I love nakedpastor. After recounting a story of a woman who was told by her pastor that she was fat because she didn’t submit to her husband, he says this:
The amount of subtle manipulation, judgement, criticism, condemnation and abuse that goes on in the name of religion is remarkable! And I’ll tell you why…
Anytime you have an idea the way people should behave or turn out, it results in violence against that person. If I relate to my wife the way I think she ought to be, according to my own desires and expectations, it violates who she is already. If I relate to my children according to my wishes for them, it destroys who they actually are. The church is one of the most concentrated cultures for having and imposing expectations upon people. The pastor and elder had an idea of what a woman should look like. She didn’t look like that, so they challenged her to become what she should be. She also didn’t relate to her husband the way they thought she must, so they admonished her to submit to her husband the way they think she should. That’s their biblical mandate!
They couldn’t see past their own agenda for her to behold the incredible and unconventional beauty that she possessed already. Neither could they fit her rather feisty and confident way of relating to men into their grid for wives. Instead of letting her be to blossom in her own unique way, they crushed her. But only for a while. She got out from beneath their oppressive weight of judgement and is doing fine. But I know many other people who continue to get crushed and crushed and crushed. And I’ve heard some say that there’s something virtuous in being crushed… like a rose that releases its perfume only when crushed, or a grape its wine only after being crushed. Some can tell when they are free to leave the press. Others don’t, but continue to voluntarily submit to the unjust oppression that they don’t deserve nor need to endure. Get out if you can!
That’s just one reason why I think many are leaving the church, and why many others have already left.
All I can say is… amen.
Right on. Goes right back to what I was saying about free will and happiness. I don’t think you can have happiness unless you have free will, but free will doesn’t guarantee happiness. That woman was having her free will taken from her.
This is a very good example of this. I think I like this guy also.
Amanda….perhaps nakedpastorism is for you!
[Reply]
grr…stuff like that story just makes me angry!! What that church needs is new leadership…hands down.
[Reply]
In churches? I have been the victim of spiritual-authority-abuse. I have been told, “If you do (this) the favor of God will be removed from your life. He will never use you again” death words – and this to some one born for ministry. Imagine my sorrow when I realized that I had also done the pillaging – and was paid to do it on church staffs…
Even Paul said in Corinthians, “I have heard that your meetings are doing more harm than good.” Which goes with: warning – church life can be hazardous to your health! It nearly killed me more than once.
But a few times, just a few times – I have seen it work the way I think God was intending. I have experienced real community and walked with humble hearts who cried when I cried and laughed when I laughed and we walked “together in the sanctuary” and it was good. It was good.
[Reply]
Just add it to the list of nonsense that has been perpetrated by organized religion in the name of the big guy who may or may not actually live upstairs.
And before you religious types freak out, yes, there has been a great deal of good perpetrated by organized religion over the years. However, I feel that in recent years, the “fundie” nonsense has taken greater precedence in the mind of many (but not all) religious folk (think Fred Phelps for starters). The problem is that they don’t see their actions as negative or harmful, where those of us more rational types realize its utter BS.
[Reply]
I’m sure this goes both ways– there are those that abuse power in all places (not just the church) so painting all churches or all organized religion with the same brush is dishonest.
However, the flipside of this argument is the question, if something doesn’t help you to change for the better, of what use is it?
If I smoke, and someone tells me I shouldn’t, should I call them judgmental and not be their friend anymore simply because they voiced something that was for my benefit.
A wise person listens to criticism, and if it be true, he adjusts his life accordingly. If false, then he simply lets it be.
The attitude this woman had to the church leaders that approached her seems as bad as the original problem.
And then there’s the whole question of “do we know the full story, or just one side?”
[Reply]
If I smoke, and someone tells me I shouldn’t, should I call them judgmental and not be their friend anymore simply because they voiced something that was for my benefit.
Yes and no. If they say something like
“You shouldn’t smoke because my interpretation of what my made up SkyDaddy wants, compels me to tell you that you are offending him”
Then you should tell them to go to hell.
However if they say something like
“You really shouldn’t smoke because compelling, verified research has shown that not only will you shorten your otherwise wonderful life, but those years at the end will be absolutely miserable. Plus you don’t smell that great, and you are forcing non-smokers around you to smoke also”
Then perhaps there is something worthwhile to examine.
It is true, there is abude of power in many places, not just the church. We have to try to root it out everywhere. The church is as good as anywhere to start.
[Reply]
BTW,
Nakedpastorism sounds a little like Pastafarianism doesnt it?
