In my posts here, I have focused a great deal of attention on the fact that Jesus Christ summarized God's Law into two great principles, Love for God and each other. Indeed, Christ taught that ALL of the dos and don'ts of the Torah were based on these two principles - even the Ten Commandments. Hence, instead of referencing a list of dos and don'ts (and consulting specs for rituals), Christians operating under the New Covenant would be expected to incorporate these two principles into their hearts/minds and apply them to ANY and EVERY situation which would confront them in life. But how does that work?
Obviously, many of Christ's parables relate practical applications of these principles. Likewise, the writings of Paul, Peter, James and John ALL reflect this preoccupation with these two principles. Don't believe me? Type "love" into Strong's Concordance at Blue Letter Bible and see what it pulls up.
In this connection, however, the Apostle Paul enunciated what is probably the clearest and most basic way for us to apply these principles to our lives. To the saints at Rome, he wrote: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." - Romans 13:8-10, ESV OR As the King James Version renders the line: "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor." Likewise, the NIV renders the line "Love does no harm to a neighbor." Anyway, we get the point that Paul was making.
Now, this notion of NOT harming another person by anything that we do (or fail to do) is an interesting proposition when we consider the perspective of the legal realm. To bring a matter before our courts, a person must have "standing." In other words, the person/party must have suffered some harm or loss (and in most cases, that harm has to be real/tangible/concrete - it can't just offend your sensibilities or your personal standards). In similar fashion, Paul was telling those Roman Christians that the requirements of this Law of Love would be satisfied by NOT doing any hurt/harm to another person.
Moreover, if we take just a moment to think about this, it makes sense on so many levels. We can see the tangible or real harm that taking someone else's property inflicts on the person who has been robbed. Likewise, we can discern the concrete harm that infidelity does to one's spouse and children. It is also easy to discern the potential harm that things like child molestation, bestiality, pornographic addiction, and mindless promiscuity could inflict on our "neighbors."
Nevertheless, in my last post, I talked about some of the traditional Christian attitudes toward issues related to human sexuality. More particularly, my post and comments focused on LGBTQ folks, heterosexual prudery, and LUST. If this love principle is truly universal, we need to ask ourselves: Do these attitudes hurt or harm anybody? Do two consenting adults in a homosexual relationship hurt or harm anyone else? Do they inflict harm on each other? If they both love each other and are comforted and sustained by the relationship, how have they harmed each other? If they both derive satisfaction and fulfillment from the relationship, how have they harmed each other or anyone else? If they are faithful to each other, how have they wronged each other or anyone else?
It seems to me that these are essential questions for Christians to ask when we are trying to apply these standards to the situations we face in today's world. Moreover, the Bible is very clear about our personal accountability and responsibility before the Lord. It isn't the end of the world if your answers to those questions are different from mine! Paul also told the Romans that each of them should follow the dictates of their own consciences and respect the rights of their brothers and sisters to do the same.
I know you are working through this issue and I am not sure that I can contribute. I just may make things worse.
ReplyDeleteI differ with you on this. I believe two consenting adults in a homosexual relationship will segue towards erotic expression with high probability. And I believe it is the erotic expression that scripture specifically proscribes. A homosexual disposition is not a sin but homosexual intercourse is. I have found no other exegesis.
I believe this issue should be parsed finely because it is in generalization and hearsay that the substance of the concern is blurred and then lost. I believe that a homosexual Christian can love all people including other homosexuals in a context of ultimate concern. I can love my neighbors wife in the sense of
Sorry. I have a new laptop and my keyboard is weirdly sensitive. So I sent the comment early by accident. As I was saying...
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I can love my neighbor's wife as a matter of concern for her well-being (just like I want others to be concerned for my well-being) but an erotic implementation is proscribed by scripture.
When Jesus says to love others as you love yourself, I do not believe that he is fully capitulating the definition of "love" to individual determination. I believe that his statement exists in a scriptural context that informs the meaning of his words.
