Progressive Clergy of Georgia

Seems to be some "catch-words" that give away a blatantly liberal anything-goes agenda.

Progressive is one of those. So is modern, equality, choice, moderate or mainstream, and people's. When I see these words in a title or basic statement of an organization, I can figure that they've thrown Biblical truth and moral absolutism to the wind.

 

Wells, it's midnight, I've been reading press releases from the religious right most of the day, and no, I don't feel like defending these positions biblically tonight.

Yes, I am a member and their Coordinator. Catch me when I've had a little sleep and we can have discussion number 4,578,257 on homosexuality.

As a side note, all of our members value biblical truth. For some, that is just the Hebrew Bible since they are rabbis; but every member views the Bible as the ultimate authority on faith. I know it's fun to say things about throwing "biblical morality" out the window; but if by "biblical morality" you mean "slavery and polygamy" you are probably right. Otherwise, please at least conced that "biblical morality" has had several interpretaions throughout history.

Joshua

P.S. The statement on reproductive freedom needs no biblical justification since the argument is from civil law.

 

Wells,

I have no desire to reinvent the wheel. Mel White's site has posted a few articles, the first of which generally reflectstypical mainstream scholarship on these texts. There are also some offsite links which I haven't looked at in a long time but which I assume are also useful.

Here's the link:
http://www.soulforce.org/biblical.html

 

This should break our heart!Yes, God loves everyone, and He sent His Son to redeem a cursed race known as Humankind.But to rationalize overt sin is sad indeed.May God help us.

 

Wells,

I'm not aware that we have any pictures on our website. Nor would any pornographic filters prevent someone from viewing any of the content there. We have been a little behind in updating the news as we go over some bylaw revisions and such, but beyond that I don't know of any web "sins" there. The picture you posted looks familiar, but I'm not sure that I recognize it. Was is accompanying a newspaper article on site to which we are linked?

Generally all of our news articles come from mainline news organizations or religious news agencies. If they don't find the content objectionable, I don't mind our webmaster posting it.

I have never questioned whether or not "Christians in general are in error for living out God's Word." The dispute over homosexuality is a very minor one biblically; three small, contentious passages. My guess is that you and I agree on major doctrines like the divinity of Jesus; his miracles, death and resurrection; and the inherent sinfulness of humanity. On that kind of cosmic scale, the gender of two people who love each other strikes me as fairly minor.

As to whether or not I am a true man of God and a disgrace to the pulpit; I will someday be held accountable for every thing I have said and done and everything I have failed to say or do. Until then, I pray for guidance and recognize my accountability to my peers. The diverse and ecumenical group of clergy who served on my ordination council continue to support me completely. Likewise my close colleagues in the Atlanta area do the same.

At least I will never have to worry that I lied to my congregation or my peers about what I believed just to keep my job. You wouldn't belive the number of pastors in SBC churches who have told me that they support our work and theology, but can't do so openly because they would lose their jobs. I find their duplicity far more detestable than the intolerance and ignorance spread by fundamentalism.

Joshua

[ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: CJoshuaV ]

 

wellsj:

The answer of course, as always, is found in God's perfect, inerrant word:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> II Tim 3:1 ¶ But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denying the inerrancy of the Word is unbelief, plain and simple, and leaves one with no absolute truth, morality or ethics upon which to stand.

 

Wells,
Be careful about what you hear one man's opinion to be of a large denomination like the SBC. I'd say that about Joshua just as easily as I'd say it for myself. Look at www.sbc.net and click on Baptist Faith and Message to find what Southern Baptists believe about these important issues.

 

Tom,

I agree that the views of PCG are not normative within the SBC. My only point is that I think many people would be surprised by what their pastor's say behind closed doors. I can think of ten clergy off the top of my head, all from SBC churches, who believe that homosexuality is not a sin but are afraid to admit it.

