This week I said people are shocked by certain beliefs or behaviors only when those beliefs and behaviors are different from what they consider to be "normal," and normal is only defined by what the majority of people do the majority of the time.
With this in mind, here are two important questions:
How should Christians determine which issues are nonnegotiable and which allow room for disagreement among equally authentic Christians?
How are Christians to go about finding the difference between what is "normal" and what is right?
MM
7 comments:
Last weeks message.....Hmmm. According to that, I am doubtfully Christian being that I have many questions about the sinfulness of true homosexuality, not porn and orgies by choice but truly born with that orientation as you put it, and am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'm not Lutheran but am an ex-Catholic and as far as refusing communion to Patrick Kennedy, I hope the priest remembers to refuse it to everyone on birth control, divorced, etc. Ok, enough of last week. Now for this week. Much better. I actually heard the message instead of seeing red the whole time. What is normal?? I have no idea and will certainly not claim to be so myself. As far as determining which issues are nonnegotiable? I think Jesus said it best in Matthew 22:37-39. The "golden rule" is most definitely nonnegotiable. If we can do that to the best of our human imperfect ability, most things will fall into place and be "right". As far as finding the difference between normal and right? Sadly, being human, often it takes learning the hard way. Normal changes, right doesn't, yet throughout history we see examples of wrongs being done that were thought by most, to be right at the time.
I have a question from the sermons, HOW do we as Christians SHOW love to those who lead lives that are opposite of the Bible while standing STRONG in what is right? And I mean what should our actions be, etc.? Thanks.
Chris,
My first thought is to recommend a made-for-DVD film coming out this fall that seeks to address this specific question. It's called "As Bad As Me," and the guy who plays the lead role is a real heart throb!
The question at the heart of love is, "What is is in the other person's best interest?" We can always seek to act in another person's best interest, regardless of how we feel about him or her. But when someone is on a destructive path and is happily embracing sin, it is not in that person's best interest to pretend like sin is not really sin. Fostering the illusion that sinful, destructive behaviors are really just diverse "lifestyles" is in no one's best interest.
I think one important thing to see in this is that it can work in opposite ways (that is, can be contrary to opposite feelings).
For example, let's say you work with someone who openly, happily brags about his enjoyment of pornography in his spare time. And not only this, but he knows you are a Christian and therefore loathe everything about pornography, and he ridicules you everyday for this, constantly goading you and making vulgar jokes at your expense.
Then one day he comes to work horribly sick because he can't afford his job to go undone for a day. Even though you would likely "feel" no compassion for him because of his obnoxiousness and bad character, loving him would probably mean offering to work extra hours so he could go home and rest.
On the other hand, let's say the person indulging in pornography is your 18-year-old son, who still lives at home, and who thinks it's just a means of free expression and a healthy past time for guys. And except for this one area of his life, he has stayed out of trouble, and has always been the apple of you eye.
In such a case, love would demand that you make it clear to him that pornography is evil, and that Jesus says (speaking specifically about looking at women lustfully) that if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away because sin takes people to Hell.
If he disagrees and won't respect your wishes to rid your house and his life of pornography, then it would likely be in his best interest to kick him out of your house, even though, as a mother, that may be the last thing you would "feel" like doing.
All this to say, the guiding factor for our actions should always be the other person's best interest, regardless of how we feel.
The sermon that Kelly is referring to also bothered me more than any I remember for a long time. I am still trying to discern where my love for a fellow human ends and judging their behavior begins. If I am in doubt, I love unconditionally without condeming. What really "stuck in my craw" was your statement that if I believe anything other than what "the Christian" way dictates then I am not a Christian. I personally was offended because I consider myself a Christian. I am searching for the truth as the Holy Spirit reveals it to me through scripture and hearing wonderful messages from you and Pastor Jim. I believe that Jesus is my savior and try to live my life following his example. I believe that my questions about these issues do not nullify the rest of my faith. You have had many wonderful messages and I look forward to hearing and learning more. Thanks.
Deb,
Thanks for your comments. You point out something I should have clarified in the sermon. Certainly someone being wrong in his or her understanding of a particular issue doesn't outright nullify the person's faith in Christ.
The point I was trying to emphasize is that the very strong emphasis on "diversity" within the larger culture has often had a corrupting influence on the Church by leading people to believe that the Church should operate as a neutral organization like a secular corporation or government and respect and affirm varying opinions, treating all views as if they are equally valid and equally Christian, as if the Church's role was simply to accommodate everyone's desire for religious experience without actually teaching anything, of having a distinct identity of its own.
There are many issues Christians argue about for which there is not a single, clear Christian stand given in Scripture or Church history (e.g. infant baptism, styles of church government, women pastors). But there are a few issues on which there is a clear and consistent view given in scripture, and about which the vast majority of Christians have always agreed for 2000 years. These issues are far fewer than the ambiguous ones, but the practice (not the "orientation") of homosexuality, and abortion as a normal option for birth control are definitely two such issues. And I focus on these particular two because in our time, these are two points on which the gap between the Church and the Culture is widest.
In any case, I do appreciate your post. I hope you and everyone at Bethany will always feel free to voice your thoughts, whether in agreement or not, about important issues like these.
So then, we can completely negate 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and have no problem with women teaching and being church leaders because it is okay to look at the culture of the time in that particular city and assume that scripture was only meant for the women of that town, in that church, at that time. Hence, the perfectly acceptable differences in interpretation of female leadership exists between Christian denominations. However, we can't for example look at Romans 1:26-27 and consider the fact that the homosexual acts being mentioned were not those involving loving long term relationships but those due to cultural ideas concerning the passive/aggressive roles of sexual partners and I believe the practice of keeping a young boy for sexual purposes, by choice and cultural ideas, not due to orientation. I'm not seeing the difference. So does that make me any less of a sinner for leading a class in my church? All depends on interpretation I guess.
Kelly,
My response to your last comment got rejected in the comment box for being too long so I posted it to the main page.
Post a Comment