Modern Day Pharisees

[Valerie]

I invited you to share before but you didn’t seem interested in sharing your own experience.

On the one side:

I think that people are distorting Scripture with all kinds of fancy arguments to justify gay marriage. I don't think we can ditch what the Bible teaches about gay sex or about creation as male and female without basically abandoning Scripture as a reliable guide for sexual ethics entirely. Those Scriptures are clear. I suspect the denomination I am in will have a significant split in the coming year over this issue. There are people who are angry at me for clearly expressing what Scripture teaches.

On the other side:

The LGBTQ people in my broader family have experienced real hate and contempt at times. I have seen it, and I cannot call it anything else. So have some LGBTQ people in my denomination. Sometimes from "fine religious" people. So when LGBTQ people say they have experienced these things, I believe them. I listen. I care. Sometimes they acknowledge that, telling me that I'm not a hater like some other people, and they sense that I love them. Sometimes they tell me that I can't really love them unless I accept "who they really are". Sometimes they kind of tell me both. They are confused that I seem to care but don't agree with them.

About a year ago:

When I gave a sermon on the woman caught in adultery, there was a young guest in the church who later confided to me, in confidentiality, that she is lesbian, and she felt safe telling me that. She asked if our church would welcome her. I told her we would welcome her, and that I think the love in our church is real, but we might not agree with her. About a month later, she found another church that agreed with her and left. I grieve about that kind of thing. I wish I knew how to do better.

I would be interested in knowing what the hate you have seen consisted of.

Do you think the LGBTQ people who say they have experienced hate would say that what Paul says in Romans 1 is hateful? Are the LGBTQ people in your broader family loving and accepting of Christians in general?

The reason I ask is because my gay uncle has said some very hurtful things to some of his siblings, including his twin sister, about their opposition to his lifestyle. I'm not convinced we should accept the definition of hate that active proponents of these lifestyles use against Christians who oppose their views. My aunts and uncles are not hateful people.

This is not to say that the biblical definitions of hate have never been used by Christians against them.

I would like to hear examples of what that kind of hate looks like too. I remember when Aids was first connected with the gay lifestyle, Christians were conveying this as consequences, God's judgement. Also, when Gay Pride parades started across the nation, there would be Christians showing up with Scriptural poster boards of warning. (Similarly at abortion clinics) so i can see how this would come across as hatred. I think anytime Scriptures are shared about it, it is seen as hatred. I think Christians have a legitimate concern- it is a growing paraded sin. For example, everyone says sin is sin so why do we point this one out. I did not see my town put up flags promoting lying, cheating, murder, adultery. But they took God's rainbow and turned it into a symbol of that which He called an abomination. Obviously, we should be concerned because sexual sins lead to the most depravity & make a mockery of God's creation & design-

[temporal1]

I would like to hear examples of what that kind of hate looks like too.

I remember when Aids was first connected with the gay lifestyle, Christians were conveying this as consequences, God's judgement. Also, when Gay Pride parades started across the nation, there would be Christians showing up with Scriptural poster boards of warning.

(Similarly at abortion clinics) so i can see how this would come across as hatred.
I think anytime Scriptures are shared about it, it is seen as hatred.

I think Christians have a legitimate concern- it is a growing paraded sin.
For example, everyone says sin is sin so why do we point this one out.
I did not see my town put up flags promoting line, cheating, murder, adultery.

But they took God's rainbow and turned it into a symbol of that which he called an abomination. Obviously, we should be concerned because sexual sins lead to the most depravity & make a mockery of God's creation & design-

Interesting. i don’t recall Christians speaking up about AIDS being a consequence of sin, but it is, isn’t it?
A very direct consequence, nearly 100% preventable.

1980’s, i remember an understandable period of fear. bath houses shut down. a new interest in “monogamy,” for self-preservation.

In history, mankind often responded to catastrophic events with humility, and desire to “do better” in God’s sight, when given grace of life. Following the Black Plague, there was gratitude to have been spared ..

Was HIV AIDS the first catastrophe where pride and doubling-down, not humility, were the official response?
HIV AIDS is nearly 100% preventable. But, no. Promotion, celebration, not prevention. Young males are most vulnerable.
i can’t imagine the horror of a life long diagnosis - at the very beginning of maturity. For those afflicted and their loved ones.

This is a kindness???!! Not in my mind.

