You and I disagree on Scriptural interpretation. I have no desire to debate theology with you. I will just choose not to question your motivations and request that you do the same.

I’m just noting that you have a conflict of interest. Paul talked about working out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Why fear and trembling? Because you run the risk of creating a religion which is centered around yourself – the ultimate in narcicissm and the definition of the New Age.

We do bank reconciliations in order to tie the internal reality of our general ledger to an external and independent reality – the bank. How do you ensure that your inner spirituality is inline with God’s desires? Traditionally, we have done this by living in a spriritual community and conforming to their values and interpretation of the Bible. If you take it all cafeteria style, then how do you know you’re correct? What is your authority and how do you ensure that your own interests don’t overinfluence you.

I don’t care what you believe or if you believe anything, but you’re telling people that one can be gay and non-celibate and still be a Christian in good standing with God. This flies in the face of all historical Christian traditions and practices and, um, you have an interest in it being true. Its not unreasonable to ask you for your authority to say this. If all you can offer is your own sincerity, then don’t be surprised if many from a traditional background don’t accept it. You may be sincerely wrong.

I have always admired your careful, step by step logic in your posts, especially those responding to the haters who post on exgaywatch. Your methodical approach would make me guess you were a lawyer, not an accountant. But when it comes to this issue, I don’t see the same logic, but rather a retreat to sincerity and feelings.

well I can’t disagree with that 😀

Look around a little more and you might find many folks who have devoutly held beliefs that differ from yours … but who aren’t self-serving.

Take, for example, Jay Bakker and his Revolution Church (the subject of the documentary series, One Punk Under God). When he took his position, he lost the vast majority of his speaking engagements and a huge chunk of his funding. He was seriously concerned that his church would have to fold – but he also felt that God had placed a message on his heart. Hardly self-serving.

It can be tempting to dismiss those who disagree with us as self-serving or worldly (liberal) or hateful or legalistic (conservative) or whatever. That’s a cop out. It ignores sincerity and is arrogant and self-righteous (guess I really have an opinion, huh?) 🙂

If the Bible is authoritative in matters of personal behavior then Luther’s words add meaning to the power of God’s grace. (I think we have never touched on the Luther passage quoted in this article).

“If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”

If the Bible is an amalgamation of letters and books assembled for political control of a spiritual movement, then there are cases where we are seeking to apply God’s grace to behavior that may or may not be sinful.

But who knows which sins are really sins and who knows which behaviors have been wrongly exluded from biblical teaching as sins using such a subjective model? It is quite a connundrum if one is to be consistent in rigorous application of deductive thought.

I think Luther got it right, it is the only way that make sense to me. We are all sinners, for a variety of reasons (see, I fit diversity into the model too:)). Because of Christ’s provision for our sin, there is no barrier to God’s love for us.

Pretty cool.

I would like to see a liberal Christian find a greater message that is cohesive and consistent and NOT self-serving. Funny how that works.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “there is an attitude that says, if this understanding of the Bible on this particular issue doesn’t comport with my view of the Bible’s overall view of compassion and reasonableness then I question this understanding”.

While I don’t think it fair to accuse conservative Christians of being legalistic haters, I also don’t think it fair to accuse liberal Christians of rejecting scripture.

I don’t know of any liberal Christians that “reject” scripture, but I do know that some seek to see a greater message that is cohesive and consistent with their understanding of the message of Christ. If a scripture doesn’t seem to fit, they try to determine it’s relevance and context. You don’t have to agree with them or their approach, but to dismiss it so cavalierly serves little purpose but to demonize those with whom you might disagree.

And it isn’t worthy of you.

Is the glass half empty or half full? As we covered when discussing the Schoenewolf controversy, I think when it comes to emancipation, the glass is over half full for evangelicalism and support for civil rights.

Regarding biblical interpretation, I agree with everybody. Our biases influence our interpretations but there is an attitude that says, if the Bible doesn’t comport with my view of compassion or reasonableness then I reject it.

I think it is true that I (we) see through a glass darkly.

When I have discussions about what is taught I try to start with agreement about a set of hermaneutical ground rules. Makes things more orderly, I think.

Sorry my take on individualism still seems so merged with narcissism. They are not the same thing in my book, but I do think individualism can be quite narcissistic (just as communitarianism can be, and authoritarianism ans so on).

Perhaps a separate post on Individualistic Narcissism would be the best place to voice such views.

Thanks for responding. I state again that I’m not a biblical scholar, and add that I’m not a scholar of religious history or theology.

Nonetheless, your argument appears to me to be this: I agree with Luther’s reforms. I support a Constrictive or authoritative view of religion. Therefore Luther’s view of religion was truly authoritative unlike those authorities against whom he rebelled.

I do not disagree that Luther was a scholar. Nor do I disagree that his views were based on his idea that his understanding of scripture was more pure and holy than that of the Pope. But it seems a bit reconstructed to think that he was submitting to an authoritative accepted doctrinal position and that the rest of the structure of Christendom was radical. It ignores completely that Luther, gasp, rebelled against a thousand years of belief about Papal authority to speak for God on earth.

But we can disagree on this.

However, I think your view on the nature of earliest Christianity is flat wrong. It assumes that there was agreement on the basics of the message of Christ prior to the Counsel at Nicea. And though that argument may have some validity in the fourth century immediately before the counsel, it is far from true for the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

We have to recall that the many and diverse “heretical” churches were as Christian as those who later won the religion war. They all relied on “the message of Christ” but disagreed wildly about what that message was. And as for the divinity of Christ (or the humanity) that ranged from absolute to non-existent.

And dismissing the Paul/James disagreements as “about meat, poverty, when and where to speak in tongues, who should work and so on” seems to me to be completely missing the point. The disagreement was much deeper and related to whether the newly converted non-Jewish Christians needed to become Jews as well as Christian – ie. come under the Law and Prophets – which is hardly a trivial dispute.

I think the problem with setting up a dichotomy between “those who believe in God’s authority as per Scripture” and “those who pick-and-choose what they believe based on what feels good” is that these are self-defining.

EVERYONE thinks they see the Scripture the right way and that it is the others who are picking-and-choosing. Those who are strict literalists all have excellent reasons why they ignore scriptures with which they disagree (about, for example, slavery or women). And those who believe the Scripture is to be read in context and in the whole have excellent reasons why they ignore scriptures with which they disagree (about, for example, sex).

And anytime ANYONE disagrees with an authority, well obviously THEY are holding to the TRUE authority of scripture and it is the authority figure who is falsely picking and choosing.