I admit that most of the thinking I have ever done about homosexuality has occurred in the last three days. I have my own newly formed viewpoint but I am also watching what the Body of Christ does on this matter.
Neo, your comments are always welcome here - even when we disagree. From my perspective, you are advocating a return to the dos and don'ts approach. Are New Covenant Christians supposed to apply these Love principles? OR Are we to be guided by specific proscriptions in Scripture? Either way, whether we employ Torah Law as our standard or New Testament proscriptions, aren't we advocating legalism? Moreover, if we are using the passage quoted by Vance Stinson from the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans, we aren't even using a proscription as our standard - we are employing a commentary about what happened to Gentiles as a consequence of their rejection of God! And, as with all arguments from a legalistic perspective, the question then becomes "why aren't all of those other proscriptions or commentaries equally valid and binding? Again, are we employing these principles as our standard? OR Are we consulting a list of dos and don'ts? Are we following our own conscience or someone else's?
DeleteMost of my encounters with gays ended with them wanting some kind of response from me. "What's the matter, don't you approve"? The first time it happened I was just out of high school and was driving a taxi during the summer. I picked up 2 well dress businessmen at the airport. No sooner than we got rolling, they were going at it in the back seat. They stopped every now and then and asked me what I thought about it.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this? It's none of my business what people do in private, so why flaunt it? Why do people care what someone else thinks?
I realize not everyone is like this. My wife and I are good friends with a lesbian married couple and we get along great. I don't view them as second class citizens, and even though I personally don't believe in gay marriage, it has never came up in conservation. They didn't ask me for an opinion or approval and I never offered one!
Biblical love for neighbor is well defined and is basically treating another person the way you want to be treated. Approval of what someone does or doesn't do is not a factor!
The bottom line is, a person's lifestyle is his own business, it is what it is. Some things I approve of and some I think are wrong. I oppose same sex marriage and the gay lifestyle. I also oppose illegal immigration, drunk driving and corrupt politicians. But who cares what I think? Apparently somebody!
BP8,
DeleteThanks again for expressing your view - this WILL help others to sort out their own views on this subject. To be clear, I am NOT soliciting anyone's approval or support for my views or my sexual orientation. As for privacy, my views are more in line with yours. I've always resented having to declare the fact that my sexual orientation is homosexual - heterosexuals don't have to do that. It's NOT that I'm ashamed of my orientation. I've just always felt like it was just a small part of who I am, and that I am entitled to keep some things private.
The purpose of these posts is to get people to think about what they believe and why. I think that Christians have a Scriptural obligation to do just that - to be ready/prepared to talk about our faith. Also, I think that it is important for all of us to allow for each other's personal experience of Jesus Christ and to acknowledge the role that our individual consciences play in our Christian walk. We are each responsible for implementing God's will as we understand it. I'm NOT responsible for your understanding of God's will, and you aren't responsible for mine.
By the way, the gay couple you transported in your taxi sound like they were rude exhibitionists. Gay or straight, I probably would have told them to get a room! I probably wouldn't last long driving a taxi.
We might well frame the question, “If the Old Covenant has been abrogated in Christ, does that mean that Leviticus 18:22 is also abrogated?” If so, then under the NT we can become self-determined in what love actually is – based on how we would want to be treated. This logical pathway leads to non-celibate homosexuality being validated under the NT.
ReplyDeleteThis logic, I believe, embodies a couple of errors. First, there is a category error. The OC contains various categories of law. This was a necessary outcome because the laws needed to address life broadly. Life has many dimensions. Not all the law categories are the same. Even though Paul argues that the Law is a whole, must be kept as a whole and went away as a whole, it does not mean that each law has the same etiology. A law that asserts “you shall not kill” is of a different nature from a law that says “you shall circumcise your son on the eighth day.” Notably, the former did not pass away with the abrogation of the OC but the latter did in its physical form. The former was carried forward into the NC intact.