[Bootstrap]

Would it be fair to say that the Pharisees did not see themselves as not obeying some of God's laws directly because they had come up with some imaginative workarounds that allowed them to more or less seem to obey the letter but miss out completely on the spirit of the law?

Like ignoring justice, mercy, and faithfulness while dong all kinds of religious observances:

Matthew 23:23: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

Or telling people to devote their money to supporting ministries instead of caring for their parents:

Matthew 15:3-6:
"Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death." But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.'"

Mark 7:9-13:
"And he continued, 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, "Honor your father and mother," and, "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death." But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.'"

[Bootstrap]

As Gary points out, I don't really grasp conservative Anabaptist thinking on worldliness and sin. I'm not sure how to relate "standards" to "God's laws" - in my context, we talk about "simple obedience to Scripture", we do not talk about standards. It's a foreign concept to me.

• Is it possible for a person to follow very strict standards but still fall short on God's laws?
• Is it possible for someone who follows Gods laws to still fall short on standards?
• Is a group with stricter standards following God's laws better than a group with less strict standards?
• Are the people who follow the same standards equally holy?
• Are there standards for things like gossip and judgmentalism and the other kinds of sins that Pharisees tended to do?

Here, I think, is where some of the misunderstandings and antagonism arise.
The Pharisees had, I believe, in our language come up with some "practical applications" defining how certain laws were to be lived out. The question arises, what is the possible perceived parallel between the Pharisees' applications that were based on OT Scripture and conservative Anabaptist "standards" based on NT Scripture?

I have never been part of a conservative Anabaptist congregation, so let me focus on Pharisees.

The Pharisees wanted to "build a hedge" around the law, rules and regulations and additional practices that made up the bulk of everyday life. If the Law of Moses said they should not eat a calf boiled in its mother's milk, the Pharisees said that you should not have meat and milk together at all. Everything was spelled out in a rich set of rules that built a lifestyle.

But they did not "build a hedge" around loving your neighbor, mercy, justice, compassion, and the like. And in some ways, the rich set of rules the Pharisees built became a substitute for Scripture itself, the way that most people lived it out. They clearly had zeal, but here's what Paul said about that zeal:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

So I think it's important that the religious lifestyles and rules we follow stay close to the heart of Scripture. I think that is relevant to all Christians, in any tradition. It's easy to get lost in being religious. In any religious tradition.

I don't know how that plays out for conservative Anabaptists. It is definitely an issue for Mennonites who are not plain.

[Bootstrap]

On the one side:

I think that people are distorting Scripture with all kinds of fancy arguments to justify gay marriage. I don't think we can ditch what the Bible teaches about gay sex or about creation as male and female without basically abandoning Scripture as a reliable guide for sexual ethics entirely. Those Scriptures are clear. I suspect the denomination I am in will have a significant split in the coming year over this issue. There are people who are angry at me for clearly expressing what Scripture teaches.

On the other side:

The LGBTQ people in my broader family have experienced real hate and contempt at times. I have seen it, and I cannot call it anything else. So have some LGBTQ people in my denomination. Sometimes from "fine religious" people. So when LGBTQ people say they have experienced these things, I believe them. I listen. I care. Sometimes they acknowledge that, telling me that I'm not a hater like some other people, and they sense that I love them. Sometimes they tell me that I can't really love them unless I accept "who they really are". Sometimes they kind of tell me both. They are confused that I seem to care but don't agree with them.

About a year ago:

When I gave a sermon on the woman caught in adultery, there was a young guest in the church who later confided to me, in confidentiality, that she is lesbian, and she felt safe telling me that. She asked if our church would welcome her. I told her we would welcome her, and that I think the love in our church is real, but we might not agree with her. About a month later, she found another church that agreed with her and left. I grieve about that kind of thing. I wish I knew how to do better.

I think it can work both ways though and that is the "push" of the LGBTQ community to parade it and when the term "gay pride" is associated with the lifestyle, how would Jesus feel about this?

Also, i have listened to former gays testimonies that encourage us to not be so passive about the sin. It seems to me when people spend time around Jesus it did not take them long to either want to repent of their sin and follow him, or avoid him because he exposed their darkness.

If we approach sinners the way Jesus did, the sinners who would repent in his presence will repent in our presence. I think we sometimes repel sinners who would have been drawn to Jesus. I think we sometimes attract Pharisees who would have wanted to kill Jesus because of the way he treated sinners and outcasts.

