T h e o • p h i l o g u e

Home » Posts tagged 'sexual ethics'

Tag Archives: sexual ethics

Ted Haggard’s Re-emergence ::: Tony Jones

Tony Jones laments Ted Haggard’s re-emergence.   

The AP’s fine religion reporter, Erik Gorski, this weekend dropped a story about the re-emergence of Ted Haggard, once-powerful president of the National Association of Evangelicals, now struggling insurance salesman.  Much to the chagrin of his former church, Haggard, his wife, and five children have moved back to Colorado Springs, and Haggard has taken back to the spotlight to promote an Alexandra Pelosi documentary on him, to air next month on HBO.

It’s hard to know just what to make of Haggard, who also says in the piece that he’s never claimed to be heterosexual.  And that he bought the meth but never used it.

Some people you just wish would step away from the public eye to heal.  And never return.  I wish this for Haggard, but I’m afraid it’s a vain wish.

___—-___—-_-_-_-HT: Belief.net

Tony Jones Emerges on Same Sex ::: ThingZ EmergenT

 Evangelical Village recently posted this quotation from Tony Jones.  

I now believe that GLBTQ [people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer] can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state. Tony Jones

In the past I had always defended Tony Jones against anyone who accused him of sanctioning the homosexual lifestyle as compatible with Christianity because he never had come right out with a statement about his position.  Even Mark Driscoll said he didn’t know where these men stood.  When people would accuse them of things, my response was usually to challenge people to offer quotations from their writings or lectures or sermon’s in which they could demonstrate warrant for their accusations.  I suppose I won’t be doing this anymore with Tony on the issue of homosexuality.

I prefer still yet, however, to see that people have attempted to understand where these guys might be retaining their integrity in their own minds.  I think the key to understanding how Tony might consider his statement as compatible with the biblical teaching is his parenthetical statement. (at least as much of any of us can)

Sure homosexuality is sinful, but so is pride, and who would argue that there aren’t plenty of Christians who “live in” pride?

Sure the bible claims that those who are “homosexual” will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9), but it also says that the “slanderer” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Who is willing to defend a position that no Christians are consistently engaged in slanderous activity?

So you see … it’s not like Tony thinks there is some verse in the Bible that says, “Homosexuality is not a sin,” nor is he claiming that. He’s just trying to do a little interpretive realism. We don’t seem to be eager to conclude that slanderous behavior calls people’s Christianity into question, so why consider homosexuality that way? Tony (and others) may think such a hermeneutic is arbitrary when you consider the list in 1 Cor 6:9. Why interpret one form of sin in this list as on a different level than another?

I’m not saying Tony is right. I don’t think he is. Maybe we should just treat slanderous activity as having more ability to call someone’s Christianity into question. Before I would consistently interpret this 1 Cor 6:9 list so as to water it down, I would be more inclined to interpret them all more strictly.

But I do understand how Tony might justify his position biblically, even if I disagree with him.

___-___-__–__–_—_—HT: Evangelical Village—_—_–__–__-___-___

::: Proposition 8 = Bigotry & Hate ::: Artistic Rhetoric

If you’ve already seen this video, skip to my brief comments below.  Otherwise, watch the video first, then read my comments.  

Notice this: The substance of the argument featured in this genius media could also be used as a grounds to justify the kind of “love,” that expresses itself through what we normally call statutory rape and child molestation rather than “love.” The Bible condemns it, but then again, the Bible condemns a lot things. Since people pick and choose, choose “love” over hate. Plenty of 50 year old men “love” children under the age of 15, but we usually incriminate them as if it deserved to punished.

Because of my belief in the ultimate authority of scripture and my understanding of basic rules of hermeneutics, I cannot agree with condoning homosexuality (although excluding marriage rights, I would advocate for certain other gay rights).  

However, the rhetoric on this video is impressive.  In spite of the fact that it confuses several issues, caricatures Christians, and indicates an inexcusable unfamiliarity with biblical hermeneutics, its persuasive effect is likely powerful for those who share the common ground of ignorance about Christian beliefs, attitudes, and reasonable hermeneutics, and who wish the Bible would just mind its own business and butt out of the discussion.     

… — … –… –… … … … — … –HT: Vitamin Z

Sex Sells ::: iMonk’s Rant Against Ed Young

What were Ed Young’s motives in the Seven Day Sex Challenge?  Well … if we go by what Ed Young actually said himself, mostly just because he thinks it’s a biblical idea.  But iMonk thinks he knows Ed’s true motives.

iMonk thinks he’s just a prideful typical megachurch pastor who’s intentionally using sex tactics to sell the gospel and promote male chauvinism.  Read his rantpost Dear Ed Young.  Based on his answers to the questions I asked him in the thread, he apparently thinks it’s a safe assumption that Ed’s biblical message is a subterfuge for church growth.  

***Is that a fair and charitable assumption? ***  

———————————HT: internetmonk——————————-

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: