Really, What Would Jesus Do?

[Polly]

http://www.nbc4.com/news/13880376/detail.html

"Sorry my homosexual friend, you died in sin. Can't help you. Enjoy hell. But I have to exercise my religious right of opinion and not encourage others to do the same. Screw forgiveness." -Jesus

Polly

[Lori]

Do they refuse to host the memorials of anybody they discover engaged in behavior they consider sinful? Because I don't think they'd be holding any if that was the case and they were at all honest. That's very sad. Hopefully they can find another place to hold the service.

[Kristen]

Hmmm....I'll have to ponder this one more. I have a couple of thoughts right now, though.

Polly-the janitor wasn't asking for forgiveness if he was happily living in a homosexual lifestyle. Forgiveness from God can be had when you've repented, and if you're happily living life as a gay person, you're not repenting. I don't think that Jesus has to forgive people who don't want to be forgiven, or who don't think they're doing anything wrong.

Lori-I do partly agree with you. I don't think churches should decline to hold funerals for anyone. Having a funeral in your building doesn't mean you're condoning that particular person. I think churches can have weddings and funerals for anyone, even if the person isn't a Christian.

Was the pastor from the church going to officiate? If he was, I certainly do not think that he would be obligated to condone the homosexuality, and he would not be obligated to assume that the deceased was in heaven either. Neither do I think it would be an appropriate time to expound upon what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. ;)

[Polly]

Polly-the janitor wasn't asking for forgiveness if he was happily living in a homosexual lifestyle. Forgiveness from God can be had when you've repented, and if you're happily living life as a gay person, you're not repenting. I don't think that Jesus has to forgive people who don't want to be forgiven, or who don't think they're doing anything wrong.

Kristen-the janitor wasn't gay. His brother, the service member, was gay.

Polly

[giana]

What does the Bible has to say about homesexuality???
Does Jesus say anything concerning the subject?

[Beka]

think churches should decline to hold funerals for anyone. Having a funeral in your building doesn't mean you're condoning that particular person.

I agree with Kristen entirely here, a large part of the funeral process isn't about the person who has died, it's about a sense of closure for those left behind and for many the sybolism of a service in their faith is extremely important to families. A good friend of mine committed suicide and yet his funeral was conducted in a catholic church and his burial by a catholic priest but everything about his death went entirely against the bible, fortunately they didn't judge him or his life on the final moments of it. (uncertain though if maybe they looked at it as he had final fleeting chance for final act of contrition i do not know?)

[Angelique]

I feel bad for the family, at a time like that (losing someone you love) it would be the last thing you would want to have thrown at you. I'll leave it at that. :)

[Lori]

I agree with Kristen entirely here, a large part of the funeral process isn't about the person who has died, it's about a sense of closure for those left behind and for many the sybolism of a service in their faith is extremely important to families.

ITA. It's not the job of a pastor, I don't think, to forgive somebody for their sins. That's up to God. So, a funeral isn't about forgiving a person, or even ushering them into heaven, or really anything to do with the state of the soul of the deceased. It's about paying respects to the dead, and giving the family closure, and I can't see any good reason for denying that to somebody. A burial or memorial service isn't a sacrament, so I don't see any reason for there to be requirements for "earning" it. I can understand a church deciding that only people who meet certain criteria can receive things they consider to be sacraments, but a funeral or memorial doesn't fit into that.

[Lori]

I just want to clarify what I said above to make it clear that I personally don't think being gay is inherently sinful. I think there are certainly sinful ways to express one's homosexuality, just as there are sinful ways to express heterosexuality, but I don't think having a monogamous, commited sexual relationship with a person of the same sex is a sin.

My point was just that, accepting the perspective of the church that homosexuality is always a sin, then it's still not the church's role to forgive somebody for being gay. They can't. It's up to God to forgive, just as it's ultimately up to God to determine if this person's sexuality was sinful or not.

Back to the original issue, too, I think the fact that they cancelled it at the last minute is particularly upsetting. If they had refused to hold it from the start, that would have at least given the family a chance to find a new venue. But, to put the family in the position of having planned this event and then now having to cancel it and explain what had happened is putting them in a pretty bad position.

[Danielle]

Back to the original issue, too, I think the fact that they cancelled it at the last minute is particularly upsetting. If they had refused to hold it from the start, that would have at least given the family a chance to find a new venue. But, to put the family in the position of having planned this event and then now having to cancel it and explain what had happened is putting them in a pretty bad position.


ITA. I personally believe that a church/pastor has the right to refuse to marry, bury or baptize anyone they please. However, I think that giving a days notice when they already agreed to do it is disrespectful IMO.

