BrotherRog

Hmm... Aside from the form of Christianity that was present during the middle ages in Europe, I've never heard of "gothic Christianity" I'm aware of the current fashion/lifestyle trend among teens called "Goth." Can you define/describe what you mean by this form of being Christian?

There is a couple of interesting new phenomenons which are worthy of mention: i.e. the growing interest within the Evangelical community for "Openness Theology" (a kind of limited Process theology) e.g. Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, etc. and. the (growing?) movement within the Liberal community for "Neo-Liberalism" (which I loosely translate to mean taking the Bible even more seriously, and occassionaly, more literally, than we have in the past); e.g. Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Bruggamen, et al. What do you all make of Neo-Liberalism? (You might want to go to www.google.com and do a search on this topic before responding...

FYI.. The current issue (Sept. Oct. 2003) of Sojourner's Magazine (a social justice oriented evangelical Christian journal) has a FANTASTIC cover story entitled "Dangerous Religion: George W. Bush's Theology of Empire" by Jim Wallis The cover also features a great "photo" of Bush Jr. as Caesar. Here's the link: Sojourner's article re: GWBush's Theology of Empire I wonder what any of the regulars at tcpc.org think about this article?

FYI (and for what it's worth..) A UMNS Commentary By the Rev. Tex Sample* The case of Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church raises the issue of whether a bishop engaged in a homosexual relationship ought to be confirmed. I contend that on a matter of this kind, the primary focus of the church needs to be on marriage, and in this case, homosexual marriage. Let’s look at this question in terms of Scripture and the tradition of the church. The term "homosexuality" as we understand it today appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the word was not coined until the 19th century. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Scripture addresses the matter of sexual orientation as that characteristic is now understood. In Scripture, the attention is given to same-sex practices. It is a minor concern and appears in only five passages. (I exclude two passages on same-sex rape that are not under consideration here. Rape of any kind is wrong.) Biblical scholars hotly contest all of these passages. Two passages in the Hebrew Scriptures prohibit same-sex practices. These passages, in Leviticus 18 and 20, are known as the "Holiness Code." There is little question that a good deal of the Holiness Code has been surpassed and transformed by the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament church – for example, the code’s purity guidelines and drastic punishments that are not in the spirit of Christ. Much of the code is not regarded as authoritative for the church today. To make a case against homosexual marriage, one must go beyond these texts. In the New Testament, three passages cast same-sex practices in a negative light. I Corinthians 6:9 names two groups that will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Two Greek words are used for these groups, and their translation is a matter of contention among New Testament scholars. One of the words, "malakoi," means "soft" and "effeminate," morally and in other ways. The translation of the other word, "arsenokoitai," is highly contested. Its meaning is not clear. This second word is also used in I Timothy 1:10. Some claim that it refers to an active or superior man engaging in intercourse with a passive, inferior one. Others maintain that it is a reference to same-sex prostitution. Still other studies suggest that the acts cited in these passages involve some kind of economic exploitation, and so on. In none of these cases can one move to a blanket condemnation of all same-sex practices. Too many kinds of same-sex activity fall outside these prohibitions. The most important text is Romans 1:24-27. Here, Paul is addressing the idolatry of Gentiles. In this idolatry, God gives these Gentiles up "to degrading passions" expressed in same-sex relations by both men and women (this is the only time women are addressed in terms of same-gender sexual acts in Scripture). The same-sex practices in this passage result from idolatry. Moreover, Paul sees sexual desire as of one kind. That is, same-sex desire is not a different sexual orientation in Paul, but rather an inordinate and excessive desire. The desire that, say, a man has for a woman is the same desire in same-sex desire, only of greater degree. So, because of their idolatry God gives up the Gentiles to this excessive desire and same-sex practices. To be sure, sexual practices growing out of idolatry should be condemned, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. This prohibition, however, does not address a host of same-sex practices, as it does not address heterosexual practices that do not result from idolatry. In short, all of the references to same-sex activity in Scripture are negative. It is not condoned anywhere. Yet, each passage either occurs in a biblical context that has been surpassed and transformed (the Holiness Code), or it addresses specific instances that can’t be generalized. To address Christian homosexual marriage, one must look at the tradition of the church. St. Augustine is the major figure in the church’s teachings on marriage. For him, marriage is an office, a duty in which one serves the church and the larger society. He sees marriage serving three purposes. Raising children for the Kingdom of God. For Augustine this does not mean primarily having children of one’s own in a biological sense. Enabling couples to learn faithfulness to each other and to God. Fulfilling a sacramental end, in which Augustine emphasizes that marriage cannot be dissolved. These three ends are sustained in the later Middle Ages. In the Reformation, they are basically accepted but with modifications. Marriage as an official sacrament of the church is rejected, but it continues to be sacramental – that is, it can point to God, especially in the mutuality and companionship of couples with each other. Centuries later, when John Wesley edits the Book of Common Prayer and sends it to the United States in 1784, he keeps the section that lays out the three purposes. However, in a 1792 revision of the marriage liturgy, U.S. Methodists drop these three ends. Since then, marriage as loving companionship has been central, though fidelity and the indissolubility of marriage are not absent. The procreative end is no longer or seldom used. The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of purposes: procreation, fidelity, sacrament, mutual support and companionship, mutual society and loving companionship. What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition. Some Christians object to this argument by raising up Mark 10:7-8, in which Jesus states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." The argument is then made that this is the only form scriptural marriage can take. The issue addressed in this passage, however, is divorce. Jesus is responding to a hard-hearted test of his authority. Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text. Moreover, it is uttered by a single Christ who did indeed leave his mother and father to engage in his incarnate mission. So long as we are dealing with a single Christ who left father and mother for a different reason, we must be open to other possible options, especially options that fulfill the ends of Christian marriage as it is traditionally understood. Biblical teaching does not address a host of same-sex practices, among them homosexual marriage. Moreover, the ends of marriage as understood in the tradition of the church are ends that homosexual marriage can fulfill. So the issue in the confirmation of a bishop in a homosexual relationship is not whether he or she is gay, nor even whether he or she is a practicing homosexual. The question is: Is he or she married to this partner, and if so, does this marriage meet these ends? *Sample is the Robert B. and Kathleen Rogers emeritus professor of church and society at Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Mo. He is an ordained United Methodist clergy person and coordinator of the Network for the Study of U.S. Lifestyles in Phoenix. In this commentary, he is indebted to the work of Daniel M. Bell Jr. Commentaries provided by United Methodist News Service do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of UMNS or the United Methodist Church. For an overview of the United Methodist Church’s stands on homosexuality, go to http://umns.umc.org/backgrounders/homosexuality.html online.

