some American Christians to want to see America playing an important prophetic role, and therefore make 'prophecies' out of wish-fulfillment, as if they've decided that God had to have made a mistake in forgetting to let the world know that, by Joe, America is specialer than other nations.
My grandmother's visions neither add to the Bible, or take away from it. They don't lend themselves to speculation or wild interpretations or book tours in order to publicize the private warning of God to an individual. And I'm sure that my grandmother isn't mentioned in the Bible. Most people aren't. There's no ego trip there. She didn't get up and think she was some sort of new prophetess. She got up and made chicken noodle soup for supper, crocheted some more of the hideous (much as I hate to say it) afghans she was forever giving us, her grandchildren.
But as far as prophecy about world events, I do think that those days are over. Your last question about how just because the US isn't mentioned in the Bible, that there are no possible, Christ-centered prophecies possible in this day? Yes, that's exactly the way I see it. I don't believe that a brand spanking new prophecy not in the Bible canon is at all possible in this day and age.
However, I still want to qualify that a little further. There are prophetic passages in the Bible that are vague, that make vague references to nations, that could still include the US (and Canada). In many of the prophecies, the prophets are told that the vision is sealed until the end of time. What seems vague now, may yet become clear as the Day of the Lord approaches, and then, in retrospect, it could be that we will wonder why we never saw it before.
Just like the prophecies of the coming messiah - the suffering messiah and the reigning, messiah made no sense to the apostles before they were fulfilled, there are prophecies that may have the US playing a major role but because the US is not named as in "The Lord saith unto the US of A", we don't know. One thing to keep in mind about prophecies is that the Lord himself didn't enlighten the apostles as to how he could be both the suffering messiah and the reigning messiah who would put all nations under his feet. They were as confused about that as anyone.
When Jesus rode into the holy city on a donkey and people proclaimed him king, they thought, surely now he will send the Romans and Herod, his pawn, running for the hills. But they were thinking in human terms and on a human time frame - God's way is far more complicated and far longer.
When Abraham was promised children too numerous to count, he surely must have anticipated an encampment full of children with his wife Sarah, in his own life time. He never would have interpreted that promise to mean year after year of waiting, only to have only one child with his wife Sarah.
I think maybe that God sometimes doesn't explain his promises in greater detail because our hearts would break under the burden of years if we knew just how long (in the way we measure time) it would be before the promise found its fulfillment. Abraham and Sarah could hope year after year, for quite a lot of years, that that would be the year of a child. Hope kept them going. Then, when their bodies were old, and a certain resignation had set in and without a doubt, they must have thought that whatever God had meant, they weren't going to have any children. But at the end of their lives, it wouldn't have hurt nearly as much as it would have at the beginning, to think that they would spend so many years childless.
Would the hearts of all the new Christians have failed if Jesus had told them that they wouldn't be seeing him for at least two thousand years? I think the "hope deferred" might well have killed the church before it got started. Instead, by telling us that only God knows the day and the hour, each year, Christians have allowed themselves to hope that this is the acceptable year of the Lord and the year of our redemption.
Hope is a wonderful thing. I don't know how humanity could have endured what it has already endured without hope. But that amount of space also means we must be careful not to let our hopes take on the aura of prophecy, and led people away instead of to Christ.
Even so, marantha, Lord Jesus.
Layla
Okay, so on to the possibility of modern day prophecies. You say that you are given to "feelings" and "nudges." It is absolutely Biblical to believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church. We are promised that this is so so I believe it is so. However when I speak about prophecy I don't put the guiding of the Holy Spirit to the individual in the same league as outright prophecy, particularly as it pertains to the end of the world or the second coming of Christ.
I don't know if I ever told you that my grandmother had visions on two occasions - and since to me she seemed completely devoid of imagination and ego, being a pragmatic Mennonite grandmother, I still see no other explanation. She wouldn't have invented it because I just don't think it would have occurred to her. And she had no need to feel "important" since the church I grew up in at that time, didn't have any of the charismatic type things (hadn't even heard of them) like speaking in tongues, miraculous healings or visions. I think she would never have told them to a pastor because any Mennonite pastor in our particular branch would have told her that she only "thought" she saw something.
