• About me
  • Bible Translations

Exploring the Well

Wandering the savage garden...

The Church and Gay Marriage

Posted on February 19, 2015 Written by savage Leave a Comment

Matt Moore posted a new essay, “Rob Bell, Oprah Winfrey & Other People That Don’t Speak On Behalf Of The True Church” on Feb 19, 2015, and it got me thinking.

It’s a response to “Former Megachurch Pastor Rob Bell Tells Oprah the Church Is ‘Moments Away’ From Embracing Gay Marriage.”

From the article:

Former Mars Hill Bible Church pastor and best-selling author Rob Bell told media mogul Oprah Winfrey on Sunday that the American church is “moments away” from embracing gay marriage and thinks “it’s inevitable.”

Matt Moore said this:

But I just want to assure you guys of something, because I surprisingly haven’t seen anyone else say it yet: Christ’s Church is not on the verge of embracing gay marriage, and it never will be.

I agree with both statements. I agree with both statements even beyond the obvious irony – Matt refers to “Christ’s Church” and Bell refers to “the American church,” as if they’re different entities – and I suppose in many ways they are. One can easily be a member of an American church and not be part of Christ’s church.

The problem, though, comes in that I don’t think the usage of different terms actually changes anything. I think you can say, with full honesty (and biblical integrity) that the church will change how it sees gay marriage.

The question comes of how and why (and what that means), because I don’t think that it will or should happen the way Rob Bell imagines. Nor do I think, with all respect, that Mr. Moore is entirely right.

What does ’embrace’ mean?

It figures that Rob Bell would focus on love, and only love, as the central expression – this is a guy who decided there’s no way a loving God could actually separate Himself from anything. Never mind that such a concept invalidates the idea of God in the first place… if God is unable to separate Himself from something out of pure love, then he’s a pantheist, and he gets to stop yapping about what the Church is and is not, because he doesn’t know, what with his effectively not being a part of it.

I think Rob Bell imagines that “embracing gay marriage” means that men who are married to other men (and women who are married to other women) will be leaders in the church, and that the church will stop seeing a difference between heterosexual love and homosexual love. The church’s biblical stance on love will change such that love, itself, is the goal, and the expression and center of that love is not relevant.

I don’t think so.

I think that what “embracing gay marriage” will mean is that the church will open its doors to gay couples such that they are accepted as sinners in need of a Redeemer… just like heterosexual couples, or adulterers, or smokers, or liars, or anyone else.

Right now, it’s far easier to enter a church as an adulterous partner than it is to enter the church as a homosexual. An adulterer is chastised; a homosexual is excommunicated.

The responses aren’t equivalent.

They should be.

Both sins are sins; there’s not really a negotiating boundary for sin, you know? It is what it is – acting outside of the Will of God. God’s given us a clear guideline by which we can judge what He wants in us.

Ah, but there’s the problem, isn’t it?

What about all the words against homosexuality?

Paul – the apostle, the guy who wrote a lot of the B’rit Hadashah, the New Testament, maybe you’ve heard of him – wrote a lot of words about homosexuality. He wasn’t exactly unclear about it – to the contrary, he blasted homosexuality pretty severely.

He did it enough that I think we can trace a lot of the Christian mindset towards homosexuals to his writings. We’re acting on what Paul wrote.

How can that be bad?

Well, as with so many other things, it’s not – but it’s misunderstood, I think.

Paul was a Jew. He wrote like a Jew, he thought like a Jew, he communicated like a Jew.

That means he wrote Eastern thoughts with Western words. That makes a lot of the harsher things he said a lot less harsh – because Eastern identity isn’t the same as Western identity.

In Western thought, a thing is itself. A is A, to quote Aristotle’s law of identity. I am me.

“I am you, and what I see is me” is a lyric from Pink Floyd’s “Echoes,” off of “Meddle.”

In Eastern thought, a thing can be described as itself. A is like A. I am you, and what I see is me.

