homosexuality and Bible: the demonic expulsive power of the minor over the major - creation

[Willis E. Elliott]

Delighted to hear from you, Skip!

 

Delighted also if anything in my post seems useful in your ministry.  Please do "pass along" to me anything "interesting" that emerges in your ministry on this "Subject".  (Since you asked my permission to quote me, I should ask your forgiveness for quoting you without asking: your good note gives me occasion to develop further my view, which you found helpful.)

1

Throughout my ministry, I've been concerned that defenders of biblical literalism on minor matters are enemies of the Bible's future.  Let's be literal on major matters, beginning with Genesis 1.1!  (Creation-&-Ecology is the Craigville Colloquy projected theme for 2014.)

2

The devil's plan A is to divert attention from the Bible.  That failing, plan B is to divert attention from matters major to the Bible to matters minor to the Bible.  /  Take Romans 1:26-27.  The demonic plan B works when a church splits over homosexual behavior, which Paul here views as illustrative of idolatrous thing-worship - instead of attending to vs.20 (seeing God in creation), vs.21-23 (idolatry, in vs.25 spelled out as "worshiping and serving the things God created instead of the Creator himself"), & vss.24 & 26 (God-abandonment of the idolaters).  /  Preachers are in danger of using an illustration so vivid that the people remember only it, not the point of the sermon.  Worse: preachers don't know everything; sometimes their vivid illustration is (as in Paul's case here) wrong (in claiming homosexual behavior is [vs.26] "against the natural way" (unnatural, *para physin* - Stoic phrase & sanction, argument; so, vs.27, "natural" [*physik-*]).

3

But think how great the truths Paul here is preaching!  Using fellow-humans as things (1) is idolatry) & (2) violates fellow-creatures of one's own kind, equally made for the glory of God (whether or not women are made in God's image, as Paul thinks not: 1Cor.11.7).  He was right also in that sex's bio-structure is naturally heterosexual.  Right also in that most homosexual (especially male) activity intends only pleasure, recreation, not serious truly human relationships.  But he was - pre-scientifically, sadly - wrong in assuming the identity of sexual bio-structure (viz., the genitals) & inner-life "sexual orientation" in all human beings.  Inner-life sexuality is far more complex than he could have known.

4

Two more factors on homosex in Romans 1:

4.1

While it seems probable that the majority of the Roman church were Gentiles, it seems certain that the base was Jewish.  The Jewish Bible considered homosexual behavior more serious than America now considers murder: in contemporary America, few murderers are executed; but in Lev.20.13, the LORD commands the death penalty for male homosexual behavior (chaps.18-21 carry the theme "Be [ceremonially & morally] holy, for I am holy").  The Jews, including Paul, had a holy horror & detestation for irregular sexual behavior, which was common in their Gentile environments: "do not act like the people in Egypt, where you used to live, or like the people of Canaan, where I am taking you" (18.3).  /  Now, in the West, the holy horror has migrated from homosex to homophobia (an inaccurate term for abuse of homosexals).  The West is horrified that Islamic law (sharia) demands what Bible law (Lev.) demands, viz. death to practicing homosexuals, & that this use of the death penalty is the law in seven Muslim countries (even though, unlike the Bible, the Qur'an does not mention this use of the death penalty [but a saying of Muhammad, a  hadith, commands it]). 

4.2

The religious feeling (though not all the commandments) in the Jewish Holiness Code carried over into Christianiity as a powerful factor at the earliest stage of the development of Christian ethics, as Paul shows.  The Roman Christians of both Jewish & Gentile backgrounds were to live noticeably different lives from those of their neighbors, as well as in conformity to Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  /  In the evolution of ethics, "God is still speaking" (though I hate that easily overread UCC slogan).  The sense of what is sacred, of what horrifies, of what sanctifies migrates - as the ark of the covenant migrated inside "the tent of meeting" (the tabernacle) through the wilderness.  (But I'm in danger, here, of trying to start a new thead.)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

Lev

Xn ethics

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Howard MacMullen

To: Willis Elliott

Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 9:20 AM

Subject: Your posting re homosexuality and Bible

Dear Willis,

Thank you for last evening's posting on homosexuality and the Bible.  In it you addressed what strikes me as the most vexing element in the whole discussion, namely the perceived either/or imperative that many, lay folks in particular, see as an insuperable dilemma.  It does precious little good to scold them that they're just "being too literal" unless one goes on to elaborate some alternatives, and in your piece you have done just that.

The little (50 member) church I'm presently serving here in Maine discusses the matter in fits and starts, and it is quite clear to me that there are several levels and types of understanding present.  I would like your permission to make use of your thoughts, probably as short quotations, when we look at the question.  Naturally I'll fully attribute, and if anything interesting comes out of it will pass it along to you.

Hope you and Loree are doing well, and are out of the way of extreme weather.

Blessings to you both,

Skip  

-------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Howard H. MacMullen, Jr.
172 Sutherland Pond Rd.
Sabattus, ME 04280
207-375-8161

Blog: To Speak Now of God

http://tospeaknowofgod.blogspot.com/

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Your principle of errancy is as cruel and false a lord as the
fundamentalists' inerrancy. You both reduce the Bible to a world view
rather than a witness to God at work in our world.

Jim Link

On Mar 17, 10:43 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net>
wrote:

[Willis E. Elliott]

Dear Jim,

Your assessment is so foreign to my point of view that I can't even
recognize myself in it.
I hope what I've written Herb will help you understand WICF (where I'm
coming from).

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

By what other god than the god of errancy, in service of your world
view of human self-actualizion through scientific knowledge, could you
ever read the Bible and come up with a definition of "faithful" that
would apply to homosexual relations, or a definition of "love" in
which such behavior is love toward God and to one's neighbor? You are
bearing witness to a "covenant" all right: a convenant with a false
god!

Jim

[Rev. AWKovacs]

Dear Willis - JUim - et al:
I've had a serrious weak spell for three days (saw the doctor today), so
I'm not up to a spelled out reply. Although I wouldn't say it as Jim does,
I'm more akin to his interpretation of the way to look at the homosexual
issue vis a vis Holy Scripture, and akin to Herb's unwillingness to throw in
the towel versus the LGBT's perspective. ... Sorry I can't go further, but
the body's dragging.
Al

[Willis E. Elliott]

Thanks for your witness, Al.
I pray for US. i've been "dragging" for 10 days, 4 days unable to dress.
(Thank the Lord for strong fingers & enough sight left to "compute"!)

On subject, I hope you respond to what I just sent Herb + Confessing Christ.

[Willis E. Elliott]

"Self-actualization," Jim? "a false god"?
Please read what I sent to Herb & CC this evening.

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I am sorry to hear that you have not been feeling well, God grant you
strength and peace and joy in serving him!

Glad to read that you believe that Jesus Christ, in his life for His
bride, the Church, in fulfillment of God's covenant with His creation,
is the revelation of our true human nature; so taught the prophets and
the apostles, including Paul. And thus Paul could bear witness that
homosexuality is against nature, whereas what Kinsey, and any
scientist, can do, is give us statistics and correlations, helpful in
our service to Jesus Christ. Let us indeed keep our eyes, both eyes,
on Him, as the Bible directs us!

Jim



On Mar 19, 11:17 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net>
wrote:

[Willis E. Elliott]

Thanks, Jim.

1

As a Brother Christian, I agree with you on essentials.  But your email makes it sound as if we agree, period. 

2

Wrongly, you fuse "nature" as physical (as in "the natural sciences") & the "nature" in "true human nature" (a complex reality transcending physics).  E.g., asexuals (ca.1% in our species) have no physical "natural" sexual interest / s. orientation / s. preference, but that's irrelevant to their "true human nature".

3

Since WW2 there's been a steep cumulative rise in evidence of the bio-factors in the variety of human sexual orientations.  All human societies, each in its own pattern, restrict sexual behavior, keep the flow of sexual desire within controlled channels, more or less effectively punish (by social & legal sanctions) violators of the restrictions, deviants from the channels. /  Until the modern scientific bio-psycho-socio study of sex, customs & laws assumed that the baby-producing correlation between sexual organs was as universal as is + / - attraction in magnets.  /  Societies need no customs & laws regulating magnetic attraction: it's only "physical" (the English transliteration of the Greek word meaning "natural").  Not so in the case of sexual attraction, the complex involving everything it means to be human (including all five of our "minds": emotional, esthetic, moral, religious, rational).  /  By punishments administered by customs & laws, societies pressure their members to be "moral," i.e. responsible for whatever is defined as "good behavior" & blame-worthy for violations & deviations.

4

In "Rome," the empire of Christianity's birth, Stoicism was the most influential philosophy & ethic, & its primary ethical sanction (thought-support for "good behavior") was *kata physin* ("according to nature").  In writing to Rome (Roman Christians), Paul used it in its negative form (*para physin* ["against nature"], 1.26; 11.21,24bis - all three, tree-grafting as "unnatural").

4.1

Tree-grafting is indeed unnatural (*para physin*) as a human interference with nature, but its purpose is to improve on nature - an improvement possible only if the grafting process is "according to nature" (*kata physin*).  But at 1.26 in the same letter, Paul uses *kata physin* for something he considers entirely "contrary to nature," viz. homosexual behavior.  /  In his use of these +/- Stoic phrases, Paul is clearly speaking of physical nature, bio-nature.  He thinks homosex is bio-unnatural, no bio element in it - so they are "without excuse" (a phrase in another connection, vs.20), blame-worthy, 100% immoral in their homo behavior.

5

Jim, do you with Paul believe that there's no bio element in homosexuality?  I must add, can you: does science permit you to continue to believe that the issue is 100% moral, decisional?

6

Your mention of Kinsey & of evidence for homosexuality as limited to "statistics and correlations" makes me suspicious that you're unaware of the hard data on the bio dimension of homosexuality.

7

In fact, your writing on the subject makes me suspicious that you are captive to Paul, claiming to believe everything he said (even 1Cor.11.7&).  My suspicious goes even deeper: can you mention even one error in the Bible (e.g., the denial that we can praise God after we're dead [Ps.6.5])?

