Progressive errors on LGBT

[Bruce Gourley]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

Actually, prior to the Protestant Reformation, the interpretation of scripture was up to the clergy, and the Pope's interpretation was considered infallible. It's hard to assert that the interpretation was "allegorical" since much of what was taught and preached wasn't even Biblical, it was what the priests wanted to teach to their own advantage. Anyone who held to the Biblical text found themselves in an awkward position, and most of them were burned at the stake.

It's pretty obvious that the early church fathers, in the first through third century, used a historical-contextual-literal interpretation, which is what most Evangelicals use today. "Literal" is simply a straw man argument. Theological education among conservative Evangelicals who believe in an inerrant Bible is as extensive and as high quality as any. And that's the foundation of Protestant theology both in the US, and around the world, now.

Inerrancy, or some expression of it, is a historic Baptist doctrine, and is found in some form or expression in the earliest of Baptist confessions. The identity of Baptists, their insistence on Baptism by immersion as symbolic of salvation and not administered as a sacrament to infants, is rooted in that belief. Anything else is revisionist.

I'll accept your rewrite, Ed, for the sake of discussion. My observations in this area are anecdotal. I had a friend in Houston who pastored an ELCA-UCC affiliated congregation that called itself "welcoming and affirming." Our of a congregation of about 70 people, perhaps 10 or 12 were gay and lesbian, but the church was in constant "dialogue" about the size and scope, and the allocation of its resources, to its ministry to GLBT persons. And over time, families with children drifted away. Ultimately, the gay and lesbian members formed a separate congregation, and eventually merged into a MCC nearby. The Baptist congregation in Houston, just a few blocks from the church my wife and I used to attend, that was W&A was ABC-USA. They had maybe 10 gay and lesbian members out of 80 or 90 active, and that's in the heart of the American city with the second largest gay and lesbian population in the country outside of New York.

I am no expert on this subject, but most of the gay and lesbian people I've met don't put themselves in a philosophical position to accept belief in the existence of God. Perhaps, in some cases, that's because of the rejection they've experienced in the church, but we live in both a post-denominational age, and in a religiously pluralistic society in which the majority of people don't practice any specific religion, and I think a lot of them are of a secular, humanist "worldview" or are predisposed to that. They've never really been part of a church, and it's difficult to reach past that.

[Bruce Gourley]

Sandy, your understanding of Christian and Baptist history is weak. Some early church fathers sometimes accepted a literal view of certain passage of scriptures if it suited their personal purposes (albeit not inerrancy); but generally, allegory and metaphorical interpretations were the norm.

As to Baptists, you are also incorrect: inerrancy is not present in early Baptist confessions, nor was it the belief of early Baptists. The only ones who typically even try to make such an argument are fundamentalists, and they are compelled to reconstruct history in an attempt to place it on their side.

Nor did the biblical writers, by the way, embrace either (textual) biblical literalism or inerrancy. They understood the broader dynamics of truth better than today's modern, scientific minded fundamentalists/inerrantists. Inerrancy, in short, is modern biblical revisionism.

Incidentally, you are really straining at a gnat in repeatedly claiming that inerrantist scholars are "as extensive and high quality as any." Quite to the contrary, they are oftentimes the very ones who do great violence to scripture, often in order to force the Bible to conform to their modern views.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

Tim: Do you (Bruce) see inerrancy, in part, as a reaction and fear of science and new knowledge?


Ed: Tim, I know your question was directed to Bruce and I will be glad to see his answer. I would suggest that the answer, depends which inerrantist we are talking about. But you did qualify you question with "in part", so I will say yes. How ever I do not believe it would apply to all and I will offer one conservative (who prefers to be identified as an Evangelical) and who's work Bruce knows well, who would not in my opinion fit. That would be David Dockery who recently left the presidency of Union University a Baptist school in Tn. to go to thee Presidency of another University which is not Baptist ( at this time the name and location of that school escapes me I have three of his books and at least one academic Journal article where he very articulately defends inerrancy. And in his case I am certain it come from genuine conviction based on what he understands the term to means and I have tried to understand him but on that issue I cannot. I Still think he defines the theological spectrum of the Pre Takeover SBC better than anyone I know. And I absolutely do not believe he has any fear or science or of new knowledge. Nor do I think he is alone in academia. And the are not all in ETS.

[Tim Bonney]

Thanks for the reply Ed.

I'm trying to understand why some children of the enlightenment more towards a deterministic idea like inerrancy and while others keep a more allegorical approach to the Bible, as Bruce has so well pointed out.

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Neil Heath]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed; Tim when you wrote " The difference is that moderate and progress Christians are aware that we are using our own experience, reasons, and traditions to interpret the Bible" You missed a vital help and that is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. W/O the third person of the trinity it is imposable to rightly divide the word of truth.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

Understand your thought Timothy and it is too denominationally-oriented for my taste (no offense) although Methodists are high on my list of good denominations.

I also do not believe the canon is closed (officially to the UMC sure but not in truth). Nor is there is a clear demarcation between what writings should be in or out. What some council delineated in the 4th Century or any denomination thinks is advisory only (being tradition).

Nor do I believe certainty in matters of beliefs is always possible or even desirable. But I have no worry about that limitation, since assented beliefs are not nearly as important to God as ethical conduct individually and societally. Jesus primarily called for bringing the Kingdom of God to earth. While God is no doubt grieving, He is also calling us through His Spirit towards attainment at making the world more happy, fulfilled, mutually peaceful, and lasting.

Science may someday prove LBGTs are determined in the genes. But I am not convinced. I know a person who said he was gay (early twenties) and then declared himself bisexual (to me at lest) and now is heterosexual (married a beauty queen and has 4 kids). My sense is he is a lot happier where he is now than in his earlier days. A lot happier and when I see him he loves to talk about it (no doubt because I did not diss him when he was a declared G or B). I also know males that appear feminine (so much so, many believe them gay, especially single ones), but in fact are not so. I’ll admit that these anecdotes have made me think God's intention for us is heterosexual, but our attitude towards LBGTs should bot be condemnatory. But my viewpoint is “correctable”; but will take far more than some bible quotes or political statements to do so. Real science or robust sociology would be required. But again my beliefs on such matters are not significant in God’s eye.

I rambled on a bit, didn’t I?

[Haruo]

A bisexual person who has never stopped and thought about bisexuality (or perhaps hasn't even heard of it) is likely to self-diagnose as gay/homosexual, and a bisexual person who is seriously committed to a monogamous relationship is effectively heterosexual or homosexual (depending on the gender of their partner).