http://youtu.be/YpQHGPGejKs

and gay marriage:

“What he said at the end of the video is what the vast majority of faithful law abiding, Bible believing Christians fail to realize, that is, that self-righteousness is what gets you to hell, not homosexuality. I think that’s brilliant.”

I think that’s merely clever human thinking. Self-righteousness does not get anyone into hell. Is there some passage of Scripture that would lead you to that conclusion?

“But can’t we argue that lawlessness or antinomianism separates one from God as well?”

> Yes we can argue that.

“If he argues that living a homosexual lifestyle goes against the will and design of how God made us, as he does in The Meaning of Marriage, then how can he say that it does not put one in danger of going to hell?”

> Keller can’t actually. He backed himself into a corner.

“That’s why I’m confused; he seems to be contradicting himself.”

> Keller is contradicting himself. At least MacArthur has few contradictions.

The line of thought you present, David, is a good articulation of what we are left with if we leave out the surrender to grace aspect of the gospel. MacArthur clearly has a law-keeping gospel message and leads many into a cocoon. Keller’s version lacks the new wine element that Jesus had in his gospel.

Personally speaking, I am on the fence but leaning toward the traditional view of the debate. It seems obvious to me that a homosexual orientation is a product of the fall. It just so plainly goes against the teleology or design of mankind.

But still, I would not be one to condemn those living a homosexual lifestyle to hell; I’m struggling as to how to relate to them as fellow image-bearers who are dearly loved and sought after by God. Additionally, because sexual orientation is seen as an intrinsic property of personhood, though this is debatable, one has to approach this issue very wisely and compassionately. As a result, most gays think that because Christians are against homosexuality, then they hate the entirety of who they are. And honestly, many Christians do come of sounding this way (and I’m thoroughly guilty of this). So we have to examine ourselves both from a psychological and theological point of view so as to see why this is so.

What he said at the end of the video is what the vast majority of faithful law abiding, Bible believing Christians fail to realize, that is, that self-righteousness is what gets you to hell, not homosexuality. I think that’s brilliant.

I’m not trying to argue whether or not homosexual union is a sin or not, but simply addressing the fact that those who regard it as a sin will also regard it as being most loving to point that out (lovingly), since many today might no longer regard it as a sin.

I commend Matthew for having convictions. Certitude can be a problem yes, but certainty in the love and grace of God will eventually lead to good things.

I was primarily thinking of the “civil,” scholarly exchange between Matthew Vines and Al Mohler. Both sides cite the same verses in the OT and NT and explain them in opposite ways, with both sides insisting that their interpretation is the correct one.

“”Rejecting something is easy, but recognizing and giving value to all that is positive, even when dealing with [ambiguous] experiences, is an exercise in intellectual honesty and spiritual charity.”

divorce care

I ran across a thoughtful article today in the National Catholic Reporter. It’s mainly about how the Catholic church treats people who have been divorced and remarried, not specifically about LGBTQA issues. But I think it applies there as well. The author writes about Jesus: “…his pastoral approach invites us to set legalism aside and consider the vision of the human person that underlies the Gospels’ whole moral praxis.”

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/what-does-jesus-really-say-about-marriage-and-divorce

Gay people can teach the church how to love more deeply, how to regain the purity of righteousness that exceeds that of the law-keepers, and most importantly, how to see the amazing joy that Jesus promised.

Like Pope Francis and numerous bishops and many in the body of Christ, I see the need to return to the theology of liberation, love and peace.

“Each side should begin by not pressing and insisting their firm belief and position on the other side, especially if done angrily and with indignation, intolerance and impatience.”

Gay people have already done what you say. We cannot simply begin again, for the debate already began. Still they are “on the outside” and laws exist to put them in jail or be executed in parts of the world.

What would you see in my article that is “throwing stones”? I have no intention of throwing stones, so please correct my blindspot if I did so.

Recently the Catholic Synod expressed these words that ring true to me. I know the Synod ended up taking out this language, but my book aims to explain what these gifts and talents entail:

“…gay people have “gifts and talents to offer the Christian community.”

The document also said “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”

source

Older Christians (and some younger Christians) say and believe that Christians must be loving, not condemning and welcoming of the gay community, though they still firmly believe and will not change from their position that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Younger Christians (and some older Christians) will affirm the former, but insist that marriage can also be between those of the same sex.

Based on each side’s understanding and interpretation of the same Bible verses, the first group cannot conceive of gay marriages as strongly as the second group firmly believes that it is OK.

I think that the gap between these two positions are huge and perhaps presently insurmountable. What I believe first needs to happen is to not throw stones at the other side. Each side should begin by not pressing and insisting their firm belief and position on the other side, especially if done angrily and with indignation, intolerance and impatience. This, I believe is happening at present, and is a horrible testimony to the watching world.

If we can’t begin by not doing what we should not do (throw stones at each other), then it does not appear that any resolution or progress would be forthcoming any time soon. Each side will simply more deeply entrench themselves in their own camp.