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

The apostles and prophets, as witnesses to Jesus Christ, testify to
human nature as it is revealed in him. Notably, from the beginning, we
hear that humanity was created male and female, according to the image
and likeness of God. Homosexuality is a sundering of the two who are
intended together to be humanity. There is no "essential" bio-element
in homosexuality, even if there are bio-elements in homosexuality.

I would not dare to claim to believe everything the Bible says, let
alone everthing Paul says. God will have to sort that out! I do
believe Paul, and the rest of the prophets and apostles in this
matter, God help my unbelief!

Jim

On Mar 20, 8:56 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliottwlm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

1

We would be in real conversation if neither of us evaded the other's questions.  I have evaded none of yours.  Your evasions here:

    In my sec.5, I asked whether you agree with Paul that "there's no bio element in sexuality."  Your evasion: "even if there are bio elements in sexuality."

    In my sec.7, I ask "can you mention even one error in the Bible" (& to make it easy for you, I cite the Bible's "denial that we can praise God after we're dead [Ps.6.5].")?  Your evasion: You ask God to help you believe whatever in the Bible you don't believe!  That prayer, after saying you "would not dare to claim to believe everything the Bible says"!  Then you blame your self-inflicted mental confusion on God & hand your problem to him, who will "have to sort that out"!  (It's none of your business to "sort out" what's un/believable [that's two categories]?  That's God's business, & he won't tell you?)  Do you sniff no blasphemy in that?  /  Also in my sec.7, you evade the question (implicit in my citing 1Cor.11.7) whether you agree with Paul that women are not made in the image of God.

    Need I tell you, Jim, that evasions are blockages to conversation?  They are as solid cut-offs as the 20-ton Grand Central Station concretes that for 18 years prevented my computer trains from proceeding.  /   Of course you don't have to answer any of my questions.  But if you respond without doing so, you are deluding yourself if you think you are conversing with me.

2

Your first sentence uses "nature" with a sense unavailable to natural science.  That evades my email's use of "nature."

3

Your second sentence, without admitting it, evades Paul's limitation of "image of God" to males (1Cor.11.7) - & evades my reference thereto.

4

Your third sentence, contrary to natural science, assumes that human beings are entirely responsible for what you call "a sundering".

5

Your fourth sentence presupposes the possibility of a non-essential "bio-element" in homosexuality - a hypothetical category functioning only to (1) blur the objective meaning of "bio element" & (2) confuse my use (in my email's first sentence) of "essential".

6

I continue to hope for conversation with you, though this is not the first time it has failed.

,

>

> In "Rome," the empire of Christianity's birth, Stoicism was the most influential philosophy & ethic, & its primary ethical sanction (thought-support for "good behavior") was *kata physin* ("according to nature"). In writing to Rome (Roman Christians), Paul used it in its negative form (*para physin* ["against nature"], 1.26; 11.21,24bis - all three, tree-grafting as "unnatural").  (Paul was agreeing only with the Stoics' sanction; they did not teach, as Paul did, that homosexuality is unnatural.  Neither favored a libertine style of sexuality.)

> 4.1
> Tree-grafting is indeed unnatural (*para physin*) as a human interference with nature, but its purpose is to improve on nature - an improvement possible only if the grafting process is "according to nature" (*kata physin*). But at 1.26 in the same letter, Paul uses *kata physin* for something he considers entirely "contrary to nature," viz. homosexual behavior. / In his use of these +/- Stoic phrases, Paul is clearly speaking of physical nature, bio-nature. He thinks homosex is bio-unnatural, no bio element in it - so they are "without excuse" (a phrase in another connection, vs.20), blame-worthy, 100% immoral in their homo behavior.
> 5
> Jim, do you with Paul believe that there's no bio element in homosexuality? I must add, can you: does science permit you to continue to believe that the issue is 100% moral, decisional?
> 6
> Your mention of Kinsey & of evidence for homosexuality as limited to "statistics and correlations" makes me suspicious that you're unaware of the hard data on the bio dimension of homosexuality.
> 7

> In fact, your writing on the subject makes me suspicious that you are captive to Paul, claiming to believe everything he said (even 1Cor.11.7). My suspicious goes even deeper: can you mention even one error in the Bible (e.g., the denial that we can praise God after we're dead [Ps.6.5])?
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I'm not trying to evade your questions regarding what I believe or
don't believe in the Bible, I honestly don't have an answer, other
than that there are things written that I believe in the Bible, with
the Church which acknowledges the canon, and that I believe what it
says about human nature being created male and female for the covenant
fellowship of the two as one humanity, according to the image and
likeness of God, as a sign of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
As for the texts you cite, I will have to give them some thought; you
seem to have come to your own conclusions regarding them, I have not.

Jim

On Mar 21, 10:00 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net>
wrote:

[Herb Davis]

Dear Willis, Glad you are feeling better.  I was worried by your silenced.  Just a couple of comments on your post:

    1.  I never question you credentials. I know you are a scholar.  I do often disagree with you.

   2.  You seem to rely a great deal on science in your understanding of sexuality.  Since I know you are not a science scholar it would be good if you could reference the studies and finding that you find so important.  I don’t think any of us believe that sexuality orientation is a choice, but I think that they is no real certainty as to the cause.  I think sexuality is more mystery than we want to admit.  It certainly isn’t the same as gender or race.

    3.  Can science declare something good?  Can scientific facts me misunderstood.  Remember evolution was turning into Social Darwinism or the survival of the fitness and scientific genetics became a process of enriching the human race resulted in sterilizing folks with low IQ.  I don’t think science is very helpful with virgin birth and resurrection let alone ascension. Yes science can be helpful in helping us understand nature and creation but can science tell us what is good? 

    4.  My concern with your position on scripture is that I sense there is a tendency to canonize culture (especially science) and relativize scripture.  So that the critical lens becomes culture rather than church, tradition, liturgy.

    Herb

[Willis E. Elliott]

Solid, orthodox thinking, Jim, except for the continuing evasion.

 

Your paragraph's end proves the falsity of its beginning.

 

E.g., I said that we (you & I) believe that we can praise God after death even though a psalmist (6.5) doesn't believe it.  What you need to give "some thought" & prayer to is why you categorize a matter of fact (viz., this psalmist's opinion) as a matter of opinion.  The God of Truth denies you the right to treat a fact as an opinion.  Further, you insult a brother by claiming that he's claiming as a fact what is no more than his opinion, his "conclusion": an evasion converted into an attack.  What's at stake here, Jim, is not hermeneutics but your integrity.

[Rev. AWKovacs]

    The problem is this discourse only comes when we fail to see the whole verse of the Psalm as a couplet, as another way of expressing virtually the same thing, a literary style common elsewhere in the Psalms.

    The Psalmist is right (in 6:5) if we view death from the perspective of interpreting scripture in the light of the whole of scripture.  After DEATH, there being no Purgatory but only the damnation of Sheol/Hades/Hell, the condemned have no occasion to praise the Judge who has sent them to the dark "underworld" - to suffer there until the end of time - devoid of God's loving presence, having separated themselves by their own free will. Their only comfort will be the knowledge of their certain annihilation. At the last, even Sheol will pass away and only the saints triumphant shall be raised from the bliss of Paradise, where they in falling asleep joined Christ and the angelic hosts in the praise of the God of their salvation. This too shall pass and they will rise up in the ETERNAL Heavenly Kingdom praise God for evermore.  Only that cleansed white by the blood of the Lamb will be fit for the company of the King of kings!

    One has to take seriously (who knows better) the promise of Jesus to the thief on the Cross, "This day you will be with me in Paradise."  The unbelieving thief was left to his just deserts, facing the certainty of Sheol, their abiding place after the first death, while time shall last until the trumpet call of the Last Day.

Al

[Rev. AWKovacs]

"Your mention of Kinsey & of evidence for homosexuality as limited to "statistics and correlations" makes me suspicious that you're unaware of the hard data on the bio dimension of homosexuality. - Willis (below)

    Firmly believing that God is the Creator of all life (who does abortion thwarts the very will of God at his peril), there can be no denial that some of His creation is without heterosexual orientation.  Jesus said that some are born eunuchs by the will of God ("eunuchs who have been so from birth" - Mt. 19:12).

    However, same sex relations is a denial of God's will for their lives, doing what is contrary to their created nature - i.e. disobedience and sin. Similarly, the heterosexuals are under constraints of chastity until united in marriage, and fidelity thereafter, according to their created nature as the two become one.

    (The name Kinsey came up, and we must recollect that his work was discredited as he purposely skewed his "findings" to suit his preordained results.  However, psuedo-scientists and libertines used them to rationalize their social theorums or immorality.)

Al

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis E. Elliott

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 5:34 PM

Subject: hermeneutics: FACTS and OPINIONS

[Willis E. Elliott]

Al

1

Rather than denying there are "hard data on the bio-dimension of homosexuality," you are adding the dominical sanction: Jesus says "eunuchs...from birth" (Mt.19.12; Greek, "from [their] mother's womb").  Your "by the will of God" is yours, not from Jesus; apparently you see "natural" & "by the will of God" as semantic equivalents.

2

My edition (1859) of Henry Alford's THE GREEK TESTAMENT has this in loco (1.179): "Those who from natural incapacity, or if not that, inaptitude, have no tendency toward marriage."  The category includes all males who, for whatever reason, are non-hetero, no "tendency" toward sex with females.

3

Jonathan Edwards' A TREATISE CONCERNING RELIGIOUS AFFECTION (three years before 1849, the first edition of Alford) uses "inclination" as the most basic term for what he means by "affection".  Because it's metaphoric (meaning "leaning toward"), "inclination" is more powerful than Alford's "tendency" - but the sense is the same.

4

Most males in Jesus' first of three categories of "eunuch" are inclined, have a tendency, toward sex with males.  Since you say this "by birth" category is "by the will of God," how can you say (in the next sentence!) that "same sex relations is a denial of God's will" & "contrary to their created nature...disobedience...sin"?  How can it be "contrary to their created nature" when (as you admit) their "created nature" does not include an inclination, tendency, to heterosex, but does to homosex?