Why would these laws not both receive the same post-abrogation treatment? “Thou shalt not kill” is a behavior based ethical principle. It is based on God’s intended purpose for the social domain of human life. The law concerning circumcision is liturgical. The first has to do with the persistent human heart and the latter has to do with a transient form of worship. I believe that Leviticus 18:22 has an etiology that places it in the same category was “thou shalt not kill.” This is why the punishment for this under the then ministration was death (Leviticus 20:13).
Second, there is a logical problem that I would term a “compatibility error.” There is a compatibility between the OC and NC as regard ethics. The details of implementation differ but the ethical nucleus is the same in both covenants. That is why we find “love your neighbor as yourself” in Leviticus 19:18 where it co-resides with the ethical statement of Leviticus 18:22. In the OC legislation these two scriptures are compatible in defining the way Israel should live. They are a part of a common theme that is then reflected in the NT. Logically, it does not make sense that an ethical principle (Leviticus 18:22) that is a part of the leitmotif of “love your neighbor” in the OC would be entirely reversed out in the NT. Not only reversed out but replaced by its contradiction in a redefinition of love.
I am well aware that many parts of the Christian church and branches of Judaism would not find this analysis reasonable. But it is the way I see things presently.
Neo,
ReplyDeleteYou are making the ACOG's argument about Torah Law! They distinguish between different kinds of laws in order to preserve certain of those commandments and carry them forward into the New Covenant. This does NOT agree with Christ's, Paul's or James' theology which sees Torah Law as a comprehensive whole.
The compatibility which you note between Old and New Covenants ethics is easily explained by the fact that Christ's summary (Love for God and each other) was both the basis for Torah Law and was intended by him to comprehend it. Nevertheless, I believe that there is enormous room for theological error in assuming that the two dispensations are completely compatible. Christ corrections of the Torah's provisions regarding vows, revenge, divorce, etc. make clear that some of the dos and don'ts found there were inadequate in fully representing the love principle. Again, I think that you have put yourself in the position of defending what you have previously so eloquently refuted.
Even so, you are entitled to follow the dictates of your own conscience. Your writings have demonstrated to my satisfaction that the Holy Spirit is working with you. I continue to regard you, Vance, Mike, and BP8 as brothers in Christ. We don't have to see everything in exactly the same way. I hope, at least, that we agree on this point.
Miller, you stated, “You are making the ACOG's argument about Torah Law!”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think so. The COGs, so far as I understand, believe the entire OT legislation is written on their hearts. They interpret fulfilling the law to mean that Christ became our perfect sacrifice by observing every jot and every title of the law, leaving modern Christians an example of how they should also exhaustively conform to the Law of Moses. But, in fact, they ignore parts of the law and modify parts of the law so that there is no real fidelity to the Torah in their praxis. Their selectivity is an error and not a methodology.
I believe that the OC has been abrogated in Christ. But neither am I a Marcionist. The Judeo-Christian tradition is of one piece at the spiritual level. As I have written before, I believe that both the OC and NC are instantiations of an eternally pre-existent moral law based on the character of God himself. Hence, there is a leitmotif that runs through both and connects them in spiritual theme but not in implementation detail. Armstrongist would argue that the Torah is God’s eternal moral law rather than an instantiation of it. Hoeh has explicitly stated so. I believe the Torah is only an instantiation of the eternal moral law for the nation of Israel. Time, place and race.
The only valid counterpoint, that I know of, is to class Leviticus 18:22 as an evanescent implementation detail. I don’t know what that argument would look like. I am aware of the fact that Leviticus 18:22 is contained within the pericope that the Documentary Hypothesis (or one of its later forms) assigns to the authorship of the Priesthood. I am aware of the fact that fallible human curation has been a factor in the conservation of the scripture. Yet, a motif in the scripture persists across time, authorship and covenant.
I am ready to let this midrash rest. I appreciate your providing a forum for this discussion. It has helped me to coalesce my previously fragmented viewpoint. And to consider other viewpoints. Thanks.