[Reply]
However, tech, if I join a group that says “We don’t allow smoking, so you will have to quit” I have the choice of quitting or leaving.
One should not complain about the standards any group has when one willingly joins said group.
In the case of this lady, she joined a group that had opinions on how much weight she had and how she related to her husband. Again, it’s a one sided story. Neither of which can we judge without more information.
The laughable part is that in this whole post about not judging– clearly what nakedpastor wants us to do– he judged– in that he said that the church leaders that spoke to the lady were wrong.
I could go further to say that he’s condescending in his judgment simply because he doesn’t agree with what they had to say. Again, the very things he’s saying against these men could be said against him.
[Reply]
“You shouldn’t smoke because my interpretation of what my made up SkyDaddy wants, compels me to tell you that you are offending him”
Then you should tell them to go to hell.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I just had a flashback to the Exorcist. The power of christ compels you! the power of christ compels you. good times.
Exactly! Again, the fundamental issue here is that not everyone in the world believes in the Same SkyDaddy, if they believe at all!
But back to the topic at hand, the submissive wife BS, is simply an abuse of power, plain and simple.
[Reply]
What is this staement based on? How should she have responded?–”Oh thank you for teling me I’m fat and that it’s related to whether or not I act according to your interpretation.”
It’s ridiculous to defend this type of thing.
There are a lot of bullies in churches who like to use God as an excuse for their bad behavior.
[Reply]
“In the case of this lady, she joined a group that had opinions on how much weight she had and how she related to her husband.”
In that case, my advice to her would be to get the hell out and find a church that respects and values women, no matter what size they are or what opinions they may hold.
[Reply]
Min The Gap…do you really not see how mysoginistic you come across. You always seem to assume that the problem is with the women. Somehow if they just “acted right” this world would be perfect.
[Reply]
Terri- I can’t tell you how great it is to hear a church minded person condemn such nonsense (amanda, you too!) Although we don’t agree on every subject, we’re well on our way to coexisting on this giant ball of rock.
[Reply]
Musicguy…there are lots of people who feel the same way, in all kinds of churches. The only prblem is that the churches and people who get the most publicity are the ones who are usually the most offensive, or the ones who are most controlling.
One guy with a microphone makes a lot more noise than 100 who aren’t in the spotlight.
[Reply]
Yes that’s true, but as I troll the blogs, I see quite a few people without mics defending such action, Min and his commenters are just a few.
on a slightly different note, I feel that remaining silent about these issues is a tacit acceptance and agreement with said issues. You happen to be a person who does make her opinion known. America needs to hear from people liek you a whole lot more so people like me on the other side realize that you do in fact exist.
Christians aren’t the only ones who are stereotyped. I hear it all the time about GLBT people: we are inherently promiscuous, drug addicted, with mental instabilities incapable of having a committed, longterm relationship. I understand what it feels like to be pigeon holed.
[Reply]
trolling the internet…hehe. I am just thinking about what I usually find trolling the internet. It’s a perfect place for kooks or people with a bone to pick.
Hey…wait a minute…I don’t have a bone to pick, so I guess I must be one of those kooks!
[Reply]
There are lots of normal people without blogs, websites and forums that go to work every day, raise their families, and treat people decently. They aren’t being silent so much as they are not wasting hours each day trying to bend the world to their particular point of view.
[Reply]
Well, Terri, the only thing that we can control is our reactions to how people treat us– we can’t necessarily control what people say.
And how is it that it’s wrong to suggest the opposite point of view? Obviously we’re all gifted with intellect, and like to think that we’re rational– how is it that looking at the possibility that things are not how this one-sided presentation claims them to be?
Again, my point is that the nakedpastor’s post was just as judgmental as the people that he was decrying. I see no record of these people’s input– and the tone and presentation of the information appears that it comes from the woman’s gripe about how she perceived that she was treated. Again a reflection on how she reacted.
Terri, nowhere did I say that the problem was solely with the woman– that’s your invention because of your prejudice against me. I stated that both parties are at fault. Obviously those that talked to the woman did not do so in a way that edified her, but rather made her upset. Not knowing what’s said, that’s as far as I can judge without knowing exactly what was said.
Her problem, at least, is throwing a fit, leaving her church, and then gossiping about it to at least nakedpastor. If the woman was following Biblical protocol, she would have rebuked the men. If that didn’t work, she should have taken with her the church leadership. At that point, the church could have either dealt with the sin (whomever had it) and got things rectified.
The point is, there are ways for Christians to deal with offense– they’re not to initiate it like the men did, and they’re not to gossip about it. They’re supposed to get it right. It’s not only the right thing to do, but it is the most healthy.
[Reply]
How do you rebuke someone in leadership who has just humiliated you by persoanlly insulting your appearance? That doesn’t engender the type of open, honest communication needed for people to resolve their differences.
And…wouldn’t that rebuke simply be used as more proof of her lack of submission?
It’s not so much that I am prejudiced against you, but by the consistency with which you always seem to be pointing fingers at women.
What would have been wrong with simply saying,”What happned to that woman was wrong and should never take place?”
INstead we have to listen to an argument that shifts the focus away from what was done to her and turns its attention and trying to prove that she should have handled it differently. If the leadership of a church is abusive, you should leave that church. If it is simply a fellow member saying something completely out of line, that’s different and could be addressed by other means.
[Reply]
ignore my typos…please
[Reply]
There’s some great conversation here.
MIn –
What do you do when it’s the leadership of the church that has abused their authority to attack you personally? You can’t go to the leadership about the leadership.
And to echo Terri’s question – What’s wrong with saying that what happened to her was wrong? It was. There are no circumstances where what was said to her could be right and biblical.
[Reply]
How do you rebuke someone in leadership? The Biblical way. Matthew 18:
1. You tell them the sin that you believe they committed- if they repent, great, if they don’t…
2. You go again, this time with a witness. It could be another member, a person in leadership, or whomever. If they repent, great, if they don’t…
3. You bring it before the church. If they repent, great, if not, you have to remove them from the church.
This works for any members, for there are no “special positions” in the body of Christ. All are equal before God– men, women, pastors, elders, deacons, nursery workers. All can sin, and all need to follow the path that leads toward reconciliation.
Obviously, the problem was with submission to her husband, not toward the church leadership (though one could argue that the latter was substantiated when she chose to leave).
I don’t subscribe to the concept that in matters of interpersonal relationships that one side is always right and the other is always wrong– I lean exactly the opposite way, in that I believe that both sides usually have done something to irritate or offend, and because the situation was not dealt with from the offset, but allowed to fester, that it gets to epic levels.
For instance, we don’t know whether the woman had any previous run-ins with the pastor. We don’t know if the husband asked the pastor and elder to talk with his wife. We don’t know the context of the conversation– was it in the Pastor’s office or in front of others. We don’t know whether this had been a chain of instances or just a single instance.
So, when I see someone being hypocritical (I’m judging you because you’re judging someone else) I have to at least point out that there’s another point of view that isn’t even being recognized.
Amanda– I’ve touched on this. Unless there’s only one pastor and one elder, then you should have other members of leadership (other elders, deacons, church members) that you can go with. And again, if we knew the words used and the context (which is why the discipline passages talk about taking a witness) then we could make an accurate judgment of whether the correction was done in love or out of spite.
Remember, we know nothing of this incident except what NakedPastor told us. We have his judgment of motives, and he’s using the story to make a point.
It doesn’t take long hearing people’s different ideas of what happened at an event to realize that things are seldom as cut and dried as they seem when only hearing one side.
Is it wrong to tell a woman to submit to a husband? Biblically, I have to say no. “Wives, submit to your husbands…” Is it wrong to tell a woman that she’s fat if she’s 500 lbs? If that word were used it is offensive, and therefore should be avoided. No gentleman calls a woman fat (especially not to their face). So I can say that that was wrong.
But there’s a more insidious message here that I read the first time and it’s wrong. The concept that we are fine just the way we are:
This is anti-Biblical in itself. Jesus said that anyone that wants to follow Him had to “Deny himself, take up his cross and follow him.” He said “Whosever shall save his life shall lose it, and whosever shall lose his life shall find it.” Paul said that he died daily.
The Biblical concept here is that we are sinners in need of a Savior, but even after salvation our natural man continues to desire to be the opposite of God. Therefore, we are not fine the way we are. We need to be more like Christ. It’s a struggle that I and every Christian has daily.
The whole idea that these men missed her beauty because they were too concerned with her submission misses the point. If she were to submit to her husband and she was not, then she would be even more beautiful to God than she was before.
[Reply]
Obviously?…that’s just what I am getting at. You immediately conclude that what the leadership said was true, not that they were probably way out of line.
You talk in circles. She’s supposed to rebuke them, yet also submit to them. That’s anti-thetical.
You have a narrative already prepared that automatically assumes wrong-doing by the woman.