5

When in a recent interview by Albert Mohler, the Southern Baptist's most influential fundamentalist, Jimmy Carter was asked his opinions on homosexuality & abortion, he replied that since Jesus said nothing about either, it's sinful that the churches have torn  themselves up over these disputed issues.  (At 88, he's still teaching Sunday school in Maranatha Baptist Church, Plains GA; & helped ordain a homosexual couple.)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

From: Rev. AWKovacs

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.

[Willis E. Elliott]

I give you an A+, Al, for a smmooth-deft-neat eisegesis (in-reading, adding to the text).

David is talking about "the dead"- period.  You inserted a moral division of the afterlife into the good dead & the bad dead.

 

This distich (Ps.6.5) makes two negative assertions about the afterlife:

1

You're dead & can't remember God.

2

In Sheol (the synonymous parallelism with "dead"), you can't praise God.

3

In the Bible's later moral division of the afterlife into heaven / hell, Sheol became associated with the latter.  But reading a word's later meaning back into an earlier text is a corruption of the very ideas of history & historical revelatioin.

4

I do like your use of "annihilation".  Some on this OpenForum don't believe in it.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rev. AWKovacs

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:17 PM

Subject: Re: hermeneutics: FACTS and OPINIONS

[Rev. AWKovacs]

Willis, I appreciate your reply.

1.  I think my affirmation "by the will of God" is consistent with Ps. 139, wherein God is acknowledged as the One who shapes our being - one entity physical and spiritual ("created nature") - either hetero- or homo - sexual, as formed in the womb before our birth.  The Declaration of Independence attests that in our creation we are "endowed" with certain rights inherent in our humanity (not scripture, but far better counsel than could be afforded by Jimmy Carter).

4. I don't consent at all in your first sentence about that "tendency" nor "admit" the concluding part of the last sentence, that there is an "inclination" to homosex.  I said "some of His creation is without heterosexual orientation" - which does not infer an inherent or necessary homosexual inclination or affection.  It presumes an asexual inclination.  However, should a disorienting temptation, abundant in our societal preoccupation with sex, lead one to seek same-sex (or even opposite sex) relations, that must be suppressed by the inhibiting rule of God's law manifest in the scriptures - as for the unmarried heterosexual.

Al

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis E. Elliott

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Rev. AWKovacs]

Bro. Willis:

4.  I don't see "corruption" at all.  If I did what the RC's do, adding totally unscriptural ideas and words (purgatory, asumption, etc.) with a claim that they are proleptically inferred, then that would be corruption.  But the later biblical revelation adds understanding to prophetic insights that were not capable of being received in their time, e. g. the words to Eve about her "sons" death by a serpent striking the heel, or the saving blood of the lamb on the lintel, or the promise of heaven in Enoch or Ezekiel.

    It is Jesus who in the new covenant, building on the evolving revelation, who enables to see the deeper meaning hidden in the old words,

as a maturing youth begins to understand the double meaning in jokes that went right over his head before. Indeed, th NT is full of such types of revelation, concepts that were there and later the Church would say, "Oh, now I know what you mean!"  Obviously, the Suffering Servant is given lucidity only by the Crucifixion.

    Which takes us back to 1. & 2. - No the "dead" cannot praise God. However, the ones who "shall not die" but who "fall asleep" shall praise God, abiding with Jesus in Paradise.

Al

PS: Gotta go t' bed. Didn't sleep well last night just five hours. I've work to do for the service on Palm Sunday in Johnstown (looks like no flood although its thundering an raining tonight).

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I intended no insult, just a statement of clarification based on what
I perceive to be the facts presented to me. You seem to me to have
come to the conclusion that there are several texts in which opinions
are expressed that you and I don't believe, e.g. Psalm 6,5, whereas I
have not come to the same conclusion. If you want me to say "you seem
to be of the opinion that.." whereas I am not of the same opinion" I
could probably live with that also

The peace of Jesus Christ be with you!

Jim

[Willis E. Elliott]

Thanks, Jim.

1

I agree you did not intend to insult me.  The insult is implicit in your solipsistic use of "fact" - "opinion" - "conclusion".

2

On Ps.6.5, we agree on the need for "clarification" between us.

3

Do you agree we need to clarify how we use "fact" & "opinion"?  ("Subject")

4

We are entitled to our opinions but not to our facts: we own no facts.  The earth & the facts are the Lord's, not ours.

5

Do you deny that it's a fact this psalmist's opinion is that when dead (6.5.a) we'll not be able to remember God, so (6.5.b) we'll not be able to praise him?  By an anachronistic (later-meaning) eisegesis of "Sheol" (NRSV), Al tried to deny that that was this psalmist's opinion.  But the distich's first line shows "the dead" as unqualified, comprehensive: all the dead - which the second line, in parallel synonymity, confirms as "the grave" (the metaphor for the afterlife, in Jewish and Christian Bibles the common translation of "Sheol" here).

6

You here misuse "conclusion".  Looking at Ps.6.5, I saw something you & I don't believe.  I observed it, did not conclude it (go through a thought-process to get to it).  But if I thought our Book to be ERRORLESS, I would indeed have to go through a thought-process & come to a "conclusion" - that the Book is not errorless, or that my observation that it has a particular error is incorrect & I need help to correct my observation, or that the text's meaning is a mystery to be revealed in God's good time.

7

An alternative to the bibliolatrous notion that the Bible is errorless is the fact that the Bible is SELF-CORRECTING.  Written over more than a millennium, the Bible records God's progressive revelation: would he have come in & as Jesus if previous revelation had been adequate?  Scores of scriptures tell us we are to praise God both here-&-now & hereafter: should we be surprised when we come upon one (here, Ps.6.5) not aware of the afterlife's potential for remembrance of, communion with, praise of God?

8

Greatly strengthening the "progressive" against the "errorless" position is the fact that all the stages of everything revealed in the Bible can be studied from below, as emergents in bio-psycho-socio-historical life: "natural" studies confirm "supernatural" revelation.  As the father of natural science, Francis Bacon, put it (on the page facing the title-page of Darwin's THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES), "the book of God's word" (the Bible) & "the book of God's works" (nature, including human life) deserve parallel study of the highest "proficiency".  (Ro.1.20 presumes this parallel study.)

9

I must add the divine sanction to "Subject": we are insulting the God of Truth when, for our convenience (personal, religious, political), we treat facts as mere opinions or mere opinions as facts.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 8:24 AM

Subject: Re: hermeneutics: FACTS and OPINIONS

[Willis E. Elliott]

Al

1

I think you're saying proleptic inference is OK if intra-, but not extra-biblical.  On  the ethics of literary criticism, both are textural "corruptions".  "Lower [i.e., textual] criticism" of MSS of the Gospels is especially alert for such corruptions from one Gospel to another.

2

Yes to everything else you say below except your proleptic inference that "the dead" in Ps.6.5a can be parsed, in interpreting this text, into good/bad dead

3

This corruption is not only of the particular text, but (as I say in my section 3) 'of history and of historical revelation".

[Willis E. Elliott]

Clear, Al.

1

You didn't note my point about the human category of the non-hetero inclined: almost none of them are asexual, almost all of them are homosexual.  Jesus said a lot about sex, nothing about homosex.  Jimmy Carter is right: churches have made BIG something which, for Jesus, was not a small but a non-existent issue.

2

You admit that some have a homosexual "created nature," are "created equal," & have "rights," including "liberty" - but then you deny them the sexual liberty of their "created nature."  Doesn't sound like Jesus to Carter & me.

3

Loree & I agee with you on (& have practiced) virginal marriage & marital faithfulness.

4

What's this about "the inhibiting rule of God's law manifest in the scriptures"?  God makes homos, then legislates against their behaving according to the "nature" he gave them, & calls such behavior "disorienting" even though it's oriented to the nature he gave them?  (This God you speak of is not only unjust but also without grace.)

5

You deny there's an "inherent...homosexual inclination or affection".  All in the eunuchs-by-birth category our Lord's speaks of are asexual?  "Asexual" means without sexual inclination.  But of the non-hetero-inclined population, only a miniscule number (less than 1%) are without sexual orientation, & asexuals are "tempted" (i.e., inclined-to-behave) to neither homosex nor heterosex.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Rev. AWKovacs

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:42 PM

[Rev. AWKovacs]

No foolin' today, Willis - we've cleared the April Fool's hurdle (as we did Groundhog Day).

 

1. That Jesus didn't address the homosexual issue probably was because it wasn't much of an issue then  (if at all) - since the community "knew" by its moral code that it was an "abomination."  It's much like "same sex marriage," which wasn't a part of the discussion even fifty years ago. Then, everyone knew marriage was between a man and a woman - period!  When a homosexual couple lived together, it wasn't a matter for conversation - usually hiddden or one ignored in polite conversation. ...  Abortion wasn't table conversation fifty years ago either, and whoever thought we'd be so dissolute that we tolerate without a gasp over a million a year just in the USA? ... Jimmy Carter was/is wrong about a lot of things - he couldn't find any persecuted churches in Russia either.

 

2. To have a homosexual nature for me means that the person, because of that God-given nature, isn't intended to be sexually involved. There are some things in life that have to be accepted. Societal history is full of the stories of fine people who have accepted the limitations of their physical or mental attributes (I suppose we all have may have several, perhaps less noticeable). Some are born blind, others albino, still others with Downs Syndrome,  and some low IQ, etc. They are all valued, human beings of God's creation. The God who creates us all differently is not unjust.  We all have relatives who may be "slow," yet whom we love unconditionally, and so with God who cares for all.

 

4.  What is unnatural is the misuse of the sexual organs, which are complementary in heterosexual intimacy and in harmony with God's design for their use. Tradesmen will tell you that it's imperative to use the right tool for the right job - kitchen knives aren't supposed to be used for screw drivers, and socket wrenches for hammers. Lesbian and gay intimacy requires the misuse of the organs, e.g. by "sex toys" or sodomizing.  It is readily manifest and we know it is sinful to misuse them so.

[Trost, Theodore]

Rev Al:

It is always painful to read your notes on this topic.

I would simply suggest that your matter-of-fact and essentialist argument in point 4 (really 3) below would convict many of your heterosexual congregants and, I suspect, a number of your ordained colleagues, of "sexual organ misuse."

