I just renewed my membership with Christians for Biblical Equality. It’s an inter-denominational, evangelical organization committed to spreading the Good News of biblical egalitarianism: God calls men and women alike to His service, and that all roles and responsbilities within His family can be assumed by men and women alike. I’m passionately committed to the work that they do, and support them with my dollars and my prayers.
I’ve contributed an article to their magazine, Mutuality (alas, not available online). And until recently, I was an infrequent contributor to CBE’s wonderful blog, The Scroll.
Though my support for CBE is unwavering, I won’t be writing for them in any capacity any longer. Last month, I posted a version of this post at The Scroll. Pre-marital sex, the topic of the post, is only tangentially related to the mission of CBE, but similar posts have appeared there before. But in my post, I made it clear that I do consider some forms of genital sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage to be congruent with a rigorous understanding of Scripture and the spirit of Christ. That placed me at odds with CBE’s own statement of faith, a statement that includes this:
We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God’s design.
My view is more inclusive than that. And when I posted my post at the Scroll, it caused some considerable and genuine concern.
The most conservative elements of evangelicalism (and Roman Catholicism) teach “complementarianism” as God’s plan; complementarianism is the notion that God calls men and women to separate and complementary roles. Women are not to teach men or preach the Gospel. The complementarian/egalitarian struggle is a dynamic and fruitful one — the number of books and articles and conferences organized by both sides grows each year. Both sides acknowledge that faithful Christians are found in the other camp.
But one slur some complementarian conservatives throw at egalitarian evangelicals is that egalitarianism is part of a “slippery slope” agenda that will eventually lead to a weakening of biblical morality. There is a widespread perception among some complementarians that if the egalitarian agenda succeeds, and more churches admit women to the pastorate, the next step will be same-sex marriage. (I realize that for most of my readers, that’s not such a bad thing.)
But CBE represents the mainstream egalitarian position, one that holds to a traditional understanding of sexual morality while proclaiming women’s radical equality. And the ability of the egalitarians to make their case to the complementarians hinges upon the complementarians seeing the egalitarians as “biblically legitimate.” When I posted on the Scroll, I posted under the aegis of CBE as if I were speaking for the whole organization. And given my heterodox views on human sexuality, I unintentionally left CBE wide open for attack from the far right of the church who would like nothing bettter than to tar all egalitarians with the brush of “unbiblical liberals.”
I have resigned from the blogging staff of the Scroll as of this week. I did so without rancor, of course, and I did so after apologizing personally to a number of CBE folks who were bewildered that someone would so baldly contradict their statement of faith on their own blog. I am heartsick about the possibility that I may have damaged, even in a very small way, the credibility of an organization that I strongly support.
My views on sexuality have caused me to leave leadership before. I was gently asked to step down from the Leadership Team at Pasadena Mennonite Church for this reason; after four semesters as the faculty adviser to Campus Crusade for Christ, some of the leaders of the chapter apologetically asked me to step aside. No one at CBE, at Pasadena Mennonite, or even Campus Crusade has ever questioned my salvation, the sincerity of my conversion or of my heart. But they’ve been right to be firm with me that those who lead and speak for an evangelical organization must publicly affirm the orthodox evangelical understanding of sexual morality.
So why do I keep aligning myself with organizations whose views diverge from my own? Well, I tend to be a “big-tent” guy, focusing on commonalities rather than differences. The Mennonite commitment to pacifism and justice speaks to my core; Campus Crusade’s fiery love of God, their commitment to the Great Commission, stirs me. And the work of Christians for Biblical Equality matches my feminism with my faith.
But I blog and write and teach about sexuality. And though the intensity of my faith is evangelical, my views on sexuality fall outside of the mainstream. I admit that I have often hoped to nudge some of my fellow evangelicals “left” on issues of sexuality; by the same token, when I’m hanging with ultra-liberal Episcopalians, I want to nudge them “right” on issues of Christology. When I’m hangin’ with my evangelical friends, I’m often tense, knowing that my understanding of sexuality is so different from theirs; when I hang with the good folks at All Saints, I sometimes feel frustrated at the lack of zealous passion to Proclaim the Name, to raise hands to the sky, to talk about transformation and salvation.