[Reply]
I’m not even sure where to begin. It seems to me that you have missed the point entirely. You’re so insistent on putting the fault entirely on the woman. It sounds like you’re saying she’s wrong because a) she doesn’t submit to her husband or b) because she left the church without going to leadership. Either way, you’re laying the fault entirely on her.
I don’t subscribe to the concept that in matters of interpersonal relationships that one side is always right and the other is always wrong– I lean exactly the opposite way, in that I believe that both sides usually have done something to irritate or offend, and because the situation was not dealt with from the offset, but allowed to fester, that it gets to epic levels.
This is usually true. But there are instances where one side is clearly in the wrong. I maintain that there are no circumstances where a pastor can tell a woman she’s fat because she doesn’t submit to her husband and be biblically sound.
How can not submitting to your husband make you fat, anyways? I thought eating too much with no exercise made you fat.
Obviously, the problem was with submission to her husband, not toward the church leadership…
WHAT? Again, I’ll ask. How can not submitting to your husband make you fat? Being fat has nothing to do with submission to your husband. To God and yourself, maybe. But not to your husband.
The Biblical concept here is that we are sinners in need of a Savior, but even after salvation our natural man continues to desire to be the opposite of God. Therefore, we are not fine the way we are. We need to be more like Christ. It’s a struggle that I and every Christian has daily.
Biblically, this is true. But, again, you’ve missed the point.
Nakedpastor wasn’t being unbiblical. He wasn’t saying we are fine as we are. He was saying that imposing our human expectations on others is the problem. He wasn’t talking about God’s expectations.
Nothing about this conversation should center on whether or not she was submitting to her husband. That’s not the issue. We don’t know if she was or if she wasn’t. The point was the way the church leadership related to her.
[Reply]
I need to clarify something. I’ve been remiss in that I did not totally read the introductory part, or did not process it correctly, the whole thing about them saying that because she was not submissive she was fat. For some reason (perhaps because I separate things logically) I read this as two different statements, not one. I read it “you’re unsubmissive” and “you’re fat.”
That being the case, there’s no reason that a pastor or elder or anyone should make that statement to any woman. There’s no Biblical teaching that I’m aware of that states that the punishment for the sin of unsubmission is weight gain. There are no plausible links.
Now, could God give a physical ailment because of sin? Certainly. Can we still have an unclear picture? Possible, but not probable. Our only source claims that the message came from a witness (the elder?) and therefore should be accepted as the case.
Does this change how she should have reacted? No. She should have still followed the Biblical procedure.
Does this change whether or not she was submissive to her husband? No. She should be submissive.
So, please read my comments understanding the dichotomy that existed in my head at the time of writing (they may make more sense that way).
And Amanda– I’m fine with saying that the weight thing may be a human expectation, but the submissive one is a God expectation. And NakedPastor said:
This said, to me, that he was fine if she was unsubmissive (or at least appeared unsubmissive) because it was her own unique way. Here is the Biblical issue all along– if she’s unsubmissive then she needs to repent and get right.
[Reply]
Wow. submissive. Welcome back to the prehistoric ages. Let’s take away their right to vote too. God forbid if they actually vote for a different candidate than their master. golly shucks.
[Reply]
Does this change whether or not she was submissive to her husband? No. She should be submissive.
Go back to the forking dark ages. And don’t breed.
She should be whatever the hell she wants to be. If her husband doesn’t like it, he can bugger off so she can find someone who’s a better fit.
[Reply]
Obviously it was the woman who is at fault. I mean clearly she is missing a penis. Further her capacity for strength is much smaller than for normal people (and by normal, I mean male). Clearly since women are missing these parts of their body, they could easily be missing other parts of their bodies, namely portions of their brains. This is why they should be submissive, they are missing the parts of the brain capable of anything but submission.
I think the clear logic here is that it was the womans fault. If she didn’t like what was happening to her, she should have grown a penis like every normal person and done something about it.
[Reply]
OH MY PINK UNICORN!!! (doesn’t have the same ring does it?)
The machine cut off my Extreme Sarcasm Disclaimer at the end! Because I like using the “greater than” and “Less than” symbols for parentheses sometimes. I keep forgetting that HTML areas is a bad place for that habit.
[Reply]
Min, I did not see your response to me above… Sorry
However, tech, if I join a group that says “We don’t allow smoking, so you will have to quit” I have the choice of quitting or leaving.
First off, she did leave. Did you read that actual post? That was what the whole post is about. The blind oppression of the church, the oppression you appear to support is causing people to leave the church. With good reason as far as I can see.