Voice4Change (anti-war articles and "actions") Democracy Now: The War and Peace Report (alternative news source) The Jesus Seminar - www.JesusSeminar.com www.westarinstitute.org www.JesusSeminar.org

Re: "Where did I get that?" A fellow United Methodist pastor from Minnesota (Dean Wolf) created the original version of this several years ago and I have modified and added to it since then. Feel free to generate others!

I must say that the improvements to this forum are obvious as is the hard work that went into it! Well done and thank you! Bravo. A question and a suggestion. * How do I center-justify a phrase (like a title, etc.) in the bulletin boards? * It would be easier for us to provide a clickable weblink if we could simply type www.website.com and then hit the space bar right afterwards (i.e. after the "m" in .com) - as is the standard way to do it , rather than having to fool with the grey "http://" button that is provided above.

Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: (Take Ephesians 5:22-24 and try them out!) The Jesus School of "All this and More" or "You’ve heard this… but I say…" "In every instance takes us to a new plain of being like Christ; i.e. it radicalizes the previously held traditional understanding. In this case, it might be read as either making even more explicit the notion that women should be submissive to men; or (if you read it in context with vs. 25-8) it could be seen as saying, "Yes, women are to submit, but what’s more, men are to do likewise to women!" So, the passage really promotes radical egalitarianism. The Markan School Is this Midrash? (A rabbinic commentary of Scripture?) A word by word interpretation using creative, imaginative expression, e.g. "This passage means for us to have right loving relationships with each other ASAP!" The Pauline School of "Redefinition" or "Reapplication of Meaning" Redefine the terms to match a new understanding, e.g. in this case, references to spouses are really about all people in society in all relationships! (Again, in this view, the passages promotes radical egalitarianism). The After-the-Fact School of Selective Application (a.k.a. "Proof-texting") Choosing preferred bits of Scripture to apply broadly, generalize about, and prove their point, while ignoring passages which contradict them, e.g. "Women shouldn’t be ordained or be leaders in their families because of what it says here.. here…and here…," etc. Allegory Seeking out a perceived "hidden meaning" under the story or event; e.g. The Song of Songs/Song of Solomon equated to a story about the relationship between Christ (the groom) and the Church (His bride), or in this case, husbands and wives may really be referring to certain roles in the Church (deacons and elders, laity and clergy, etc.) [This is probably a stretch in this case however…] The "It’s OK if.." School of Ignored Law or "Rationalization" Helpful when the community is already doing something that isapparently forbidden, but you can’t stop them (some would say this in regard to ordaining women; being tolerant of homosexuality, being affirming of the American doctrine of wealth and success, etc.) The "If-it-suits-our-need-to-remain-in-power" School Used when a power structure perceives it’s being threatened, e.g. "Men must’ve been feeling that their power and status were beingthreatened by some of Jesus’ teachings/followers and in response, these verses were written to help preserve patriarchal domination." The "In-light-of-new-information" School of Scientific Application For when the earth is discovered to be round, that we aren’t the only planet, and Heaven isn’t necessarily "up" and Hell "down," etc., e.g. "Back then, the culture warranted wives being submissive as a strategy to convert their fragile-egoed husbands, but now (with relationships being more egalitarian and women being more empowered than they were back then), we know this perception isn’t helpful." So, in this case, "Well, back then patriarchy was the norm for society, but now it isn’t, so these verses simply don’t apply anymore." The Liberation Theory that we can't go-on-oppressing-this class-of people-no-matter-what-the-Bible-says" School Employed during Women’s Suffrage, Abolition, Civil Rights, and Gay rights. This tact is quite willing to argue against, and even ignore, certain passages of scripture as being "more human than Godly." The Fundamentalist "Its True! Its all true!" School The Bible is taken to be literally true (i.e. "historically factual!" - a modern concept invented no earlier than the 1400’s CE) in all instances! Of course, even those that hold this view tend to employ liberal interpretations at times - otherwise they’d have to agree with these statements: * The communion bread really is the actual body of Jesus (Mark 14:22) * Jesus really is a lamb (John 1:29) (or that we are either sheep or goats!) * God really is a He/male person who is confined to a human body * Eating shellfish, pork, wearing clothing of mixed materials, etc. is wrong, (Leviticus) * A man named Jonah really was really swallowed by a giant fish,(Jonah) * The only way women are saved is via their pain in giving birth to a child. * Children are to be disciplined by hitting them with a rod. (Pr.13:24) * Those early Hebrews actually lived to be 2-900 years of age! (Genesis) * And in this case, wives should act as soldiers do toward their drill sergeants, i.e., if a husband says "Jump!," his wife should say "How high!?" as she’s jumping! The Jesus Seminar "We’ll-vote-on-whether-we-believe-it-or-not" School Could lead to anarchy, free for all, can actually become a form of fundamentalism!, e.g. 32 out of 50 scholars feel that this passage is (or is not) accurate/true/authoritative or believed as being "The actual Word of God." The "Tiered Authority" or "Canon within the Canon" School e.g. The Gospels might be given greatest weight and authority, then Paul’s letters, then other New Testament letters, and then Old Testament writings are given the least authority. So, in this case, since this passage is from one of Paul’s letters, it’s of a lessor degree of authority than are the teachings within the Gospels, and since Jesus nowhere says anything like this, Paul must be off track in saying this! For instance, many liberal Christians give highest preference to the Gospel of Luke, the Beatitudes, the second half of Matthew 25; the letter of James, and the prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah; while Popular/Evangelical Christians tend to give greatest authority to John, the Pauline and General Epistles, and the parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that liberals don't. A Jewish form of this is also widely practiced. The Torah (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible) are given greater authority than the prophets and the other Hebrew writings. Fundamentalists often defend against this approach citing 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." And so, they’d argue that one can’t "pick and choose" what one prefers from among the Scriptures. And there’s truth to this insight. But then they’re stuck with having to resolve what to do with all of the inconsistencies and discrepancies within the Bible (e.g. the various presentations of Christ’s resurrection story among the different Gospels) and they’re also stuck with how they "explain away" as "no longer applicable" certain passages about what to wear or not wear, what to eat or not eat, how many wives a man can have, etc. Ironically, they’d also have to admit, in spite of their belief that women shouldn’t be preachers, that it was Jesus’ female disciples who were the first preachers of the good news of the risen Christ! They’d also have to admit that Paul utilized several women as deacons! (Romans 16:1-3) And even Fundamentalists have to admit that the Song of Songs/Solomon is an interpretive metaphor for describing God’s relationship with humanity rather than a literal factual account, otherwise they’d have to conclude that the Bible contains National Enquiereresque reports of erotic pornography! In reality, all Christian groups, including those that claim to be "Fundamentalist" (even though they wouldn’t agree with this) actually employ liberal interpretation in their approach to Scripture - they just simply pick and choose different things to read literally. For example, in reality the Southern Baptists are no where near as fundamentalist as are conservative Mennonites (a denomination often viewed as "liberal"), as the conservative Mennonites and Amish (and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans) are actually much more consistent in taking the Bible literally, e.g. their women don’t speak in church; they don’t hold church offices; they have to wear head coverings; their men have to grow facial hair; they refuse to vote, run for office, serve in the military, file lawsuits, or purchase insurance. Most fundamentalists wouldn’t dream of not being able to file lawsuits, and they tend to skip past the passages that appear to speak in favor of honoring the authority of Church tradition; as well as those which seem to speak against judging others, greed, the exploitation of the poor, the death penalty, or serving in the military. Ultimately, all Christians practice some form of scriptural interpretation that includes reading it interpretively (not just literally) - its just that not all of us are able to admit this!