Rosario Butterfield puts it this way:

https://rosariabutterfield.com/new-blog ... e-b-anyway

Gay Christianity was born out of desperation. People like me—people who have had in the past or who currently have deep, abiding and/or long-lasting sexual desires for members of our own gender—had found no place in the broad evangelical church. Instead, these churches typically say homosexuality is a behavior to be modified through parachurch ex-gay ministries. The church condemned such feelings as bad choices and condemned the people (like me) who experienced these feelings as abominations, falsely calling homosexual desires a willful choice.

She says that this kind of condemnation is what led to Gay Christianity and the theology behind it. I suspect she is right.

I agree that we should not be passive about the sin, but that means we need to be active in teaching the biblical model of gender and sexuality, building support networks for people with same sex attraction, and amplifying voices like Rosario Butterfield's.

I would like to see more visible support networks for Christians battling with same sex attraction. I would like to see them have the same kind of support from the rest of us that people have when they struggle with other sins. An awful lot of churches on all sides of these issues would be very uncomfortable with that. But I think that's the Christlike way.

[Soloist]

If we approach sinners the way Jesus did, the sinners who would repent in his presence will repent in our presence. I think we sometimes repel sinners who would have been drawn to Jesus. I think we sometimes attract Pharisees who would have wanted to kill Jesus because of the way he treated sinners and outcasts.

I don’t think it would work like that unless God also gave us prophetic understanding of the person.
I agree with the second part and your last part.

Gay Christianity was born out of desperation. People like me—people who have had in the past or who currently have deep, abiding and/or long-lasting sexual desires for members of our own gender—had found no place in the broad evangelical church. Instead, these churches typically say homosexuality is a behavior to be modified through parachurch ex-gay ministries. The church condemned such feelings as bad choices and condemned the people (like me) who experienced these feelings as abominations, falsely calling homosexual desires a willful choice.

I would say acting on homosexual desire is the choice.
I would say that it is possible to modify choices and with enough time denying the flesh, the desire will reduce, if not go away. Just like with any other temptation, the first thought may not be sin, but choosing to feed and dwell on those thoughts would be.

I agree that we should not be passive about the sin, but that means we need to be active in teaching the biblical model of gender and sexuality, building support networks for people with same sex attraction, and amplifying voices like Rosario Butterfield's.

I see no need to amplify her voice. Are we building support networks for adulterers? I don’t object to support groups, but the desire isn’t different from any sexual sin’s temptation.

I would like to see more visible support networks for Christians battling with same sex attraction. I would like to see them have the same kind of support from the rest of us that people have when they struggle with other sins. An awful lot of churches on all sides of these issues would be very uncomfortable with that. But I think that's the Christlike way.

I’ve seen it, it doesn’t seem very common. Sexual sin seems to be treated in levels
Pornography
Adultery
Homosexuality
Transgenderism
Pedophilia

Accordingly, we see rules or laws advocated for based on this spectrum. They are all sexual desire that needs to be put down daily at the cross and I don’t think God will judge any people practicing these things as innocent.
I’ve seen more willingness to with a porn addict and not excommunicate them whereas adultery is an automatic excommunication. I do admit it seems like Mennonites have serious problems dealing with homosexuality and I think it disgusts many and creates a barrier.
I’ve also seen at least two conservative churches working with transgenders, one was a Nationwide church and from my perspective, they seemed to genuinely care and were trying to reach out.
I’ve also known of a pedophile who was converted while in prison who started attending (with supervision) and died a faithful Christian in his 70s. He always requested supervision not be relaxed, whereas perhaps some of them might have not. That is a mark of a repentant, never giving opportunity to the flesh.

[temporal1]

^^Soloist posted, this is not in reference to his post.

(fwiw, where does the Holy Spirit, “all credit goes to God”) come into this discussion?
Ultimately, it’s not what any of us do or say that makes a difference, it’s what the Holy Spirit does with what we’ve done or said.

.. Mennonites by and large seek to be a faithful model of the community of the Spirit based on a personal knowledge of Christ.
At the Eighth Mennonite World Conference (1967), gathered around the theme "The Witness of the Holy Spirit," John B. Toews stated that correct theology, even Anabaptist theology, without experiential knowledge of Christ through the Holy Spirit leaves the Church impotent.

"The life of a dynamic church is in Christ through the Holy Spirit" (Witness of the Holy Spirit, 59).

GAMEO / https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Holy_spirit

(In my understanding) the Holy Spirit determines outcomes. We may never know any particular outcome, esp not in the moment.
In any given moment, any person may appear to accept or reject what we are saying! Either could be false.
(i think) it’s a mistake to expect or presume anything. The Holy Spirit works in its own way, in its own time.

