Jesus and Judgement

[BIL...@aol.com]

 

Lennart :

I can see why you think highly of David Fitch's essay. I also thought mostly highly of it

until I got to the following statement :

 

The wisdom in Scripture towards gay relations, pre-marital sex etc. should not be easily discarded because of science or other presumed modernist authorities.

 

This sums it up very well. The Evangelical community assumes that science has come down

on the side of the homosexual position. This is pure 100% bull poop. Completely false.

 

What this statement shows is that Evangelicals don't want to do the necessary

research, actually studying psychoanalytic literature, actually reading  the Journal

of Homosexuality critically ( it is pro-homosexual but filled with information that

if you know what you are doing can easily be turned to the researcher's advantage ),

actually reading books like Charles Socarides "Homosexuality A Freedom Too Far,"

actually reading the shelf of books now available in criticism of the APA, and

so much else.

 

What this statement shows is defeatism based on ignorance of actual science.

Yes, the author's intentions are all for the good. But since he has already conceded

defeat what else can anyone expect except a search for ways to surrender

the field of battle while making it look more-or-less good to one's supporters

by means of deflecting the outcome, viz, bringing up other sexual issues,

making much out of the church's mission, talking about how difficult it all is

and pointing out that you can lose in one area while winning in another, etc.

 

Then there is this doozy, also late in the essay :

 

There are large parts of wisdom here which have little to do with whether Scripture

actually prohibits pre-marital sex, gay sex.

 

Let's muddy the waters, shall we ?  Let's deflect attention from the issue before us,

homosexuality, and bring up pre-marital sex.

 

But what absolutely infuriates me is how this is all, in the end, accomodationist.

 

Gosh, does the Bible really criticize homosexuality ?  Answer, damned right it does.

Unequivocally, and  in many passages. But how would Fitch know ?  He seems to

read the Bible to find ways to agree with those whom the Bible condemns.

As if, since he knows he is wrong about basic science, let's find some

face-saving way to compromise with homosexuals.

 

But if you --anyone, like Fitch--  take the view, because you are too befuddled or

incompetent to do the necessary empirical research, that science "proves"

the homosexual viewpoint, then, of course, you will seek ways to "dialogue"

with the establishment, with people who, years ago, decided that they

did not even want  to do any research and were happy to make their

decisions based purely on status considerations .  And why not, since

Christian faith doesn't matter any more, anyway ?

 

 

As for this comment, I am incredulous :

 

To put a sign up, or announce our position against GLBTQ relations, or to

somehow protest all GLBTQ issues in front of City Hall, in essence puts us in

a judging position towards those we do not even know

 

If we are even remotely honest we necessarily judge others. The Bible is

absolutely filled with such judgements. We should do our best, not worst,

be honest, not disingenuous, and show compassion when it is called for,

but judge we must or we have no conscience or backbone.

 

So what if we don't know someone we judge ?  Did that stop people of the time

from condemning the Nazis ?  Did it stop the early Christian community from

condemning sinners outside the Church ?

 

True, the idea is to seek to win sinners over, but at no time are we told to

compromise with them,  or accommodate them, just as people not long ago

did not compromise with the Nazis and fought against them for all of WWII.

 

 

 I believe evangelicalism’s tendency to publicly judge and condemn on

these issues  forecloses the possibility for discerning alongside not only

GLBTQ peoples, but  the many who are struggling with sexual brokenness

even inside our church communities.

 

 

Alongside the perverted ?  WTH ?  Hey, let's open the Church to neo-Nazis, let's show

neo-Nazis compassion and love and all will be well if we seek to understand them.

Let's walk alongside the neo-Nazis and admit our own political brokenness and

not foreclose the possibility of acceptance  of Hitler worshippers.

 

This is pure nonsense when it is boiled down. Absolute crap, if you want

a totally honest opinion.

 

As is this :

 

... there is a delicate sense in which no judgment can be made against

GLBTQ or any  other sexual issues, until we have a redemptive

sexual community that can humbly invite  and listen and ask

the GLBT to join us in repentance and renewal of all sexual desire.