I’m not throwing myself a pity party here. But in my work on this blog, in my writing elsewhere, and in my youth ministry, I’m not gonna stop arguing for a serious re-think on sexual morality. And in my work at a very liberal Episcopal parish, I’m not going to hide my genuine fervor for Christ as Savior, Friend, and best of Lovers.
But sometimes, this means that I’m going to embarrass my allies. And it means I’m going to resign from leadership positions and blogging roundtables. And it means I’m gonna do a lot of praying for guidance.
And it doesn’t mean that CBE won’t still get my money. If I only gave to those who agreed with me all the time, I’d never get anywhere near a tithe.
There is something about evangelicals that I have never understood. Forgive me Hugo (and anyone else) if this is offensive, but I just don’t understand why anyone would impose their personal beliefs and judgements on others. I am not saying that we should not share our opinions with each other, I am just saying that we should be objective and that we should not try and confine others to what we personally believe is “right” or “appropriate”. I respect other people for their beliefs and I certainly have my own. However, I would never dream of telling someone that they were wrong in God’s eyes for believing something different than that in which I believe. Is not the true meaning of a christian to be non judgemental and unconditionally accepting of others regardless of whether or not we agree with the way that they choose to live? Why do people feel so free to confine others to what they believe is appropriate? Especially when it comes to women. Why is there such a need for control?
Elizabeth, I don’t really see where you’re getting evangelicals trying to “control” from this post. (I’m not arguing that they never do, but I don’t think this instance is illustrative of that.) Hugo used these organizations as fora for expressing views that didn’t jive with their organizational vision; I think most advocacy groups would consider this a problem, no matter what their particular goals were. In fact, from Hugo’s description of the events, it sounds to me as if these groups were pretty civil in their disagreement with him.
Elizabeth…if I was an occasional writer for a blog like Feministing or Feministe, and I was opposed to abortion and made it clear on their front page, do you think that they would let me continue to write there?
Yes, please understand that I’m not writing out of any anger at all at CBE, Pasadena Mennonite, etc; I understand completely why it became inappropriate for me to continue there. Mind you, I never sought to actively undermine these organizations — on most issues, I was in congruence — but on one very serious one, I was outside the mainstream.
This post was about expressing regret, not anger.
Been there.
It has always seemed to me most congruent with honesty to be up-front about where I differ fro organizations I support. It has cost me numerous opportunities to do things I would have liked to have done–but it seems to me praiseworthy, not blameworthy, to say, I disagree with you on point B5; if that means I can’t teach Sunday School, that’s fine.
Well said Sam. Hugo, I know that your resignation was a peaceful one… I just feel like we can support the broader goals of an organization without having to agree entirly with every aspect of that organization. Can you still be a feminist if you dont believe in abortion? It may do us all some good to allow ourselves to at least be exposed to the beliefs of others even though we may not agree. I think that by not allowing some diversity within a group, that group also denies itself some potential value. For example, now that Hugo does not write for the CBE anymore he is not sharing his thoughts on issues that the group opposes but, the group has in a way also lost some regular valuable input from Hugo. Is the trade off worth it?
I still disagree, Elizabeth. As a fellow Christian, I enjoy reading Hugo’s views on religion and spirituality. I deeply respect the work that he does in his various ministries. However, I disagree rather strongly with his views on premarital sex. Am I open to being “exposed to his beliefs”? Yes, as my regular visits to his site attest. Do I agree that he is entitled to these beliefs, without condemnation from me? Yes, of course. Would I be comfortable being grouped with him in an organization where his views on this subject might be conflated with my own? Definitely not.
Emma maybe its your views that are conflicting with his. Just a thought.
As a fellow CBE member, I’m sad to see that you won’t be blogging at their site anymore. I will admit that when I saw your most recent post, I thought, ‘Now that’s a little too radical for CBE…’ In other words, I’m not surprised by your decision. You explained CBE’s need to keep in line with the traditional evangelical views, though, and I thought your post portrayed that fairly.
It is called “self-policing” and is what any organization or movement does to keep on point; or at least those with the courage of their convictions. Ultimately, those who appear to go for the “anything goes” philosophy are perceived as standing for nothing.
As well as looking so desperate for numbers on the membership rolls that they will overlook anything to keep them there.
And yes, I do know that cuts two ways. As well it should. I have turned my back on many things where one issue is the dealbreaker. I know a perfectly lovely Old Catholic church I cannot abide because of their anti-semitism, though I find them spot on in every other respect.