Eastern thought is not axiomatic, is not geometric proof. Eastern thought is poetry. Saying a thing means there’s force behind the idea, but very few such ideas are purely axiomatic. (They exist; the Sh’ma is an example.) I’d suggest that Paul’s endorsement of forgiveness for everyone who accepts Christ means Paul’s rather forceful damnation of people who’ve sinned in particular ways has been mitigated somewhat – it’s poetry, very effective poetry, but it’s not law.

Does that mean that homosexuality, then, is able to be blessed in the biblical sense?

No. Paul’s condemnation was poetic in nature, expressed in such a way that it was not axiomatic. However, the Torah doesn’t describe it as anything other than a sin, and thus it is: homosexual acts are sinful. Saying otherwise, or redefining the Bible such that it no longer says what it says, is incorrect.

So what does it mean?

As I said, I think both Rob Bell and Matt Moore are wrong – and Rob Bell’s more wrong than Matt Moore is.

We accept adulterers in the church, including marriages built on adultery; in the end, it all works out in God’s plan. We accept liars. We can accept murderers, drug dealers, all kinds of people – God’s love is greater than any sin they could imagine. Nobody is beyond redemption while they’re alive.

Why would homosexuality be any different? Why would homosexual marriage be any different? I don’t see any reason why a church would reject a homosexual couple that truly wanted the will of God in their lives.

That doesn’t mean the church celebrates the matrimony – I don’t think embracing the sinner means endorsing the sin. A church can welcome a man who’s killed another – a murderer – while not saying “Hey, cool, headshot!” A church can accept a married couple of the same gender while not saying “we need to get us some of that!”

That is the “embracing” I can envision and endorse – the kind of understanding that widens the reach of Christ’s Church, as opposed to closing its doors to people who aren’t good enough.

Filed Under: Lifestyle Tagged With: gay marriage, homosexuality, homosexuals, matt moore, paul, reason, rob bell

Down with Religion?

Posted on February 9, 2015 Written by savage Leave a Comment

Right now there are lots and lots of posts online about how religion is unnecessary for being a good person — too many posts to actually include, actually.

It’s interesting to see, as a defense mechanism.

It indicates a value in being a “good person,” while offering a definition of what being “good” means – often offering empathy, independent thought, tolerance, and openness as metrics – while suggesting that religion tends to restrain these very characteristics.

I can totally agree. Religion of all stripes, Christian and otherwise, tends to be exclusive. You’re either in or you’re out, and that makes it into a status rather than a condition. It becomes external rather than internal.

For myself, I have no problem with discarding religion.

I don’t think God has a lot of problem with it, either.

I was saved while contemplating Amos 5:21, which says:

[21] “I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
[22] Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the peace offerings of your fattened animals,
I will not look upon them.
[23] Take away from me the noise of your songs;
to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
[24] But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

(Amos 5:21-24 ESV)

It struck me that the trappings of religion – the feasts, the assemblies, the offerings – all served as replacements for actual ethics, for completeness. Look at Amos 5:24! That verse hit me like a ton of bricks – I sat in the dark, the glow of a single desk lamp facing my Bible – a Scofield KJV, of all things, because that’s what I had handy – looking out my window, stunned by the majesty and glory of a God whom I’d hidden from myself, a God whose light and love reached my heart and broke down my shields and anger at one stroke.

I have no problem with religion – but I, too, despise how it creates divisions among those who’d use it as a mark.

I don’t see how religion actually defines whether God exists or not. He does. Our ability to value ethical behavior in and of itself serves as a proof that God serves as a the common thread for mankind, and that people use it as proof to the contrary is more proof of the majesty and glory of God.

Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream – encompassing, surrounding, comforting, and directing.

Filed Under: Bible Study, Lifestyle Tagged With: amos, ethics, religion

Specific Sin

Posted on April 10, 2014 Written by savage Leave a Comment

A person I know recently did something that turned out to be pretty tragic for his family. I’m not going to go into the specific nature of the event, but let’s say it was rooted in dishonesty – perhaps investing in the stock market, using money he and his wife had earmarked for their children, or something of that nature.

I’d like to wander through the progression of realizations about the event. He approves; I’m not using any names, and I’m not describing the actual act he committed – although the sin is fair game.