 

Balderdash. False. Ridiculous.

 

In a sense a church is a hospital. Christians are the doctors and nurses and

administrators and medical technicians and so forth. Doesn't mean that the medical staff

can't also get sick, but there is a helluva lot of difference between them and their patients.

A doctor does not humbly listen to a sick person, he seeks to find our the details of

his illness and diagnose the remedy   --whether or not the patient likes it-- because

strong medicine may be what is needed for a cure.

 

And what is blazes is this gobbledygook ? 

 

One of evangelicalism’s biggest problems is we have no compelling sexual vision

which  makes sense of celibacy as a fulfilling calling. We have little or no sexual ethic

except  the glorified desire of Hollywood lopped onto heterosexual monogamous

marriage. We have no theology of desire formation. It is “lust,” and enjoy it,

only while married  to one person. We have no concept of the “ordering of desire.”

 

 

Celibacy as a fulfilling calling ?  For whom ?  On this matter I totally reject Paul's view

except when there is no choice and you must make the best of a bad situation. His view

is 180 degrees in opposition to Song of Songs and is therefore 100 % wrong as far as

I am concerned. And just what does "ordering of desire" actually mean ?

All that such a phrase does is to open the door to still another  range

of compromises with the "moral vision" of  the NY Times and Hollywood.

 

If there is some reluctance about this, read Michael Medved;s criticisms

of the movie business some time for actual moral clarity. For actual morals

expressed by an actual  Jewish believer  --who is also smart and who

actually does all the research necessary to be well informed.

 

 

OK, all of this now off my chest, how does a Christian relate to society ?

Answer : There is no one answer. For some cases strong opposition is called for,

in other cases strong compassion, in still  others dispassionate observation and

simply trying to learn.  And so forth. In all cases we are discussing judgement calls.

We are, indeed, called upon to make judgements. Our task is to become

really good at judging. The task, at least as I see it, is not to love everyone and 

everything indiscriminately, like the Jains or followers of Tolstoy or orthodox Quakers

and still other well-meaning folks who also happen to be simpletons, the task is

to judge well.

 

Billy

 

 

 

 

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Billy,

On Oct 13, 2010, at 10:54 AM, BIL...@aol.com wrote:
> I believe evangelicalism’s tendency to publicly judge and condemn on
> these issues forecloses the possibility for discerning alongside not only
> GLBTQ peoples, but the many who are struggling with sexual brokenness
> even inside our church communities.
>
> Alongside the perverted ? WTH ? Hey, let's open the Church to neo-Nazis, let's show
> neo-Nazis compassion and love and all will be well if we seek to understand them.
> Let's walk alongside the neo-Nazis and admit our own political brokenness and
> not foreclose the possibility of acceptance of Hitler worshippers.

Um, yeah.

I'd love to have a church full of tax collectors, prostitutes, pimps, neo-Nazis, drug pushers, Muslims, communists, capitalists, wife beaters, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, alchoholics, slanderers, gamblers, you name it.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&version=NKJV

Let them come in, love on 'em, then help them see the power of the gospel for transforming them.

If they refuse to submit to the gospel, then we cast them out of fellowship. There are consequences for unrepentant sin. But that doesn't mean we stop loving them.

Yes, this requires an extremely mature church and capable leadership to handle people like that.

And yes, there is a difference between what society should tolerate and whom the church should love.

But that is the gospel I see Jesus and Paul living, and the one I see that actually *works* in transforming society.

Loving confrontation changes lives. I've never seen unloving condemnation produce anything other than shame or division.

Have you?

You seem to be stuck on the dichotomy between "love as uncritical acceptance" and "justice as an uncompromising standard."

I believe the radical center is to totally affirm both, as paradoxical as it is, because that is the only way to understand the cross.

-- Ernie P.