The person who LOATHES what they hear in the moment, may one day be touched+grateful for that same moment.

We are very small and very limited. “The job” is to share Truth, the Holy Spirit takes it from there. NOT US.

In the case of meeting a prostitute (P.18) interacting, but not wholly adopting her into your everyday life, none of us can know how she may have been touched by that interaction. The Holy Spirit has no limitations. Prayers for the Spirit to work within her, to protect her and guide her, are important. Letting her know the Spirit is in her, and you are praying for her, is important (if sincere).

We are God’s created spiritual and physical beings. We are far more than what we appear to be. Even the prostitute.
Yes, she should know, the Holy Spirit is in you, loving you, protecting you, wanting to guide you. Look upward!

(this is my understanding of many years of my life) i referenced GAMEO and see no conflict.
i’m not speaking for anyone else.

This forum is blessed with a number of experienced, dedicated, inspired pastors. They rarely, if ever, speak of themselves, their sermons, their work, here. So much of what is “said” is not stated in direct words. God knows hearts. Every one.

Pray for everyday guidance from the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised this help for enduring earthly life.

[Sudsy]

An example to me is when we act like a religious snob we are acting like the Pharisees that Jesus talked about. Text is Luke 18:9-14. A holier-than-thou attitude. Those 'who had great confidence in their own righteousness and scorned everyone else' (NLT verse 9).

And I mean 'we' not anyone specifically.

I hear this a lot from people who don't go to church- when they recognize there are people that are really wanting to live their lives to please the Lord, they accuse them of being holier than thou. For example if you don't want to join in on a conversation that you know wouldn't please the lord, so you remain silent. Is that an example of being holier than now? Is deciding to wear clothes that you feel the more pleasing to the Lord and spending a lot of money on fashion and more revealing clothing with UBC as trying to convey a holier than thou attitude instead of that your relationship with the Lord has perhaps brought you to a point where you realized your desire to please him is more important than pleasing those in the world? Would that be an example of coming across as holier than now?

Been busy and notice I hadn't responded to this post. My thoughts -

A 'holier-than-thou' attitude is not when a Christian lives by their personal convictions unto the Lord. But as was pointed out to the Pharisees, they did these things (praying out in public, showing off in their giving, wearing their special clothes, etc) to be seen of men and looked down upon those who did not live as they lived. Jesus exposed the condition of their hearts.

When a Christian tries to force their convictions on other believers and/or have a superior attitude toward other Christians in how they are serving the Lord, then I think they are acting like the Pharisees in Jesus day.

I remember in my early Pentecostal years when some Christians would come to church and put on a certain image of being holy by their smiles and dress and involvements in church and they looked down on others that didn't live up to their convictions. But then you hear from their children how they were at home and this 'holier-than-thou' church presentation of themselves was just a 'put on' of how righeous they were. Jesus knows the heart and is never fooled by these phony acts of holiness.

[Valerie]

An example to me is when we act like a religious snob we are acting like the Pharisees that Jesus talked about. Text is Luke 18:9-14. A holier-than-thou attitude. Those 'who had great confidence in their own righteousness and scorned everyone else' (NLT verse 9).

And I mean 'we' not anyone specifically.

I hear this a lot from people who don't go to church- when they recognize there are people that are really wanting to live their lives to please the Lord, they accuse them of being holier than thou. For example if you don't want to join in on a conversation that you know wouldn't please the lord, so you remain silent. Is that an example of being holier than now? Is deciding to wear clothes that you feel the more pleasing to the Lord and spending a lot of money on fashion and more revealing clothing with UBC as trying to convey a holier than thou attitude instead of that your relationship with the Lord has perhaps brought you to a point where you realized your desire to please him is more important than pleasing those in the world? Would that be an example of coming across as holier than now?

Been busy and notice I hadn't responded to this post. My thoughts -

A 'holier-than-thou' attitude is not when a Christian lives by their personal convictions unto the Lord. But as was pointed out to the Pharisees, they did these things (praying out in public, showing off in their giving, wearing their special clothes, etc) to be seen of men and looked down upon those who did not live as they lived. Jesus exposed the condition of their hearts.

When a Christian tries to force their convictions on other believers and/or have a superior attitude toward other Christians in how they are serving the Lord, then I think they are acting like the Pharisees in Jesus day.