And to the best of my knowledge, besides maybe my grandfather, she only told me and my mother about these two visions. The first time she had a vision she was in her teens and was milking the cows in the pre-electricity days, in winter, when the day is short. Her father had been sick for several months. In the barn, the lamp only lit part of the aisle in the barn. My grandmother was turning away from a freshly milked cow to milk another cow, when she saw as clear as day a coffin in the middle of the barn. She blinked, in her version of the story, and it remained there. She told herself it was a shadow, and milked the other cow before looking at the place but when she did, it was still there. And she "knew" that her father was going to die. That was the connection she made then and her father died the following day.
Her other vision came in her seventies. My grandfather wasn't home and my grandmother had lain down for a nap. She woke up "suddenly" and saw on the dresser opposite her bed, a tombstone on which she could see one of her children's names engraved with the date of birth and that day as the date of death. She immediately got on her knees to pray and stayed there until my grandfather got home. That evening, she got a phone call from the spouse of the child to the effect that the child had tried to commit suicide and very nearly succeeded. On the verge of unconsciousness, she had picked up the phone and called for help.
See, as long as my grandmother isn't having those kinds of visions on a daily basis, and as long as they make theological sense, I accept that. It is a form of prophecy in the sense of "this is what will happen or this is what could happen" but it is not a prophecy of the world ending on June 28th, 2008. It doesn't put her ego at the center of things, the way that I think it is important on the basis of national pride for some American Christians to want to see America playing an important prophetic role, and therefore make 'prophecies' out of wish-fulfillment, as if they've decided that God had to have made a mistake in forgetting to let the world know that, by Joe, America is specialer than other nations.
My grandmother's visions neither add to the Bible, or take away from it. They don't lend themselves to speculation or wild interpretations or book tours in order to publicize the private warning of God to an individual. And I'm sure that my grandmother isn't mentioned in the Bible. Most people aren't. There's no ego trip there. She didn't get up and think she was some sort of new prophetess. She got up and made chicken noodle soup for supper, crocheted some more of the hideous (much as I hate to say it) afghans she was forever giving us, her grandchildren.
But as far as prophecy about world events, I do think that those days are over. Your last question about how just because the US isn't mentioned in the Bible, that there are no possible, Christ-centered prophecies possible in this day? Yes, that's exactly the way I see it. I don't believe that a brand spanking new prophecy not in the Bible canon is at all possible in this day and age.
However, I still want to qualify that a little further. There are prophetic passages in the Bible that are vague, that make vague references to nations, that could still include the US (and Canada). In many of the prophecies, the prophets are told that the vision is sealed until the end of time. What seems vague now, may yet become clear as the Day of the Lord approaches, and then, in retrospect, it could be that we will wonder why we never saw it before.
Just like the prophecies of the coming messiah - the suffering messiah and the reigning, messiah made no sense to the apostles before they were fulfilled, there are prophecies that may have the US playing a major role but because the US is not named as in "The Lord saith unto the US of A", we don't know. One thing to keep in mind about prophecies is that the Lord himself didn't enlighten the apostles as to how he could be both the suffering messiah and the reigning messiah who would put all nations under his feet. They were as confused about that as anyone.
When Jesus rode into the holy city on a donkey and people proclaimed him king, they thought, surely now he will send the Romans and Herod, his pawn, running for the hills. But they were thinking in human terms and on a human time frame - God's way is far more complicated and far longer.
When Abraham was promised children too numerous to count, he surely must have anticipated an encampment full of children with his wife Sarah, in his own life time. He never would have interpreted that promise to mean year after year of waiting, only to have only one child with his wife Sarah.
I think maybe that God sometimes doesn't explain his promises in greater detail because our hearts would break under the burden of years if we knew just how long (in the way we measure time) it would be before the promise found its fulfillment. Abraham and Sarah could hope year after year, for quite a lot of years, that that would be the year of a child. Hope kept them going. Then, when their bodies were old, and a certain resignation had set in and without a doubt, they must have thought that whatever God had meant, they weren't going to have any children. But at the end of their lives, it wouldn't have hurt nearly as much as it would have at the beginning, to think that they would spend so many years childless.
Would the hearts of all the new Christians have failed if Jesus had told them that they wouldn't be seeing him for at least two thousand years? I think the "hope deferred" might well have killed the church before it got started. Instead, by telling us that only God knows the day and the hour, each year, Christians have allowed themselves to hope that this is the acceptable year of the Lord and the year of our redemption.
Hope is a wonderful thing. I don't know how humanity could have endured what it has already endured without hope. But that amount of space also means we must be careful not to let our hopes take on the aura of prophecy, and led people away instead of to Christ.
Even so, marantha, Lord Jesus.
Layla
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)