Subject: Re: Christian relationships
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:03:15 GMT
From:   (Nigel B.
Mitchell)
Reply-To: 
Organization: iiNet Limited
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Hi, Darren.

Sorry if you thought I was too brief in my last post. I hope I have
redressed the balance here.

Darren:
>>> We were doing so well, agreeing and all. Of course the only definition
that
>>> I know of is the Bible as God's Word. Whatever else could you describe as
>>> revealing God's will for us?

Nigel:
>>The Holy Spirit.
>>The Church.
>>Jesus.
>>...

Darren:
>Yes, well I suspect from the posts I have already read that a bit
>elucidation would be out of the question.

I do not think that the Holy Spirit ceased to function as a means of
revealing God's will for us at the close of the NT.
I think that the life and witness of the Church, and the dominical
authority to bind and loose, also unfold the revelation of God's will
for us.

I know that Christianity is fundamentally about a relationship with
Jesus (although there are many different ways of defining and
expressing that relationship). In that relationship God's will for us
continues to unfold.

>I'm most uncomfortable with the separation of the Holy Spirit & the Word
>of God.

Careful, or you'll start to sound like Steve Winter.
The trinity is Father, Spirit and Word.
There was no mention of a book.
For that matter, the trinity itself, as it is usually understood and
proclaimed in the Church, is not explicitly in the Bible (now I's
starting to sound like SW), but does that make it untrue?

>The Holy Spirit gives us understanding of God's revelation but does not
>add to that revelation. I thought the whole purpose of the reformation was
>to resolve this issue of authority. As for The Church she is the custodian
>of the Scriptures, she can not add to revelation, she can not bring us
>fresh authoritative revelation. Consequently, all that you know of Jesus
>is taken again from the Scriptures.

Not so.

We know much more about the life, lifestyle, religion, politics, etc.
of Jesus' time now than did our forebears even 50 years ago, let alone
500 or 1500 years ago. What we know about life in Galilee and

Palestine during the 1st century in general is likely to apply to
Jesus and his associates in particular. This knowledge is one of the
many tools with which we translate (both culturally and
linguistically) and interpret the scriptures.

Also - much of what we know of Jesus has come to us from the ongoing
life and witness of the Church. Whether your church community
subscribes to any or all of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the 39
articles, the Westminster Confession of Faith, or Vatican II, the very
existence of all of those documents, and their contents, bear witness
to an understanding of Jesus which was agreed at a particular time in
history by a particular group of people. In every case the
creed/statement/confession includes insights which draw from sources
beyond scripture.

You are correct that the Church is the custodian of scripture.
Scripture was written in, by, and for the Church - under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church, under that same
inspiration, decided which books should be included, how they should
be arranged, how they should be used in the liturgy, etc. The Church
also has as a primary task the interpretation and proclamation of the
Gospel in every time and place.

>>...If God thought it wrong it would be wrong for a reason. God is not a
>>capricious despot who declares things to be right or wrong just so that we will
>>tremble and obey.

>Your emotive language is not helpful.
>I have never suggested that 'God is a capricious despot who declares
>things to be right or wrong'.

>You should try and actually engage my points rather than use such ploys in
>our discussions.

Let me explain what I meant.
This is a really important point. 

Can you think of any circumstances where two people would be harming
themselves or others by having homosexual sex where (all other things
being equal) two people having heterosexual sex would not be harming
themselves or others?

BTW - your obvious answer might be adultery, but the reason we are
having this conversation is that I believe that the Church should
offer and celebrate something equivalent to marriage for homosexual
people.

If your answer relies exclusively on the Bible, then I can only
conclude that God's prohibition against homosexuality is capricious
and despotic, based on no logic nor the best interests of his people.

Jesus was at pains to teach his disiples, the pharisees, and anyone
else that would listen, that the written Law does not exist to be an
end in itself, but to show us the path to life. It is the path to life
because it is true and life enhancing beyond itself. Everything you
have said seems, to me, to be relying on making the written Word an
end in itself.

