Christian Group Behavior (Episode 44)

[mikedsjr]

Mike wrote:

Wow....and I didn't think it was a bad podcast. I get it shows the differences between different "groups*".

Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was a bad podcast either. I just don't see the strength of Scott's argument for his faith. "I believe because those around me believe" seems rather shallow, although I tend to think the majority of Christians are in the same boat he is.

I would agree too. I think the statistics he gave were probably accurate, regarding the low number of real believers in america.

[ScottBarger]

In response to NH's questions about homosexuality...

First, there are only a handful of passages that teach against homosexuality, some in the OT and some in the NT. The OT passages are part of a moral code that prohibits all kinds of behavior, including eating lobster or bacon, wearing blended fabric, and touching a menstruating woman. It is my opinion that if you invoke these passages as morally binding, you must also abide by the rest of the moral code. This is probably unacceptable to most Christians, and would be against the NT teaching that the moral code of the old covenant with God is now defunct.

This leaves us a handful (and by "handful" I mean "two"---one in 1 Corinthians 6 the other in Romans 1) of passages in the NT. Both of these passages are similar in that they were written by Paul, do not explicitly state a moral imperative ("Thou shalt not..."), and use homosexuality as examples for a larger argument (in other words, the point of the passage is NOT to prohibit homosexuality but to give a broader moral or theological teaching).

The difficulty with Paul is that he often interjects his own opinion into the teaching, and sometimes blatantly distinguishes his own opinion from the moral teaching (1 Corinthians 7). He also has a penchant for overly harsh and hyperbolic language, like when he says that he wishes a certain group of people would castrate themselves (Galatians 5). These observations cause me to ask the questions, "Was Paul teaching homosexuality was prohibited, and thus making a statement which is morally binding for Christians today? Or, was he citing his own feelings about homosexuality in order to make a point about something else, and thus making a statement which is NOT morally binding for Christians today." To be honest, I fluctuate back and forth on this point.

There are other clear moral teachings in the NT that may help. The NT teaches that fornication ("sexual immorality," whatever that is) is bad. Paul teaches that we ought to abstain from behavior that causes others to sin. Jesus taught that lust is adultery of the heart and that we ought to be willing to practice self sacrifice. The Bible also seems to favor monogamy, or at least marital fidelity. Where these kinds of teachings may help us make decisions about homosexuality in a situational way, I'm sure they do not offer a clear prohibition. So again I am a bit stuck.

Finally, there is a theological point that needs to be made. Heterosexual marriage is used as a metaphor for God's covenant relationship with his people. This metaphor is used throughout the Bible and for me is the ultimate purpose for human marriage, to teach us about God. I think heterosexual marriage is a special thing, and ought to be revered within the Christian community. But again, this theological statement doesn't necessarily prohibit homosexuality.

In my opinion, if a Christian claims the bible clearly prohibits homosexuality for the modern day follower of Jesus, then he or she is not being honest with the text. It just isn't that clear, to me anyway.

[ScottBarger]

BTW, I got my statistics from The Barna Group, here is a snipit from their site:

In Barna Research Group studies, born again Christians are not defined on the basis of characterizing themselves as "born again" but based upon their answers to two questions. The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."

Looking across the past decade we find the following percentages of born again Christians (in the U.S.):

2007 - 42%
2006 - 45%
2005- 40%
2004-38%
2002-40%
2001- 41%
2000- 41%
1999- 40%
1998- 39%
1997- 43%
1996-39%
1995-35%
1994- 36%
1993-36%
1992- 40%
1991- 35%

There are approximately 101 million born again Christians. (2006)


Concerning the term "evangelical" Barna has this to say:

“Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

* 8% of the population are evangelicals (2007)
* There are approximately 18 million evangelical adults (2007)

[NH Baritone]

Hi, Scott.

Thanks for responding. I have a few questions, clarifications, and comments that your answer provoked.

There are other clear moral teachings in the NT that may help. The NT teaches that fornication ("sexual immorality," whatever that is) is bad. Paul teaches that we ought to abstain from behavior that causes others to sin. Jesus taught that lust is adultery of the heart and that we ought to be willing to practice self sacrifice. The Bible also seems to favor monogamy, or at least marital fidelity. Where these kinds of teachings may help us make decisions about homosexuality in a situational way, I'm sure they do not offer a clear prohibition. So again I am a bit stuck.

So, I'm confused. What is your self-sacrifice when you make love with your wife? Or what would you have considered my self-indulgence when I made love with my long-term partner until he passed away?