As just one example, I mentioned Onan in an earlier note; he got the death penalty and now lives forever in eponymy for his version of "sexual organ misuse" (Genesis 38.8-10).

Your point of view, though, does resonate with Clement of Alexandria: "To have coitus other than to procreate is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children 2.10.95.3), circa 190 AD. As Bob Roberts sang: "The Times they are a-changing—BACK!"

(For more useful quotes in the current political context, see: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html)

Ted Trost

[Rev. AWKovacs]

FOR THE RECORD:  I did not initiate the dialogue on homosexuality, as one can see below.  It grew out of an exchange between Willis and Jim, from which I refrained ten days,

    Interestingly,  the discussion also considered Sheol, passibility of God, etc., but no one jumped in with insights on those, silence until this issue triggered a knee jerk reaction.  However, today Ted commented - I'll reply to it, with due respect to his input. 

    To those who want to drop out, may I suggest - since we've  been down this road before, and without changing one another's opinion - that we return to consideration of the current ones above, or yet others. 

    I'm concerned about the multi-issue of the loss of relvance and impact of Christianity, especially in America, in the face of growing vocal opposition by atheists, Islamists, etc. - and yet avoidance of theocracy.

Al

----- Original Message -----

From: Rev. AWKovacs

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:56 PM

Subject: Re: hermeneutics: FACTS and OPINIONS

[Rev. AWKovacs]

Bro. Ted:

The pain goes with the subject, as it has throughout the ages, as
prowler and seducer are everpresent. God is no less pleased than we would
be to discover our child has yielded to temptation and surrendered to sin -
sexual or otherwise.
That some close to me, family or colleagues or members, are convicted is
not by my judgment but by the laws of God manifest in nature and scripture.
Onan is not alone, nor his sin worse than that of many in the generations
since. I am called to teach, not to make or amend or suspend the rule of
God's law. If I fail to do that, the sins fall upon me - and I have enough
of my own already.
Ursinus, addressing the Seventh Commandment concerning adultery, in
clarification of Questions 108 & 109 of the Heidelberg Catechism, his
extends his comments on the latter: "therefore he fforbids all unchaste
actions, gestures, thoughts, desires, and whatever can entice men thereto."
As Calvin told his correspondents that his appeal to the hurch Fathers was
not that they had inordinate authority, but to show that his insights were
not novel and in concord with such wisdom, I share the insights of the
Reformer Ursinus.
Of particular note, he said: "When God singles out adultery as the most
shocking and debasing vice of all the sins whwich are repugnant to chastity,
he at the same time prohibits and condemns all wandering and wanton lusts,
whether they be found in married or unmarried persons, and prohibits all
other sisn and vices contrary to chastity, together with their causes,
occasions, effetcs, entecedents, consequents, &c." ... "All the various
species of lust may be rerferred to these three classes: - The first class
or kind are those which are contrary to nature, and from the devil - such as
are even contrary to our corrupt nature; not only because they corrupt and
spoil it of conformity with God, but also because this our corrupt nature
shrinks from them and abhors them. The lusts of which the apostle Paul
speaks in the first chapted of the Epistle to the Romans, are of this class,
as the confounding of the sexes, also abuses of the female sex."
Of course, those who wish to throw out Paul will also want to ignore
Ursinus and the Law, the latter recognized by Jesus, and choose instead
Smorgasbord Christianity acceptable to their appetite, teachers inclined to
affirm their idolatry.
Rev Al

----- Original Message -----
From: "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu>
To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY

Rev Al:

It is always painful to read your notes on this topic.

I would simply suggest that your matter-of-fact and essentialist argument in
point 4 (really 3) below would convict many of your heterosexual congregants
and, I suspect, a number of your ordained colleagues, of "sexual organ
misuse."

As just one example, I mentioned Onan in an earlier note; he got the death
penalty and now lives forever in eponymy for his version of "sexual organ
misuse" (Genesis 38.8-10).

Your point of view, though, does resonate with Clement of Alexandria: "To
have coitus other than to procreate is to do injury to nature" (The
Instructor of Children 2.10.95.3), circa 190 AD. As Bob Roberts sang: "The

Times they are a-changing�BACK!"

[Trost, Theodore]

Enough people have stormed off.

We were just lamenting Scott's absence before you came back to the conversation. . . .

So the last word is yours.

Bro. Ted:

Rev Al:

Times they are a-changing—BACK!"

(For more useful quotes in the current political context, see:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html)

Ted Trost

[Rev. AWKovacs]

When people aren't open to listening to the other side, I really don't want
to be a part of their mono-view.

So, please tell Scott, et al, you CC's can have this blog to yourselves ...
I'm outta here! Now!

Whoever is administering this - do me a Delete, thank you!

Al Kovacs

Bro. Ted:

Rev Al:

Times they are a-changing�BACK!"

[link...@aol.com]

"We" vs. "you"?

Jim Link

[Trost, Theodore]

Jim:

It's a busy season and there are many responsibilities to attend to during the high holy days. Tempers flare. Even Jesus got upset with the Temple cling-ons and stormed out. . . .

My rather oblique submission to Reverend Al was intended only to cut myself off from further debates (at least with Al) about homosexuality in this forum. I was handing the last word to him in that particular iteration and taking a vow of silence. Who is up to arguing this matter endlessly? It has been a topic of impassioned theological reflection since a gathering of Confessing Christ in Boylston, MA, back in 1993 or so. Before that, circa 1978, it was one of the distinguishing foci of the Biblical Witness Fellowship. Not to entrench an us vs. them, then, but in the hope of maintaining an us that had already been diminished by two at that point (with explicit mention, in my note, to an earlier departee), I just offered the last word to Al. He took it.

Ted

From: "link...@aol.com<mailto:link...@aol.com>" <link...@aol.com<mailto:link...@aol.com>>
Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:50:49 -0500
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY

"We" vs. "you"?

Jim Link

On Apr 2, 8:19 pm, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>> wrote:
Enough people have stormed off.

We were just lamenting Scott's absence before you came back to the conversation. . . .

So the last word is yours.

[Jean Easland]

Brother Theodore: Hope all hang in here for more fruitful talk. It is a
wonderful week of intensity for all. Hope "that" subject has been
exhausted(again) for this group. Stay on Debra and others+++please!+++ Grace
abounds! Roger

Jim:

Ted

"We" vs. "you"?

Jim Link

Bro. Ted:

Rev Al:

Times they are a-changing�BACK!"

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

Thank you for clarifying things. I was thinking the same thing about
the season.

Yours is a good question: "Who is up to arguing this matter
endlessly?" We can all hope it will not be endless. A few of us bring
it up, a few of us engage those who bring it up, a few of us drop out
of the forum, which would be too many even if there were not so few of
us to begin with, none of us is up to it all the time, some of us are
never up to it. The good thing we can hope and pray for is that some
of us will be up to it some times, and helpful to others, because we
are all members of the holy catholic church and there seems to be a
painful division in these matters as the church hears the call to
engage in theological work in this time and place given to us
together.

God bless you!

Jim

On Apr 3, 2:55 pm, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu> wrote:
> Jim:
>
> It's a busy season and there are many responsibilities to attend to during the high holy days.  Tempers flare.  Even Jesus got upset with the Temple cling-ons and stormed out. . . .
>
> My rather oblique submission to Reverend Al was intended only to cut myself off from further debates (at least with Al) about homosexuality in this forum.  I was handing the last word to him in that particular iteration and taking a vow of silence.  Who is up to arguing this matter endlessly?  It has been a topic of impassioned theological reflection since a gathering of Confessing Christ in Boylston, MA, back in 1993 or so.  Before that, circa 1978, it was one of the distinguishing foci of the Biblical Witness Fellowship.   Not to entrench an us vs. them, then, but in the hope of maintaining an us that had already been diminished by two at that point (with explicit mention, in my note, to an earlier departee), I just offered the last word to Al.  He took it.
>
> Ted
>

[Willis E. Elliott]

Amen, Roger!

Please, fellow-witnesses, no self-"(ex)communication"!

1

Among us on OpenForum, the illusion seems widespread that we have been talking homosexuality.  Not me (either the illusion or the subject): as my "Subjects" show, I have steadily been talking HOW, NOW, TO READ THE BIBLE.

2

To talk HOW, NOW, TO READ THE BIBLE, one must get specific.  The most recent specific I've suggested was Ps.6.5.  Before that: in Ro.1, Paul's reading of God in nature (vs.20) & his strategic use of Stoic philosophy & ethics (within the rest of the chapter & elsewhere in Romans: his use of a nonbiblical way of thinking bridges & models for our

use of nonbiblical ways of thinking).  Before that....  Homosex?  It's not mentioned in Ps.6, & in Ro.1 it's only a side-remark on the subject of idolatry.  I've dealt with homosex only in its relevance to HOW, NOW, TO READ THE BIBLE.

3

I must mention two ways NOT to read the Bible (& I'll use sex to illustrate);

3.1

THE LEGALIST.  All not-intending-conception sex is sin.  (Yes, Ted, Cl. of Alex.)  Against this mentality in the Southern Baptist leading fundamentalist, I cited Jimmy Carter's pointing past marginal matters (specifically, in that interview, homosex & abortion) to Jesus.  For the early Christians, the incarnation radically changed biblical hermeneutics.

God came, & now we have God as the "lens" to look at God's Book through.  But not all human beings use this lens to read Scripture, & to witness to them we Christian need to try to see the Bible as they see it; & for our own understanding & praise of the Lord, we need to see how God prepared the world for the incarnation.  (For this latter purpose, the best resource I know is a visual: Chart 12, relating the developing of the understanding of God to the entire inner & outer life of God's people: "Socio-Literary Theological Sectors..." [pp602-607, Norman K. Gottwald, THE HEBREW BIBLE: A SOCIO-LITERARY INTRODUCTION (Fortress Press, 1985/87].)

3.2

THE LIBERTINE.  Anything goes.  Call it (in, e.g., Ro.1) orgasm idolatry.