Gonzman, have you ever read the story of the Good Samaritan in the book of Luke? If not I recommend.
Pingback: titusonenine » Blog Archive » Huge Schwyzer Strguggles with his allies
Hi Hugo
I wonder why you use such loaded language — you describe your position as “inclusive” and your opponents as “more exclusive” — both very judgmental statements, and hardly likely to appeal to reason as opposed to emotion.
Hugo, your example is very strengthening to me as I find myself going through a “divorce” from the church that has been my home and the center of my social life since moving to my current hometown four years ago. Where oh where can I find a gay-friendly church that also believes Jesus is the Son of God and not just a good idea? Like you, I straddle subcultures that seem incompatible, and I used to enjoy gently (or not so gently, alas!) prodding each of them to recognize the merits of the other, but lately I just feel invalidated everywhere. How have you learned to cope?
Anyhow, kudos to you for being so mature in affirming these groups’ right to set ideological boundaries that may exclude you. I agree with Emma’s comments, above, on this one. What makes my church-divorce particularly painful is that in the name of “inclusiveness,” my minister in various ways has silenced the voices of parishioners who have more traditional Trinitarian views of Jesus and believe in the Nicene Creed. Because the church leadership isn’t being honest about the limits of its tolerance, it’s impossible for dissenting members to get closure, as you did, with an amicable, honest parting of the ways. (If this is TMI or thread drift, I apologize!)
When I say “inclusive”, Margaret, I mean that my understanding of the Gospel includes more possibility for sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage. I was not trying to use it in a way that would cast CBE in a negative light. Just as complementarians and egalitarians can have honest disagreements about Scripture, so too can those of us who believe that sex outside of heterosexual marriage can be blessed and those who don’t.
The disagreement doesn’t require us to be disagreeable.
I’d like to give you another way of looking at premarital sex, although, you may know all of this already, of course.
It seems to me that we Christians have inherited from God through the centuries a sexual morality which does the most good for the most people. You think that there are exceptions to this – loving, consensual relationships, and that God’s grace may be present with these as well. But to me, the question of the presence of God’s grace isn’t the concern. All the good advice about condoms, birth control, etc., is all well and good, and then you may also say ‘save it for someone you really love.’ But the teenage brain says, “OK, premarital sex is OK, and I really love this guy I’ve known now for two whole months, so I can do it, right?” I’m afraid they just aren’t where you and I are in terms of maturity, intelligence, life experience, job security, education, etc. They aren’t equipped to make a “Yes” decision with regard to sex. I appreciate what you say, but let’s look a little further.
As a member of the generation after the 60′s generation, I can attest that the sexual revolution hasn’t worked out so well. It has given the boys exactly what they want, and denied the girls what they want. The boys get the sex, the girls are not getting the commitment, i.e. the wedding ring. They are getting used, and when they try to get some kind of commitment from the boys, they (boys) throw them away for the next girls to come long that they will also use. For a feminist (me), this is disturbing. I’m not saying that boys are evil, and I’m aware that there must be a gazillion exceptions of respectful young men. But when too many young men act like this, the young men who don’t look around and say, “What am I’m missing out on?” There is no impetus for them to continue acting honorably. The girls have a huge part in this, too, of course. But, I fear I’m already too long in this. I’m not saying kids shouldn’t be taught about birth control methods, but I’ll tell you what I told my niece: “If you don’t have sex with them, they’ll eventually drop you in favor of someone who does. And if you do have sex with them, they’ll drop you anyway, because they’ve already had you.” I don’t know what else to tell her, and I don’t sugarcoat. I’ve told her to wait for someone honorable.
I think you have good intentions, but your vision of premarital sex favors the boys, who will of course tell the girls what they want to hear. But look… there is no ring to prove it. For what it’s worth….
Jennifer, please know that I don’t defend a culture of promiscuity. But there’s a world of difference between a reckless hook-up culture and sex in the context that my student Sarah writes about, where she and her boyfriend waited FOUR years. The fact that my understanding of sexual morality is broader than that of most evangelicals doesn’t mean it’s so wide open the wind blows through. Sexual activity divorced from a willingness to be in loving, nurturing relationship with the one with whom one is sexual is, I think, short of the mark.
And it’s also important to note, Jennifer, that girls are sexual creatures too. Sexual desire is not a one-way street; the advice you gave your niece was surely loving, but it seems predicated on the assumption that male desire is an overwhelming force, and female desire is, by comparison, negligble. With respect, I don’t think that gives a complete picture.