Wells,

I think the source you are criticizing is not the Rev. Dr. Mel White but rather the Rev. Dr. Walter Wink, whose biography is available at http://www.soulforce.org/walterwink.html . I assure you, Dr. Wink is not my only exegetical resource on homosexuality, but simply one example that I offered to show you the common theological arguments for homosexuality.

Regarding the other two passages that you cite, I think they both require context (much like the "turning the other cheek" passage cited elsewhere. I do not believe that Jesus is describing the only way in which people can relate to each other. He is addressing the issue of divorce, and giving a specific example to a specific question.

Paul's description of general debauchery in Romans is, likewise, not a specific attack on homosexuality. It is a rather generic example of unhealthy behavior used to further an entirely different point (I thought Wink's article addressed this specifically. Did you read it all the way through?). Robin Scroggs' Homosexuality and the New Testament also deals with it in depth.

Joshua

 

Joshua wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that the views of PCG are not normative within the SBC. My only point is that I think many people would be surprised by what their pastor's say behind closed doors. I can think of ten clergy off the top of my head, all from SBC churches, who believe that homosexuality is not a sin but are afraid to admit it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all pastors of SBC churches would hold to SBC doctrine. You're absolutely right in that many congregations have no idea what their pastors believe be they baptist or other denominational churches. Sad, but true. And if I were the ten pastors you're thinking of, I'd be afraid to admit those beliefs, too. You're making a point in that mainstream believers reject the teaching that homosexuality is anything other than an unscriptural practice.

 

Actually, I'm making the point that these pastors believe that enough people in their church would disagree with them to fire them. I would never confuse some of the people in what's left of the SBC with "mainstream believers."

 

I think part of the issue might be the definition of "mainstream." "Mainstream" for Joshua is those who agree with him. "Believer" is open to question. These issues that are now being discussed with legitimacy have never been discussed in such manner in church history. It is revisionist to think otherwise. Those who think this issue is settled in favor of homosexuality and that there are no voices speaking for the truth of Scripture lives in a very small world.

The issue really should be moved out of the realm of what is popular and believed and moved into the realm of what the Bible says. (Remember, belief is not the standard for truth. Truth is the standard for truth.) The various articles that Joshua recommended make very weak attempts at excusing homosexuality. They are fraught with flaws, both exegetical and logical. At the root of it all is a theological problem. Their argumentation resembles much preaching today (in all circles). They choose something they want to say and then find a way to say it from Scripture. The text has not determined the outcome. The text serves only as a foil to reach the predetermined position.

Once we abandon the Bible as authority (which is what the issue is), the Bible becomes a book that needs to be explained away (as the articles have done) rather than a book that needs to be lived by.

The authors make only a pretense of dealing with reality, choosing to live in the fantasy world where Scripture is adjusted to fit the desires of the interpreters. It does not deal with reality then or now.

To allow homosexuals to continue to live in their sinful activity without confronting them in love with the truth is to further consign their souls to destruction to move them further from the light of God (humanly speaking). It is spiritual abuse to allow people to destroy themselves while pretending it is okay. To allow a child to continue to play with a sharp knife that could maim or kill him would be considered child abuse. To allow someone who claims belief to play with something that does far more damage than a knife is nothing more than spiritual child abuse. Clergy are abusing those who are in their care.

[ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

What exegetical or logical flaws do you find in Wink's article or in Scroggs' monograph?

As to whether or not religious leaders and theologians who affirm homosexuality are "believers," I find your quotation marks insulting. I am a baptist minister saved by grace through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The Bible is my sole authority for faith and practice, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am a believer, any way you slice it.

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Joshua,

I'm concerned that your group supports a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion. Your comment about civil law makes no sense to me. The Apostle Paul teaches that we are to obey the government, which God has appointed over us, except when it conflicts with the Higher Authority - God!

But I'll start with abortion and an article I recently had published, case # 4,578,258!