[gr8mommy]

I too believe that it is the right of a pastor/church to refuse a ceremony or sacrament to anyone. And while I do think it was terribly unfortunate that this particular ceremony was cancelled at the last moment, I tend to believe from the accounts I've read that the sexual orientation of the deceased was hidden, either deliberately or through simple omission, until the last possible moment. I don't believe that was right, either. I do think that the church went above and beyond in provided the assistance they did.

And by the by, the Catholic Church did indeed in the past refuse to provide services for suicides. Whether they continue to do so by canon, by practice, or simply by parish opinion, I have no idea.

[Lori]

I agree with Danielle and Denise that churches should have the right to refuse the marriage or baptism or burial or memorial of anybody they want. I think the separation of church and state and the first amendment assures them that right.

But, that doesn't mean that I think churches are necessarily in the right when they exercise that right. I certainly don't think this church should have been legally obligated to hold the service. But, since I don't agree with their reasons for not holding it, I don't agree with their decision. I still think they should have the legal right to make the decision, though.

[Polly]

ITA. A burial or memorial service isn't a sacrament, so I don't see any reason for there to be requirements for "earning" it. I can understand a church deciding that only people who meet certain criteria can receive things they consider to be sacraments, but a funeral or memorial doesn't fit into that.

Just an FYI, Lori. In the Catholic Church, burial is a sacrament. I remember having to study the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism when I was confirmed. The Protestants believe there are only two sacraments, baptism and communion, because Jesus specifically states this in the Bible. (Kristen-is this right? I'm going on memory from 18 years ago!) The Catholic Church believes there are seven sacraments: baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, taking religious orders, unction (last rites), and burial.

However, since the church is Protestant, I don't think it matters.

Let's hope they re-consider their position on allowing the funeral. I assuming if they don't, the janitor brother probably will leave his job. I imagine it would be rather uncomfortable to stay employed there after they refused to have a funeral for his gay serviceman brother.

Polly

[Jeri]

I wonder what they would have done if this were a hetero man living with a female partner outside of marriage.

[Danielle]

See, I don't think they're wrong to refuse at all. It's not like they made it a secret that they don't approve of homosexuality. Why the family chose a church that clearly disapproves of homosexuality to perform a funeral for an openly gay man who was never a memebr of the church is sort of perplexing for me. Honestly, I doubt this man would have wanted his funeral performed there...

[Kristen]

Lori-I agree with your last post. I think that legally speaking, churches should maintain the right to refuse services to anyone, but I don't necessarily think they should.

I think that churches should marry and bury anyone who wants to be married or buried. For things like baptism, it's a different story though. Baptism is for believers....marriage and funerals are not.

Jeri-I agree with your point. Plenty of people living in unrepentant sin have had funerals at churches before. And while I think that heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are less heinous in God's sight than homosexual relationships(if anyone wants an explanation of why I think that way, just holler, and I will expound), I think the Bible teaches that they are still sinful.

Polly-I don't think Jesus ever actually mentions the word, "sacrament", but I will have to double check that.

[Jo]

Just an FYI, Lori. In the Catholic Church, burial is a sacrament. I remember having to study the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism when I was confirmed. The Protestants believe there are only two sacraments, baptism and communion, because Jesus specifically states this in the Bible. (Kristen-is this right? I'm going on memory from 18 years ago!) The Catholic Church believes there are seven sacraments: baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, taking religious orders, unction (last rites), and burial.


Polly
Actually burial is not a sacrament. The seven sacraments are baptism, penance, communion, confirmation, marriage, religious orders and last rights(extreme unction.

I do think that any church has the right to exclude anyone from funeral services. I don't think it is right but I am fine with churches choosing their own rules on these issues.

[Lori]

The church's pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men "engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing."

Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.

I guess this is where I'm confused about all of this.

I can understand the church not wanting to show a video tribute that included footage of this man kissing his partner. I might disagree, and even granting them their belief that homosexuality is sinful, still might not understand why two men being affection with each other in a way that wasn't explicity sexual is a problem, but I understand that.

But, why not just tell them that that footage was inappropriate, and have them cut it from the video?

If the video didn't include objectionable material, then I just don't understand why the pastor would feel that holding the service there would be endorsing a homosexual "lifestyle." Is holding a memorial for a person who was obese due to overeating endorsing a gluttonous lifestyle? Should that person be refused a burial or memorial at the church? It's not like the pastor was asked to commit positively on the man's homosexuality. I do think they would have been within their rights to insist the video be edited, but I don't see how a burial or memorial service for a gay person is endorsing homosexuality. I don't get the sense there was going to be speech after speech about how great it was that this guy was gay.