4

According to Jesus, the historical story as three categories of dramatic personae - the divine, the demonic, & the human.  /  The aims of the demonic are (1) to divert attention from the divine (beginning in Gn.3) & (2) to damage the human.  When I mentioned this in a Craigville Colloquy & concluded by the final petition in the Lord's Prayer (in Mt.: "and deliver us from the evil one"), David Bentley Hart said "*Ton poneron*" (the Evil One [personal], who in both versions of the Lord's Prayer [Mt.6 & L.11], is the Tempter).

4.1

Since our founding in 1957, The Diverter-Tempter has succeeded in reducing our UCC population by 50%.

4.2

Since the foundings of our UCC Confessing Christ & OpenForum, the Diverter-Tempter has been succeeding in reducing our populations, weakening our witness in the UCC.

5

There may be other good reasons for dropping out of our UCC OpenForum, but I can think of only two.  Death, & severe decline in health.  In the past three weeks, I have experienced the latter, including a decline in sight.  I'll continue to pray for our OpenForum community, & read everything y'all write as long as I can, but have little energy or time to write much. (As to time, our son Bill soon arrives from China  to digitize my archives.)

6

One more plea: please stop the Devil's winning streak!  Don't drop out!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

>>

> Times they are a-changing—BACK!"

[Jane Ellingwood]

Dear Willis (and anyone else who wishes to read this),

Okay, Willis, I am going to do some "straight talk" with you, which, contrary to any other thoughts, is not related to any kind of sex.  It's corporate-speak for being able to say what needs to be said.  Good executives rank high in the competency of "straight talk."   

So, on my walk tonight, my very vigorous walk, I was thinking of you and of this entire mess that we are currently in, in this Open Forum, with people wishing to drop out, and others, such as Al, feeling that they have been forced out, and people like Ted partly admitting that he may have experienced high tensions such as those that the Bible say were rampant during Holy Week (I had been thinking much the same about this mess, even before reading Ted's posting today).  In fact, because of my thoughts about tensions and anger in Holy Week, I read the descriptions of Jesus' last week, after his entry into Jerusalem, in Mark and Luke, late last night and first thing this morning, just to prepare myself to jump into this very unfortunately dialogue here.  So I was glad that Ted at least brought Holy Week up.  Even though this example does not fit, and I could not find a way to make it fit, I was still reminded of some of Jesus' "main men" arguing about who was the greatest, after he had told them a few times what was in the works for his future.  (That happened before Holy Week, but not too much before!)  

I was also thinking, on my walk, of how you love to exercise what you believe to be your right to "admonish" people, which I do understand comes from scripture.  I was thinking, as I pressed up the hills, that I hate that concept, and I would never dream of seeking to "admonish" you. I'd much rather just "chew you out" and shoot "straight from the hip" (again, no pun intended given recent dialogues).  

And, to engage in straight talk, I was thinking about your health and age, and I was very annoyed with you that one of our last communications with you might be you jumping in, after days and days of silence, to "admonish" someone.  I was thinking how awful it would be, if one of your last postings to us was in that category, and how truly wonderful it would be if you would engage in the kind of postings that would impart to us more of your wisdom and insight and intense scholarship, without all the criticisms of other people. That's how I want to learn from you and remember you.  But of course I figured I could never mention your health or age to you --- or even to Al, who also has not been well lately, but who then jumped back into the dialogue, with unfortunate results.  

BUT you have given me the opening.  You have shared with us here that you are experiencing what you describe as a severe decline in health and eyesight. I am very sorry about that, and I want you to last forever.  I want your huge brain and your heart and your passion to go on and on and on and on.  But it is Holy Week, and during holy week, we all face many facts of life --- including many we hope never to personally experience.  So I am going to ask you (not admonish you, but ask you) if you would consider doing some "legacy" type postings of the good kind.  No admonishments.  No long lectures against Jim Link or Chris or whomever.  Just share from your huge brain and huge heart.  Consider this another form of "digitizing" your archives, as your son is going to do (bless him, because I could not figure out what to recommend to you).  I want to hear from you and read you and learn from you --- minus all the other stuff wrapped around it.  

And, just for the record, I agree with those folks who left because they are tired about arguments about sex.  I don't want to leave.  I'd be lost without you all.  But I too can hardly stand all the dialogues that have taken place lately.  I agree with the person who said that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is so much more.  And if we can't believe THAT this week, during Holy Week, when will we ever believe it?  This week, as Ted alluded to, is the week when so much happened in Jerusalem, from Jesus' exhilarating entry into the city, to his anger in the temple and with the fig tree and against scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees and others, to his silence or cryptic remarks in front of the authorities.  Not to mention his betrayal by Peter, Judas, others, and the horrible tortures and pain he experienced, and his death on the cross.  And yet, as Herb has already pushed us to think about, we are about to make it to Easter Sunday.  Jesus appeared again fully in the flesh, fully human and fully divine, recognized by Thomas as his God, even as Jesus called Thomas and the other disciples to honor Jesus' God and their God.  And the Spirit was there too, with Jesus breathing the Spirit on them, and giving them peace.  There is SO MUCH GOOD NEWS IN ALL THIS.  Let's try, as Herb is now pushing us on to do, to make it to Easter together, as a community that confesses not only Christ, but also the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jane Ellingwood

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Jane,

We should all post in the knowledge that it could be our last.

Willis may outlast us all. Long live Willis!

As for discussing sex this week, this week in particular, I have heard
any number of sermons, and read many commentaries, which note the
prominent place of the female sex in the events leading to Jesus'
arrest, at his execution, and, most notably, in the witness to the
resurrection. We try to de-sex things with the word "gender," but of
course, gender, which means kind or form, is sex when we are speaking
of human beings, who are essentially male and female. Having sex means
more than "having sex," as I have tried to make clear in my
discussions with you, Willis, Al, Ted, Scott, Chris and others. I'm
not the least bit ashamed to bring up sex, for it is right there in
the story, from the beginning "male and female God created humanity,
according to God's image and likeness," it is there in the life of
Jesus, his eternal life, and it is there in Paul's mystery of Christ
and the Church, and it is in John's new Jerusalem, the bride of the
Lamb.

Jim Link

[Jean Easland]

My Dear Sister Jane: I could feel Mary's compassion as she wept at the tomb
coming through that wonderful post to father Willis. Thankyou for the
outpouring of care to Willis because it spills over to all of us. It is a
week of torturous remebrance and that remembrance invades our real life as
the power of the Spirit flows through our being on this most mysterious and
wondrous week. Love covers a multitude of sins and your love for us covers
us with incarnate grace, so thanks and thanks and thankgiving for you as
part of this fellowship. Easter love+++roger

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

[Herb Davis]

I am wondering how you deal with violence in the scriptures, especially God commanded violence in Torah and prophets or hoped for violence in the Ps.  This has become a pressing issue since some folks like to see Islam texts as more violent than Christian.  Walter Brueggeman has a review of a recent book of essays on Violence in the Prophets.(Christian Century 4/4/12 p.46)  He notes that Christians deal with violence in three ways:

    1.  Progress revelation, an evolutionary hypothesis that religion has outgrown such primitivism

    2.  A flat out Marcionite maneuver that selects the good stuff and reject the negative a move that produces The Liberal bible.  “The Liberal Bible...represented a compromise settlement between the Bible and proto-democracy and signalled the transformation of the Bible from a complex and variegated text to a cultural symbol or icon – a reduction of Bible to a few axiomatic politico-theological principles that could be liberally applied...The liberal Bible maintained that true scripture must e ethical and legal; it supported the universal and denounced the arbitrary and capricious; and it supported consensus and consultation and shunned acts of sovereign exceptionality and raw force.”

  3.  Jesus wouldn’t do that

 

These writers reject these ways of dealing with biblical violence.

 

Although Brueggeman claims these writers don’t address a real God, but the social context and the voice of the prophet to a society in more trouble than it is able to acknowledge, such as Jeremiah Wrights, “God Dam America” sermon. These writers claim the rhetoric is necessary to draw close to the lived reality of an unbearable social reality that will not be covered over by smooth speech, pious doctrine or elite cant. 

 

Walter claims these essays push us beyond the old liberal notion that the prophets finally arrived at an ethical monotheism that recognized the “brotherhood of man”under “the fatherhood of God.”  such a familiar formula indicates the way in which we conform out reading to our ideological permits.

 

How do you deal with violence in the Biblical texts?  I don’t have a good answer. Herb 

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

It seems clear from Scripture that sometimes God calls some human
beings to use some violence, toward the preservation of life in the
broader or narrower sense, and sometimes he calls some human to
refrain from violence, even where life is at stake, to His glory as
the One who sent his own Son to die for the sins of the world.

I once preached on "You will not murder!" and several veterans of WWII
thanked me afterward for speaking on the difference between killing
and murder. Confirmation classes perk right up when I get to this
commandment ask them to think about the difference between killing
itself and "wanton disregard for human life," e.g. vehicular homicide
involving reckless or drunken driving.

Jim

[Willis E. Elliott]

Dear Al

1

100% agreement on this (from you, below):

I'm concerned about the multi-issue of the loss of relevance and impact of Christianity, especially in America, in the face of growing vocal opposition by atheists, Islamists, etc. - and yet avoidance of theocracy.  (My underlining.)

2

In any culture, the Bible's fate is Christianity's fate.  And  the Bible's fate lies in how it is read / taught / preached.  That is why my main concern, since our UCC CC OpenForum's beginning, has been how, now, to read the Bible.

3

"How, NOW,....?"  Earlier today, Herb wrote on how, NOW, to read the Bible's violence-passages: "How do you deal with violence in the Biblical texts.  I don't have a good answer."  If Herb knew less about it (its complexity, etc.), he'd have a "good" (i.e., personally satisfying) answer.  The Bible says God (1) shows no partiality & (2) commands the genocide of peoples who get in the way of the people to whom he shows partiality.  How, now, read that?  The Bible says God commands the execution of homosexuals (though the Qur'an doesn't).  How, now, read that?  /  One more comment on "now": we are not reading the Bible in-the-now when now we read it in-the-then (say, through the lens of the 16th-c. Reformers).  Then, in that case, we are ourselves contemporary ancestors.  Contemporary ancestors increase "the loss of relevance and impact of Christianity....".  "Circumstances alter cases."  "New occasions teach new duties, time makes [some] ancient good uncouth.  They must upward still and onward who would keep abreast of truth."

