Ephesians 5: "Shameful even to speak"

[Josh]

So, those of you maintaining that we should not be involved at all with government and politics concerning lgbtq issues… tend to take a different stance when it comes to “racism”, where you folks seem to think political involvement, protests, and so on are entirely OK.

I find that to be a political difference. If anything, there is far more of a biblical case against accepting homosexuality than there is against the nebulous concept of “racism”, which isn’t ever even listed as a sin in the Bible.

[Bootstrap]

So, those of you maintaining that we should not be involved at all with government and politics concerning lgbtq issues… tend to take a different stance when it comes to “racism”, where you folks seem to think political involvement, protests, and so on are entirely OK.

I find that to be a political difference. If anything, there is far more of a biblical case against accepting homosexuality than there is against the nebulous concept of “racism”, which isn’t ever even listed as a sin in the Bible.

I think you are changing the subject. This is not a political thread. And I want to avoid turning it into one.

But to take it back to the subject of this thread, I think the Bible has a LOT to say about how we should treat people of all kinds. And it's often extremely difficult to discuss what it says here because of political bandwagons. Jesus showed a lot of concern for people who were treated badly, including Samaritans, lepers, sinners, tax collectors, and the poor. He showed us how we should relate to them. Paul's concern for the slave in Philemon is also striking.

That's the biblical standard. As God's church, we should be asking ourselves how we are doing at that. Regularly.

[PetrChelcicky]

But of course, "tax collectors" and "the poor" were at opposite ends of the economical and political spectrum. Which means that sometimes - at the end of the world - we may perhaps have a Christian church which treats all humans as sinners and insofar as equals, not depending on their political ideas.

[PetrChelcicky]

By the way, Ephesians 5 is one of the most stupid parts of Paul's writings. It has lead the Christians to not speak about sexuality at all which made it impossible to debate about what is right and what is wrong in sexual affairs.
(From my Quaker training i always repeat the slogan: "Peter said this and Paul said that- but what can you say?" Paul was an intelligent man and as readable as any other church leader, but he was not particularly "inspired")

[Bootstrap]

But of course, "tax collectors" and "the poor" were at opposite ends of the economical and political spectrum. Which means that sometimes - at the end of the world - we may perhaps have a Christian church which treats all humans as sinners and insofar as equals, not depending on their political ideas.

I like what Silent Reader said earlier:

Possibly Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees because they condemned others, and because they made the way to God so difficult for others.
We are called to judge = discern, but not to judge = condemn.

Tax collectors served an unjust Rome, and they were often crooked, demanding money beyond what Rome authorized, for themselves. John the Baptist talked about this.

The poor were the helpless victims of all that.

The Pharisees, it turns out, were sinners themselves in the eyes of God - very religious sinners, in serious sin. And part of their sin was to lord it over others in their supposed righteousness. That self-righteousness and need to be seen as the righteous ones was an important part of their sin, always pointing out sins in others, always pointing out their own righteousness in comparison.

Instead of putting the focus on Jesus. Or at their time, on God.

[Bootstrap]

By the way, Ephesians 5 is one of the most stupid parts of Paul's writings. It has lead the Christians to not speak about sexuality at all which made it impossible to debate about what is right and what is wrong in sexual affairs.
(From my Quaker training i always repeat the slogan: "Peter said this and Paul said that- but what can you say?" Paul was an intelligent man and as readable as any other church leader, but he was not particularly "inspired")

That's not how I read Ephesians 5 at all. In that chapter, Paul also talks about sex in a very positive light, as a profound mystery of love:

In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

As I read the first part, Paul is talking about sexual immorality, not about sex. He tells us not to dwell on the immorality of others - but he is also quite clear that we should not allow sexual immorality in the church. It's just as bad as covetousness, which he mentions in the same verse:

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them.

I do see Scripture as authoritative, including the writings of Paul.

[Sudsy]

By the way, Ephesians 5 is one of the most stupid parts of Paul's writings. It has lead the Christians to not speak about sexuality at all which made it impossible to debate about what is right and what is wrong in sexual affairs.
(From my Quaker training i always repeat the slogan: "Peter said this and Paul said that- but what can you say?" Paul was an intelligent man and as readable as any other church leader, but he was not particularly "inspired")

Am I understanding you correctly that Paul's writings in the NT were not all Holy Spirit inspired ? If so, then how does one separate the Holy Spirit inspired writings from Paul's own thoughts that are not Holy Spirit inspired ? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by Paul not 'particularly "inspired"'.

[Ken]

By the way, Ephesians 5 is one of the most stupid parts of Paul's writings. It has lead the Christians to not speak about sexuality at all which made it impossible to debate about what is right and what is wrong in sexual affairs.
(From my Quaker training i always repeat the slogan: "Peter said this and Paul said that- but what can you say?" Paul was an intelligent man and as readable as any other church leader, but he was not particularly "inspired")

Am I understanding you correctly that Paul's writings in the NT were not all Holy Spirit inspired ? If so, then how does one separate the Holy Spirit inspired writings from Paul's own thoughts that are not Holy Spirit inspired ? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by Paul not 'particularly "inspired"'.

Scholars going all the way back to Erasmus have even questioned whether Ephesians was even written by Paul.

[PetrChelcicky]

In my mind, there are still the "Sins of the Amish" stories. (There are a lot of omissions and I have no fixed idea what really happened.)
It would have been much better, if the dubious sexual transactions could have been controversially discussed at supper at the table in the way a dubious business transaction could have been discussed (well, I see that it worked well for you, but there is the other side to see, and the other person is perhaps not as happy as you with it).
In ancient Greece or Rome or in the Orient that would not be/have been unthinkable. Not speaking about sex is, to a high degree, a Christian problem.
Don't know if Paul intended that, but at any case he did not foresee the possible negative outcomes.

[Bootstrap]

Not speaking about sex is, to a high degree, a Christian problem.
Don't know if Paul intended that, but at any case he did not foresee the possible negative outcomes.

Paul never said we should not talk about sex. He talks about sex quite a bit, actually. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 7:

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.