>>I believe that homosexual sexual activity was wrong in the context of the early
>>Church because of the social and religious connotations of such activity.

>I have asked you previously (you snipped it) on what basis could arrive at
>such a conclusion?

>Homosexual sex was quite common then and particularly in the latter times
>of Roman rule. Why would it have been condemned on cultural basis? What
>evidence could you offer to support your position?

IIRC it was often associated with the temple rites of pagan religions.

The man-boy relationship was also part of the norm in the
philosophical schools. Homosexual sexual activity by married people is
also rightly condemned as adultery - in ancient culture and in ours. 

Another critical point in any discussion of the Bible attitude to
sexuality is that in our culture contraception is widely available,
and there is a gap of at least 5-6 years, and on average close to 18
years between puberty and marriage. This is a huge cultural
difference. Your attitude would prohibit all sexual activity to people
between puberty and marriage - for no other reason than that the Bible
says so!

>>Similarly, I think that it would have been wrong for women to be
>appointed to
>>positions of leadership in the early church, for much the same reasons. I
>>believe that the world has changed, and Christians communities have
>rightly
>>changed their attitude to these questions.

>However, you fail to appreciate that creation (not culture) is the
>foundation on which the Apsotle Paul bases his teaching on headship.

Let's leave that discussion for another day.

>You have snipped the real issue of our discussion - I have re pasted it
>again.

OK. 

>SQ

>>Jesus said "Go and sin no more".
>>You seem to want to put it much more strongly than he did.

>That's my point. You keep side stepping it though.
>He calls what she does (and by implication the greedy business man, or the
>homosexual) sin!

>You seem to be going to ridiculous lengths to avoid the obvious that Jesus
>called what she did as sin. I have maintained that we condemn no person
>but actions if the are sinful. Jesus did not condemn her, he called what
>she did as sin and told her to do it no more.

>Do you deny that he called her actions sinful and exhorted her to refrain
>from such things?

He said "Go and sin no more". That is all we have in the text.
The woman had committed adultery.

Adultery is sinful because it is a betrayal of the primises made in
marriage, and an offense against the other partner in the marriage.

I have asked you above why homosexuality is sinful. If your answer is
solely dependent upon the Bible, then we may have to just agree to
disagree.

>EQ

>This is really what this prolonged discussion is about.
>You have said you are following Jesus because you will not condemn the
>person - on this part we have agreement.

I also think that as Christians we have an obligation to shield those
who are oppressed from that oppression. I am saddened and ashamed by
the unwillingness of most Christians to do that in this forum. 

>However, you seem to go further than Jesus by refusing to condemn sin.

I have said what I believe is the definition of Sin.
Adultery qualifies, but I am far from convinced that homosexual sin
does.

>Do you deny that he called her actions sinful and exhorted her to refrain
>from such things?

No

>>> Similarly it seems you want God but only on your terms.

>>And the great thing about the mystery of the incarnation is that "on my
>terms"
>>is exactly where God chooses to meet me.

>You have collapsed acceptance in with approval.
>There are two extreme positions.

>One condemns the person because of the behaviour, whilst the other accepts
>the behaviour because of the person.

>God accepts everyone where they are, but would not & does not approve of
>their behaviour. The Christian life is one of progressive sanctification,
>this means putting to death the things of the flesh that would grieve the
>Holy Spirit.

That is true of my greed, covetousness, pride and lust. Those things
are harmful to me, and if/when I give way to them they are harmful to
other people as well. My Christian life involves putting to death
those things in me.

But when I meet another man, my fellow Christian, who feels exactly
the same way towards his male partner as I do towards my wife, where
is the sin? Is his love for his partner sin, and to be condemned
simply because the Bible says so? Or can I recognise that his love is
just as holy, just as life- enhancing, just as godly as what I
experience? I do, and I would happily celebrate and bless that
relationship in the Church.

cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell