posted
I'm re-reading one of my favorite Christian non-fiction book of all time - Abba's Child by Brennan Manning. This guy really nails what is wrong with judgmental attitudes in the far-right fringe. His attitude is one I pray I can have all the time.
Here's just a little bit in one chapter when he discusses AIDS and homosexuality that I think all Christians should read.
quote:Whenever the Gospel is invoked to diminish the dignity of any of God's children, then it is time to get rid of the so-called Gospel in order that we may experience the gospel. Whenver God is invoked to justify prejudice, contemp, and hostility, then it is time to heed the words of Meister Eckhart: "I pray that I may be quit of God to find God."
Man, I like that. But, Manning isn't through. He's got more to say.
quote:Homophobia ranks among the most shameful scandals of my lifetime. In this closing decade of the twentieth century, it is frightening to see the intolerance, moral absolutism, and unbending dogmatism that prevail when people insist on taking the religious high ground.
I have some Christian acqaintances that really need to read that. Again and again.
A final note, and this passage made me want to stand up and cheer.
quote:How I treat my brothers and sisters from day to day, whether they be Caucasian, African, Asian, or Hispanic; how I react to the sin-scarred wino on the street, how I respond to interruptions from people I don't like, how I deal with ordinary people in their ordinary unbelief on an ordinary day will speak the truth of who I am more poignantly than the pro-life sticker on the bumper of my car.
Pat Robertson really, really needs to learn a few things from Mr. Manning.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manning is a great read. I enjoy his works quite a bit. Along the same lines, I think Philip Yancey and Bob Briner both have their heads screwed on fairly straight. And I also have to plug Walker Percy when the topic of good Christian non-fiction authors comes up.
I'd be a happy guy if I never heard the name of Pat Robertson again. I grew up watching the 700 Club and for awhile I couldn't figure out if I was just rebelling against my parents and my childhood or if this guy really did just make me sick. I concluded finally, it was the latter.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw him speak a few years back. A very eloquent man with a wonderful Christian perspective. I'll never forget the story he told explaining why there would be a hell:
All the well-to-do who know they have done everything right are lined up, but Peter isn't opening the gates yet. "Preparations" he says, simply. They put a red carpet out, line up angels with trumpets, have other angels prepared to strew flowers in the path of the righteous. Then, with much fanfare and celebration, a bunch of prostitutes, drug users, thieves, gang memebers, and other "unsavory" types are led down the path through the pearly gates, while all the others are made to wait and watch. After this spectacle, many of them declare "I'm not going in there with *those* people..."
and that's why there will be a hell.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was looking at some old posts and came across this.
If I believe that there is a right and a wrong, and that there is an absolute truth, am I a bigot? Just because I do not think that a person is doing right am I then attempting to damn them?
I struggle with a Christian saying that "moral absolutism" is wrong. And if the Church bends it's dogma to fit the current trend, then what good is it?
Am I nuts or just misinterpreting the passage?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to find myself agreeing with Ryan Hart (sorry, Ryan), but he has a point.
That reality and God's morality do not have to make us comfortable is a sword that cuts both ways. It is true of people on the right, and also people on the left. A similar story could be told about God making the latter watch while he marches people they do not consider sinners into hell, or actual, unrepentant bigots into heaven. (Would you consent to spend eternity in heaven with David Duke? George Wallace?)
Although I cannot help but expect that God's morality is at least similar to what I have been taught all my life is moral (Love thy neighbor, and so forth), I also cannot expect that God must approve of everything I approve of, or disapprove of everything I disapprove of. Indeed, if that seemed to be the case, I would wonder whether I were just making God up to suit my whims.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can disapprove of them as much as you want, and you can think they're making the wrong moral choice, and you can think whatever you want, but when you treat them differently, treat them worse than other people, just because of what you think, that's when it becomes wrong.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This guy really nails what is wrong with judgmental attitudes in the far-right fringe.
You're not a bigot for believing someone is doing wrong, Ryan. This passage is talking about "Christians" who are so self-righteous that they spend their lives hating and condemning people because of their sins, and that is wrong. We should love people regardless of what they do and be friendly to them; that doesn't mean you have to say you agree with their lifestyle. And it doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion about it.
If you keep telling someone that they are an evil sinner, will that make them repent? We see an example of how Christ would want us to behave when he sits down to supper with the tax collectors. They were the most hated people of the day because they made everyone poor for their own gain. But Jesus still treated them with love and respect. That is how he would have us behave as well.
If you disagree with abortion, is the best course of action to blow up the clinic? All that will do is make people judge you as a hateful hypocrite, and they would be correct. Love those people anyway. Treat them well. Give them a way to see Christ's love instead of our own condemnation.
***By the way, I am in no way trying to insinuate that people of a different race, etc. are evil or sinners. I'm just trying to point out that there is NO reason to show people hate, not their race, and not their actions.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Psi> I think most of us are aware of how well Jesus treated the more reviled classes of sinners in his day. At the same time, it may be worth noting that Jesus could be particularly unpleasant to sinners such as the Pharisees who were regarded as righteous, even superior, by the general public. There is an unspoken argument that some sinners are appropriately treated according to the former pattern, and others according to the latter; the only question is which.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was unpleasant about it, Maccabus, was hearing that they were wrong. Jesus did not love them any less.
There are words of chastisement, and then there is unkindness. Chastising someone is not necessarily unkind, though it may not be pleasant.
But it is not always appropriate to chastise. In the case of Jesus, it would be safe to assume that He knew exactly what to say to have the most impact on both the Pharisees, and more importantly, the people who would actually listen to him. We do not have that advantage. We must look to God for inspiration on the right words to say, and when to say them. We are told that we must forgive everyone, and love each other even as God loves us. We who desire witness for our religion should not say "you are doing this wrong" but "Let me show you what has been my joy to live". We should not approach strangers to tell them what they are doing wrong in their lives, unless their actions are immediately endangering someone else.
The case where Jesus chastised the Pharisees and got angry in the temple has been taken out of context and used as the basis of much hateful activity, I fear.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI Teleport- The guy isn't referring to hating other people he is condemning "moral absolutism". If the guy is a Christian moral absolutism is a necessary evil. We are called to love thy neighbour as thyself, but we aren't called to accept his sin as valid.
We cannot, because then our faith is meaningless.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks blacwolve.
quote: At the same time, it may be worth noting that Jesus could be particularly unpleasant to sinners such as the Pharisees who were regarded as righteous, even superior, by the general public.
I think the point here is that Jesus could become very rancorous to the Pharisees because of their status, meaning that the Pharisees were in positions of power and they led the rest of the people to do wrong. God has always had a huge problem with anyone that would cause someone else to sin, or someone that would teach incorrectly.
quote: He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Luke 17:1-2 NASB
In this passage, "little ones" does not refer to children, but the untaught, or people under your care, esp. spiritually. Jesus warns that you not cause one of them to sin.
(There are verses that use "little ones" to mean children. Please look this one up yourself if you're not sure.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I just want to point out that I just saw the place where he condemns moral absolutism. I didn't see it before. I think that particular phrase doesn't fit in well with the rest of what he's saying. It's like he just slipped that one in there. I do believe in moral absolutism and I think that we should have the same standards for everyone. In that case I think the author is wrong. I'm just defending the rest of the passage, where he shows contempt for those who show hatred for others, for whatever reason.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Moral Absoltuism a neccesity for Christianity?
I thought that one of the things Jesus did was free us from the laws of Moses with his commandment, "Love Thy Neighbor".
What is more worrisome to the Christian community than the existance of sinners, is the misinterpretation of Christ.
To many, Christ is the leader of the heavenly host, the scourge of Satan, the Prince who defeats the Devil. To be Christ-Like means to take up arms against Satan.
And Abortion doctors are identified with Satan, so they take up physical arms against them, bombing clinics and murdering doctors.
And Homosexuals are sinners, and sin is the Devil, so destroying the Homosexuals, either physically or forcing them to denounce their nature and keeping them out of the Christian community is being Christlike.
Yet Christ did not kill or bomb or condemn people for their sexual practices or sins. He did not label people by their sins. He loved. He loves.
To be Christ-Like is not to kill Satan. It is to love and accept others, teach them the truth, and know that though they may not understand your teachings now, you have set some on the correct path for the future.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought that one of the things Jesus did was free us from the laws of Moses with his commandment, "Love Thy Neighbor".
He didn't free us from the laws. He said that this commandment, along with "Love God with all your heart" were the most important and the others depended on them.
He also said:
quote: Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
posted
So then should we still be following Dietary laws? Should we still treat our slaves according to scripture? Should we stone adulterous women and women who are raped but do not scream out? If my brother dies should I marry his wife as scriptures say?
I find Moral Absolutism to be too easy.
It creates Life's Instruction Book: Do this. Don't do that. Insert Tab A into Slot B. Good and Evil are nicely defined. Memorization is mandatory but thinking is not.
If my child is starving can I steal to find her? If my parents abuse me must I honor them? If my spouce is unfaithful, abusive, and dangerous to me and my children, must I keep the sacrament of marriage?
The selling of Drugs is not against biblical law. Seeking interest on a loan is. Does that mean that heaven is filled with dope dealers and hell is filled with loan officers?
It creates Life's Instruction Book: Do this. Don't do that. Insert Tab A into Slot B. Good and Evil are nicely defined.
Hallelujah! Good thing I know how to live. Seems like most of the people in the world are just wandering around, trying to figure out what they believe in and changing their minds day to day.
I think. I grow. I change too. But I always have a steady foundation to build on and to fall back on.
By the way, no, you don't have to accept an adulterous spouse.
As far as the rest of the laws go, look at each in context. I think that many of them do pertain to today, also taking our government into consideration. IE we don't worry about how we treat our slaves, because we don't have any. Most of those laws were written for those times and cultures.
Also, in Matthew 19, there is something interesting.
quote: Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
(Later he points out that divorce in permissable in the case of sexual immorality.)
This shows that many of the laws that were made for those people were necessary, but in truth, we are required to follow an even higher calling, that is much more simple. The people needed very specific laws because they didn't have the Holy Spirit to lead them, which we have access to today. It doesn't mean the laws are useless, but we are required to discern beyond them in many situations. (That's where the thinking comes in! )
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Dan, I don’t follow the dietary laws, nor do I advocate the stoning of adulterers (that was both men and women, btw).
But neither do I sell all that I have and give the money to the poor. (Mt 19:21 & Mk 10:21). I don’t hate my parents, even though Jesus said, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” (Lk 14:26). I tend to funeral arrangements for my relatives, even though Mt 8:22 & Lk 9:60 tell me I shouldn’t.
This is a question of how literally we interpret scripture, and how we relate to scripture, not an issue of Law of Moses vs Law of Christ.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it helps to think of things as higher laws and lower laws.
It is better to live the higher laws, but if a culture is not mature enough, it is given the lower law, or the "Life's little instruction book" law.
If you truly follow, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" then you really don't need "Thou shalt not steal" because you would never dream of harming your neighbor through stealing. But people are not ready for that, they need more specifics.
Moral absolutism. Boy, wow... That is a hard one. Because, well, sometimes the ends justify the means.
We have this particular passage in LDS scriptures which would seem to argue against the idea that the commandments are ALWAYS the exact thing we should be doing.
quote: 10 And it came to pass that I was aconstrained• by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
- 1 Nephi 4:10-13
And yet, we are told, "Thou shalt not kill." But what if someone is going to kill your children. Then it is okay to defend yourself, and if that means there is no choice but to kill them, then that is acceptable.
This kind of does away with moral absolutism, which I define as meaning that you must follow a set of rules, no matter what, always under any circumstances.
HOWEVER, it does not do away with definitions of moral behavior. Nor does it do away with commandments. It simply means we need to take a larger view.
Another interesting LDS philosophy is that Fall of Adam and Eve was necessary. They were given a choice. How many times did they choose not to eat of the tree? A hundred, a thousand, a million? All this time, there could be no growth, because other than that one choice, there was no choice that wasn't God's will, so there was no free will. But the choice that is important to us is when they transgressed the law that held them back from the knowledge of good and evil. The law that kept them perpetually innocent. It was no sin, LDS believe, but it was a transgression of the law given to them. It was something necessary for us to be able to have free will. This is a very important point to LDS theology because of our belief about the purpose of life.
If they had clung to moral absolutism, we would not be here.
And yet, yet... except in obvious self defense circumstances, we really don't have the foresight to see the very long term consequences of our actions.
posted
I think what we are saying is the same thing. It just depends on your definition of Moral Absolutism.
If it means that you must follow "law" of the bible without consideration for the people involved or for the "Spirit of Christ" then you are not being Christian.
To me, moral absolutism is too often used by people to sit in their high chairs and look down on the people around them, singing "I'm right and your wrong, ha ha."
I think we all agree that this is wrong.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan- Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. He came to show that it was impossible to keep the law, and therefore He was needed.
The thing is, if we as Christians live our lives trying to "do the right thing" than we have entirely missed the point. We must strive to grow in Love for God, so that our actions will be entirely motivated by that action. The rest will fall into place. That way we avoid both legalism and cheap grace.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, Ryan. I believe that we choose Jesus in our daily decisions to do the right thing. Loving God is not an attitude, it is an action.
But since, of course, we fail, we must have grace. But our trying to be righteous does not cheapen grace. I think what cheapens grace is when we say we love God, and we believe on Jesus Christ and his powers of redemption, but then we do not try to do the right thing, because we feel comfortable that we are saved and because we feel our actions are now in God's hands.
Our actions are always our responsibility. But since we cannot fix things when we've done wrong, we rely on Grace. Since we will always commit some sin, Grace is required to enter the presence of God. But so also is striving to be righteous. They are both needed.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree with that. However when our life goal becomes morality, we have put the cart before the horse.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you love the Lord, then you'll obey his commandments. Does this mean that obedience is the consequence of loving God, or does it mean that, if we love Him, then we'd better do what he says? It's both. Love God enough to obey Him. Loving Him causes you to WANT to obey him. If you don't obey Him, then you don't love Him.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
Whoa, heavy. The implication of this is that, if you love Jesus and want the Father to love you, then you obey Him. Also, if you don't obey Him, then you don't love Him. People don't like this because they'd rather believe they can go on sinning and God's grace will cover them. That ain't how it works. God's grace covers the times that you stumble when doing your best to obey, not an entire life of decadence.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is a very important concept for people to remember. It's a thin line between legalism and cheap grace. That and remember in debate, even in debates about homosexuality, you can still love homosexuals and not agree with what they're doing.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