Conservative & Progressive Views of Christian Basics: (according to BrotherRog) Founder: Y'eshuah of Nazareth. Referred to as Jesus (the) Christ ("Annointed Savior"). Founded ci. 30-33 A.D. (C.E.) in the Judean province of Palestine under the oppression of the Roman Empire. Scriptures: The Holy Bible, written over many years, originally in Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). 66 Books in the Protestant Bible, ci. 17 more (the "Apocrypha") in the Catholic version. Some Christians read it literally and some read it with more nuance (discerning allegories, metaphors, symbolism), but all view it as containing God’s truth and as "inspired by God" (however, various Christians mean different things by this). Deity: The one God understood as a Trinity (one God in three Persons – not three different Gods): Typically referred to as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or alternatively as Creator, Savior, and Sustainer). God is a spiritual being without a physical body. In contrast to Deism, God is personally involved with all of God’s creation including all persons. God is not officially understood as being either male or female but is like a perfectly loving, just, and merciful Parent. Jesus’ life indicates God’s nature, ways, and characteristics. God is traditionally understood (via assimilation of certain pagan Greek philosophical concepts) as being eternal, changeless, omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent. Some contemporary views (e.g. Process or Openness theology) deny or redefine some of those categories, but the belief that God is superbly compassionate, caring, and present in our lives is maintained. God is understood as fully transcendent from the world/creation and also as being fully immanent within it (arguably similar to the Process theology view of panentheism). The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is a person, not a force or an energy. The Spirit comforts, grieves, reproves, convicts, guides, teaches, advocates for, and fills God’s creatures. Savior: A Conservative view: Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. As God the Son, Jesus has existed always and wasn’t created. He is fully God and fully Man (the two natures joined in union – not mixed). As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus is co-equal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. In becoming a human, Jesus was begotten through the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus is the only way to God, salvation, and eternal life. Jesus died on a cross according to God’s plan, as a perfect sacrifice and payment for our sins. He rose from the dead on the third day, and is now spiritually and physically immortal. For the next 40 days, He was seen by more than 500 witnesses. His wounds were visible and He ate meals. He physically ascended to Heaven. Jesus will come again visibly and physically at the end of the world to judge the world and establish God’s kingdom. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah promised to Israel in the Old Testament. A Progressive view: Jesus is the Jewish Messiah promised to Israel in the Old Testament (but not the "knight in shining armor"/Rambo type that most were expecting). He taught, modeled, and invited us to "live abundantly" in intimate relation with God and each other instead of being in bondage to the ways of the world/empire. Christians are called to follow and imitate these radical, transformative, and life-giving ways of Christ (to claim Jesus as Lord of their lives instead of other worldly forces & powers), and to invite others to do the same. Good works accompany faith. If one’s faith is real & authentic, then one can’t help but respond by engaging in service to persons and a world in need (not that doing good works is required for salvation, but rather, if one is saved, good works are a natural "fruit"). Jesus modeled and lived-out a truly liberating way of life – the "Way of the Cross" - the way of humble, sacrificial self-giving and nonviolent direct action. By living such a life, Jesus proved that it is in fact possible for other humans to live this way as well. After His execution, many of His followers had profound and moving experiences of the "Risen Christ" (seeing Jesus in the breaking of bread shared with strangers; in the midst of persons gathered in His name, etc.) in their lives giving them the sense that Jesus truly is Lord and that He and His mission Live on! Salvation: A Conservative View: Is by God’s grace, not by an individual’s or community’s good works. Salvation must be received as a gift by faith. People must believe in their heart that Jesus died for their sins and physically rose again, which is the assurance of forgiveness and resurrection of our own bodies. This is God’s loving plan to forgive and be reconciled with sinful people. A Progressive view: Is by God’s grace and can be received by us with or without our awareness. Persons who are aware of this make the decision to accept the free gift of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and all that He meant in their lives. Even before Jesus was executed, He provided atonement (at-one-ment – reconnection with God and social reacceptance) to hurting souls via His gracious interaction in their lives. People are saved from the ways of the world and for the ways of God’s Kingdom when they accept and live-out this truth. Salvation is both Personal and Societal, and it is experienced Here and Now and also later in Heaven (or the Fully Realized Kingdom of God; i.e. when all - or a critical mass - of the world's people live lives faithful to God). View of Heaven/Afterlife: Conservative View: Believers souls go to be with Jesus. After death, all people await the final Judgment. Both saved and unsaved persons will be resurrected in glorified bodies. Those who are saved live with Jesus in Heaven, those who aren’t suffer the torment of eternal separation from God (Hell). Jesus’ bodily resurrection ensures believers that they too will share in resurrection. Progressive View: We don’t really know who will be in Heaven (or the fully Realized Kingdom of God) and who won’t be, only God determines this, and God’s mercy and grace far exceed our understanding. It could be that God intends All persons to be with God in heaven, but that some hardened individuals may still reject God’s love and grace even then. Worship, Rites, Practices: Corporate (group) worship, usually in church facilities. No secret rites. Baptism and Lord’s Supper (Communion) are the two sacraments held in common by all Christians (Catholics have five more). Active voluntary missionary work (evangelism and relief efforts). Aid to persons in need: the poor, widows, orphans, prisoners, and others who are downtrodden or oppressed. Jesus said His followers would be “known by their love.” Christians often engage in devotional practices including: Bible study, prayer, community service, charitable giving, witnessing, sharing testimonies, shared meals, and fasting. Addendum: Both Liberals and Conservatives can embrace either of two common "ways/understandings" of being a Christian: i.e. those who feel responsible toward God; and those who have a relationship with God. This is the age old issue of traditional religiosity vs. personal relationship/spirituality. And it relates to the dymanic of legalism vs. antinomianism. Both liberals and conservatives can fall within either camp. - However, the "Progressives" who visit this tcpc forum might contend that we "transcend" these matters? ; )