[Lennart Johansson]

Hi Billy,

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM, <BIL...@aol.com> wrote:

Lennart :

I can see why you think highly of David Fitch's essay. I also thought mostly highly of it

until I got to the following statement :

 

The wisdom in Scripture towards gay relations, pre-marital sex etc. should not be easily discarded because of science or other presumed modernist authorities.

[Lennart] Actually, I think he's saying the absolute opposite of what you think he's saying.
 

 This sums it up very well. The Evangelical community assumes that science has come down

on the side of the homosexual position. This is pure 100% bull poop. Completely false.

 

What this statement shows is that Evangelicals don't want to do the necessary

research, actually studying psychoanalytic literature, actually reading  the Journal

of Homosexuality critically ( it is pro-homosexual but filled with information that

if you know what you are doing can easily be turned to the researcher's advantage ),

actually reading books like Charles Socarides "Homosexuality A Freedom Too Far,"

actually reading the shelf of books now available in criticism of the APA, and

so much else.

 

What this statement shows is defeatism based on ignorance of actual science.

Yes, the author's intentions are all for the good. But since he has already conceded

defeat what else can anyone expect except a search for ways to surrender

the field of battle while making it look more-or-less good to one's supporters

by means of deflecting the outcome, viz, bringing up other sexual issues,

making much out of the church's mission, talking about how difficult it all is

and pointing out that you can lose in one area while winning in another, etc.

 

Then there is this doozy, also late in the essay :

 

There are large parts of wisdom here which have little to do with whether Scripture

actually prohibits pre-marital sex, gay sex.

 

[Lennart]  Again, you seem to want to assume moral ambiguity where there is none. Rather, instead of thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong" I think Fitch is saying that there's wisdom that speaks to WHY a certain behavior might be wrong that goes way beyond a more shallow "OK" and "Not OK".  
 

Let's muddy the waters, shall we ?  Let's deflect attention from the issue before us,

homosexuality, and bring up pre-marital sex.

 

But what absolutely infuriates me is how this is all, in the end, accomodationist.

 

Gosh, does the Bible really criticize homosexuality ?  Answer, damned right it does.

Unequivocally, and  in many passages. But how would Fitch know ?  He seems to

read the Bible to find ways to agree with those whom the Bible condemns.

As if, since he knows he is wrong about basic science, let's find some

face-saving way to compromise with homosexuals.

 

But if you --anyone, like Fitch--  take the view, because you are too befuddled or

incompetent to do the necessary empirical research, that science "proves"

the homosexual viewpoint, then, of course, you will seek ways to "dialogue"

with the establishment, with people who, years ago, decided that they

did not even want  to do any research and were happy to make their

decisions based purely on status considerations .  And why not, since

Christian faith doesn't matter any more, anyway ?

 

 As for this comment, I am incredulous :

 

To put a sign up, or announce our position against GLBTQ relations, or to

somehow protest all GLBTQ issues in front of City Hall, in essence puts us in

a judging position towards those we do not even know.

[Lennart]  I don't see the real Jesus joining up with the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas City. Spitting in someone face and next tell them how much Jesus loves them just doesn't go over real well with people. He's not making a political statement but rather that if you want to build a friendship with someone don't start by telling them in a loud agitated voice how lousy they are and what all their faults are. It doesn't work real well.
 

[Lennart]  So, it's OK for the guy addicted to pornography or the prostitute to preach judgment to the homosexual? I think that's called hypocrisy. The real Jesus didn't care much for that.

 

In a sense a church is a hospital. Christians are the doctors and nurses and

administrators and medical technicians and so forth. Doesn't mean that the medical staff

can't also get sick, but there is a helluva lot of difference between them and their patients.

A doctor does not humbly listen to a sick person, he seeks to find our the details of

his illness and diagnose the remedy   --whether or not the patient likes it-- because

strong medicine may be what is needed for a cure.

[Lennart]  What patient would want to go to a hospital if he knows he's going to be shot dead in the foyer? (you might be on to something here though with the "hospital" analogy).