4

Can we not agree that since the Bible is (like life, life-like) very hard to read on some subjects, we ought all be humbly hermeneutically generous, slow to condemn anybody's reading on those subjects?  (I said "slow": we should condemn readings that confuse "facts and opinions," as I said in the "Subject" heading which you [above] have continued.)

5

Since relenting is far less painful than repenting (changing one's mind), few conversations on hot topics (e.g., abortion) end in the latter.  But as we witness to one another, little changes - with the potential for big change - do occur.  And the Holy Spirit hovers over us, ever intending to convert our conversations into communion.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Rev. AWKovacs

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:17 PM

Subject: Re: DELETE, Etc - hermeneutics: FACTS and OPINIONS

FOR THE RECORD:  I did not initiate the dialogue on homosexuality, as one can see below.  It grew out of an exchange between Willis and Jim, from which I refrained ten days,

    Interestingly,  the discussion also considered Sheol, possibility of God, etc., but no one jumped in with insights on those, silence until this issue triggered a knee jerk reaction.  However, today Ted commented - I'll reply to it, with due respect to his input. 

    To those who want to drop out, may I suggest - since we've  been down this road before, and without changing one another's opinion - that we return to consideration of the current ones above, or yet others. 

    I'm concerned about the multi-issue of the loss of relevance and impact of Christianity, especially in America, in the face of growing vocal opposition by atheists, Islamists, etc. - and yet avoidance of theocracy.

Al

----- Original Message -----

From: Rev. AWKovacs

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:56 PM

Subject: Re: hermeneutics: FACTS and OPINIONS

"Your mention of Kinsey & of evidence for homosexuality as limited to "statistics and correlations" makes me suspicious that you're unaware of the hard data on the bio dimension of homosexuality. - Willis (below)

    Firmly believing that God is the Creator of all life (who does abortion thwarts the very will of God at his peril), there can be no denial that some of His creation is without heterosexual orientation.  Jesus said that some are born eunuchs by the will of God ("eunuchs who have been so from birth" - Mt. 19:12).

    However, same sex relations is a denial of God's will for their lives, doing what is contrary to their created nature - i.e. disobedience and sin. Similarly, the heterosexuals are under constraints of chastity until united in marriage, and fidelity thereafter, according to their created nature as the two become one.

    (The name Kinsey came up, and we must recollect that his work was discredited as he purposely skewed his "findings" to suit his preordained results.  However, pseudo-scientists and libertines used them to rationalize their social theorums or immorality.)

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I gave given Ps 6,5 a little thought with regard to your question.

The verse does not seem to me to be either "a fact or opinion."
Rather, within a psalm in conjunction with the pronouncement of
judgment or perhaps even war (vs. 9 reminds me of Mt 25:41, although
the LXX Greek uses different words from the NT Greek), the verse is a
protest within a prayer to God (vss.1-8), a confession of the need in
which the psalmist finds him or herself in the face of evildoers, who
are manifestations not only of evil, but of the wrath and displeasure
of the Lord toward the psalmist and the people that is to be
characterized by "remembrance" and "praise" (technical cultic terms!)
for the Lord, for which Lord has assembled them as his holy people
under David. 6,5 seems closely linked to verses 7,8: the dead, sheol/
worn out, a bed in which there is no final rest, melted away as it is
with his tears, unless the Lord delivers and rescues and gives cause
for remembrance and praise. He is essentially praying for the healing
of fearful bones, for strength and integrity after sleepless nights of
awareness of his own guilt (And how does the President ever sleep???),
in prelude to the pronoucement and execution of judgment after his own
petition and prayer for mercy has been heard by his King. Amen to
that!

Jim Link

[Herb Davis]

Thanks Jim, I hope this will help Willis. Herb

[Willis E. Elliott]

Dear Jane

1

Thanks for the refreshing "corporate-speak" "straight talk"!  I take your message, & thank you for it.  Apparently, on our OpenForum, the Christian religion has been inhibiting you from using it.

2

After writing the above, from China we got a computer-speak translated phonecall: we don't know computer-speak, so Bill must translate.  From my father, who as a business executive had 30 secretaries (in one huge room), as well as from my own decade in the UCC national office, I do know something about corporate-speak straight-talk, & I prefer it to super-polite crooked talk.

3

On the second sentence in sec.1 (above), I must point to a defect in the Christian religion.  (Nothing human is perfect, including religions.)  It's a defect signaled by the fact  that you felt the need to apologize for using plain speach (straight talk) when addressing a Christian or Christian group (such as our OpenForum) - the assumption being that, linguistically, Christianity thins the skin (as, physically, do certain skin-creams), making Christian relationships (interpersonal & group) more fragile (though, by the mystery of grace, in some cases less vulnerable).

3.1

Trade-offs:

3.1.1

on outer (physical) skin: thick enough to resist ordinary penetrations, thin enough to feel through. PATHOLOGICAL IMBALANCES: insensitivity & inflexibility (too thick);  vulnerability & supersensitivity (too thin).

3.1.2

on inner (metaphorical) skin: thick enough to absorb ordinary exterior irritations, thin enough to suffer development-essential exterior pains.  PATHOLOGICAL IMBALANCES: insensitivity & response-inflexibility (too thick); supersensitivity, touchiness, resentment, self-righteous change-resistance, poor-me victimhood, counter-attack (too thin).

3.2

The defect I'm addressing is a vice produced by the excessive exercise of a cluster of soft virtues in the NT.  (I needn't list the hard virtues.  But I should mention the soft-hard spread of God's virtues in Ro.11.22: *chrestotes* [kindness, the kindliness of his goodness] & *apotomia* [severity, harshness].)  /   We Christians like to put meekness, gentleness (*praus* Mt.5.5) first: Jesus said it's so important that its possessors will "inherit the earth".  Usually, when I think "meek", I think Chas.Rann Kenney's play "The Terrible Meek," which used to be common in churches at Eastertide.  (I just re-read it.  It's in darkness.  At the foot of Jesus' cross, a Roman centurion is converted while talking with Mother Mary, & refuses a command to supervise additional crucifixions.  "The meek, the terrible meek,, the fierce agonizing meek are about to enter into their inheritance."  /  Then there's *epieikes* - the considerate, the forbearing, the fair-minded, the equitable.  /  Finally, *epios* - the gentle, the kind: "A servant of the Lord...must be kind to everyone...." (2Tim.2.24; Vulg. *mansuetum* - tame (orig., a tamed animal), mild, soft, gentle, quiet).

3.3

These soft virtues (for Jesus' kingdom) are the inverse of the hard virtues needed to maintain Caesar's empire), & they were developed in that world of brutal power.  When Christians came to worldly power (by default of the collapsed Roman Empire), some Christians added the hard virtues, other Christians choose to overdevelop the soft virtues over against their fellow-Christians as well as "the world".  I side with Christians (e.g., Bonhoeffer's ETHICS) who seek to balance the virtues, soft & hard.

4

Now, Jane, for two examples of the overdeveloped virtue of kindness.

4.1

I've told twice before on our OpenForum my experience of being at the B'way opening of Paddy Chayefsky's "Gideon."  Whimsically, he reduced religion to kindness.  The playbill had this as page one: "MY CREED:  I believe in kindness, and that old men and women should be kept cool in the summer and warm in the winter."

4.2

Excessive kindness is written into our OpenForum's speech-code: NO QUESTIONING ANYBODY'S INTEGRITY.  Everybody please be safe from everybody!  Now, the fact is that human life is dangerous.  A safe conversation cannot be a serious conversation. To the extent that this negative speech-code rule is observed, our conversations must be limited in depth (tippy-toe, shallow, superficial).  You admit that the NT teaches Christians to "admonish" as well as to "affirm" one another (to use the language of ecumenese).  In our OpenForum history, only three times have I had to question a fellow-confessor's integrity; but some on our OpenForum think that was three times too many.  My opinion is that right now, there's more disturbance among us over my (let's say) "impoliteness" than over boredom with the latest surge in emails on sexuality..

5

In your third paragraph, you say you'd rather "chew [me] out" than "admonish" me.  I must admonish you: the latter is Christian, the former is unChristian.  But since I'm a Christian, I'd forgive you for chewing me out: they say we all need to ventilate occasionally.  And I do prefer your plain speech to kindness-overloaded speech.  /  Should not our Lord be our speech model?  He was not full of either grace or truth, or of more one that the other.  He was "full" of both (Jn.1.14), & (as the law came "through" Moses) grace (*charis*) & truth (*aletheia*) came "through Jesus Christ" (vs.17).

6

Excessive kindness, the Christianity-defect I'm addressing here, is worsened by our general culture's sentimentality - iconic in e.e.cumming's line "Be of love a little more careful than [of] anything".  The poet meant by "love" what the general culture means - not what our Lord meant in the double-love commandment: be of love-of-God-&-neighbor a little more careful than of anything else.  But living this commandment requires equal regard for love & truth; & this (because of the "Christian" defect I'm addressing here) I've found in no churches (of whatever orientation to the general culture).

7

Because of this widespread less regard for truth than for love (true of all three instances, in my experience of our OpenForum, of [in my view] violation of personal integrity), I must insert a small sidebar on the meaning of *aletheia* - TRUTH.

7.1

It's the usual OT Greek translation of Hebrew *emeth*  firmness, fidelity, faithfulness ("a righteous people live by  their faithfulness" [Hab.2.4; {in Paul} faith]); *emunah* firmness, steadiness, steadfastness, (God's) truth (as often associated with his mercy & righteousness); *emah* foundation, support; *amen* confirm, support, establish, verify, be faithful.