Here's the other article I'd mentioned: # 2 http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/sexual1.htm...gt;</o:p> PURPOSE: This information is here gathered to assist any person who is trying to respond to the usual "statements" that are attributed to the Bible concerning the topic of homosexuality. These "responses" are designed for dialogue with persons who hold a negative point of view and to convey a truly Christian, and at the same time a thoroughly LITERAL Biblical proof that constitutional, mutually consenting homosexuality is NOT condemned mentioned in the Holy Bible. The writer of this paper, Br. Shawn Francis Benedict, Pastor of Ray Of Hope Church, starts from the point of view that the Holy Bible is the inerrant (contains no errors), inspired Word of God, and is the ONLY infallible (unerring, certain) authority on which the Christian can base his or her Salvation. To be frank, this is just about the most Conservative Hermeneutical (science of interpretation) approach one can take to the Bible today. When this Literal method of Biblical Interpretation is correctly applied to the subject of Homosexuality the conclusion is astonishingly the opposite of the teaching that is often proclaimed by "Conservative Christians" or the "Christian Right." "Conservative Christians" claim to be interpreting the Bible "literally" when studying Homosexuality. In fact, it will be shown here that their own method of Biblical Interpretation (the Literal Method) proves the Bible in no citation of chapter or verse ever condemns true Homo-sexuals or their mutual expressions of Love. At the same time, we do not abandon the Holy Scriptures for a "Liberal Left" point of Theology. To abandon the Literal interpretation is spiritual suicide for the GLBTQS Christian. The Holy Scriptures are our ONLY sure defense to show God's position in this matter. Sometimes I summarize the problem this way: the Christian Right believes they are SO RIGHT that they end up totally WRONG, and the Christian Liberal Left has gone so far to the "left" that there is nothing LEFT in their theology or belief system. Both positions are not Biblical. The Bible actually defends us against both the "left" and the "right." To assist the reader with further inquiry the sources used herein are listed on the last page. Sources will be referenced in this paper by listing the author's last name and citing the page of the source where the ideas and information are confirmed by that author. For example, (see Boswell page 1). <o:p></o:p> WHAT THE BIBLE DOES CONDEMN THAT IS MISREPRESENTED AS HOMOSEXUALITY: The Bible clearly mentions SAME-SEX ACTS and unconditionally condemns them when they are in the context of ritual cult prostitution, idolatry, engaged in by married heterosexual men, AND general 'free sex' usually referred to as "fornication" by most denominational dogmatic systems. SPECIFIC PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY: THE STORY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH Genesis 19:1-26 Statement: "Surely the word "SODOMY" comes from this story." Response: Actually, the name Sodom was not attached to Homosexual relations until the Middle Ages. The closest word for "homosexual" in Latin or any vernacular was "SODOMITA". (see Boswell, page 93) The etymology (origin and development) of the word "SODOMY" has rendered it to mean many things throughout history including ordinary heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position, even oral sexual contact with animals, exclusively male homosexuality, and even certain heterosexual sex acts. (see Boswell, page 93) In some U.S. sates "Sodomy" can even mean sexual contact between married Heterosexual persons. <o:p></o:p> Statement: "Surely the sin of Sodom was that the men of Sodom tried to rape the Angels of God." Response: There is absolutely no indication that the citizens even entertained the thought of doing such an act. Would this mean that all the men of Sodom were Homosexual? That is absurd in and of itself. This wrong interpretation is based on the phrase : "Bring them [Lot's visitor's - angels in some traditions, men in others] unto us, that we may KNOW them." (Genesis 19:5) To "KNOW them" is supposed to mean "to have them sexually, to rape them". Statement: Of course it meant sexually!! After all, in Genesis 4:1 Adam KNEW Eve.... Response: True enough with Adam and Eve; however, the same word is in verse 3:7 "They knew they were naked.". Surely this same word did not mean sexually... To clarify the issue we have to be LITERAL here and look at the Hebrew (original as we have it) word and see what word was used in Genesis 19:5. The Hebrew word is yadha. In the Strong's Concordance numbering system it is word #3045. According to Biblical word scholars F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, the word yadha appears in the Hebrew Bible 943 times. D.S. Bailey (1955) argues it is used only 10 times, excluding Gen 19 and its derivative Judges chapter 19, to denote any sense of sexual intercourse (sexual coitus). (See Bailey, page 2) The 931 times the word yadha , to know, appears in the Hebrew Bible, it means simply to be acquainted with, or be informed about just as plainly as it does in English. McNeill asserts the very few times it might be used used to denote sexual coitus, it is always heterosexual intercourse . McNeill explains the word normally used in the Old Testament for both homosexual and heterosexual coitus and bestiality is shakhabh (word #7902). (See McNeill, page 42 & Boswell, page 94F) Statement: If this is true why did the men of Sodom demand to be informed of who was in Lot's house? And, why were they blinded by the visitors?? Response: The men of the City demanded to know who was in the house because Lot was violating the city rules. He was not a citizen by birthright. He was only a 'sojourner' and therefore had only limited rights. <o:p></o:p> Genesis 19:9 And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to sojourn, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. Because Lot was himself an alien to the city he had the obligation to inform the others when strangers were staying with him. He did not do this. The men were enraged when Lot refused to hand over the persons he was housing without their permission. Lot was a good and holy man. He was Abraham's nephew. L ot was far more concerned with ancient Laws of Hospitality to Strangers (and travelers) than he was about the laws of the City of Sodom.