One should not complain about the standards any group has when one willingly joins said group.
Perhaps I missed the portion where it said she willingly joined the church. She could have joined because he husband made her. She could have always been part of that church only to find changes in it towards fundamentalism. There are a thousand reasons why she was part of this ridiculous church.
you are right, if i know that I am joining a smoking club, its ridiculous for me to go in there to try to change it. However, if I join a hiking club that, over time gets filled with pdruggies, I damn well am going to try to correct that and get the club back that I originally joined.
Again, it’s a one sided story. Neither of which can we judge without more information.
Fine. true enough. I just attempted a few snappy responses, but they all flopped.
It barely matters, the post was about people leaving the church for the exact same sort of fundamental biblical view you yourself hold.
The laughable part is that in this whole post about not judging– clearly what nakedpastor wants us to do– he judged– in that he said that the church leaders that spoke to the lady were wrong.
Its more laughable that you don’t see something wrong with the scenario he wrote about. Actually its sad and pathetic.
I could go further to say that he’s condescending in his judgment simply because he doesn’t agree with what they had to say. Again, the very things he’s saying against these men could be said against him.
What?!!? The post was about one reason people are leaving the church, because of silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking and oppressive rules. That is why. I cant figure out where he was condescending. Was he judgemental because people were acting in an oppressive way? Hell yeah! He should be, and so should you.
Lets say the Government decides that you can not practice your religion at all. Nothing. No praying, no church, no bibles. You are being oppressed. Should you say nothing?
[Reply]
Tech, I support people trying to become more like Christ though building one another up. And people join churches for all sorts of reasons, but the general idea is that they expect to hear about or worship God.
Now, I don’t know how many churches that you’ve been around, but the general tendency of churches is to drift toward liberalism, ecumenism, etc., not toward fundamentalism. Although this is not a rule, and no I don’t have statistics, from my experience and being around churches all of my life I can tell you that the trend is this way.
I’m not going down the whole “you saw nothing wrong”. I’ve stated that I’ve seen something wrong with how both parties acted in the events multiple times, your statement is incorrect.
I appreciate his concern about chasing people away from the church, but I think that you’re reading into it a bit. He talked about oppression of people in the church based on human expectation (which Amanda said so well). He did not talk about “silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking”– that was your addition. That’s your opinion of any church that actually tries to follow the Bible.
I guess I would like to know where the woman went. Did she leave “church” entirely– meaning decided to become atheist? Did she find a church that would not go extra-Biblical on her?
Governments at all times have done exactly as you have said, and each time Christians have responded by staying faithful to the Bible. In fact, persecution has always been a tremendous purifying agent for the church. I personally believe that persecution allows people to see what Christians truly are and allows Christians to focus on the point– on being true to God.
No, I don’t believe Christians are persecuted in America today– but they are killed for their beliefs around the world today.
[Reply]
The problem with this concept is that there are many people in churches who believe that “building one another up” means critiquing other people in the most unmerciful, brutal ways. They show no compassion or mercy, but go about on their personal witch hunts to be sure that everyone knows how horrible and wicked they are.
When you confront people like this they respond with–”My spiritual gift is not mercy, its truth-telling.”…or maybe….”Jesus was angry in the temple…John the Baptist and Paul used strong language.” They pull whatever they can out of their bags to try and justify their position as God’s earthly critic.
It’s a load of bull.
God already has a convictor..it’s called the Holy Spirit and is usually working in people who are trying to follow Him. God doesn’t need people going around and trying to do His job for Him, because they don’t have the wisdom love and gentleness that He has.
Instead they want to “fight the battle”…or “storm the gates of hell”…or…”convict people’s consciences”.
It’s all about building barriers or breaking people down, not about welcoming others into the kingdom and introducing them to a loving Savior.
[Reply]
The issue most certainly is “…silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking.”
The bible also allows one to sell his daughter into slavery, and own slaves in the first place. Thankfully, we’ve progressed quite a bit as a species, and the silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking in that instance has since been corrected.
That’s my issue with the religious folk- you take which rules you want from that book of yours and leave the others. If you’re going to go fundie on the bible, than follow everything there in, no matter how backwards and ridiculous it may sound.
[Reply]
Min,
Now, I don’t know how many churches that you’ve been around, but the general tendency of churches is to drift toward liberalism, ecumenism, etc., not toward fundamentalism.