7.2

The usual Greek NT word for truth is negative, the alpha-privative added to Lethe (in Greek mythology the Hades river of oblivion the dead had to drink from & lose all memory of life on earth).  (In memory, I can see a Big Sur CA bar named "Lethe" (clever: come in, drink up, forget your troubles.)  TRUTH (*a-letheia*) is whatever is so basic, substantive, fundamental that you can't deny-avoid it without dire consequences (e.g., of becoming unreal yourself, a liar).  Face facts, or become false (i.e., lose your integrity).  Since the concealed tends to be forgotten ("out of sight, out of mind"), the root of *aleth-* means also concealed - so *a-leth-* means unconcealed (so Jesus says what's concealed will be revealed, made manifest) - so, actual, real, truthful.  /  An *alethes* is someone in whom there is no falsehood, who is honorable without shame, who walks the talk and talks the walk.  As an adjective, it means real, genuine, true to fact, to actuality.  /  Something *alethinos* claims to be, & is, substance without shadow, assertion without deception, without impurity or inferiority (e.g., "pure gold").  (In the Nicene Creed, the word is used twice in one phrase: Jesus is "very God from very God".)  The word is stronger than Eng. "true," the antonym of which is "false": the antonyms of *alethinos" are "false" & "inferior" (viz., idols as inferior to the "true" God).

7.3

Worth meditation: almost all the NT uses of *aleth-* are in the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of TRUTH!  Twice in the first chapter of John, I see Jesus with "grace" in one hand & "truth" in the other.  And I have a personal-experience basis for being keenly alert to both.  To grace, my conversion experience & all that led up to it. To truth, from age 12 from time to time before taking off for college, as a keen observer of how my father sought for the truth in case after case in his courtroom.  Not only perjury, but evasions of truth, were insults to God, to the law & its country, to "this honorable court" &"his honor".

8

Today is Holy Saturday, the Christian Year's Janus day (between Bad-Dark Fridiay & Good-Light Sunday.   Think of the fate of truth that day.  Think of the hymn line "Truth forever on the scaffold."  Then thank the good Lord for the Easter fate of the lie.

9

Again, Jane, I thank you for your suggestions.  I take seriously how you think & feel, though to you it may not always seem so.  /  A few final comments on our differing perceptions.

9.1

I agree that confrontive discourse (which is common in the Gospels, & sometimes occurs on our OpenForum) is unpleasant.  And I must add, as unpleasant as polite discourse is often repetitious & boring.  I see our OpenForum purposes as both to comfort & challenge one another, more the latter (which is true of us contrarians).  /  Story: The last time I saw Wm.("Bill") Sloan Coffin (Yale U. chaplain, then pastor of Riverside Church) was at the reception for a new president of UTSeminaryNY.  We approached each other eagerly for conversation.  We had stood next to each other in the rain in vigorous conversation facing the White House when Nixon, against whom we were demonstrating, began to speak.  Bill was for walk & talk, not just talk; & the more confrontation, the better!  As I rose to give an address to UCC leaders at the UN Church House across the street from the UN in NYC, Bill unexpectedly rose & said "I'm walking out if I conclude that this speach is going to be without any proposal for change in attitude or action."  My speech included a positive way of seeing violent insurgency as a change factor (along with violence-stimulating non-violent demos for societal change); he stayed, & I got fired from the UCC national office.

9.2

I view our OpenForum a workshop conversations leaning toward the goals of Confessing Christ.  Workshops are often sweaty.  If we were sitting around a table, we'd all be trapped into listening to everybody/everything.  But in the OpenForum, everybody is free by the instant omnipotence of "Delete"!  As for the OpenForum flow of topics, like the weather it changes often - more often than some of those remember who have a distaste for a thread currently holding attention.  The distaste may go deeper.  Computer-captives have a growing urge to "Delete" but are undermotivated to do so until an adequate irritation appears - & they may then delete part or all of their email: "email make[s] it hard to focus on long-term goals." (p44 4.5.12 TIME, an excellent article on willpower & the brain)  /  God uses both trouble-makers (like Jesus & MLKing) &, like the pastors against whom King wrote "Letters from a Birmingham Jail," peace-makers.

9.3

I feel/think it's very unfortunate that you feel the recent dialog you here criticize has been "very unfortunate".  You seem to have a particular dislike of "criticisms of other people".  We agree that criticism in this forum should be more of ideas than of people.  But the ideas we talk about are as attached to people as the hand is to the arm: our conversations are ideas-people talk, not (e.g.) objective techy-talk.

9.4

Yes to "good news" talk this Eastertide!  If truly Christian, conversation - in whatever venue - intends communion & the full-coming of the true community.  /  Easter is God-as-man unconfined by death or time or space.  (The 1972 Bates College Annual Lecture in Religion was my "The Unconfinable" - on a less remarked divine mark.  It did what I've tried to do throughout my ministry: mark it hard not to think.)  /  To use an ancient Christian wisdom-saying (source otherwise unknown), Easter is "God writing straight on crooked lines."  So many Christian truths packed into this gnome, so many ways to misread it!  God has the last line as well as the last word.  "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." (Ro.5.20)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

  From: Jane Ellingwood

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:57 PM

Subject: Re: on (ex)communication

[Willis E. Elliott]

Herb & Jim

 

I hope this helps.

1

Please re-read section 5 in my Mar.31 (below).

2

Jim, I have underlined these words of yours: "technical cultic terms!"  Cultic means liturgical, (in your use) the Israelite-Jewish cult.  I.e., worship terms.  But the Hebrew of our verse has no "terms"; it has only one term, the usual word for "memory"; the second line has a verb sometimes translated by a noun.

2.1

You should tell the Jews what you know.  Here's a well-known Jewish translation of our verse: "For there is no praise of You among the dead:

            In Sheol, who can acclaim You?" (p1113, TANAKH: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures [JPS/1985)  /  So far from reflecting that the Hebrew word for "memory" or "remembrance" is cultic, this translation ("praise") doesn't even contain the idea! (Notice: as in the Hebrew, this translation's synonymous parallel to "praise" is a verb, not a noun.)

2.2

In Jewish liturgical works, a cultic word names an area of ritual-ceremonial.  My library has a section of such works.  E.g., for The Ten Days of Awe from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur, the word is *teshuvah*: GATES OF REPENTANCE (CCCC/1978).  (The editor told me that he wanted to call it GATES OF TURNING [since the literal meaning of the Hebrew for repentance is turning {cp. Lat. "conversio"}], but the official committee wouldn't let him.)

3

During my few teen-years as an inerrantist, I developed the cover-up skill of evading Bible verses the plain meaning of which my Perfect-Book dogma would not permit me to accept.  And if my skill failed me, I could always "look it up" in a fundamentalist commentary.  There's no semantic wiggle-room in Ps.6.5 (e.g.), but those commentaries could provide "virtual" wiggle-room in pseudoscholarly pious language.

4

Of course it's probable one could find, in ultra-orthodox Jewish literature, some support for your "technical cultic terms" evasion of the plain meaning of Ps.6.5.  But I must confront you & Herb with the first rule of inductive Bible study: "When the plain meaning makes common sense, seek no other sense."

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

The point of the JPS translation "praise" is that "remembrance" as in
the NRSV translation, is cultic! "Memory" here is not simply an
interior, personal matter, but of public celebration. The parallel
verb in 6a is quite frequently used in the Psalm for the advertising
of God's name that goes on in the worship realm.

I knew the verb zakhar [sorry, can't type the macron or any other
diacritical marks on e-mail] fairly well because I happened to do a
paper on it for my Hebrew class in seminary! This morning I looked it
up in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament and found this
regarding the noun " zekher, 'Memory.'" : "...late psalms still show
that the zekher [no italics on e-mail] of God's name involves an
element of proclamation: according to Ps. 111:4, God has made a zekher
for his wonderful works and Ps. 145:7 states: 'They shall proclaim the
memory of thy abundant goodness.'45 [45 H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, Hand-
Kommentar zum AT, ed. W. Nowack, Gottingen, II/2 (1926, (5) 1968),
609.] These passages could actually represent cultic festivals that
serve to celebrate this memory. 46 [46 H Zirker, Die kultische
Vergegenwartigung der Vergangenheit in den Psalmen. Bonner Biblische
Beitrage, 20 (1964).] The fact that there is no remembrance of God in
Sheol (Ps. 6:6 [5]) can even be the motive for a lament in which the
worshipper prays that God will remember him and let him live. Man
lives because God remembers him, and is obligated to remember God's
wonders with praise." (H. Eising , "zakhar," TDOT, IV, 77.)

God bless you, Willis!

Jim Link

[Herb Davis]

Dear Willis, If I read you right you are saying it is a fact not an opinion
that the Psalmist said the dead cannot praise God. Your principle allows
you to say, "-
"When the plain meaning makes common sense, seek no other sense." That
sounds like a literal interpretation. You equal the literal with fact. I
would not be so sure that I read the bible that way. Neither Jim nor I are
errorless and I am not a progressive. I still think your progressive is
what Fosdick defined. What I am sure is that the Psalmist never intended
the text to be used as you are using it, to prove that you are right and
others are wrong. I don't think you are really interested in what the text
means only that the Psalmist was wrong concerning life after death. I
always think text are deeper and richer than your use of this text and I
think Jim may be on to something.

I was surprised that you ignored the work of the scholars on violence since
I think it speaks directly to the issue you rise on fact and opinion. If
you read the violent texts it is plain and simple God orders death for the
enemy. These scholars suggest that there is something all to together
different going on here than what the plain meaning making common sense.
Because of our liberal ideology we cannot deal with the violence and so have
to reject it. According to our liberal lens the prophet couldn't have said
that so we claim that we have progressed in Jesus beyond such text. Maybe
there is something going on here that needs our attention. I would say the
same about the Psalmist, maybe there is something going on here. Herb

[Herb Davis]

Sermon Note: April 15, Sunday after Easter, John 20:19-31

 

John seem to have sympathy for those who find it hard to believe. Mary Magdalene can’t recognize Jesus when she is talking to him.  Thomas refuses to believe unless he can see and touch the wounds.  John knows how difficult it is to believe.  He also knows that belief is not dependent on seeing or touching the risen Christ.  We who gather on the Sunday after the Resurrection believe and confess, Jesus is Lord and the Lord is risen indeed. Belief, the faith to confess is a gift which we cannot explain.

 

Many of us have made the same confession that Thomas made, “My God and my Lord.” v28  Some of us have come to that conviction like Paul on the road when he heard Jesus speak.  Some of us have moved through the night into the dawn without any super natural assurance.  We have all moved from doubt and embarrassment to joy and gladness. 