In the podcast (starting at approximately 56:39) you said the following:
There are all kinds of behaviors that are listed in the Bible as sinful, and you know what? I engage in a lot of them. But the core of the teaching of Jesus is that I have no right to stand in judgment over somebody, even if they are practicing a sin. ... I could point at a homosexual and say, "You're practicing homosexuality, [which] the bible calls a sin, but you know what? I practice 10 other things that the Bible calls a sin. How can we talk about this?" I think there is room at the table for people who are struggling with all kinds of different behaviors.

If I understand you correctly, you characterized homosexual, monogamous relationships as sinful, something to be struggled against.

This is why I asked my question, and I don't believe you've answered it: ...By defining all homosexual activity as sin, are you indicating that by making love, all committed, monogamous gay couples are engaging in sinful behavior when they are doing the same thing that you do with your wife? Is there any expression of homosexual lovemaking that you believe is CONSISTENT with Christianity? If so, what, and why?

In other words, is there reason to believe that gay relationships are every bit as valid in the eyes of God as your own marriage?

Finally, there is a theological point that needs to be made. Heterosexual marriage is used as a metaphor for God's covenant relationship with his people. This metaphor is used throughout the Bible and for me is the ultimate purpose for human marriage, to teach us about God. I think heterosexual marriage is a special thing, and ought to be revered within the Christian community. But again, this theological statement doesn't necessarily prohibit homosexuality.

I believe that you'll find that the metaphor is MARRIAGE, not HETEROSEXUAL marriage. To be graphic, heterosexual marriage contains nothing that my everything-but-legal marriage to Doug lacked ... except a vagina. The metaphor would hold just as well with your marriage or with mine. I'm somewhat surprised that you presume that heterosexual marriage embraces anything more than gay marriage.

[stickmangrit]

BTW, I got my statistics from The Barna Group, here is a snipit from their site:

In Barna Research Group studies, born again Christians are not defined on the basis of characterizing themselves as "born again" but based upon their answers to two questions. The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."

Concerning the term "evangelical" Barna has this to say:

“Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

* 8% of the population are evangelicals (2007)
* There are approximately 18 million evangelical adults (2007)

wow, just like most evangelicals: all talk and no action.

Looking across the past decade we find the following percentages of born again Christians (in the U.S.):

2007 - 42%
2006 - 45%
2005- 40%
2004-38%
2002-40%
2001- 41%
2000- 41%
1999- 40%
1998- 39%
1997- 43%
1996-39%
1995-35%
1994- 36%
1993-36%
1992- 40%
1991- 35%

There are approximately 101 million born again Christians. (2006)

as for these, it's really not that surprising. we're rapidly approaching a major social paradigm shift, and many people are turning to the guys who claim to have all the easy answers. fact is church attendance is still dropping among my generation, and we're already starting to see the members of my generation starting to break from the fundamentalist right. something's gonna give, and it'll most likely do so once the baby boomers start dying out.

[whoosanightowl]

NHB wrote:

In other words, is there reason to believe that gay relationships are every bit as valid in the eyes of God as your own marriage?

NHB, I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is relevant at all. Who cares if Scott believes his God condones gay relationships or views them as valid. I certainly don't and I don' t know why any atheists/agnostics/deists would. It's just the legal aspect that we are concerned about as far as I can tell, or is there something I'm missing here?

[spongebob]

A couple of comments. Scott, reading your definition of "Evangelical", it sounds very much like what I would consider "Fundamental". I don't know if you agree with this assessment or if Evangelicals do. It's always been a problem for me to distinguish the two. I kind of see them as one and the same, but I know that they don't always agree.

And I was a little hesitant to accept the statistics you and Emery were discussing about how many Christians really behave like Christians, without any references. I think these kinds of statistics are the conventional wisdom, but are they accurate? I'm glad you posted the Barna data and I admit I'd like to locate even more data just so I can say I've seen some real numbers and not just the kind that come from my rear end. I know what my personal experiences are with Christians, but this is just too anecdotal to be of any real use.

And of course Stick is right about the drooping church attendance, but he's not taking into account the increase in religious diversity and the increase in alternative services. Traditional church forms are changing in the U.S., but that isn't to say that religious or spiritual belief is dropping off significantly. The U.S. still leads the industrialized world in percentage of religious believers.

[ScottBarger]

So, I'm confused. What is your self-sacrifice when you make love with your wife? Or what would you have considered my self-indulgence when I made love with my long-term partner until he passed away?

Good question. I think for me I must practice self sacrifice in my sexual relationship with my wife in two ways (at least):

1) I should not be sexually intimate with another person, no matter how much I may want to.
2) I should be sexually engaged with my wife, no matter how much I don't feel like it.