 

And what is blazes is this gobbledygook ? 

 

One of evangelicalism’s biggest problems is we have no compelling sexual vision

which  makes sense of celibacy as a fulfilling calling. We have little or no sexual ethic

except  the glorified desire of Hollywood lopped onto heterosexual monogamous

marriage. We have no theology of desire formation. It is “lust,” and enjoy it,

only while married  to one person. We have no concept of the “ordering of desire.”

 

Celibacy as a fulfilling calling ?  For whom ?  On this matter I totally reject Paul's view

except when there is no choice and you must make the best of a bad situation. His view

is 180 degrees in opposition to Song of Songs and is therefore 100 % wrong as far as

I am concerned. And just what does "ordering of desire" actually mean ?

All that such a phrase does is to open the door to still another  range

of compromises with the "moral vision" of  the NY Times and Hollywood.

[Lennart] Well, if someone has the call I don't want to be the one to say "you're weird". Paul's view is clear and you are certainly free to reject it (and, if memory servers me right I think he allows for that possibility which is not always the case).
 

If there is some reluctance about this, read Michael Medved;s criticisms

of the movie business some time for actual moral clarity. For actual morals

expressed by an actual  Jewish believer  --who is also smart and who

actually does all the research necessary to be well informed.

 

OK, all of this now off my chest, how does a Christian relate to society ?

Answer : There is no one answer. For some cases strong opposition is called for,

in other cases strong compassion, in still  others dispassionate observation and

simply trying to learn.  And so forth. In all cases we are discussing judgement calls.

We are, indeed, called upon to make judgements. Our task is to become

really good at judging. The task, at least as I see it, is not to love everyone and 

everything indiscriminately, like the Jains or followers of Tolstoy or orthodox Quakers

and still other well-meaning folks who also happen to be simpletons, the task is

to judge well.

[Lennart]  I don't think strong compassion and clear moral perception are opposites. The more a follower of Jesus has of the latter the more of the former is probably required.

// Lennart
 

Billy

[BIL...@aol.com]

 

Lennaret :

I don't see the real Jesus joining up with the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas City.

Spitting in someone's face and next tell them how much Jesus loves them just doesn't

go over real well with people. He's not making a political statement but rather that

if you want to build a friendship with someone don't start by telling them in a

loud agitated voice how lousy they are and what all their faults are.

It doesn't work real well.

 

Well, let's hope not.  Westboro is strictly Looney-Tunes stuff.

 

----------------------------------------

 

So, it's OK for the guy addicted to pornography or the prostitute to preach

judgment to the homosexual? I think that's called hypocrisy. The real Jesus

didn't care much for that.

Two things to say :

( 1 ) Since we are all sinners, therefore we can never say anything about anyone ? 

This makes sense how ?

 

( 2 )  What makes you think I was talking about pornographers preaching to homosexuals ?

The actual idea was something along the lines of a doctor talking  with a patient who

refuses to do something required for recovery from an injury or disease. As when

a doctor might say, strongly, "if you continue to disregard my recommendations

you will drop dead in four months, and your excuses are worthless."

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

What patient would want to go to a hospital if he knows he's going to be

shot dead in the foyer?

 

I'm totally clueless about what you mean.

 

 

(you might be on to something here though with the "hospital" analogy).

Yeah, it struck me that this idea has real uses. Came to me out of the blue.

Would gladly attribute the source if  I  knew what it was.

 

Neurons firing is sequence because of a pattern of thought ?

Suppressed memory of experiences rising to the fore because they now are suddenly relevant ?

Something I read and reworked unconsciously ?

Professor Jacobsen's voice in my ear after all these years ?

Rev Hintz's voice in my ear after all these years ?

Unseen inspiration of the Holy Spirit ?

All of the above ?

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

Billy

 

 

==============================================================

--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <Radical...@googlegroups.com>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

 

[Lennart Johansson]

Hello Billy,

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM, <BIL...@aol.com> wrote:

 

Lennaret :

I don't see the real Jesus joining up with the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas City.