Look, the stock market thing is contrived. It wasn’t a stock market deal. It was something similar; slightly more severe and relevant, but nothing like an affair or anything like that. He didn’t steal from anyone else, and no-one was harmed. The stock market is used as an analog to the actual issue, and it doesn’t quite map perfectly.

The circumstances: his deed was revealed, fairly clearly. Not completely. The act was not directly harmful – in fact, using the stock market example above, he might have broken even or even made some money. The problem was that the act took from his family – the money was used and not immediately accessible when it was desired – and he was not honest with his wife about the use of the money.

He admitted his fault when pressed about it by his wife. However, her trust was broken. He’s got to deal with that, and it’ll take him some time because he’s had issues like this before. This isn’t his first rodeo with this particular problem.

But why? How does he go from a decent fellow, to doing something like this – which turns out to be far more poisonous than it otherwise might be?

Here’s his thought process, as I understand it.

His first act was denial; he denied his sin to his wife, directly. “Nope, didn’t have any chocolate, not me, why would you think that?” — with chocolate smeared on his hands and face.

After he got over that — “Well, okay, maybe I did have some chocolate” — he denied it again. To himself.

In fact, my father did the exact same thing, when it comes down to it – so I was familiar with the general idea.

That second denial was the interesting bit about the whole problem. He said that he thought his wife was overreacting; okay, the trust issue was sincere, but really? Nobody was hurt, they didn’t lose any money, and no police were involved. In a lot of peoples’ eyes, it would have been nothing – people do this sort of thing all the time, and it’s fine. No harm, no foul.

But as he thought further about it, he realized how wrong he was. He was following a sort of Egyptian Book of the Dead recital: “I have not murdered; I have not stolen; I have not coveted; I have not cursed the Name; I have borne false witness, but that is the extent of my sin.”

But he was wrong.

For all intents and purposes, he did murder, he did steal, he did covet, he did profane the Name. He sinned; James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Failure in one point brings the weight of all of it – and Romans 6:23 says that the weight is death, eternal separation from God.

That’s why we need Jesus; if sins were not equal when it came to our salvific relationship with God, then we might not need Jesus at all – maybe we’d just commit tiny little sins here and there, and we wouldn’t quite get the sin-o-meter to read “unsaved.” So we’d sort of slide into heaven.

But that’s not the way it works. Sin is sin; James says clearly that if we sin in any point, we are committed to Hell in ourselves; Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Now, some would argue that there are greater and lesser sins. In a way, they’re right. Paul often refers to sexual sins as being more awful than others; the Torah also refers to “high sins” and “low sins,” such that the restitution for trespass is different. (One sin might lead to the sacrifice of a dove; another, a ram; another, a bull. Different “levels of sin,” if you like.)

However, we have to remember that there are (at least) two perspectives at work here. one is God’s perspective: how does He see sin? The other is our perspective: how do we see the sin?

A “high” and “low” sin is our perspective. If we see limited actual harm in an act, that’s a “low sin,” if you like. That’s sort of like a misdemeanor versus a felony; stealing $15 might be a misdemeanor, but stealing $15,000 is a felony.

God, however, sees either “sin” or “no sin,” and therefore all sin is “high sin.” You either trespass or you don’t. How far you trespass isn’t important; it’s like being a little bit pregnant.

I’m still using the stock market example.

So this fellow had sinned, and all sins are grievous. But he still didn’t actually murder, or steal, did he? After all, it was his money. His sin might be equivalent, according to James 2:10, but not so much according to other verses, right?

Well, the core realization he had was that the “not so much” was incorrect.

He did murder. He did steal. Perhaps it was abstract – he “murdered” his wife’s trust in him, but Jesus said that one who sinned in his heart has committed the deed.

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28 ESV)

His denial was part of that: by saying “But it really wasn’t that bad,” he diminishes the actual sin. He demeans his wife’s feelings, and the impact his acts had on his family.

So… what now? He’s sinned. He’s guilty. He’s wrestling with that guilt, which is part of how I know about it; he’s struggling to give his guilt to God.