Jennifer, who says that girls don’t enjoy sexual relationships just as much as boys do? I am a twenty five year old full time college student with a job that is almost as demanding as my classes. I am not looking for a ring and nobody is pulling the wool over my eyes. Maybe teaching young women to think for themselves is a better idea than teaching them how to manipulate men. Hugo sorry if I am drifting, couldn’t help my self.
Hugo, I see that you don’t knowingly defend a culture of promiscuity. But teenagers fall in and out of love frequently. You may be inadvertently contributing to such a culture, by using the words “loving” and “nurturing,” and not also the word “engaged.” If a particular relationship is so loving and nurturing, why not be engaged? Also, I know that girls are sexual creatures, it just wasn’t very obvious from my post. My point isn’t that female sexuality is negligible or powerful, it’s that girls have a lot more to lose than guys from premarital sex, and the power balance is more in the guys’ favor, right now. A girl can choose to not have sex, but she’s not going to get many dates. And she has more to consider than just sexual desire, however powerful.
Finally, in advocating for the exceptions, the Sarahs, you may be destroying the rule. The rule has been: no sex outside of marriage. An exception comes along, a Sarah. It’s probably fine, as you say, I admit that. But because you have exceptions doesn’t mean you should change the rule. We don’t change the rule about murder into a non-offense because of the exception of self-defense, do we? What if we did change the rule, what would happen if murder was fine and dandy? I hope you understand my meaning.
Elizabeth, I didn’t say girls don’t enjoy sex as much as boys do. But they want commitment more than boys do. And, you’re twenty-five, not sixteen. It’s very different for teenagers. Don’t you remember? And girls thinking for themselves is precisely what I’m advocating, not manipulation. How is it manipulative to ask that a guy show some kind of promise to a girl in the form of a ring, before sex? Isn’t it more manipulative for the guys to tell the girls that if the girls love them, they’ll have sex with them? And if a guy doesn’t want to give the ring, the girl at least knows where she stands with him, and can make an informed decision: “If I have sex with him, and he doesn’t intend to marry me, he’s using me.” Maybe she wants to use him, too, but at least she’ll go into the sexual relationship with a more realistic picture. I would think this would be wise thinking, not mere manipulation.
It’s late for me, I’m off to bed. I write because I have three nieces, a sister, many friends and many female students who have been scarred by the new sexual standards. I urge caution. What we decide today affects the next generations.
I can’t say I am suprised, Hugo. Every time you mentioned your Campus Crusade position (as in: “Despite the liberal and heterodox views I hold and have just spent ten paragraphs amplifying, Campus Crusade seems happy with me”), I wondered whether they would continue to be so. I’m sad you seem to be becoming more conventionally liberal, since complicated you is one of the reasons I like hanging out here, but it is probably more honest for you to match your affliations with your conscience, and for Campus Crusade and CBE to do the same. We Evangelicals are notoriously stubborn, and on the look out for liberal creep. I’m sad you’ve gotten caught by that because its you, but I can’t say I blame them, or that I would will it differently.
Hugo,
Thanks for your honesty. May I respectfully suggest that the fact that your “views on sexuality fall outside of the [evangelical] mainstream” only point to a deeper issue here, however? From your past posts and your responses to some people (including your response to my last post a few weeks back — a response that showed me we were thinking on two totally different wavelengths), it seems that you dismiss an orthodox Christian (not just evangelical) understanding of sex as reserved for a husband and wife to be one of “experience.” From the orthodox point of view, however, it’s not about experience at all; it’s about God’s objective desires for humanity.
Most of the time that you talk about your orthodox Christology or evangelical zeal, too, you talk in terms of experience, Hugo. Don’t get me wrong; a “zealous passion to Proclaim the Name, to raise hands to the sky, to talk about transformation and salvation” can be wonderful things. Still, they are not the at the root of evangelicalism — or orthodox Christianity as a whole. Evangelicalism and orthodox Christianity as a whole rest on the sense of God’s revelation as being objective, not based on experience.
In this way, we are very different from progressives, as you well know. Experiences *are* important in our Christian life, and I’m certain that all of us who are Christians will have some that deepen our faith, but they are not the ground of our faith. Modern-day progressives, however, root their understanding of Scripture in the belief that the Bible is not objective revelation, but rather a compilation/record of peoples’ experiences with God. This also naturally affects their attitude toward tradition and their views on any current issue.
