Aug 17
To Stephen Spinnenweber and his article about how desires for same-sex relations are significantly more sinful that desires for unbiblical heterosexual relations. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The problem that some Christian traditionalists have is that they are either literally or virtually substituting their pet traditions for the Scriptures. And that is what we see in the above article. Not once did the writer appeal to the Scriptures when discussing the issue concupiscence, not once. Rather, the appeals are made to some Reformed standards as if they were as canonical as the Scriptures are.
Another problem is that the above discussion shows little understanding of same-sex attraction and nature. Certainly we must agree with Paul when he states in Romans 1 that homosexuality goes against nature. But we need to be more precise there. Homosexuality goes against nature as God designed it. But since we see bisexuality in over 1,000 species of animals, what do we really know about what nature is saying to each individual person. What we see in the animal kingdom shows that nature has fallen from its original design. And so when someone claims that it is nature that has determined their sexual orientation or gender identity, that might very well be true, even though it provides no excuse before God. But since we are all subject in varying ways to a fallen nature, we need to be extremely careful in how we apply the nature argument to sexual issues. Here, we need to err on the side of compassion.
Finally, whether desires for unbiblical same-sex relations are worse than desires for unbiblical heterosexual relations depends on the context. After all, since both are sins, there is no significant difference when talking about whether one has sexual sins. Nor is there a significant difference between the two when the context is God's final judgment. But how should the difference between the two desires dictate how we treat fellow Christians or regard ourselves in the Church in terms of how much we can participate? There is not answer explicit answer to that question in the above article. But that article seems to be based on a specific issue; with a particular agenda. Therefore, the general way in which concupiscence is discussed in the above article is really unhelpful. It can promote a lot of unfair and unfounded treatments of fellow believers who might be struggling with unbiblical sexual desires or gender dysphoria. The writer needs to write the above article with a specific application in mind in order to avoid encouraging Christians to respond wrongly to the differences that exist between desiring unbiblical same-sex relations and desiring unbiblical heterosexual relations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Sir Roger Scruton and his blogpost praised Western Civilization and tried debunk criticisms of it. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
If we judge any civilization by how it treats its own, one could make a case for many civilizations to be on par with Western Civilization. Of course the same case could have been made for Nazi Germany while it was winning WW II. And this is where Gandhi's famous quote about Western Civilization comes in to play. In responding to a reporter's question about what he thought of Western Civilization, Gandhi said in response: 'I think it would be a good idea.'
Perhaps Gandhi was thinking of what Frederick Douglas wrote about what July 4th meant to the slave when he gave that response:
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
Whose view of celebrating July 4th should have held sway then? Was it the white citizens of America because what America had done for them or was it the slave's view of America because of what America had done to them? Perhaps what Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-47 could answer the question:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Now the odd thing about using Jesus's quote here is that the quote would seem to apply to them more than the white audience who were listening to Douglas speak. After all, while they were not the enemy of America's part of Western Civilization, America's part of Western Civilization was an enemy to them. So think about what Jesus's quote would mean to America's part of Western Civilization back then
And while there is no slavery today, there is still systemic racism, abuse, and exploitation of people of color inside our borders while there is militarization, exploitation, and dependence on both the rule of force and tyrants outside of them. As for the European part, there is still dependence on results of past colonialism and both the rule of force and foreign tyrants for its welfare. Though we should add that the European sector of Western Civilization seems to have fewer old bad habits within their own borders than the American sector.
We can't judge a civilization without looking at all of its most significant relationships. And so when we look at how Western Civilization related to its outsiders and marginalized people, Western Civilization is found sorely wanting.. And it is only a fragile ego that seeks to compensate for its self-doubts by so easily praising itself in the light of its history of how it treated others.
But heck, if some here must be praised to feel good about themselves, there are no words that could be said which could give them reason for pause in celebrating themselves and their heritage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To J.F. Solís for the part of his article that was quoted in Heidelblog which mocks Greg Johnson for talking about the struggles that same-sex attracted Christians have in living the Christian life. This part of Solís's article was quoted in a heidelblog post.
Besides the fact that the article cited comes from a very rigid Roman Catholic view of both sex and celibacy, we should note that what was quoted shows the writer's disdain for and disgust with people like Greg Johnson. So what if Johnson's claim about gay celibate Christians having given up 'everything the world values' is just a little bit of an overstatement. What is at the heart of the matter is the struggle that same-sex attracted Christians have over a part of our lives that produces one of the strongest grips on thinking and behavior of all of us: sex. So while Solís, because of his rigid thinking, mocks Johnson by saying that indeed the world does not value sodomy, the real issue is that what the world very much values is not sodomy per se, but sexual intimacy. And why Solís did not pick up on that is both a bit shocking but not mysterious.
What the article cited as well as Heidelblog, which quoted this particular part of the article, are demonstrating here is a fear and perhaps even hatred for those from the LGBT community, especially those who claim to be Christians. And this is where we need to warn Solís, Heidelblog, and those who could favorably relate to Solís's views about the lessons to be learned from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). If we are always in such desperate need for God's mercy, as Reformed Theology teaches us, and if, as James mentions in the second chapter of his epistle, that we need to show mercy rather than judgment because we are all lawbreakers, which is a point that Paul also made in Romans 2, then this distain for, disgust with, fear and hatred for those Christians who are struggling with their sexuality goes against the grain of believing the Gospel. Yes, sexual purity as defined by the Scriptures is essential for each Christian and in the Church. But so is treating all fellow believers with the same grace and mercy that God continually shows us in Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 18
To Leila Miller for the part of her article that was quoted in Heidelblog which warned us not to be fooled by people who are nice but might be giving us wrong theology.
Leila Miller's full article can be found at:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/dont-be-fooled-by-nice
One doesn't have to believe what a friendly nice person says to you to appreciate their warmth. Genuine warmth should always be celebrated regardless of what they are saying.
My fear is that in trying to avoid overestimating being nice, too many fellow Reformed Christians fail to understand the fruit of the spirit and the charge to correct people with gentleness because of our own weaknesses and failures.
No comments:
Post a Comment