I just think there's a big problem with their rationale here. If they believe that it's endorsing a sin to hold a memorial service for a person who commits a sin (even if they only are talking about unrepentant sinners), then I can't imagine they hold any memorials, because I doubt anybody they bury was either 1) sinless or 2) acknowledged and repented of every single sin they committed. If it had been a behavior they considered sinful other than homosexuality I don't think they would have reacted this way.

At the same time, I don't understand why the family wanted the service there, or why they felt a community center was inappropriate. So it's not like I think they are totally in the right with this. But, I do think the church was acting not out of a policy they have regarding holding memorial services for people who engaged in behavior they consider sinful, but in a reaction to this being about one particular behavior they consider sinful, homosexuality. Had it been another, non-sexual sin, I really don't think they would have responded the same way.

[Jessica]

Wow, there is so much on this thread I want to quote but I don't know where to begin!

I guess I'll start here...
why not just tell them that that footage was inappropriate, and have them cut it from the video?

Exactly. Why agree to the funeral, and then go back on it THE DAY BEFORE! :( That is very wrong, and is completely disrespectful to the family who is hurting. I feel very badly for them. I do understand where this church is coming from, but I really feel that the way they handled this was totally wrong.

That said...

Churches most certainly do have a right as to who they will marry, bury, etc. As off topic as this may be, it supports my pov. People call our church all the time asking for marital services, but most of them end up seeking somewhere else when I tell them that they would have to go through six weeks of premarital counseling. I totally feel that premarital counseling is a wonderful idea and there is no reason why a church can't uphold such a policy. As for funerals, well, if it's a Bible believing church that doesn't want to condone sinful behavior, than yes they certainly could decline the use of their facility for a funeral service. Sinful behavior, as Jeri mentioned, reaches far outside the box of homosexuality and into all things that are against God.

Lastly...
What does the Bible has to say about homesexuality???
Does Jesus say anything concerning the subject?

The Bible has much to say concerning homosexuality, some denominations reject it though, some people like to dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with their personal beliefs and feel that the word of God is not all that it's made out to be, and others simply don't care what it has to say about anything - including homosexuality. To answer your question though, here are just a few examples where the Bible clearly states it's stance on a homosexual lifestyle.

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:9

The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 1 Timothy 1:10

[Polly]

The Bible has much to say concerning homosexuality, some denominations reject it though, some people like to dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with their personal beliefs and feel that the word of God is not all that it's made out to be, and others simply don't care what it has to say about anything - including homosexuality. To answer your question though, here are just a few examples where the Bible clearly states it's stance on a homosexual lifestyle.

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:9

The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 1 Timothy 1:10

Or, as in most history/religion classes, they feel the traditional translations sucked and were inaccurate.

Polly

[Lori]

Or, as in most history/religion classes, they feel the traditional translations sucked and were inaccurate.

I tend to think that criticisms of more conservative views on homosexuality based on translation issues just get too nitpicky, and don't usually end up being that productive. Leaving the OT aside, because I personally don't think Christians are bound to the Levitical laws and so I don't think they are a valid basis in themselves for considering homosexuality sinful, it's theoretically interesting, to a degree, whether the particular word that gets translated as "sodomite" in some translations of Paul meant homosexual or temple prostitute or something along the lines of "effiminate man," all of which are things I've seen put forth as the "best" definition, but in the end we just can't know. A lot of the contested words just don't have particularly long histories of usage in Greek, where we can say definitively what they meant. So while it may seem more likely that Paul meant some things rather than others, it just can't be known for sure, either because Paul was using words that are not common enough in Greek to have a clear definition or he was using words in a novel way that makes it impossible to say definitively what he intended.

My own take on it is that there ARE verses in the Bible that do condemn homosexual behavior. But, I think the overall ethic of the New Testament supercedes that, and I do think that monogamous, loving, committed same-sex relationships are fully in line with the kind of ethic of love and justice of the NT. It's sort of like the debate over slavery. You can't find a single verse in the Bible that condemns the practice of slavery, and you can actually find quite a few that condone the practice. So when Christians debated the issue, it was those on the pro-slavery side who had the verses to back up their position. The abolitionists didn't have the verses, but they had what they felt was the heart of the Gospel supporting their position. Personally, I feel the same way about homosexuality. At the same time, I do accept it as a contested issue, in the sense that I don't think it's invalid to have a view that's different than mine or that everybody should have to hold the same view on it.

