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.