If this is true, then that is great news. from the ‘outside’ here, it appears to be quite the opposite. However I do admit that this could simply be because of the way the news focuses on the bad things rather than the good. You mostly hear about the tiny minority of bank robbers and murderers and not the people who help the old lady across the street. however, Time magazine had a pretty elaborate article last year about “what we beleive”. From my perspective, it was pretty frightening.
I have been to church for a couple of catholic weddings (that was truly creepy to me, I dont know how familiar with Star Trek you are, but it really seemed like I was among the Borg), and to visit in historical contexts like St. Peters Cathedral, Mont St. Michel (BTW… AWESOME!) and virtually any church or cathedral in europe as they are all quite old, and quite amazing. I have also visited some amazing Mosques and temples in India, Nepal, and Thailand. Nothing like we have here.
I don’t go to church for the same reason you mentioned before, the same reason I wont join a smoking club.
He did not talk about “silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking”– that was your addition. That’s your opinion of any church that actually tries to follow the Bible.
silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking rule#1: People should look a certain way
silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking rule#2: wives should submit to their husbands
silly, dogmatic, archaic, backward thinking rule#3: “following procedure” from an archaic, outdated, modified and manipulated book from questionable sources
I stand by my phrase.
I guess I would like to know where the woman went. Did she leave “church” entirely– meaning decided to become atheist? Did she find a church that would not go extra-Biblical on her?
What does that have to do with anything that the post was about? Or is it just curiosity?
No, I don’t believe Christians are persecuted in America today– but they are killed for their beliefs around the world today.
Same can be said for Jews and Muslims and every other religion, or even sects of religions (think sunni and shia, or protestant and catholic). It’s something I will never understand:
One group of people believe in one interpretation of an unsubstantiated entity A with accompanying old book of stories A.
Another group of people beleive in another interpretation of an unsubstantiated entity B with accompanying old book of stories B.
A followers persecute, oppress or destroy B followers. B followers persecute, oppress or destroy A followers.
Atheists sit on the side in total disbelief people can do this to each other and try to show that the only way to true peace adn the advancement of humanity is to cast off made up entities altogether (unless they clearly show themselves). At least then, we can fight and argue about things that are real.
[Reply]
Terri, the Bible says that those that are righteous should help those that they see stumble. The problem is that people see this, but forget the warning– considering yourself, lest ye also be tempted.
You’re right– people like to critique others. It’s human nature. It’s a whole lot easier to say where people fail than where they succeed. It’s the media, it’s sports, it’s everywhere. And though this is the case, it’s not a justification for it in the church. The church is called to be different than the world, and that includes interpersonal relationships.
We are commanded to speak the truth in love. Now, it’s true that sometimes love means saying hard things, and love may have to say things that the hearer does not want to hear. But love also looks for the best interest of others rather than just being concerned about self.
Only knowing this account, the leaders were not showing love the way that they should have. Regardless of the validity of the message (which we don’t know) or the motives of those that presented it (which we also don’t know), the way that they presented it harmed the lady rather than helped. It was caustic rather than loving. And that should be the lesson– we must take into account how the hearer will react.
Musicguy, the law in the Old Testament did permit someone to sell into slavery their daughter or son. However, every seven years said slaves were to be freed. And slavery in Old Testament times should not be equated with American slavery around the Civil War. In fact, Old Testament slavery provided for ways for people to marry their slaves and for slaves to remain with their masters.
You must take into account customs, culture, and general behavior of the time period when you apply laws.
And I would also argue that we haven’t progressed as much as you suggest. This current world has hordes of human trafficking, enslaves people to credit card companies (if you don’t think this is slavery, do a little looking into just how much of the average American’s take home pay goes toward paying interest), and the like. We do different things that are the same or worse than those times, and have the same opinion of our vices as those people had when slavery was in force.
[Reply]
“You must take into account customs, culture, and general behavior of the time period when you apply laws.”
Funny you should say that. In your case, you allow for INTERPRETATION, but when it comes to homosexuality, you do not. interesting how only you are allowed to interpret the bible.
[Reply]
On the contrary, I said nothing about interpretation, I said that you have to make sure to take the statements in context and make sure to apply them appropriately.
In the case of slavery, I wanted to make sure that you understood the difference between slavery in the 1800s and slavery in the 4000 BC era.
As far as homosexuality goes, it hasn’t changed despite the culture, and it’s been defined as a man being intimate with a man or a woman with a woman since prior to the law. And, I would add, that homosexuality is something that’s condemned even in the New Testament– Romans 1.
[Reply]
Sigh. When you take into account current customs of the day, you are allowing yourself to interpret the bible. sorry, boss, but there’s no two ways about it. Either you follow it word for word, or you make allowances according to current day customs and standards as they differ from those thousands of years ago. And if you open that door in one book, you open the door in all!