I tend to view the issue very differently depending on whether we're discussing state or church. In terms of the state, I think it should be a non-issue, and I don't see any valid, secular reason for denying gay and lesbian people any rights that other people or couples are granted. I absolutely wouldn't think a public facility would have any right to deny a person a memorial or burial based on sexual orientation. But, in terms of the church, while I don't think it should be something that is as heated and vicious as it tends to be currently, or something that tears churches apart, I don't think it's a settled issue or non-issue, or even should be at this point. I think there's a lot of dialogue and a lot of study and a lot of praying and time that are needed before anything approaching a consensus will be reached. I'm not even sure a consensus will ever be reached, given that that would require everybody to intepret the Bible in the same way, which isn't likely to happen, so I guess rather than a consensus, what I think needs to be reached is just a way to live with differences of opinion on the issue, the way the church lives with differences of opinion on issues like the ordination of women.

[gr8mommy]

why not just tell them that that footage was inappropriate, and have them cut it from the video?

Who says they didn't, and the family refused?

He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends

I think this demonstrates that the church made every effort to make the change in venue as easy as possible for the family.

Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging.
Honestly? I don't believe her. She's the one with the axe to grind here, so has little to lose by inflaming sentiment.

[Jessica]

Or, as in most history/religion classes, they feel the traditional translations sucked and were inaccurate.

It's all in how you want to take it.

I'm at work right now, but I can sit down with my husband tonight (he is well versed in the original greek) and we can sit down with the original text and see what it says. ;) I already know that it condemns the behavior. I already know that "most history/religion classes" like to spin it into something else because our times have "evolved" and all that jazz. Personally, I see God's word - as it tells me - as absolute. I choose not to question the validity behind it, I may have to dig deeper to understand things, but that's what He wants of me. Now, though I do feel the word of God is absolute, that doesn't put me in a position to judge others. My job isn't to judge, but to spread the word. :D So, since it was asked, I gave an answer and I would be happy to come back and elaborate on that with the original greek and/or hebrew.

Basically though it all comes down to one thing, like I said, it's all in how you want to take it.

[Lori]

I already know that "most history/religion classes" like to spin it into something else because our times have "evolved" and all that jazz.

I don't think it's quite that unidirectional. In part times have changed because of developments in how people read the Bible. I don't think people simply changed their reading of the Bible in reaction to societal changes. Instead, it was a matter of influencing each other. People started to read the Bible differently, society changed, people respond to that by reading the Bible in light of their experiences in society, that new reading influences society, and so on.

Now, personally, I see God's hand at work in that, and think God was the motivating force behind the contemporary acceptance of homosexuality and behind more recent developments in biblical scholarship, so I don't see it as a bad thing at all. I think it's progress, and what God wants from us. Obviously some people disagree, and that's fine. I think God is behind their disagreement, as well, and is also using that, even if I don't understand how or why. But I don't think that the truth about the Bible froze in 1908 with the Scofield reference Bible, despite the fact that that's an interpretation that has come to be seen as the "orthodox" or "traditional" view. If it was all clearly apparent, there would be no need for the guidance of the Spirit. And I do believe completely that it is the work of the Spirit that has led to the acceptance of committed, loving same-sex relationships, and to ways of understanding the Bible that put an ethic of love and justice at the center. I certainly have no other explanation for why I, as a straight woman, would feel so compelled to work for justice on behalf of gay and lesbian people. I'm not that unselfish, at all. I do believe, absolutely, that it's God calling me to do so. So I think to dismiss it as "what people want to think" is leaving out that, for many people, working for justice and full inclusion for gay and lesbian people and couples is not simply what they want to do but what they genuinely feel called by God to do.

[Kristen]

Jess-also in Romans, it talks about men giving up natural relations with women, and being inflamed with lust for each other.

Every bit of exegesis I've heard from the homosexuality-is-ok-in-the-Bible camp has been iffy at best. To me, it seems like in each passage, if there's a 99% chance it could be interpreted one way, and a 1% chance it could be interpreted another way, they take the 1% chance in every. single. case. No one would ever read another book that way and call it honest scholarship.

I'm not saying homosexuality is the number one worst sin ever, or that I'm better because I'm not homosexual, but I do think it's somewhat disingenuous to try to interpret the Bible to be teaching that homosexuality is ok.

[Polly]

It's all in how you want to take it.
Personally, I see God's word - as it tells me - as absolute. I choose not to question the validity behind it, I may have to dig deeper to understand things, but that's what He wants of me.
Basically though it all comes down to one thing, like I said, it's all in how you want to take it.