OFFERING HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS

1. Is Homosexuality An Acceptable Lifestyle? - The Holy Scriptures say:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." -- Lev 18:22
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen." -- Rom 1:24-25

1.1. In the Old Testament, homosexual behavior is considered detestable to God! In the New Testament, sexual impurity is considered a sinful desire that results in the degrading of . . . bodies. Every time homosexuality is mentioned in scripture, it is condemned. Endorsing the behavior is denying the authority of God's Word.

1.2. People who believe homosexuality is the result of genetic inheritance assert that because it is not a chosen behavior, it cannot be a morally wrong behavior. Due to the fallen condition of mankind, we all genetically inherit a sinful nature. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." But that does not excuse us from resisting the temptation to sin. Whether we genetically inherit genes that make us more susceptible to alcoholism, obesity, homosexuality, or any other behavior detestable to God, He gives us the assurance that by the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer "we can do all things through Him who strengthens us," including and especially overcoming sinful temptations.The sinful natures we are all born with are part of "the world," and Jesus said in John 16:33, "I have overcome the world."

2. Is Homosexuality Natural? - The Holy Scriptures say:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. -- Rom 1:26-28

2.1. God tells us in Rom. 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse," and in verse 25 that "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie." In Gen. 2:18 God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

2.2. When God removed one of Adam's ribs, Adam became incomplete. It is only when a man and a woman unite as husband and wife, that they become one flesh and the man is made whole again. God didn't make Adam and Steve, He made Adam and Eve. Steve can't make Adam whole again. Clearly we see here that homosexuality violates God's creative purpose.

3. Do Homosexuals Have A Way Out? - The Holy Scriptures say:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. -- 1 Cor 6:9-11

3.1. Here we see a list of lifestyles unacceptable to God, of which homosexuality is one.

3.2. The good news is that a person doesn't have to remain in these unacceptable lifestyles. When we asked God (Jesus) to come into our lives and be Lord of our lives, God's power washed . . . sanctified . . . justified us, and will do the same for any sinner who repents, making them a new creation.

4. Not Falling Back - The Holy Scriptures say:

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. -- 1 Cor 6:18-20

4.1. There is a sense in which sexual sin destroys a person like no other, because it is so intimate and entangling, corrupting on the deepest human level. But Paul is probably alluding to venereal disease, prevalent and devastating in his day and today. No sin has greater potential to destroy the body than sexual immorality of all types.

4.2. "Not your own." A Christian's body belongs to the Lord, is a member of Christ, and is the Holy Spirit's temple. Every act of fornication, adultery, or any other sin is committed by the believer in the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, where God dwells.

4.3. "You were bought at a price." The fact is that every saved person is seen as righteous in the eyes of a Holy God, in spite of our obedience or disobedience, having been bought by the shed blood of God's own Son. When we sin, when we willfully sin, we trample underfoot the grace of God, and the purpose for which Jesus left heaven, came into this world, suffered and died.

5. Hate Sin, Not The Sinner

5.1. Jesus never told any sinner He encountered what a low-down scumbag they were. He loved them, showing concern and love, and gently told them to "Go, and sin no more." Christians should be prepared to provide a Jesus-like response to people ensnared in homosexuality. God can cleanse and change homosexuals. He can give them new lives and victory over temptation. Because we have a caring, redeeming God, no one has to be a homosexual. The way out begins at the foot of the cross!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am concerned at the tendency toward a literal interpretation of these verses outside their historical context. I'm not going to pass a judgement on the PCG website or the information posted there, since I have not yet had a chance to look at it for myself. However, consider this and then tell me, because I want to understand what context you are applying to these verses, what you think about this passage:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, 'this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear it and be afraid." Deutoronomy 21:18-21

Now, I'm a counselor and social worker. If I interpret this passage of scripture the way you have interpreted the passages you have listed here, then instead of counseling with families and working with kids to restore relationships, we should really just be taking them before the men in town and stoning them to death? Aside from working myself out of a job, something tells me that we're missing something in the interpretation of these passages of scripture.