It seems to me, Hugo, that in your emphasis on experience you’re missing the roots of the faith. It also makes me think that your own evangelical experiences and seeming tendency to look at orthodox Christian convictions as based on experience probably hurt you: they may have kept you from taking the statements of faith of the different groups you had to leave as seriously as you should have. I’m not posting this to jump on you, Hugo, but to relate what I see out of all this. (Only you can determine how accurate my concerns are.) May God indeed lead you and strengthen you to follow his will.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
It has given the boys exactly what they want, and denied the girls what they want. The boys get the sex, the girls are not getting the commitment, i.e. the wedding ring. They are getting used, and when they try to get some kind of commitment from the boys, they (boys) throw them away for the next girls to come long that they will also use.
I didn’t say girls don’t enjoy sex as much as boys do. But they want commitment more than boys do.
These statements reek of essentialism to me. As an educator and mentor, Hugo needs to help all the teenagers he leads to grow into healthy and happy adults, not just the normative ones. He has to respond to boys who are more interested in commitment than cheap sex and girls that have strong sexual drives with the same love and respect that he has for more traditionally normative teens. He doesn’t have the luxury of telling the very real, very concrete individuals that come to him needing help and guidance that they don’t, or perhaps shouldn’t, exist.
‘Don’t be like that’ is rarely useful advice for a teenager. Just sayin’.
‘Don’t be like that’ is rarely useful advice for a teenager. Just sayin’.
That’s not the advice I give. I mean, you’ve boiled it down to the very nutshell, but there’s more to it than that. The opposite to your interpretation of my advice would be “Do be like that.” That’s not what you mean, either, is it? You would add a bit more to it than just that one sentence, correct? But thanks for your advice.
Exceptions don’t change the rule. Hugo can be pastorally sensitive to the non-normative teens in private, while espousing the line on traditional morality in public, if he so chooses. A public line protects the many, a pastoral response in private helps the exceptions.
Hugo can be pastorally sensitive to the non-normative teens in private, while espousing the line on traditional morality in public, if he so chooses. A public line protects the many, a pastoral response in private helps the exceptions.
So, what? Hugo is going to make himself a hypocrite, saying one thing in private while, in front of those same teens that he’s trying to guide with those private statements, saying another in public? Is that really your advice?
I really seriously don’t understand what it is that you’re advocating here. It seems to me that that kind of mixed message, that kind of strong public statements combined with furtive private flexibility is precisely how we got into the situation we’re in in the first place. I, personally, feel that more teens would wait until they are older and in more solid, healthier, more meaningful relationships to initiate partnered sexuality if we, their elders, talked up front about sex before marriage, about becoming a sexually active adult, and let them talk to us frankly and honestly about their thoughts and concerns about such things.
Instead, you seem to be recommending that we tell them that they are expected to wait until marriage and leave it at that until they decide that we don’t know what we’re talking about and then and only then discuss privately with them the real rules about such things. At which point they, as mentioned, have already decided that we don’t know what we’re talking about and may well still be trying to feed them a line. Would they be wrong?
“So, what? Hugo is going to make himself a hypocrite, saying one thing in private while, in front of those same teens that he’s trying to guide with those private statements, saying another in public? Is that really your advice?”
No. He wouldn’t be saying one thing one place, and another in another place. His message would be the same. Something along the lines of: “I highly do not recommend a sexual relationship before marriage because of reasons x, y, and z. But if you’re going to have sex, here are the precautions you should take.” In private he would say the same thing, only, since it would be one on one, he would be able to give more tailored advice. In private, he could afford to be more understanding of the individual circumstances, without necessarily holding that sex before marriage is right and good. You can talk to teens in a way that holds your principles, and still makes them feel heard and not judged. You can also help with consequences should they not heed your advice, which is also pastoral, not hypocritical. General moral principle, individual pastoral response.
“I really seriously don’t understand what it is that you’re advocating here. It seems to me that that kind of mixed message, that kind of strong public statements combined with furtive private flexibility is precisely how we got into the situation we’re in in the first place.”
I disagree. We got into this situation by rejecting almost completely the traditional sexual moral in the 60′s.
“I, personally, feel that more teens would wait until they are older and in more solid, healthier, more meaningful relationships to initiate partnered sexuality if we, their elders, talked up front about sex before marriage, about becoming a sexually active adult, and let them talk to us frankly and honestly about their thoughts and concerns about such things.”
I agree with this. However, I would add that teens should be encouraged to wait until marriage in such talks, because marital vows are a very real sign of commitment, love, and meaning. The lack of such vows leaves people in a nebulous state. Maybe they’re committed, maybe not. That someone would commit so much to you as to marry you is far less nebulous. It’s not foolproof, for sure. But it’s better than the nothing a lack of marriage offers.
Hope this clarifies things.
No time to post today, but Chip, you’ve said something (not uncommon for you) that gets very close to the heart of things. And you’re right, I wonder if my privileging of experience over other forms of knowledge (reason, scripture, tradition) has led to a very unbalanced Hugo Quadrilateral. I’m prepared to accept that; now I need to consider what to do about it.
Sorry to break it to you John, but jesus christ was a liberal.
“Liberal” is a sandy bank, Elizabeth. It depends on issue, context and time period for its meaning. Would you care to define what you mean by that? Jesus would support same-sex marriage? Jesus would support Catholic empancipation and the Reform Bill? or Jesus messed with the religious leaders of his day and hence had a liberal mindset? Which do you mean exactly?
John my definition of liberal is based on the meaning of the word. It is not based on some ambiguous concept from some unknown period of time. The definition of liberal is to be not narrow minded in opinion or judgement, to be tolerant. You can look the meaning up in Websters if you like but I have already done the work for you. Anyway, perhaps Jesus supported all three it is really not for me to say. Your giving me a false choice because it is not an either or situation they are not mutually exclusive. John what would be your definition of a Christian?
Jendi, one option to find a church that welcomes people of all sexual orientations and genders and also believes Jesus is the Son of God and not just a good idea is RIC.
Hugo, I believe that you have set a good example in multiple ways. Thank you for that.
Elizabeth Writes:
“Gonzman, have you ever read the story of the Good Samaritan in the book of Luke? If not I recommend.”
I have read it. And find it profoundly irrelevant.
The church I belong to does outeach and charitable work based on certain ethical and moral standards. We have certain terms by which those who would participate on the help-giving end must abide by.
If they do not wish to abide by them, and prefer to walk their own way, this is fine; we wish them well. But they do not walk the same path we walk.
Elizabeth, I am, on most issues, a liberal. I am also an evangelical. But I wince when folks use terms like “liberal” or “conservative” to describe Jesus — his teaching was authentically radical in a way that transcends any particular set of poltiical beliefs. We can all quote passages from the Gospels to claim Jesus as our own, but we always diminish the Message when we do.
Does Jesus want me to be a Democrat? I haven’t the foggiest idea. He wants me to feed His lambs, that I know — and that is my responsibility.
Part of my liberalism is the sincere conviction that good Christians can disagree about Scripture, and the “plain meaning” of the text isn’t always so plain when we do a careful examination. But I never, ever, question the bona fides of those whose views differ from my own. One house, many rooms and all that.
Hugo, as I wrote previously, I am using the word liberal because of its definition. I don’t and never have claimed to know what political organization Jesus belonged to. Besides, the point is simply that Jesus taught tolerance. And yes I do believe that it is as plain as that. I don’t understand why it could be wrong to question the bona fides of others, it does not mean that I am condemning them for what they believe. It just means that I find their beliefs questionable.
Elizabeth, with respect, Jesus never mentions tolerance. He mentions love, which is not the same thing. True love is courageous enough to confront people when they seem to be making serious mistakes. And while he warns against judgment until we have dealt with our own sins, Jesus also calls us to challenge each other and hold each other mutually accountable.
The definition of liberal is to be not narrow minded in opinion or judgement, to be tolerant.
And here was I hoping for something original. I agree with Hugo, Jesus didn’t teach tolerance at all. “I am the way, the truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me” leaps to mind, as does “I come not to bring peace, but a sword”. There are whole chapters in the same vein. Even the famous “Judge not, lest ye be judged” ends “Judge not unrighteously, but make a right judgement”.
Jesus was profoundly intolerant-not of sinners and those who sought Him, but of religious leaders, including the “liberal wing” of Judaism, the Saduccees, and moneychangers, and those who asked Him loaded questions. Not to mention that people who preach tolerance don’t get crucified.