Which is why I’m glad you brought up romans. If you take into account the customs of the day, you’ll realize quite a few things:
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
By now it should be clear that these verses must be read in the cultural context of the Mediterranean world that understood socially acceptable sexual behavior to happen only one way: among unequals with the dominant partner always an adult male.
It is also important to read these verses in Romans within their larger context. At the beginning of his letter to the church in Rome (where he had not yet visited) Paul was attempting to lay out for the Roman church his theology of grace (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; but are justified by the gift of grace in Christ Jesus, 3:23). He is writing to a Jewish and Gentile audience. In chapter one he tries to demonstrate the Gentiles’ need for God by pointing out behaviors that keep them alienated from God. In chapter two he does the same thing for his Jewish audience.
Paul’s reference to natural and unnatural sexual acts must be taken in light of Mediterranean sexuality. He is not attempting to give an ethical teaching concerning homosexuality. He is trying to meet his Gentile audience on their own terms; using the example of some people who are not upholding the dominant/submissive model as an opportunity to talk about all persons’ need for the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
The above is taken from: http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality_Spirituality&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=583#bibleandhomosexuality
[Reply]
Sorry, but I forgot to highlight the words “CULTURAL CONTEXT of the Mediterranean world” above.
Let’s forget the word interpretation for a moment. If you can use the words cultural context in regards to Leviticus, I’m going to use them in regards to Romans.
[Reply]
I understand why you don’t get what I’m saying about understanding something in context versus just simply taking it for what it says. Really, I get it. However, they are not the same.
I will also grant you that you any thing that you read must be interpreted to be understood– there are time implications, cultural implications, etc. God told the Israelites to go in and possess the land, I can’t take that as instruction to me today. It’s historical.
Again, the Bible accurately recorded Satan’s lie to Eve– should I believe Satan’s lie? No, because it proved out to be just that.
So, coming to the Old Testament law given to Israel I can gain two things:
1. It’s something that God commanded His nation to do, and therefore must be important in either an administrative or moral way.
2. It’s something that shows me that I’m a sinner.
I also need to take into account two other things:
1. Jesus came and fulfilled the law, so that I’m no longer under the law, but under grace.
2. There are some things that Jesus changed when He was here.
Examples of the latter: worshiping on the Sabbath, prohibition against eating certain animals, and animal sacrifices.
It is with this understanding that I now turn to your quote about Romans:
The question in Romans 1 is “who is the them”? Your quote seems to imply that these are Mediterranean people who had a particular view about sexual interaction: mainly, that there had to be two unequals with the dominant partner the male.
However, the text states: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” (Romans 1:18) Who are the people that are the recipients of the wrath of God? The ungodly that know the truth. This statement could appropriately be laid at the feet of the Jews, not the Gentiles.
That aside, check out the wording here: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:” (Romans 1:26) The part that I emphasized states that it’s not something against the culture or cultural norms, but that their behavior was against nature– against natural use.
The quote that you make about this passage makes no sense– in that, if it’s not wrong to have unnatural passion (men having sex with men and women having sex with women), how can you then teach about sin and grace? You have to have a definition of sin in order to have a Savior, so what exactly is the sin against God in this passage if not homosexuality? What exactly did God turn them over to? What does it mean by “vile affections” if not that the following description is sinful?
[Reply]
You seem to forget that in one of the gospels, Jesus is supposed to have said that all the old laws still stand. I’m looking for the exact quote, but I can’t find the comment thread where I first read it.
Do any of you bible readers know which verse I’m thinking of????
[Reply]
You mean to quote Matthew 5:18 – “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
But you miss this one: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Which is the verse before it. Jesus said the law would not pass away until it was fulfilled, AND that He came to fulfill it.
Plus, if you go back to Romans 2, near the end you see an interesting discussion Paul is having about whether or not the law is totally in effect in regards to circumcision. Paul states that it’s the inner man that is important– Romans 6 says that we shouldn’t just sin because we can, but that we are not under the law, but under grace.
Different rules for different periods of time.
[Reply]
“the Bible accurately recorded Satan’s lie to Eve”
Wow, that cracks me up. The presumption here is multiplicative. First the presumption of Satan existing. Then the presumption of Eve Existing. The the presumption that they ever talked. Then the presumption of Satan lying. Then the presumption of the event being recorded (who wrote that down?) Then the presumption of whoever wrote it down did so accurately. Then the presumption that it remained accurately written through the ages.