Now, in terms of your relationship with your partner, I'm not sure how to answer except by inventing some situations in which the "self sacrifice" principle would apply. First, let's assume that you and I are part of the same faith community and that our community has determined that the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality is not applicable today...i.e. it's okay to be gay <----( don't quote me outta context here )

You, being a gay Christian in our community, would presumably be held to a standard of monogamy, you would be expected to abstain from sexual promiscuity. This would be self sacrificial in my mind, and a reflection of Jesus' teaching. I can also imagine a situation where you may be sent to assist in another community in some way , a community of people who happen to have concluded that homosexuals should abstain from sex. If you volunteer to abstain from sex for the sake of that community, so you could more effectively help them, then you are practicing self sacrifice.

Of course, I realize that my examples are far from realistic in application, and that many Christian churches would end up repaying your self sacrifice by throwing rocks at you.

In the podcast (starting at approximately 56:39) you said the following:[/color]
There are all kinds of behaviors that are listed in the Bible as sinful, and you know what? I engage in a lot of them. But the core of the teaching of Jesus is that I have no right to stand in judgment over somebody, even if they are practicing a sin. ... I could point at a homosexual and say, "You're practicing homosexuality, [which] the bible calls a sin, but you know what? I practice 10 other things that the Bible calls a sin. How can we talk about this?" I think there is room at the table for people who are struggling with all kinds of different behaviors.

If I understand you correctly, you characterized homosexual, monogamous relationships as sinful, something to be struggled against.

This is why I asked my question, and I don't believe you've answered it: ...By defining all homosexual activity as sin, are you indicating that by making love, all committed, monogamous gay couples are engaging in sinful behavior when they are doing the same thing that you do with your wife? Is there any expression of homosexual lovemaking that you believe is CONSISTENT with Christianity? If so, what, and why?

In other words, is there reason to believe that gay relationships are every bit as valid in the eyes of God as your own marriage?

Like I said, NH, I am in a state of flux on this one. My default position is that homosexual sex is sinful, in the same way that many other "mostly harmless" activities are sinful by biblical standards. However, I am not convinced that this is the only way to look at the issue. I hear people say things like you have said, and I wonder if I have misunderstood the text. Is this, like you stated in an earlier post, a culturally driven teaching? In other words, is it the culture that determined the sinfulness of the action? I think the bible allows for "cultural derived morality" and even offers teaching to help in situations where two culturally derived moralities collide (1 Corinthians .

On those days (I sound SO wishy-washy here) when I am pretty sure homosexual sex is sinful, I strive to have the appropriate attitude towards homosexuals. It was in this context that I made the comment at the end of the recent podcast. IF homosexual sex is sinful, I should NOT stand in judgment of the person who practices it. Why should I? I have all KINDS of things I have to deal with as I strive to be a dedicated follower of Jesus. I loath the typical Christian response to homosexuals. I think it is shallow and unloving.

Finally, there is a theological point that needs to be made. Heterosexual marriage is used as a metaphor for God's covenant relationship with his people. This metaphor is used throughout the Bible and for me is the ultimate purpose for human marriage, to teach us about God. I think heterosexual marriage is a special thing, and ought to be revered within the Christian community. But again, this theological statement doesn't necessarily prohibit homosexuality.

I believe that you'll find that the metaphor is MARRIAGE, not HETEROSEXUAL marriage. To be graphic, heterosexual marriage contains nothing that my everything-but-legal marriage to Doug lacked ... except a vagina. The metaphor would hold just as well with your marriage or with mine. I'm somewhat surprised that you presume that heterosexual marriage embraces anything more than gay marriage.

[/quote]

I concede the point on this one. You are probably right, assuming the conclusion that homosexual sex does not violate the teachings of Jesus. The only thing that a heterosexual marriage would have that a homosexual marriage wouldn't have would typically be the potential for biological procreation, which I do NOT want to make a qualifier for all marriages.

[NH Baritone]

NHB wrote:

In other words, is there reason to believe that gay relationships are every bit as valid in the eyes of God as your own marriage?

NHB, I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is relevant at all. Who cares if Scott believes his God condones gay relationships or views them as valid. I certainly don't and I don' t know why any atheists/agnostics/deists would. It's just the legal aspect that we are concerned about as far as I can tell, or is there something I'm missing here?

Scott has said through a string of episodes that he thinks the Church's response to homosexuality has been woefully judgmental and has, in turn painted Christians as self-righteous. Needless to say, I agree with him. But based on how I heard his statements, I don't believe that he has budged very far from that judgmental stance.