I remember in my early Pentecostal years when some Christians would come to church and put on a certain image of being holy by their smiles and dress and involvements in church and they looked down on others that didn't live up to their convictions. But then you hear from their children how they were at home and this 'holier-than-thou' church presentation of themselves was just a 'put on' of how righeous they were. Jesus knows the heart and is never fooled by these phony acts of holiness.

Oh yes, this can definitely happen! There are all kinds of ways this believer and that believer can lay guilt trips on others, one way or another. Someone was saying on Christian radio the other day that if they were an unbeliever and they observed the way Christians act towards each other it would want to keep them out of the church completely. We have a lot of work to do

[Valerie]

On the one side:

I think that people are distorting Scripture with all kinds of fancy arguments to justify gay marriage. I don't think we can ditch what the Bible teaches about gay sex or about creation as male and female without basically abandoning Scripture as a reliable guide for sexual ethics entirely. Those Scriptures are clear. I suspect the denomination I am in will have a significant split in the coming year over this issue. There are people who are angry at me for clearly expressing what Scripture teaches.

On the other side:

The LGBTQ people in my broader family have experienced real hate and contempt at times. I have seen it, and I cannot call it anything else. So have some LGBTQ people in my denomination. Sometimes from "fine religious" people. So when LGBTQ people say they have experienced these things, I believe them. I listen. I care. Sometimes they acknowledge that, telling me that I'm not a hater like some other people, and they sense that I love them. Sometimes they tell me that I can't really love them unless I accept "who they really are". Sometimes they kind of tell me both. They are confused that I seem to care but don't agree with them.

About a year ago:

When I gave a sermon on the woman caught in adultery, there was a young guest in the church who later confided to me, in confidentiality, that she is lesbian, and she felt safe telling me that. She asked if our church would welcome her. I told her we would welcome her, and that I think the love in our church is real, but we might not agree with her. About a month later, she found another church that agreed with her and left. I grieve about that kind of thing. I wish I knew how to do better.

I think it can work both ways though and that is the "push" of the LGBTQ community to parade it and when the term "gay pride" is associated with the lifestyle, how would Jesus feel about this?

Also, i have listened to former gays testimonies that encourage us to not be so passive about the sin. It seems to me when people spend time around Jesus it did not take them long to either want to repent of their sin and follow him, or avoid him because he exposed their darkness.

If we approach sinners the way Jesus did, the sinners who would repent in his presence will repent in our presence. I think we sometimes repel sinners who would have been drawn to Jesus. I think we sometimes attract Pharisees who would have wanted to kill Jesus because of the way he treated sinners and outcasts.

Rosario Butterfield puts it this way:

https://rosariabutterfield.com/new-blog ... e-b-anyway

Gay Christianity was born out of desperation. People like me—people who have had in the past or who currently have deep, abiding and/or long-lasting sexual desires for members of our own gender—had found no place in the broad evangelical church. Instead, these churches typically say homosexuality is a behavior to be modified through parachurch ex-gay ministries. The church condemned such feelings as bad choices and condemned the people (like me) who experienced these feelings as abominations, falsely calling homosexual desires a willful choice.

She says that this kind of condemnation is what led to Gay Christianity and the theology behind it. I suspect she is right.

I agree that we should not be passive about the sin, but that means we need to be active in teaching the biblical model of gender and sexuality, building support networks for people with same sex attraction, and amplifying voices like Rosario Butterfield's.

I would like to see more visible support networks for Christians battling with same sex attraction. I would like to see them have the same kind of support from the rest of us that people have when they struggle with other sins. An awful lot of churches on all sides of these issues would be very uncomfortable with that. But I think that's the Christlike way.

Are you familiar with Christopher Yuan's testimony & ministry? Did you read his book "Out of a Far Country"? We went to a two-day seminar him and his family put on to help us learn more about how to deal with the homosexual community. I can't keep saying it's the fact that they want to say that it is not sin. Their position is that we are the ones that are wrong in our interpretation of the Bible saying it is sin. That is the difference which I don't seem to feel like people are really understanding here except for a couple that have spoken up. The push is for us to accept that it is not sin. So by the same token I am married but would it be all right with you if say I had an extra marital affair because I felt so strongly that I loved someone besides my husband and felt like you should accept me at your church for us to come together? How would you address it if I came with a boyfriend and said I have a husband at home but my feelings are very strong for this man we love each other and want to continue coming to your church?