Disciplined Church Life

[Ken]

I would also have a problem with a church that largely ignores or hand-waves away the rest of these very similar sexual subjects. If I'm understanding you correctly, the difference between you and me is that you believe that a church should forget about enforcing Bible teaching related to homosexuality if they're not going to enforce the rest of Bible teaching about sexual immorality, while I believe that a church ought to diligently enforce both (OK, enforce is a sloppy word to use here but I can't think of the right way to word this so I hope you can understand what I'm saying).

No, I think churches are free to draw their own lines and most will draw them differently from each other and from me.

I personally think the very limited Biblical teachings about homosexuality are in the categories of "vices" and are different from the modern concept of committed relationships. People in Biblical times didn't have TV or internet and they didn't even have books. So I think it was common for men to go out to the local tavern and enjoy themselves with a long list of vices involving drink, gluttony, gambling, and prostitution with slaves both male and female. (most prostitutes were slaves). I think that is why it sex and gay sex is generally mentioned in the context of larger lists of vices. It was one of the long list of vices that men indulged in when they went out drinking or socializing instead of staying home.

I don't think the concept of committed gay marriages or gay relationships really existed in Biblical times. Or probably it did but just wasn't what Paul was really talking about.

So personally I draw the same lines for gay sex and gay relationships as I do for straight ones. And I do think context matters when it comes to sex and relationships just like it does for everything else. For example, the Bible warns against drinking. But Jesus also turned water into wine for a wedding party and centered the holiest rite in Christianity on the sharing of wine. In addition, I’m pretty sure that the context of every single Bible verse related to homosexuality refers only to men. I don’t think lesbian relationships are mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Yet most if not all churches do not make any such distinctions. Why is that? Again, for me context is important. I oppose or disapprove of all the same relationships between two females as between male and female and don’t really distinguish. If they are loving and adult and committed I don’t really object gay or straight. Under other circumstances I disapprove, gay or straight.

I don't really have any interest in trying to convince others because I know that is futile. I’m just trying to answer your question.

PS, it occurs to me that I left off my list a long category of various forms of incest and relations between related individuals, siblings step-siblings, adopted siblings, first cousins, second cousins, etc. I think different churches come down differently on all of those as well as I understand marriage between first cousins does happen in some conservative groups. We could probably come up with over 100 different permutations of sex and relationship situations which churches, society, the law, and the Bible all come down on differently and with different emphases.

[ken_sylvania]

If I'm understanding you correctly, the difference between you and me is that you believe that a church should forget about enforcing Bible teaching related to homosexuality if they're not going to enforce the rest of Bible teaching about sexual immorality.

Are you saying this is not your position? And if so, could you briefly explain how I have this worded wrong? Preferably in 50 words or less...

[Ken]

If I'm understanding you correctly, the difference between you and me is that you believe that a church should forget about enforcing Bible teaching related to homosexuality if they're not going to enforce the rest of Bible teaching about sexual immorality.

Are you saying this is not your position? And if so, could you briefly explain how I have this worded wrong? Preferably in 50 words or less...

I am disagreeing with you as to the nature of Biblical teaching on homosexuality. I am saying that context is important and the context of the most commonly cited verses on the subject is pederasty with underage sex slaves in brothels by married men out drinking, gambling, engaging in gluttony, and other vices outside the home. Not gay marriage between two loving committed adults.

Based upon what I have read, we are talking about a society in which most men were married by the age of 18 and most girls by about age 13 (or ASAP upon reaching puberty) and in which most marriages were arranged marriages often with marriage brokers negotiating between families, with paid dowries and so forth. Basically young girls were just bought and sold. Not the world we live in today. But what you would need to model if you want to exactly copy marriage at the time of Christ. Basically how it still happens in places like rural India, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

[steve-in-kville]

Can we go back to the subject of this thread?

Threads like this... I read the first page. Then I read the last page. Then I shake my head a walk away. From over-reaching Bishops to child brides. Can't make it up.

[mike]

Yes, it would be nice if the discussion on homosexuality would go elsewhere. Not that it isn't a case in point.

[Josh]

Straight sexual relations between unmarried adults: Most churches frankly look the other way or make little issue of it if not conspicuous. I don't generally object. I think consent is very important.

Part of a disciplined church life is ensuring people engaging in sin like the above are made aware their are hellbound unless they repent and turn away from sin.

[Bootstrap]

Hebrews 5:14 is relevant here:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

This implies that we take evil seriously. It also implies that we take good seriously, and eagerly pursue it. And it implies that just following rules isn't good enough, rules are a helpful tutor to those who need them, but to become mature, we have to practice discernment together, asking what is good and what is evil. How do we seriously, prayerfully study what the Bible says the Kingdom of God, focusing on what Jesus said and did, and seek these things first?

To grow in maturity, a church needs ways for members to spend time doing that, taking it seriously. Not just avoiding evil, but doing what is good, loving God first and loving neighbor second, showing redemptive love, being the hands and feet of Jesus in a lost and confused world, being salt and light.

This also implies that any church, over time, should develop a shared understanding of what is good and what is evil, and people who are devoted to things the church considers evil won't feel at home in the church. I don't see any way around that. Sometimes the rich young man goes away sadly because he is unwilling to make the sacrifice. Sometimes religious leaders need to be opposed because they stand in the way of Jesus.

[Josh]

The fact some church members are getting away with one kind of evil doesn’t mean it’s somehow a good idea for me to get away with a different kind of evil, and then protest unfair treatment.

Let’s say my sister over there is “getting away” with being a gossip, having unkind speech, and seems to have malice towards certain people.

How on earth would her escaping church discipline for that make it somehow justifiable for me to engage in fornication?

Yet this is exactly what those who complain our churches “focus too much on sexuality issues” are saying would be a good thing.

[Bootstrap]

The fact some church members are getting away with one kind of evil doesn’t mean it’s somehow a good idea for me to get away with a different kind of evil, and then protest unfair treatment.

Let’s say my sister over there is “getting away” with being a gossip, having unkind speech, and seems to have malice towards certain people.

How on earth would her escaping church discipline for that make it somehow justifiable for me to engage in fornication?

But it really is important to address both kinds of sin. The real problem comes when we start playing "my sin doesn't matter, what really matter is that other person's sin".

[Ken]

Yes, it would be nice if the discussion on homosexuality would go elsewhere. Not that it isn't a case in point.

You do realize it isn't liberals who make homosexuality the front and center issue when it comes to "church discipline" or standards. It is conservatives.

For example, a couple of days ago on the 'Main Denomination Identifier Belief" thread Steve stated that the defining characteristic of his church (apparently above all else) was that "We push back hard on abortion and homosexuality."