Spitting in someone's face and next tell them how much Jesus loves them just doesn't

go over real well with people. He's not making a political statement but rather that

if you want to build a friendship with someone don't start by telling them in a

loud agitated voice how lousy they are and what all their faults are.

It doesn't work real well.

 

Well, let's hope not.  Westboro is strictly Looney-Tunes stuff.

----------------------------------------

 

So, it's OK for the guy addicted to pornography or the prostitute to preach

judgment to the homosexual? I think that's called hypocrisy. The real Jesus

didn't care much for that.

Two things to say :

( 1 ) Since we are all sinners, therefore we can never say anything about anyone ? 

This makes sense how ?

That's not what I said and that's not the point Fitch is trying to make.  The point is, I think, that a person that knows their own sin/weakness will speak in a different voice and tone. The message might be the same but the posture, the tone, is different.

 

 ( 2 )  What makes you think I was talking about pornographers preaching to homosexuals ?

The actual idea was something along the lines of a doctor talking  with a patient who

refuses to do something required for recovery from an injury or disease. As when

a doctor might say, strongly, "if you continue to disregard my recommendations

you will drop dead in four months, and your excuses are worthless."

Maybe I misunderstood you, sorry. I think I hear what you're saying. If the Doctor can say what you suggest and be listened to and the commendation followed, that's great. It's just that when evangelicals speaks to the GLBTQ community they aren't listening (and vice versa). So, what's the use of screaming? "How is that working for you?" as Dr. Phil might say. 

 -------------------------------------------------------

 

What patient would want to go to a hospital if he knows he's going to be

shot dead in the foyer?

 

I'm totally clueless about what you mean.

The GLBTQ community thinks - and I am generalizing a bit - that if evangelicals had their way they would all be shot dead because their sin is, according to many Christians, more sinful then any other sin in the book. Therefore, they don't want to get anywhere near that kind of hospital (read Church or Christian community).

 

  (you might be on to something here though with the "hospital" analogy).

Yeah, it struck me that this idea has real uses. Came to me out of the blue.

Would gladly attribute the source if  I  knew what it was.

 

Neurons firing is sequence because of a pattern of thought ?

Suppressed memory of experiences rising to the fore because they now are suddenly relevant ?

Something I read and reworked unconsciously ?

Professor Jacobsen's voice in my ear after all these years ?

Rev Hintz's voice in my ear after all these years ?

Unseen inspiration of the Holy Spirit ?

All of the above ?

: )    Probably neurons firing is sequence because of a pattern of thought under the unseen inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  I could use some of that!

I like what Ernie wrote "and yes, there is a difference between what society should tolerate and whom the church should love".

Glad we had this conversation.

// Lennart

[Ernest Prabhakar]

On Oct 13, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Lennart Johansson wrote:

> (you might be on to something here though with the "hospital" analogy).
> Yeah, it struck me that this idea has real uses. Came to me out of the blue.
> Would gladly attribute the source if I knew what it was.
>

Abigail Van Buren:
“A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_church_is_a_hospital_for_sinners-not_a_museum/327520.html

[BIL...@aol.com]

Lennart :

The GLBTQ community thinks - and I am generalizing a bit - that if evangelicals

had their way they would all be shot dead because their sin is, according to

many Christians, more sinful then any other sin in the book. Therefore,

they don't want to get anywhere near that kind of hospital

(read Church or Christian community).

 

 

This is a little surprising. Shot dead ?  With the possible exception of Westboro, and

surely not even them, no-one is talking about the guillotine for homosexuals.

What evangelicals do recommend is homosexuals joining Exodus or

seeking therapy with a competent psychoanalyst or other psychology professional

That's a lot different than getting killed.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Glad we had this conversation.

 

Me too. It kind of took off, didn't it ?  Lots of worthwhile things to think about.

And --I will admit--  still another case of my own needing to try and

not make a few mistakes that either you or Ernie pointed out.