<o:p></o:p> Exodus 22:21 "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Exodus23:9 "Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:33 'And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. Leviticus 19:34 'But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.<o:p></o:p> Lot was more willing to hand over his own virgin daughters to the men than to have the Laws of Hospitality violated with his guests. Choosing the "visitors" over his own daughters seems horrific to us today but it indicates how seriously these Laws of Hospitality to the Stranger were to be observed. Biblical scholars have embraced this interpretation (that the city was destroyed for disregarding the sacred laws of hospitality to the stranger, and in this case visitors sent from God) since around 1955. Scholars also recommend that sexual overtones in the story are faint, if suggested at all. In the original interpretive traditions the moral of the story was about hospitality to the stranger and failure to respond to the offer of Salvation made by the visitors. (See Boswell, page 93) Personally, I also believe Lot knew how serious the rejection of the offer of Salvation was. Lot clearly heard the messengers announce that everyone who wanted to be saved from the destruction of the city needed to leave, that is, be "saved." Lot believed them and realized they were not only "strangers" according to the laws but he knew they were God's personal messengers of Salvation. For Lot, the protection of God's messengers was even more important than his own daughters, for surely they would have been "saved" if they had died for the message of God. However, do notice they are NOT harmed and are clearly mentioned in the story as escaping the city in the morning. Statement: JESUS referred to the destructions of Sodom and Gomorrah...... Response: YES He did and we are so thankful He mentioned it the way He did. Jesus made reference to the sin of Sodom as inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord! Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah only in the context of sending his own disciples out to preach the Gospel. <o:p></o:p> Matthew 10:11-14: Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. and when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive yo nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and gomorrah in that day of judgement than for that city! and Luke 10:8-12: Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. And heal the sick there, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'the very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city. Jesus tells them to go into a town. They are, therefore, sojourners,travelers, strangers bearing the message of God's SALVATION for the people. This is exactly what the 'visitors' of Genesis 19 were. Only now, in the Church Age, Jesus' disciples are delivering the Gospel, a far more important message (by implication only, for salvation is by Grace in every dispensation) than the salvation message the Old Testament Good News bearers were bringing to the cities of the Plains. Jesus tells His disciples, the Ambassadors of the New Covenant:<o:p></o:p> "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city." (Matt. 10:14-15, CF Luke 10:10-12) In other words, Jesus says the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and burned because they would not receive the Word of God in the Old Testament; but any City that will mistreat you (my disciples) or refuse to hear the Word of God in the New Gospel of Jesus Christ shall bear a heavier punishment. ........................... <o:p></o:p> THE CONCLUSION: THE BIBLE NEVER ADDRESSES PERSONS WHO ARE NATURAL HOMOSEXUALS, CONSTITUTIONAL HOMOSEXUALS, SEXUAL INVERTS. Although homosexuality was widespread in the Hellenistic world (Plato and Aristotle had both written about it and there were theories about the condition in Roman medicine.) it is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who occasionally engaged in homosexual behavior. Boswell notes that it is in fact unlikely that many Jews of Paul's day made such a distinction. Boswell's final conclusion is Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts performed by heterosexual persons. (SEE JOHN BOSWELL, PAGE109) JOHN MC NEILL, pg 60, quotes the conclusive ideas of Herman Van De Spijker the Bible has no specific text which explicitly rejects all homosexual activities as such independent of the circumstances of idolatry, sacred prostitution, promiscuity, violent rape, or violation of guest's rights. Perhaps the loudest commentary the BIBLE DOES MAKE on true Homosexuality is the UTTER SILENCE ON THE SUBJECT. There is no reason to correct something that isn't functioning in error!!!!! NONE OF THE BIBLICAL REFERENCES FREQUENTLY QUOTED (INCLUDING 3 OR 4 OTHER LESSER NEW TESTAMENT CITATIONS) EVER REFER TO HOMOSEXUALS WHO ARE SO FROM BIRTH WITH AN EXCLUSIVE ORIENTATION. THE ONLY PERSONS CONDEMNED IN THESE VERSES ARE HETEROSEXUALS WHO OCASIONALLY PARTAKE OF SAME SEX ACTIVITIES. SAME SEX ACTIVITIES DO NOT INDICATE A SAME SEX ORIENTATION. THIS IS PROVEN FREQUENTLY BY THE NUMBER OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS WHO DO CONCEIVE AND BEAR CHILDREN BUT WHO RECEIVE THEIR EMOTIONAL FULFILLMENT WITH PERSONS OF THE SAME GENDER. OUR CONCLUSION????? THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY A GAY'S AND LESBIAN'S BEST FRIEND. THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONDEM US IN ANY WAY. DO NOT BUY INTO THE LIE ANY LONGER. COME BACK TO GOD AND THE BIBLE. THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIAN WHILE CHASING YOU AWAY ARE FRAUDS!!!! THE WORD OF GOD DOES NOT COMDEMN YOU, GAY SON AND LESBIAN DAUGHTER OF GOD!!!!!!!!! REJOICE! RECLAIM YOUR HERITAGE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD!! See also: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality By Daniel Helminiak, Ph.D.

To my understanding, at least several of the Biblical referrences to homosexual behavior (though that term is never used) pertained to either pedophillia (i.e. nonconsensual/power imbalanced sex between an adult male and a boy); cultic temple prostitution; and/or to straight persons engaging in homosexual sexual behaviors - all of which are rightly to be condemd. However, the concept of nonpromiscous homsexual sex between consenting homosexual adults was largely foreign to that ancient world. I'd earlier explained that the original Biblical understanding of the "sins of Sodom" (see Exekiel 16:49) was that community's utter lack of hospitality and hesed (loving kindness toward each other and toward the aliens in their midst) - and NOT the misnomer that it had much at all to do with sexuality (as contemporary right-wingers would have us believe). Here's two articles that explain it well: http://thedoormagazine.com/webintro/lastword7_99.html THE LAST WORD "What's Mine is Yours" Confessions of a former Sodomite Angelic beings are rarely politically correct. The angels visiting Lot didn't wait around to file a sexual harassment lawsuit when the men of Sodom tried to pinch their booty. They just struck the suckers blind. All of them. And they didn't even stop to check with God about it, either. Later God blew up the city. The Sodomites must have been very evil indeed, everyone agrees. But be forewarned. This story will come back to bite you. The truth is, you don't have to proposition an angel to be a Sodomite. Simply turning your back on the poor earns you that label, according to the wisdom of the ancient rabbis. Now wait a minute, you're thinking. Isn't this line of reasoning just typical example of liberal obfuscation to blunt criticism of homosexuality? If only it were that simple, dear reader. (Obfuscation itself is illegal in several states, by the way). Clearly, the account in Genesis tells how a group of Sodom's finest citizens thought nothing of trying to force Lot into turning over his angelic house guests for the crowd's sexual amusement. But that was just a reflection of a deeper and more widespread corruption, according to Talmudic commentary. (Yes, kids, its time for more Talmud stories.) Sodom was infamous for being inhospitable, money-grubbing, prideful and selfish. And from God's point of view, there's a little bit of Sodom in all of us. One sage describes four types of people: "The one who says, 'What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours.' This is the average person. "The one who says, 'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine.' This is the simpleton {and most of The Door's readership--Editor}. "The one who says, 'What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours.' This is the saintly person. "The one who says ' What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine.' This is the wicked person. But then, incredibly, one rabbi offers an opinion regarding the first example, the average man. "This one is the Sodomite." (see Mishnah, Avot 5:10) Why the average man, and not the wicked person? His slogan could be taken directly from America's corporate mission statement--"What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." An even playing field for entrepreneurship, democracy and civic cooperation. What could be bad about that? Jesus' words in the Book of Revelation gave us a hint why such an attitude is so corrupt: "I would thou wert hot or cold." The Sodomite slogan allows us to separate ourselves from community, use people, dismiss those in need, and abdicate any responsibility for being our brother's keeper. As a recovering Sodomite, I know. I ran for the Texas Legislature back in the '60s as a conservative Republican with practically no compassion for the poor. I despised them. I believed their problems were caused by laziness or some other uncorrectable character flaw. I justified my own greed with the "trickle-down" theory. Later, in a more compassionate mood, I served on the board of directors of the War on Poverty. But I found the problems of the poor defied all the political solutions. After I became a believer, our Christian community adopted a vow of poverty that echoes the attitude of the saint described in the Talmud. "Whatever I own that you need to own, you can have. Whatever you need that I don't have, I'll help you get." The attributes of Sodom are described in Ezekiel 16:49: "...pride, fullness of bread and idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor." Whenever the church abandons the poor, she turns into Sodom, and invokes God's wrath. That's why Jesus said "The poor you will always have with you." Without a place to give, we would be sucked into the black hole of self-seeking. Sodom was the most beautiful of cities, populated by successful people, the best of the best. That's why Lot chose to live there. It could have been any gated community in any American suburb. It probably had a great school system. It offered the most promising future for his children. It was safe. In Sodom, what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours. One poignant Talmud story captures the failure of political solutions to poverty with surprising clarity. Charity was forbidden in Sodom because they believed it encouraged the proliferation of beggars. One day a beggar entered Sodom and approached a shopkeeper. He gave the beggar a small bar of gold, but first inscribed his name on it. The next person did the same. But no one would sell the beggar any food. They only gave him more gold bars inscribed with their names. The beggar finally died, loaded down with a bag of gold he couldn't use. When his death became known, each Sodomite retrieved his own gold bar from the beggar's bag. In that way they experienced the "joy of giving" without the cost. The poor don't need our money, they need us to share our lives with them, our time, our homes, our skills and energies. Instead we give them money that buys nothing of real value. Another story especially speaks to those of us who are tempted to deal with the homeless and the needy as "clients" of a professional charitable organization. "Every visitor who came to Sodom was thrown into a bed. If he was tall, they put him on a small bed and hacked off his protruding feet. If he was short, they put him in a big bed and stretched his limbs out from head to feet until the dismembered body filled it up." The temptation is to judge the needy, try to fix them, force them into a mold, constrain them with superfluous rules or make them fit the agenda we plan for them. But that is the way of Sodom. Taken to the extreme, it leads to ethnic cleansing and a holocaust for those who don't meet our standards. The Talmud says Sodom's final outrage was when a young girl was caught giving bread to a hungry stranger. She was tried and found guilty, stripped naked, daubed with honey and hung on a parapet of the city, where the bees consumed her. Her cry reached up to heaven, and God determined to destroy Sodom and its inhabitants. "Although the people of Sodom were guilty of all the sins, their fate was sealed against them only because they refused to give alms to the poor." If Abraham had been able to find just 10 righteous men, Sodom would have been spared. Repentance is possible even in the cities of wickedness where we dwell. But the genuineness of our faith is determined by how we respond to those in need.

Bread for the Journey.... Theology Books Worth Checking Out: * The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium, Walter Wink * The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Faith, Marcus Borg * Open Christianity: Home by Another Road, Jim Burklo * The Church Before Christianity, Wes Howard-Brook * Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelations Then & Now, Wes Howard-Brook * Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, John Shelby Spong * The Dishonest Church, Jack Good * Ten Things I Learned Wrong from a Conservative Church, John Killinger * The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Heart & Mind, Peter Gomes * Liberals & Other Born-Again Believers, Sally Geis * Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue, Clark Pinnock & Del Brown * Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God, Dennis Linn, et al * God of The Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, Gregory Boyd, Jr. * Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness, Clark Pinnock * Grace & Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today, John Cobb, Jr. * Affirmations of a Dissenter, C. Joseph Sprague * United Methodism @ Risk: A Wake-Up Call, Leon Howell Books Specifically Concerning Jesus: * Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, Bruce Bawer * By John Shelby Spong: Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus; Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity; Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes * By Marcus Borg: Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith; Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography- A Startling Account of What We can Know About the Life of Jesus; The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions; Jesus A New Vision; In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus; Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus; The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images Discipleship: * The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer to Christian Ethics, Stanley Hauerwas * The Politics of Jesus: John Howard Yoder * Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving From Affluence to Generosity, Ron Sider * The Soul of Politics: Beyond Liberal and Conservative, Jim Wallis * The Call to Conversion: Recovering the Gospel for These Times, Wallis * Becoming Children of God: John’s Gospel and Radical Discipleship, Wes Howard Brook Devotions/Spiritual Aides: * Beyond Guilt: A Christian Response to Suffering, George Johnson * For They Shall Be Fed: Scripture & Prayers for a Just World, Ron Sider * Listening to Your Life: Daily Meditations with Frederick Buechner * In God’s Presence: Theological Reflections on Prayer, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki (prayer from a Process perspective) * With Open Hands: Henri Nouwen - a classic * Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, Richard Foster * Praying for Friends and Enemies: Intercessory Prayer, Jane Vennard Magazines: The Other Side – A progressive Christian magazine - theotherside.org Sojourners – A prophetic liberal evangelical monthly. See also www.sojo.net newsletter (Jim Wallis is the senior editor & leader of a Christian communal advocacy/urban ministry community in D.C.) PRISM – an evangelical social justice magazine (connected to Ron Sider) (see also: the Prism E-pistle of Evangelicals for Social Action www.esa-online.org ) Christian Social Action – applies UM (United Methodist) Social Principles and Resolutions to current public policy issues/social needs The Christian Century – a mainline Christian magazine www.christiancentury.org The New Zion's Herald - www.zionsherald.org - Liberal UM magazine The Door Magazine: A religious satire magazine -thedoormagazine.com Associations & Organizations: The Interfaith Alliance - The Center for Progressive Christianity - http://tcpc.org Pax Christi - a Roman Catholic Peace movement - paxchristiusa.org FOR: Fellowship Of Reconciliation (an ecumenical & interfaith peace org.) - www.for.usa.org www.voice4change.org (anti-war articles and "actions") www.Democracynow.org (alternative news source) General Board of Church and Society - www.umc-gbcs.org United Methodist UMPower Action & Advocacy http://capwiz.com/gbcs/home/ Every Church a Peace Church - www.ecapc.org Bread for the World - www.bread.org The Jesus Seminar - www.JesusSeminar.com www.westarinstitute.org www.JesusSeminar.org Helpful Hints for Faithful Living: * Pray Daily * Engage in Daily Devotions (especially the Psalms [& see Devotional aides above]) * Participate in shared Worship & Communion * Put your Faith into Action by: Forgiving yourself and others and engaging in personal and systemic Action & Advocacy * Fellowship * Collaborate * Recreate * Soul Food For Thought: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world, Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Meade One little person, giving all of her time to peace, makes news. Many people, giving some of their time, can make history. - Peace Pilgrim The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor/Jubilee! - Isaiah & Jesus For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord! - Paul If you want to be follower of Jesus, you need to look good, on wood. - Daniel Berrigan We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. - Martin Luther King Jr. Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and watching the evidence change. - Sojourner's Community It is better to light a single candle, than to curse the darkness. - The Christophers He shall judge between many peoples and shall decide for strong nations far off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. - Micah Be still and know that I am God. - Gode][SIZE=7]

There are several models/visions of alternative/progressive Christianity. For example: those articulated by John Shelby Spong (Why Chrisitianity must Change or Die, etc.), Bruce Bawer (Stealing Jesus), Marcus Borg (The God We Never Knew, Jesus: A New Vision, etc.); the pacifistic visions held by Stanley Hauerwas, Wes Howard-Brook (Unveiling Empire), and the Pax Christi and Fellowship of Reconciliation organizations; as well as the evangelica/communal/social justice models encouraged by the Bruderhoff Community (The Plough magazine/catalog), Sojourners Community (Sojourners Magazine), Evangelicals for Social Action (PRISM magazine), The Other Side magazine. etc. I'd like to ask the people of this forum which models/visions you gravitate toward and why. As for me, while I affirm some of the theology held by Spong, I feel that his vision for Chrisitianity is somewhat "Star Trekie" (i.e. largely unitarian, secular, and milk-toast). I seem to prefer the more musclar and vital visions held by Stanley Hauerwas, Howard-Brook, Sojourners, and PRISM as they maintain the vital connection to the life and practices of the earliest Christians to a higher degree - perceptions and practices which can still lead to abundant life, social transformation, and salvation in ways that I can't really imagine the views which seek to distance us from our past heritage providing.

Re: the concerns about the Episcopal Church "spliting" over this issue... When the Episcopal Church voted to allow women to serve as fully ordained priests (pastors/preachers) a stubbornly conservative faction split off and have been referring to themselves as "Anglican-Catholics" ever since. With the current decision, perhaps a few more such stubborn souls will join them, but I don't think it'll be many. To decide to allow women to be ordained and to allow divorce were choices that were prayerfully discerned and deemed in sync with the spirit of Jesus (who was an ethical radical and relativist) - even though a strict/literal/wooden reading of the Bible would suggest that these things are inherently wrong. The new decision to allow a deeply faithful man who has earned the high regard and esteem of his fellow brothers and sisters to serve in the role of bishop (even though he is of a different sexual orientation and relationship than the majority of his peers) shouldn't be considered any "worse" or even "different" than this denominations previous decisions. It isn't a matter of antinomianism (anti-law), it's a matter of being the kind of Christian who has a relationship with God versus one who perceives that they have a responsibility toward God. Jesus advocated the former and challenged the latter. Examples: The sabbath was made for man (humanity), not humanity for the sabbath... He healed on the sabbath; he spoke to women in public; he allowed lepers to touch him; he touched dead persons; etc. I respect persons (though also feel sorry for them) who try to read all of the Bible in a literal manner; however: 1) Jesus didn't do it, Paul didn't do it (when it came to gentiles); and 2) they'd have to be consistant and, aside from certain Amish groups; I can't think of any who really do this; e.g. - there would be no allowance for divorce except in cases of adultery - there would be no allowance for the ordination of women as priests/pastors - there would be no allowance for being tolerant of straight couples who live together outside of marrige while simultaneously bashing homosexual couples. - there would be no allowance for war or for the death penalty - there would be no allowance for suing people in public courts - there would be no allowance for life or property insurance - there would be no allowance for working on the Sabbath - Christians would worship on Saturdays instead of Sundays - there would be no allowance for gambling - there would be no toleration of such massive disparities between the rich and poor in our nation and in the world I could go on all day, but the point is, Christians can't really help but to prayerfully "pick and choose" what portions of scripture we take literally and which ones we take symbolically, etc. This explains why we have over 2,500 different denominations!

It has been simply amazing to me to witness the amount of public outcry from within certain ranks of the Episcopalian/Anglican community against elevating this gay priest to the role of bishop. As I understand it, the Church of England (aka Episcopalian/Anglican) was born in response to a pope's denying King Henry VIII a divorce from one of his many wives; i.e. that denomination was created (at least in significant part) in order to allow King Henry to divorce. Clearly, they have shown a rather liberal stance re: divorce (something Jesus spoke out quite clearly against divorce - especially ones not in response to adultery). For people of that denomination to cry-out against homosexual behavior between consenting adults (something which Jesus never uttered a word against) is hypocricy. I happen to belong to another denomination which also allows for divorces and we do so by following Jesus' example of emphasizing the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. We do our discerning via full consideration of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. We take the Bible seriously but not always literally. Would that more persons would apply this same gracious spirit regarding homosexuality as well!