Everyone picks and chooses what behaviors they emulate in the Bible. For example I never met anyone who did all of (obviously, if circumstances warrant it) the following because the Bible says so:

1. Is widowed and then marries her husband's brother: Deuteronomy, 25:5

2. Had her husband sleep with another women because she is infertile: Genesis, 16:1

and then

3. After Sarah FINALLY gets pregnant, has her husband ditch the mother and the kid in the desert. According to her, Hagar mouthed off. Genesis, 21:14 At least God has the good sense to rescue them. I always thought Abraham was A. stupid and B. lhad a low moral compass for this "lapse in judgement." Don't even get me started on Sarah. And what happens to these two winners? They are blessed with long life and their children rever them. Ooops. But Hagar and Ishmael supposedly go on to found the familial line that Mohamed the Prophet comes from. And this is the explanation of why Jews and Muslims dislike each other. The other little gem from this is also the explanation of why God whats Mormon men to practice poligamy; it's called the "principle."

3. How to treat your slaves! Yes, the Bible says slavery is A-O-K! Remeber when slave owners in the American South used it to justify their owning slaves? It's my personal favorite-hey, you know if you accept good ole' Leviticus on homosexuality, than I'm assuming you accept all of it and feel that slavery is fine. Of course, except owing Jews as slaves. God said no. Everyone else is game. Leviticus, 19:20, 22:11, 25:42-47 And St. Paul says slavery is fine, too: Colossians, 3:22.

4. Sleep with my dad because I don't want the family line to die out. Genesis, 30:19

I can't remember more right now. But like I said, no one truly chooses to live this way anymore. Because we, as humans, are flexible in our beliefs and have re-thought some of this. Absolutes aren't flexible.

Polly

[Jessica]

I'm not saying homosexuality is the number one worst sin ever, or that I'm better because I'm not homosexual, but I do think it's somewhat disingenuous to try to interpret the Bible to be teaching that homosexuality is ok.

I feel the same way. ;) I personally don't feel that anyone can say that one sin is worse than another. I've surely screwed up plenty in this life, and if there is forgiveness for me, there can be for anyone!

Polly, I understand why people become so skeptical of scripture. The Bible tells us that ALL scripture is used for rebuking and teaching. There is a lot that we learn from scripture; we learn from the hardships that the people endured - some of them placed themselves in those situations. We see where people gave into free will, turned to sin (turned against God) and how that sin led to pain in their lives. The story of Sarah is a perfect example. She became so overwhelmed with envy, selfishness, and pride, that she became a very bitter and spiteful person. I think we all can agree that her behavior was very much contrary to how God would have called her to live and love. God has been perfectly working with the imperfect for a very long time. ;) He works through even the worst of the worst circumstances - that's how big He is - and He even worked through that situation! As for the Bible supporting slavery, well, honestly, that's nonsense. The Bible acknowledges slavery existed but it NEVER encouraged it. There are passages that could be interpreted that way, and to someone who doesn't dig deeper in the scriptures to truly understand them in context, it can seem like it's just a play on words. In reality though, there was a defined difference between slavery and say someone who was working off a debt or a crime. "Slaves" owned by Hebrews would have been treated humanely, not as property. I'm sure there were instances that a Hebrew would have lived contrary to that OT Law, but again, that leads us into our sinful nature and free will as people. When I look at the verses used by slave traders of the deep south, I find much contradiction in how they were using the word of God to justify their lifestyles.

I don't see any way that the word of God is made flexible in showing the humanity of God's people. Where sin is accounted for in the Bible, there is always a lesson behind it, a way that God worked even in those situations and was able to be glorified. A very constant in the Bible is the holiness of God. God HATES sin, He hates it. It is very clear in scripture what is sin, and what is not; what is the act of sinful people, and what is an act of God. Because God is Holy, He simply can not be surrounded by sin. That's ALL sin, sin from the lust of a married man toward another woman, sin of the fifteen year old who stole a car, sin of the murderer, sin of the liar, so on and so on. The beauty of it all though, the wonder of it all, is Christ Jesus. The Son of God who took that all away. There is always hope, there is always a way to be delivered. I know I'm getting preachy, and forgive me. It's just too much for me to keep to myself though, and keeping to myself is not what I've been called to do! God is just so much bigger than all of this, He really is! He is bigger than the debate of who knows the Bible better, He is bigger than the theologians who think they have it all down... I mean really, who thinks they know it all? I'm not bold enough to say that, I'm not foolish enough to think it, either! God is bigger than the lifestyle that is contrary to His word (insert lifestyle _____here_____ - those in bondage, those living in sin, those who are thieves, child molesters, rapists, murderers.) You name it - God is bigger than it. We all know the story, the story of redemption and forgiveness. Jesus paid it all. Quite simply, that's where it ends. Of course it comes with acknowledging your sinfulness, but it ends. It's gone. It's erased. How awesome is that?! :D

Anyway... sorry about that little rave/rant/what have you. I'm done now. :giggle Carry on...