I’m sorry, Elizabeth, I’ve only just remembered this:
John what would be your definition of a Christian?
I don’t get to define a Christian, Elizabeth. The Bible and the holy Church have both done that already. A handy distillation is here: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html
I am confused by this logic. If Jesus didn’t teach tolerance and being tolerant of others is no where in the Christian message, then the only possible alternative is that Christianity advocates intolerance, atleast by the standards that have been presented to me in the above comments. If your going to exclude someone from a Christian organization because of their beliefs about premarital sex then why not exclude them because they don’t give up all of their worldly possessions and devote themselves to following Christ. Who makes the determination?
Elizabeth, when I stepped down from leadership in the organizations mentioned in this post, no one said I wasn’t a Christian. No one questioned my heart or my faith. But on a vital issue of moral teaching, I held — and continue to hold — a divergent view. All organizations let folks go when they hold divergent views; NARAL would ask someone to step down from their board if that person suddenly came out against contraception — would that be evidence of intolerance?
Hugo I dont question your reasons for stepping down from those organizations, you do what you do, its fine. NARAL is a group that openly believes in the right to choose and in ones right to make personal decisions about reproductive issues. Any organization has the right to express their beliefs. But, it is not fair for an organization to express their beliefs about premarital sex, abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, etc. and claim that their beliefs on these issues are based on their Chritianity. If an organization wants to call themselves “Christians Against Premarital Sex” or “Christians for Conservative Family Values”, thats one thing. But to claim that premarital sex or contraception is some how related to Christianity is a falacy because their not. People may try to merge them and I would question their agenda for doing so.
Elizabeth, Christianity roots itself on Scripture and tradition, reason, faith, and experience — and the bulk of these have historically pointed to a position against pre-marital sex. To be a Christian is to base your worldview on your faith; if you don’t do that, then your faith is merely a passing fancy, like a garment you wear and then discard.
Look, I’m quite liberal on the sexual issues. But I root that in the Gospel as much as my conservative friends root their views in the Gospel. We can all cite chapter and verse to support our positions, and we can offer historical, grammatical, arguments as well.
Good Christians can use their faith to arrive at radically different conclusions.
I think we are currently witnessing what can happen when people base their worldviews on their faith without careful consideration. Doing this can be destructive and insulting to others. Spiritual issues and social issues are not always one in the same. We are dealing with many different kinds of people in this world. The “my way or the highway” motto could potentially do much more harm then good.
I am confused by this logic. If Jesus didn’t teach tolerance and being tolerant of others is no where in the Christian message, then the only possible alternative is that Christianity advocates intolerance
That depends on what you mean by intolerance. Some ideas are simply incompatible with Christianity, and in the church, we cannot “tolerate” them when they are expressed by leaders of, or members in the church. That does not mean that those holding the error have no claim on pastoral care, help or elementary respect. Of course they do. The error and the person holding the error are distinguishable. I love Hugo, he’s my favourite liberal. And if I were on the board of Campus Crusade, or the Mennonite parish council, I would vote to remove him. I like him, I respect him, and he has every right to his opinion. But not in a pulpit.
why not exclude them because they don’t give up all of their worldly possessions and devote themselves to following Christ. Who makes the determination?
The pattern of Christian truth received by the church, and contained in the Bible. Giving up one’s worldly goods is a vocation for those called to it, as Scripture makes clear. A holy life, on the other hand, is not optional, and is an aspiration for all Christians. Hugo wouldn’t deny that, but he has a different idea about what that means, which has not been demonstrated to be in continuity with the tradition we have received. Hugo thinks it is. The wider Christian communions disagree.
And John, while on the narrow issue of sexuality outside of marriage, you and I disagree — on the issue of church authority, we completely agree. I always wince my liberal allies appropriate Christ to serve a narrow political agenda; I don’t like it coming from John Spong or Jerry Falwell. To follow Jesus DOES have political implications, but it’s hugely reductionist to use modern political terminology for Him.
And John, if you voted to remove me, you and I would still be friends, still break bread together. And when I come to New Zealand someday, we’re hanging out.
And if the Welsh can’t do it in France later this year, I’ll be willing to root for the All Blacks. How’s that for love?
John and Hugo, this is an interesting site if you care to check it out. Let me know what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/liberal_christianity