 

Cheers

Billy

 

==================================================

Hello Billy,

  (you might be on to something here though with the "hospital" analogy).

Yeah, it struck me that this idea has real uses. Came to me out of the blue.

Would gladly attribute the source if  I  knew what it was.

 

Neurons firing is sequence because of a pattern of thought ?

Suppressed memory of experiences rising to the fore because they now are suddenly relevant ?

Something I read and reworked unconsciously ?

Professor Jacobsen's voice in my ear after all these years ?

Rev Hintz's voice in my ear after all these years ?

Unseen inspiration of the Holy Spirit ?

All of the above ?

: )    Probably neurons firing is sequence because of a pattern of thought under the unseen inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  I could use some of that!

I like what Ernie wrote "and yes, there is a difference between what society should tolerate and whom the church should love".

Glad we had this conversation.

// Lennart

--

[Lennart Johansson]

Hi Billy,

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:36 PM, <BIL...@aol.com> wrote:

Lennart :

The GLBTQ community thinks - and I am generalizing a bit - that if evangelicals

had their way they would all be shot dead because their sin is, according to

many Christians, more sinful then any other sin in the book. Therefore,

they don't want to get anywhere near that kind of hospital

(read Church or Christian community).

 

 

This is a little surprising. Shot dead ?  With the possible exception of Westboro, and

surely not even them, no-one is talking about the guillotine for homosexuals.

Alright, retracted. Change to: "grossly exaggerating"...  I think you get the point though.
 

What evangelicals do recommend is homosexuals joining Exodus or

seeking therapy with a competent psychoanalyst or other psychology professional

That's a lot different than getting killed.

I am not sure the distinction is appreciated...  I can only imagine the words all you need is "...competent psychoanalyst or other psychology professional" will bring to the GLBTQ community. I can hear the sigh of relief...

... 

------------------------------------------------

 

Glad we had this conversation.

 

Me too. It kind of took off, didn't it ?  Lots of worthwhile things to think about.

And --I will admit--  still another case of my own needing to try and

not make a few mistakes that either you or Ernie pointed out.

Yes, very worthwhile. Have a good night!

// Lennart
 

 

Cheers

Billy

 

[BIL...@aol.com]

Ernie :
Can now identify where my use of the metaphor seems to have

come from  --since it has been years and years since reading Dear Abby,

viz,  high school.

 

There is a book by Archie Bahm, a professor of business ethics of all things,

who wrote "Philosophy of the Buddha."  That , and while wondering about

versions of Christ in culture, thinking about Aesclepius, God of healing,

as parallel to Jesus as healer, although I didn't use

the analogy in my comments.

 

Bahm made the point that Gautama seems to have had  --for the time--

some education /  training in medicine as known in ancient India,

which was also a form of philosophy. Then   -- clearly not now

 

As a consequence, a good number of Sutras ( more or less like books

in the Bible ) read like 500 BC medical texts when you understand

the model for the writing.

 

So, looks like I simply made the leap, easy to do considering how similar

the moralities are, to Jesus as healer and Christians as doctors and nurses.

 

Still, the way the idea came to me when it did, perfect for the conversation,

well, I don't feel comfortable attributing it to myself.  OK, I had something

to do with it, but I just don't think the credit should be awarded to my ego.

Something like that and it is more than just me, at least this is

my feeling about it.

 

Seems clear that the analogy can be developed in many worthwhile ways.

The way this kind of idea came to mind,  it doesn't belong to me.

If others can make the most of it, more power to them.

 

Billy

 

 

===============================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

message dated 10/13/2010 2:06:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ernest.p...@gmail.com writes:

On Oct 13, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Lennart Johansson wrote:

>   (you might be on to something here though with the "hospital" analogy).
> Yeah, it struck me that this idea has real uses. Came to me out of the blue.
> Would gladly attribute the source if  I  knew what it was.
>

Abigail Van Buren:
“A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_church_is_a_hospital_for_sinners-not_a_museum/327520.html