The reason is the impact it has on his life; he said he feels like he needs to hold on to that guilt in part as a natural consequence of his action. The truth is, his sin is forgotten as soon as he repents and gives it to God – but at the same time, for us, his sin might never go away, because the consequences of that sin leave a scar that may or may not heal, in God’s time and Will.

It’s a tough problem, and he’ll have to pray about it, as I will pray for him.

Filed Under: Bible Study, Lifestyle

The Challenge of the Pardes

Posted on July 24, 2013 Written by savage Leave a Comment

There are reactions we’re all called to make, in every occurrence in our lives. Those reactions determine, and are determined by, who we are, and tell us much of what we are – and, thankfully, we have some measure of control and determination.

The Talmud, in the Mishnah, refers to the legend of the Pardes. In this, four eminent rabbis traveled to Paradise, and encountered Holiness there.

They had four different reactions: one went insane, one lost his faith, one died, and one came and went in peace.

These reactions mirror ours. When we are presented with… anything, a situation, a question, an experience, we reflect that experience and channel it in some variations of these.

Insanity

When we integrate the experience without context or understanding, we are “mad,” in a way. Imagine those who think the Easter Bunny is somehow a canonical Christian image, or that Santa Claus hung around with Jesus. Imagine those who can’t tolerate that Jesus is the Way and the Life, and think that a good Buddhist is as deserving of Heaven as a good Christian.

“Orthodox” here means “biblical,” and is not indicative of any association with a specific church or organization.

(Meanwhile, orthodox theology says that none of us deserve Heaven, period, but are considered co-heirs with Christ through acceptance of His death on the Cross in our stead [Romans 8:12-17]. Anyone who refuses that sacrifice, no matter how wonderful a person they are, is unsaved.)

Death

We might also endure an experience, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it. We become static, unchanging, fixed in position. This lack of growth is “dying,” in a sense.

Loss of Faith

When we reject an experience and its implications of the glory of God, we lose our faith… maybe not literally or wholly, but we might simply become jaded, or refuse to acknowledge God’s role in that experience. (Or, of course, we might literally lose faith entirely.)

The rabbi who lost faith was Elisha ben Abuyah, and he’s referred to as Acher, אחר, “the other.”

While accounts are not mechanically literal (and therefore we don’t know for sure), it seems he rejected the idea of the afterlife; one story has it that he saw a child do a good deed, and lose his life, while a man who sinned suffered no consequences.

He then became a self-declared outsider, one who rejected the teachings that he himself possessed.

It’s tragic, really, to think about.

Peace

The rabbi who “survived,” Rabbi Akiva, “came in peace and went in peace.” This suggests that he was the only one who went to the Orchard knowing who and what he was, and let that inform his actions and reactions. He preserved his faith, he extended his experience of the Holy, he grew.


The Holocaust – referring to the Nazi extermination of groups such as Jews, Gypsies, and other such ethnicities and subcultures – stands alongside the Exodus and the destruction of the Second Temple in Jewish life as hallmark events. (There are more, but for me, these are the three most impactful.)

Jews had a chance to react to the Holocaust, after its ending — and those reactions mirrored the reactions of the rabbis to the Pardes. Some Jews lost faith, rejecting God; some Jews went mad, embracing hatred. Many, many, many Jews obviously died. Some endured, retaining their faith and their essential character despite the horror.

This is me. This is us. This is everyone, to every experience.

Through Christ, we are able to achieve peace, and with His grace and mercy, we are able to go in peace, if we listen to Him and not to the chaos of our own hearts in our agonies and ecstasies.

And our reactions can tell us who we are in Him, too; if we have not His peace, then we know what we lack. We know then that we must attempt to invite Him to be nearer to us, to reach out for His Hand in our lives.

Have peace.

Filed Under: Bible Study, Lifestyle Tagged With: holocaust, pardes, peace

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • …
  • 18
  • Next Page »

Tags

500words action apologetics art assyria behavior church cnn covenant ethics exegesis faith forgiveness gaza grind history homosexuality homosexuals inspiration israel jesus jonah law love music nehemiah paul persistence philippians power prayer pride proverbs reason redemption romans samuel self-control selfishness shema sin trump truth war writing

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in