 

So on Sunday we will say in the hearing of those who are not sure, who doubt or want some proof, “Christ the Lord is Risen and he is My God and My Lord.”  We will confess that the one with the wounds in his hands and side is ‘very God of very God.”   It is a miracle of faith, the work of the Holy Spirit that we gather together as church to testify to the gift that only God can give, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” v29

 

Rather than focus on the doubt of Thomas and our doubts this text celebrates the miracle of faith that allows us, empowers us to say without seeing and without touching, “My God and My Lord.”   This is truly the work of the Holy spirit that we will sing, “Christ the Lord is Risen.”  After 2000 years there are still a people who have the gift of faith and believe without seeing and without touching.

 

This is our faith, a gift we cannot understand.  It is a faith we do not attempt to impose.  It is a confession that we do not use as a club.  It is a witness we make because of a gift that we can only accept. We did not earn our faith. We can only share it.  The gift that is given to those Blessed because they “have not seen and yet have come to believe.”  Praise the Lord! 

 

Any additions or corrections?  Herb

[Jane Ellingwood]

Herb, these sermon notes and confessions sound refreshingly personal, I guess because you have told us before of your deep faith (which we know anyway), even though you have said that you have not had certain experiences. I found your words moving about how we sing out our faith and how we can say, 'My Lord and my God,' 2000 years later.  What will it be like 2000 more years from now?  Blessings, Jane

Sent from my iPhone

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

Well said. I would add only that maybe I would shift the stress, as
manifested in the text, even a little bit more away from the "gift of
faith" more toward the mighty giver of the gift. Jesus Christ
omnipotently imparts faith in Himself, awakens it, gives it, wills it,
and thus commands it! The work of Jesus Christ, in the power of the
Holy Spirit, according to the blessed will of the Father, remains
that he should reveal Himself as "the Christ , the Son of
God" (20:31) through the written witness of the apostles to whom He
Himself revealed Himself graciously and commandingly: "Do not doubt,
but believe!" Note the closed doors and that Jesus Christ reveals His
might in this act of coming and standing among them and greeting them
and showing Himself to Thomas and inviting the most intimate access to
His person according to His knowledge of Thomas in his doubt; and
notice how Thomas responds: "My Lord and my God. The resurrection is
His revelation of Himself, for faith and thus life in His name, He
whose hands and side still bear the marks of nails and spear (the now
powerful marks of powerlessness) so very familiar to the apostles, but
especially to the one who has doubted. In short, the risen Jesus
Christ has the power to overcome all doubt!

Come, Lord Jesus!

Jim Link

[Jean Easland]

Dear Brother: You took us so wonderfully into incarnational theology for Easter, it had a huge effect on my preaching because it shows how much tender love and respect God has for human beings. Now you continue to let us be human and show us how God is patient with our unbelief. Also you respect the great sense of mystery and wonder in our awakening to God's reality in the full spectrum of its happening with personal differences and perceptions---that is grace and wisdom from your years of watching the whole eternal event unfold a little at a time inside limited human time and space.+++ the prairie is sure looking for the first rain of the year! Blessings, Roger

[Janet Keyes]

Herb-

 I like your non-confrontational approach.  Thank you for your gentle wisdom.   Bless you all in this sensitive conversational thread.

Janet

[Herb Davis]

dear Confessors,  I was reading Stephanie Paulsell’s, Faith Matters,column in the recent issue of the Christian Century.  In the column about her father a college religion professor and his association with Monks at the

Abby of Gethsemane she mentioned in passing that her father was introduced to the Monks at the Abby by Bard Thompson when he was a student at Vanderbilt.  The name Bard Thompson brought back a flood of memories.

I only knew Bard Thompson for a few months when he was teaching at Lancaster.  He happened to be at Lancaster because he and a number of other professors resigned in protest when Vanderbilt refused to admit a black student to the Divinity School.  It must have been around 1961.  Bob Moss who was president of Lancaster Theological Seminary and a friend of Bard asked him to teach history at Lancaster until he could find another position.  He was a well know liturgical scholar and had written a fine book on liturgies of the western church.  We all knew this was a temporary appointment.  While he was at Lancaster, the Lancaster Association was developing a coffee house ministry in the city and Bard served on the committee and was very helpful.  He later moved on to Drew where he became associated with Howard Hagerman.  It was Bard and Howard who started the Mercersburg Society.  It was Bard and Ted Trost sr. who ignited my interest in Nevin and Mercersburg Theology.  It was good today to be with a group that  continues to study and witness to Mercersburg. 

 

Just a little remembering.  It’s a amazing what a name will do.  Herb   

[Jean Easland]

Confessors: Does anybody have direct knowledge/contact with a "Vineyard" Church? What are they about etc.? I have read the stuff on Google but would like to talk to someone with more first hand knowledge. Blessings-----Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Herb Davis

[Michael Frost]

Roger,

Chris might have some more personal experience back in his Jesus Freak days though I believe the Vineyard movement and Calvary Chapel come out of the west coast. 

My familiarity was only from a distance while I was my own version of a Jesus Freak in the early and mid '70's in high school and at Houghton College in New York state.

 The Vineyard churches were/are evangelical and Pentecostal and seem to have originated from the Jesus movement in California - Christian "Hippies" so to say.  Some of the earliest Christian rock music "stars" such as Larry Norman came out of the mileu that became the Vineyard. 

There have been some controversial aspects of the movement stemming from the problems with leadership - the charismatic leaders, some of them, having personal "moral lapses" shall we say. 

The movement, now as a denomination, may be quite different now but that is its origin. As I said, Chris might have more background. 

Pastor Mike Frost

Sent from my iPhone

[George Demetrion]

Good aftewrnoon fellow confessors,
 
For those wanting a little history of the Jesus Movemement of the 1960s-70s this travelogue down memory lane may bring a smile or two http://www.allsavedfreakband.com/jesus_movement.htm
 
Chris did you look like this?
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
George
 

---

Subject: Re: Bard Thompson
From: zion...@ptd.net
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:15:37 -0400
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Michael Frost]

George

Thanks for the link. A trip down memory lane to be sure. 

My hair was considerably longer than it is these days. It nowhere near as long as the guy in the photo. Houghton College wouldn't allow it to be longer than the bottom of the shirt collar.  I was just a middle class kid from the suburbs of New York but we went to a Christian coffee house in New Milford, NJ where we listened to a local band play the latest Jesus Music. 

Pastor Mike Frost

Sent from my iPhone

[fc...@comcast.net]

George & Mike,

 

Yes, I did look like that but better. I was at the age where I wanted to have a beard like John Mayall of the Bluesbreakers. I was young and wanted to look older. Now I am older and I want to look younger. My wife was jealous of my hair. As I still say to her, "I may be short and pudgy but I have great hair."

 

As for The Vineyard I was never a part of that particular group. Mike Frost summarized them quite well. They were evangelical with a Pentecostal bent. I pastored a UCC church near Gordon-Conwell that had had a seminarian before I got there who unethically pulled people out of the church in order to start a Vineyard church in the same area. (I never have been able to understand such unethical behavior coming from people who have such a high view of scripture.) That is the extent of my personal experience.

 

There was an incident at Fuller Seminary that did not make them look good.  (Matt WStillman would explain this better.)  The Missions Professor, Wagner and the pastor of the big Vineyard Church got in trouble with the Board of Directors for something that I would classify as "super-spiritual." I forget the exact issue but one or both of them were asked to leave as I recall.  There was a small paperback that I could find among my things that gives the board's explanation if you are really interested.

 

Wikapedea might be a place to look at this more carefully. To put it bluntly they were not Reformed or Lutheran!!!

 

Chris

GOD IS STILL LAUGHING
'learning theology through jokes'
Rev. Dr. F. Christopher Anderson

---

From: "Michael Frost" <zion...@ptd.net>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:45:49 PM
Subject: Re: praise the Lord

[Jean Easland]

Thanks You-all: Yup the Vineyard would not be my cup of tea either but there you go they have 1500 Churches under their "umbrella" now world wide. Theologically weak and experientially strong I suppose. Thanks again-------+++no rain yet this year, the prairie waits+++many many Easter Tide blessings on all+++Roger

[Herb Davis]

Roger, there has just been a book published about the Vineyard Churches, somethng about speaking to or with God and there are a number of books listed in Amazon.  Progably don’t need another book and the personal testimonies are move exciting.  Herb

[Jean Easland]

Master Preacher/Teacher: I probably don't need another book. The pastor that we are helping plant a church on the Ft. Pierre main street is kind of floundering around looking for a covering since he is leaving the Nazarene denomination. This guy is real tough, a recovering alcoholic, Masters in Counseling, used to be in construction. He is perfect for the work there I think but it is his deal, I will be standing off to the side but maybe I can be helpful if he asks. I just wanted some basic info. I want him to start slow and get a good grip on what the ministry can be. This is a tough hood, a strip joint half a block away and rough and tumble cowboy bar across the street. He has almost no financing but guts and faith that God is calling him to do this. He is half time Chaplain at the local hospital and has a good reputation around town. Our church and another church will give him some start up $'s but very little compared to what he needs. I have been praying for this for several years so I am excited for him and the Kingdom to come into the midst of what will happen. I will stay as pastor of the little Congregational Church which is 122 years old as long as my old carcass is in working order. If any body out there would like to support a true grit legitimate mission this one will be authentic. I really don't think he is an experientialist at heart but full of compassion for the deeply hurting so that will carry him when signs and wonders run out. He will do a Christian 12 step program which in and of itself will be a blessing to those he attracts as there is none in town. He might get a whiskey bottle or two through the window, so bring it. Anyway for me personally your consistent homiletic helps continue to be provocative sermon starters, always full of grace and solid orthodoxy, I love you for that. Besides your a hell of a man to have a beer with if you ever get out here like you promised. We won't being to that strip joint for it though, how about on my boat out fishing? Blessings to a Brother from Roger

[Jean Easland]

O.K. Herb so I give up, I am going to get Nevin's "A Mystical Presence", there may be hope for me yet! Roger

[Herb Davis]

Roger,  We need you just as you are, stop reading, but you may be surprised by Nevin.  He should be the UCC Green theologian.  He is incarnational to the core.  Herb