If I have understood him correctly, homosexuality remains a sin in all circumstances, and there is no room within Christianity for gay acceptance. Tolerance, perhaps, but not acceptance. ("We allow gluttons to come to church, so we should allow the same for gay people," to paraphrase his podcast statements.)

But such limited tolerance ends the dialogue. If there is no way for a gay person whose morality EXACTLY matches Christian sexual morality in all ways except for the gender of his bed partner to have the exact same place on the moral spectrum, then Scott is operating a bait-and-switch scam.

However, I'm not certain that is what he is saying, so I need him to clarify. Even in its expression that most closely resembles loving marital monogamy, does Scott perceive homosexuality as STILL incompatible with Christian morality?

And I say this as a man who has spent most of his adult life living in exactly that fashion. As an atheist, I have no need of Scott's acceptance or rejection. But if he's going to offer to have a "dialogue" with other gay "friends," either he has to consider the possibility for full acceptance on the table, or tell his fellow Christians who happen to be gay that he has already made his mind up that, no matter how they conduct their love lives, their behavior will never be as moral or Christian as he is being with his wife.

[NH Baritone]

Scott,

We seem to have logged our most recent posts at the exact same moment. Here's my response to your comments.

So, I'm confused. What is your self-sacrifice when you make love with your wife? Or what would you have considered my self-indulgence when I made love with my long-term partner until he passed away?

Good question. I think for me I must practice self sacrifice in my sexual relationship with my wife in two ways (at least):

1) I should not be sexually intimate with another person, no matter how much I may want to.
2) I should be sexually engaged with my wife, no matter how much I don't feel like it.

Agreed, although I hardly considered either of these "self-sacrificial" when Doug was alive. We were together for almost 12 years when he died of cancer. I also did not consider it self-sacrifice when I took care of him for the 3 years of his illness. I considered it massively self-sacrificial when, after he died, I had to give the state of New Hampshire more than $30,000 just so I could keep the house that we owned together and the bank account we shared, all because we could not be married.

You still, however, did not answer my second question: what would you have considered my self-indulgence when I made love with my long-term partner until he passed away?

Now, in terms of your relationship with your partner, I'm not sure how to answer except by inventing some situations in which the "self sacrifice" principle would apply. First, let's assume that you and I are part of the same faith community and that our community has determined that the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality is not applicable today...i.e. it's okay to be gay <----( don't quote me outta context here )

You, being a gay Christian in our community, would presumably be held to a standard of monogamy, you would be expected to abstain from sexual promiscuity. This would be self sacrificial in my mind, and a reflection of Jesus' teaching. I can also imagine a situation where you may be sent to assist in another community in some way , a community of people who happen to have concluded that homosexuals should abstain from sex. If you volunteer to abstain from sex for the sake of that community, so you could more effectively help them, then you are practicing self sacrifice.

Would you consider the exact same requirement for a straight married couple (to abstain from sex) would be a reasonable request to make? For the record, I would not. It would violate your "#2" requirement above for the marital commitment.

... Like I said, NH, I am in a state of flux on this one. My default position is that homosexual sex is sinful, in the same way that many other "mostly harmless" activities are sinful by biblical standards. However, I am not convinced that this is the only way to look at the issue. I hear people say things like you have said, and I wonder if I have misunderstood the text. Is this, like you stated in an earlier post, a culturally driven teaching? In other words, is it the culture that determined the sinfulness of the action? I think the bible allows for "cultural derived morality" and even offers teaching to help in situations where two culturally derived moralities collide (1 Corinthians 8 ).

On those days (I sound SO wishy-washy here) when I am pretty sure homosexual sex is sinful, I strive to have the appropriate attitude towards homosexuals. It was in this context that I made the comment at the end of the recent podcast. IF homosexual sex is sinful, I should NOT stand in judgment of the person who practices it. Why should I? I have all KINDS of things I have to deal with as I strive to be a dedicated follower of Jesus. I loath the typical Christian response to homosexuals. I think it is shallow and unloving.

Take a look at my response to Sue (whoosanightowl) above. How is it NOT misleading to gay people when you say that something is sinful but you're not standing in judgment over it, particularly when you're doing EXACTLY the same thing with your wife? In what way is equality with you EVER possible if you think that each sex act in a monogamous relationship on one hand is sinful and on another is righteous?

Finally, there is a theological point that needs to be made. Heterosexual marriage is used as a metaphor for God's covenant relationship with his people. This metaphor is used throughout the Bible and for me is the ultimate purpose for human marriage, to teach us about God. I think heterosexual marriage is a special thing, and ought to be revered within the Christian community. But again, this theological statement doesn't necessarily prohibit homosexuality.