[Jejune]

When I look at the verses used by slave traders of the deep south, I find much contradiction in how they were using the word of God to justify their lifestyles.

Jessica, this is neither here nor there, but I find the same thing in how people justify discrimination against homosexuals. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can claim to take the Bible as word for word true, or the circular logic that usually accompanies this explanation. The fact is, some people believe some things, some people believe other things, and I don't usually think the scholarship is there for much more than to back up preconceived ideas that are culturally inspired. Homosexuality is hardly emphasized in the Bible, and while I agree that it is disparaged when it comes up at all, it is not by any means a big issue. Slavery is certainly allowed and justified in the Bible, but as you say, there were rules. Those rules, however, allowed for slavery. Most slavery in history was not like the slavery we developed in the United States, so comparing it is always going to be dicey.

On topic, I do think the church has a right to refuse a funeral service to anyone, but I think they should do so at the outset, and I think refusing one for homosexuality after the fact smacks of bigotry rather than holiness. Plenty of people are buried without contrition for lives that actively hurt others.

[Kristen]

Everyone picks and chooses what behaviors they emulate in the Bible. For example I never met anyone who did all of (obviously, if circumstances warrant it) the following because the Bible says so:

1. Is widowed and then marries her husband's brother: Deuteronomy, 25:5

2. Had her husband sleep with another women because she is infertile: Genesis, 16:1

and then

3. After Sarah FINALLY gets pregnant, has her husband ditch the mother and the kid in the desert.

3. How to treat your slaves! Yes, the Bible says slavery is A-O-K! Remeber when slave owners in the American South used it to justify their owning slaves? It's my personal favorite-hey, you know if you accept good ole' Leviticus on homosexuality, than I'm assuming you accept all of it and feel that slavery is fine. Of course, except owing Jews as slaves. God said no. Everyone else is game. Leviticus, 19:20, 22:11, 25:42-47 And St. Paul says slavery is fine, too: Colossians, 3:22.

4. Sleep with my dad because I don't want the family line to die out. Genesis, 30:19

I can't remember more right now. But like I said, no one truly chooses to live this way anymore. Because we, as humans, are flexible in our beliefs and have re-thought some of this. Absolutes aren't flexible.

Polly

#1-Part of OT law, and I believe it applied only to that specific Israelite culture at the time.

#2-Sinful behavior on Abraham's part-he didn't patiently wait for God to fulfill the promise(more descendants than the stars in the sky)

#3-I see this as a problem resulting from the sinful behavior in #2, but I should read a commentary on that to understand it better.

#4-The issue of slavery is one that in which I am woefully understudied. I do know that a lot of the times when slavery is mentioned, indentured servanthood is meant.`

Paul never specifically condoned slavery-he just told bond-servants that were already in that position to obey their masters.

#4-see number one. I don't believe that this applies to us now, as I think it was part of the law that applied to the Israelites. I'm not picking and choosing-it's how I believe the law is to be properly interpreted.

If I said something like, "I believe that all the OT law is still binding." and then obeyed the laws about homosexuality, but not the other laws, then I'd be picking and choosing.

If I think, after careful studying, and after reading thoughts by people wiser than me, that the Bible requires something of me, then I do my utmost to obey it, even when it's hard or distasteful or unpopular, or not sensible to the world(i.e. forgiving my uncle who abused me, being kind to the guy who threw a phone at my sil in the midst of an argument, reporting all my income on my taxes). And while I fail at obeying it perfectly, you won't find me defending behavior that I think the Bible condemns(I yell at my children and lose my patience with them, but I will never say this pleases the Lord).

I am entirely inflexible in my beliefs, except for if someone wiser than me shows me that I've been interpreting the Bible incorrectly or have not been thinking logically(for instance, John Frame's article I read recently made me change my mind and now I think that it is sometimes an acceptable choice to abort to save a mother's life). Aside from situations where I've been corrected like that, I don't waver in what I believe.

[Lori]

I'm not saying homosexuality is the number one worst sin ever, or that I'm better because I'm not homosexual, but I do think it's somewhat disingenuous to try to interpret the Bible to be teaching that homosexuality is ok.

I would actually agree that the Bible itself doesn't teach that homosexuality is okay. I don't think it does. That's why I personally don't find scholarship on that issue very persuasive.