That was good for a laugh. Thanks min.
[Reply]
We all know that you guys disagree. So why use it as an opportunity to poke fun?
[Reply]
I’m not buying it. This all comes down to your interpretation of the bible (women are inferior to men, homos are evil, etc), which relies primarily on a very tangled web of quote mining and the occasional historical context (although you make the rules for this as you go, so that your interpretation is always “right”).
You are certainly entitled to that, but so is everyone else who feels that your interpretation is archaic, backwards, and blinded by dogma.
I’ll go about attempting to build a community and coexist with my ultra religious friends as best I can, and you can go on pontificating about how your way is the only way while advocating laws that will limit my freedom (as well as the religious freedoms of many people, the Metropolitan Community Church, just one congregation whose views differ quite a bit from yours).
[Reply]
tech, I’m sure you can follow the reasoning I was attempting to make: Musicguy’s statement was that we must take all of the Bible literally. I was attempting to point out that in the historical record there are lies recorded, and that we cannot take something as truth outside of its context– context is everything.
So, in the context of our conversation, one does not need to prove any of the presumptions to make the point. Context is important.
Now, in regards to the “presumptions”, you could ask the same questions of a lot of figures in history. You could ask the question of whether Plato ever existed. In fact, many historical incidents recorded in the Old Testament weren’t believed to be real until archaeologists actually found artifacts from the time period. I believe that the current archeology accepts the historical account in the Bible back to Abraham (but I could be mistaken).
In any case, since items decay over time, it would be next to impossible to find something that still exists from that time, though it is not far fetched that writing existed before the time of Abraham. Just look at the Rosetta Stone and other cuneiform writings from the time period.
So, if you accept that there were recorded records (or even oral traditions along with recorded records) at the time of Abraham, it is not a stretch to say that there were documented evidence of the account in book of Genesis at the time that we simply do not have access to.
So… All that to say is that presumptions of there being an Eve, a Satan, Satan’s lies, etc. are not as far fetched as you’d have us believe, it simply goes back to something we cannot verify either way. When we get to that point, we are left with the question of do we go with the text, and the textual evidence, or do we go in with our presuppositions.
I prefer the former, you prefer the latter. It’s that simple.
[Reply]
Come on Amanda, it was a little bit funny. Look at it from across the aisle, and then crack a tiny smile
[Reply]
“if it’s not wrong to have unnatural passion (men having sex with men and women having sex with women), how can you then teach about sin and grace? You have to have a definition of sin in order to have a Savior, so what exactly is the sin against God in this passage if not homosexuality?”
Well here is a good place to start (i’ve mentioned this before)
You are sinning if:
You are decreasing happiness amongst humanity
You are increasing suffering amongst humanity
You are reducing free will amongst humanity
Please tell me how two people (regardless of gender), particularly two people you don’t even know, being affectionate with each fall in line with sinning.
See? You don’t need a book to teach morality.
[Reply]
All that to say is that presumptions of there being an Eve, a Satan, Satan’s lies, etc. are not as far fetched as you’d have us believe, it simply goes back to something we cannot verify either way.
Yes, that is why I was giggling when you wrote about how the bible “accurately recorded”. Accuracy implies verification. The bible has virtually none and absolutely none with respect to the adam and eve story.
I with ya that there are probably some inferences that archeology has made with respect to the bible. I have not looked any up (have you? Could you link?). But I presume some are there. I’d be pretty surprised if we had compelling evidence of abraham if we dont even have compelling evidence of jesus.
[Reply]
I never claimed that women are inferior. In fact, I believe that it takes a great deal of character to choose to submit to another person. I also do not believe that homos are evil, I believe that all are born with a sin nature (myself included) and we all do sinful acts (homosexual sex being one of many including lying, gossiping, etc. all of which being equally detestable unto God), and that we all need a Savior.
tech, if there is a God and He is the Creator, then He is the only one (by position of ownership) that is in the position to declare what is good and what is not good. If that is the case, then He has the rights to say that wearing green on Tuesday is a sin and that would be the case.
If there is no God, then certainly we are all open to create whatever rules we want.
However, consider this:
If the sight of two people of the same sex makes me unhappy, or makes a majority of people unhappy, does that then make it wrong?
How about if a majority of any given culture believe that stealing is fine? animal sacrifice? human sacrifice?
What is the impact on the free will of man if I’m not able to kill whom I want when I want? Have what I want when I see it?
The three tests that you set forth can lead to both anarchy and mayhem.
[Reply]