I believe that you'll find that the metaphor is MARRIAGE, not HETEROSEXUAL marriage. To be graphic, heterosexual marriage contains nothing that my everything-but-legal marriage to Doug lacked ... except a vagina. The metaphor would hold just as well with your marriage or with mine. I'm somewhat surprised that you presume that heterosexual marriage embraces anything more than gay marriage.

I concede the point on this one. You are probably right, assuming the conclusion that homosexual sex does not violate the teachings of Jesus. The only thing that a heterosexual marriage would have that a homosexual marriage wouldn't have would typically be the potential for biological procreation, which I do NOT want to make a qualifier for all marriages.

I hope not. I'd hate to think that you had officiated at your last wedding of a post-menopausal woman. (Or that you would have even have to inquire of her menstrual status before agreeing to perform their wedding.)

[spongebob]

NHB, I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and defend Scott's position for a moment. I think you're being a bit hasty in calling it a "bait and switch". Surely you can read the conflict Scott is obviously dealing with between the ambiguous treatment of homosexuality in the bible and his own perceptions. What I see is someone really trying to be fair here, trying to be true to his spiritual faith yet resisting the pressure from his own religion to treat the issue in black in white. I'm not saying I absolutely agree with Scott, but within the spectrum, I think Scott is a considerably better advocate to deal with than what we usually find representing Christianity. He seems to be going out of way to look for reasons to accept homosexuality, yet stopping short of totally rejecting his theological training.

[NH Baritone]

NHB, I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and defend Scott's position for a moment. I think you're being a bit hasty in calling it a "bait and switch". Surely you can read the conflict Scott is obviously dealing with between the ambiguous treatment of homosexuality in the bible and his own perceptions. What I see is someone really trying to be fair here, trying to be true to his spiritual faith yet resisting the pressure from his own religion to treat the issue in black in white. I'm not saying I absolutely agree with Scott, but within the spectrum, I think Scott is a considerably better advocate to deal with than what we usually find representing Christianity. He seems to be going out of way to look for reasons to accept homosexuality, yet stopping short of totally rejecting his theological training.

Believe me, I've already pulled way back, but I'll keep quiet now. He deserves a chance to respond.

[Emery]

Thanks NHB, for opening this thread in my absence. I think the homosexuality question, which seems to have piqued more interest than the behavior aspect of this episode, can never be resolved to your satisfaction until it is taken off the "parade of horribles" that the Bible includes it in. So long as it is classified as a sin, no matter how tolerant Scott might be, he can never fully accept it. For example, Romans 1 includes these verses:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

That's why I said on the show, that the issue is not that there are other sins too, but that homosexuality would be included in this list. Unfortunately, I did not quote this Bible reference, it probably would have driven the point home better.

So perhaps the question to Scott should be, unless we take homosexuality off the list of sins, how can you (and should you) accept it? Accepting homosexuality, to a Christian, would be akin to accepting murder. You may turn a blind eye, but you can never accept it.

[NH Baritone]

So perhaps the question to Scott should be, unless we take homosexuality off the list of sins, how can you (and should you) accept it? Accepting homosexuality, to a Christian, would be akin to accepting murder. You may turn a blind eye, but you can never accept it.

I invite you to look around the country, particularly in pockets of the country like where you live, Emery, and where I live.

While nationally they remain a minority, there are literally millions of American Christians that accept gay folks into full fellowship in their churches, perform & attend gay weddings (most without benefit of a license), ordain gay clergy (and allow their spouse to live in the parish housing), and consider same-sex relationships every bit as valid as opposite-sex relationships. As a member of a gay men's chorus, I and my fellow choristers have been invited to sing at a number of these congregations.

Scott may feel isolated in his struggle with this topic, but if he'd reach out, he'd find a lot of fellow Christians who have walked this path before him. Many of his brethren have ultimately found that accepting homosexuals as equals before God does not divert them from their commitment to following Jesus.

[Emery]

I agree, NHB, that many Christians do accept gays. I still think, however, that they do this at the expense of what their Bible teaches, for passages like Romans do not leave them room for such acceptance.

There are, of course, liberal Christians that can find room in their theology to say that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality, or that the parts that do are either inaccurate, or can be ignored somehow. I would have little disagreement with Christians like those. However, I believe the vast majority of Christians take the Bible more literally than that. Therefore my appeal to them is when faced with a choice to maintain a fundamentalist view of the Bible, or truly accept homosexuality because it is not a sin, then do the latter. But then, they'd probably be dropping their Christian world view, and will have moved dangerously close to enlightenment. In which case, this podcast would be out of business. But that's okay, I'm perfectly happy to start debating what's better, Chevys or Fords.