But, at the same time, I do think that the overriding message of the NT allows for Christians to believe that lifelong, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships are acceptable, and that people in such relationships can be fully included in the life of the church, just as I think the overriding message of the NT allows for Christians to believe that it is acceptable to ordain women, despite the fact that Paul seems to prohibit it. There are a lot of reasons for that. I do think that a lot of rules around sex and gender need to be examined very closely, to make sure that what was cultural and contextual isn't taken as a rule for all time. I also think that the issue of fruits plays into it. In my view, the fruit of the ordination of women has been very good, and I feel the same way about the fruit of fully including gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. It's hard to imagine a context where the fruit of idolatry or greed or murder would be good, but when the issue is one of including people who had previously been excluded then I think more often than not, inclusion is better than exclusion.

I don't think, personally, that ordaining women or accepting gay and lesbian people is something every church needs to do, because I can understand the reasons people might have for not approving of either, but I do think it's an acceptable (and, in cases where churches are being led by God to do so, right) choice to make for other churches.

[Jejune]

#1-Part of OT law, and I believe it applied only to that specific Israelite culture at the time.

Kristen, in the book In the Beginning, by Chaim Potok, the main character learns late in the book that his mother was his uncle's widow, and that, followed the command in the Bible, his father married her and bore children with her to fulfill the need to give his brother children. The boy, David, is named for this dead uncle/father. It's an excellent book and is set in the United States in the Depression and on through WWII. I doubt it's a common practice in Jewish circles, but it apparently has happened.

[Kristen]

Homosexuality is hardly emphasized in the Bible, and while I agree that it is disparaged when it comes up at all, it is not by any means a big issue.

I agree with you here. Contemporary Christians have made it into a larger issue than it is, and by doing so, we have largely made people disgusted with us. We have planks of adultery and falsehood and stealing and broken families and selfishness and wanton gluttony and poor stewardship(of money and of the creation)in our eyes, and all the while we are busy picking the sawdust of homosexuality out of other people's eyes. This is not our main calling and we are wasting valuable resources running after this thing that is not our main calling.

I'm not even sure that Christians are supposed to go about trying to get non-Christians to behave as Christians(although certainly, it is good to encourage righteous behavior). Even if we succeeded, I think we'd only have managed to create a bunch of white-washed sepulchers, because the heart is what matters. Outlawing homosexuality doesn't address the heart.

[Kristen]

Kristen, in the book In the Beginning, by Chaim Potok, the main character learns late in the book that his mother was his uncle's widow, and that, followed the command in the Bible, his father married her and bore children with her to fulfill the need to give his brother children. The boy, David, is named for this dead uncle/father. It's an excellent book and is set in the United States in the Depression and on through WWII. I doubt it's a common practice in Jewish circles, but it apparently has happened.

Oh yeah-I can see that if you were a Jew, you'd still be thinking you should obey this. I'm not a Jew, though, and so I'd imagine my take on OT law is far different than the Jewish take. I think Jesus came to fulfill the law, and I think that there are types of OT law that are very clearly done away with in the NT(for instance, God declared all foods clean when he appeared to Peter in the vision, and also, a lot of Hebrews is about how Jesus is our final sacrifice, and so we don't need to offer lambs and such anymore). Things like that wouldn't really resonate with a Jew, though. :p

I wonder-are Jews actually picking and choosing? Why do they not offer sacrifices and such anymore? or maybe that is a whole new thread! LOL

[Kristen]

I would actually agree that the Bible itself doesn't teach that homosexuality is okay. I don't think it does. That's why I personally don't find scholarship on that issue very persuasive.

That is somewhat relieving to me. :p I've heard debates and read websites and such that try to say that the Bible condones it, and I just have not been at all impressed. I half wondered if I felt that way because I'm fully convinced of the opposite view, so it is nice to hear that you think their scholarship is less than stellar also.

I disagree with the rest of your post, but I have to go make dinner. :giggle And it probably wouldn't do any good to debate it, because the way you interpret the Bible is very different from the way I interpret it.

[Lori]

I wonder-are Jews actually picking and choosing? Why do they not offer sacrifices and such anymore? or maybe that is a whole new thread! LOL

I don't know if this is the case anymore, but I know that, like 2,000 years ago, Jews had a practice of rabbis "binding and loosing," which referred, from what I understand, to what laws people had to obey and which they didn't. Each rabbi had a "yoke" which was the rules that they had "binded and loosed" for their followers. And some rabbis, like Hillel (and Jesus would fit into that, as well) had "easy yokes," in the sense that they "loosed" their followers from a lot of rules, regarding things like purity. Others, like the Shammai (I'm probably spelling that wrong) "bound" their followers to many rules. I get the sense, although I could be totally off-base here, that that is sort of where the Orthodox/Conservative/Reform divisions began.

I do know that, even at the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were pushing for a system where Torah study would replace Temple rituals, and once the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, that's pretty much what happened. But even before the Temple was destroyed, there was a big push away from the sacrificial system and towards personal study and devotion.

In terms of obeying Torah laws, I'm really not sure what the Jewish view on the laws as written in the Torah are. I know a list of the rules observant Jews were to follow was developed in oral form, and was put into writing pretty late in the development of Judaism (200 BC, I think). But whether that contained all the Mosaic laws, or just some of them, or added some, I don't know. Orthodox Jews today still observe the laws around food and food preparation and the sabbath but they don't, as far as I know, generally observe the laws around things like menstruation or disease, and I'm not sure at what point it was decided which laws would continue to be observed and which wouldn't. I know the idea is that the law isn't a set of requirements that earn you favor with God, but rather a set of practices that set them apart as God's chosen people, and is supposed to be a gift rather than a requirement, so maybe that gives Jews the freedom to get rid of laws that come to be seen as damaging (like those about the treatment of diseased people).

[Lori]

I half wondered if I felt that way because I'm fully convinced of the opposite view, so it is nice to hear that you think their scholarship is less than stellar also.

I understand the intention behind it, and I do respect what people are trying to do, but, yeah, I think most of it is bad scholarship. A lot of it seems to revolve around figuring out what precisely Paul meant by a given word, and we just can't know that. You can find one usage somewhere in the body of Greek literature that agrees with the view you have, and then ascribe that usage to Paul, but I don't think that's a very good way to do scholarship. Paul might have been talking about temple prostitution in a given verse rather than rather than homosexuality as we understand it today but, personally, given the cultural and time he lived in, I find it hard to believe that Paul would not have felt that homosexuality fell under the umbrella of "sexual immorality."

I guess I just think it's a bad way to go about things because 1) it's not providing compelling enough readings to convince literalists of intepreting Paul a new way and 2) most of the mainline denominations where this is an issue don't interpret the Bible literally, anyway. I think the issue in mainline churches is less what Paul's words meant either way, and more about what authority his teachings on the issue should have in the contemporary church. I don't think word studies really help a whole lot with that.

[Jeri]

I wonder-are Jews actually picking and choosing? Why do they not offer sacrifices and such anymore? or maybe that is a whole new thread! LOL

I can actually answer this!

Sacrifices can only be made at the Temple, which was destroyed a couple thousand years ago. Many Jewish people believe that when the Messiah comes, a new consecrated place will be reserved for sacrifice.

[Kristen]

Ah, thank you, Jeri! I wondered if it had something to do with that.

I suppose they're not at all worried about their sins not being atoned for at the moment? I think that would worry me if I were a Jew!

[Jejune]

Kristen, here's Wikipedia's brief summary of present day messianic beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah#Present-day_positions) in different Jewish sects.

Many Jews no longer await the coming of a literal human Messiah. Atonement for sins is not the way it is in Christian doctrine in Judaism, and there's no fear of hell, so it's a different kettle of fish than Christianity.

[Kristen]

Ah, ok. I had no idea there were so many different sects of Judaism. :p

Thanks!

[Lori]

Atonement for sins is not the way it is in Christian doctrine in Judaism, and there's no fear of hell, so it's a different kettle of fish than Christianity.

I've been reading NT Wright lately, and while there are a number of things I disagree with him on (what stance the church should have on homosexuality being the main one, actually), he does a really good job of describing the variety of early Jewish beliefs and making them accessible. We were also talking about Jewish ideas of salvation at the Bible study at my church last week.

At church, we were talking about how, in Judaism, salvation is communal, not individual. God's covenant is with Israel, and God's redemption is for Israel (and, through Israel, the entire world). You can't separate the two. An individual atones not so that their individual soul will be saved, but so that they can uphold their end of the covenant and be a participant in God's salvation of Israel.

And, while I don't know if this still characterizes Jewish thought, Wright talks about how the Jewish ideas of "the present age" and "the age to come" have been sort of translated into Christian thought to mean "the world" and "heaven" or "this life" and "the afterlife," but that's not what they mean in Judaism. Many Jews did believe that there would be redemption in the age to come, but that didn't mean in heaven. The present age was the time in history, which we are living in, where God's purposes were thwarted, and the age to come would be the time when God's purposes were fulfilled. So "eternal life," in a Jewish context, really means "life in the age to come," or being a participant in bringing about God's purposes. Some Jews did believe that the "righteous" (those who followed the law) would be resurrected in the age to come--they would be given either new bodies or remade bodies and live without death on this earth--but the fate of those who weren't righteous was simply death. They wouldn't be resurrected, but they wouldn't be punished, either. But that wasn't a belief shared by everybody.