Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[_Rick_C]

Derek...do you work nite shift now? lol

I've listened to it. By conservative, I mean that he is against abortion, homosexuality, etc. He has made it very clear that he is against these things as far as I can tell.

One thing first: Maybe Greg is called to get everyone all worked up & talking about these things (he acknowledges something like that, if this is a calling?).

From what I recall, which I can't remember exactly now; I just remember "recoiling" when I heard some things. So before I say anything else I'd better give it another listen.

If he really is conservative on both homosexuality (yes, I think he is) and abortion (is where I had doubts)...I still don't see why he's so anti- those who speak out against them! as that is what "conservatives" do...and we may be having semantical problems now, lol
Please see my last post & Goodnite & God bless you

[Guest]

If it makes you feel better, certain homosexual intercourse carries the same penalty.

You'ld do better to read my posts before commenting on them. A casual observation might have revealed I've made no comment about homosexuals one way or the other.

I've invited you to do your name-calling in a straightforward and manly fashion. Yet you persist in couching your accusations in speculation about my preferences.

It's getting tiresome.

[Guest]

His logic is faulty.
"Really evil things are happening. Christians should be outraged about them. Therefore, they shouldn't be outraged about abortion and homosexuality"...doesn't jibe.

Rick,
I think you've mischaracterized Boyd's position. I understood him more to be saying that there was a general lack of outrage about a weightier matter, while, at the same time, there was great outrage over a lesser matter. In this, I heard echoes of something Jesus said.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

It's simply not necessary to be as polarized as you portray it. Being outraged by weightier matters doesn't preclude one from being outraged by lesser ones.

But what struck me as the main thrust of these talks wasn't about expressing outrage anyway. It was about maintaining a clearer distinction between the kingdom of our God, and the kingdoms of this world. At least that's what I came away with, and, for me personally, it was timely.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Perry,

His logic is faulty.
"Really evil things are happening. Christians should be outraged about them. Therefore, they shouldn't be outraged about abortion and homosexuality"...doesn't jibe.

You replied: I think you've mischaracterized Boyd's position. I understood him more to be saying that there was a general lack of outrage about a weightier matter, while, at the same time, there was great outrage over a lesser matter. In this, I heard echoes of something Jesus said.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

It's simply not necessary to be as polarized as you portray it. Being outraged by weightier matters doesn't preclude one from being outraged by lesser ones.

I'm trying to understand the polarization Greg constructs (and/or participates in):
"The Christian Right" (self-explanatory)
Versus
"The Evangelical Left" (Boyd and other postmodern evangelicals)

I don't recall Greg using "evangelical left" in his talks but he operates from within this sector of evangelicalism. He may see himself as in "The Emerging Church" movement, I don't know. These movements are related but not necessarily the same. They are both post-conservative and to differing extents postmodern.

I've only heard the Abortion sermon in The Cross and the Sword and need to listen again (I fell asleep last nite, lol). I've heard the Q&A Sessions about 3 times.

In the Abortion sermon he talked about how we should approach the issue in a "Kingdom of God way". That we should get involved with pregnant women who might be considering abortion and offer them all the help they need to take the child to term. He also said that we should not approach the issue in a "kingdom of this world way" by getting involved with the questions like "When does life begin?" And, If I'm not mistaken Greg says Christians have different views on when life begins -- I have to verify this.

No theological conservative questions when life begins: conception. Whether Greg said "Christians" question it or not; we know other "Christians" do: theological liberals. This takes us into issues of biblical authority. We're familiar with "Christians" who do not accept the authority Old Testament or who radically re-interpret it. The "gay" "bishop" Gene Robinson of the ECUSA is a perfect example of this type of "Christian" (he believes the OT writers were "ignorant" of what medical science now tells us to be "true"), etc.

Greg doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that: The people who make public outcries against abortion are the very same people who fund and operate centers all across the nation that help pregnant women carry babies to term. These centers provide a wide range of services and assistance: education, medical, financial, temporary housing, and child placement for adoption. PBS had a special on this a few months ago (I think on the Frontline program). These people do What Jesus Said To Do in Matthew 23:23 -- "in a Kingdom of God way"-- practicing what they preach.

It's simply not necessary to be as polarized as you portray it. Being outraged by weightier matters doesn't preclude one from being outraged by lesser ones.

Should all Christians outraged about every single "weightier matter" like:
The persecution of Christians (who are being martyred as I type)?
Global warming and pollution spewing out of Third World Nations?
Child labor?
Iran?
Radical Islam and Middle East issues?
Radical Islam and the rest of the world?
The death of European Christianity?
Liberal Christianity (Gene Robinson style)?
(just add any other of probably hundreds of "weightier matters")

Does Greg or the average Christian or person really have the time and energy to take on every single problem on the planet? No! Greg seems to be making many false dichotomies. But his polarization between himself (and those who adhere to his worldview) Versus The Christian Right is a true, and very real, dichotomy.

I think it is a false dichotomy to "weigh in" any sin, evil, or wrong as having more or less weight than another. They all matter, as Jesus in Matt 23:23 confirmed. Greg seems to be weighing the motives and some of the actions of other Christians -- judging them as lacking -- and doesn't seem to know that they Practice What They Preach in The Real World!!! .......gtg, bbl, thanx, Rick

[Guest]

Hey Rick,

I haven't listened to Greg Boyd's lectures as many times as you have, so you might have much more insight than I have. I read the book The Myth of a Christian Nation last summer and I listened to his sermon series earlier this year and now I've listened to the q&a. I've got to say that I really get something different from him.

I have a few questions for you so maybe I can better understand:

Hello Perry,

His logic is faulty.
"Really evil things are happening. Christians should be outraged about them. Therefore, they shouldn't be outraged about abortion and homosexuality"...doesn't jibe.

You replied: I think you've mischaracterized Boyd's position. I understood him more to be saying that there was a general lack of outrage about a weightier matter, while, at the same time, there was great outrage over a lesser matter. In this, I heard echoes of something Jesus said.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

It's simply not necessary to be as polarized as you portray it. Being outraged by weightier matters doesn't preclude one from being outraged by lesser ones.

I agree with Perry here, but no questions yet.

I'm trying to understand the polarization Greg constructs (and/or participates in):
"The Christian Right" (self-explanatory)
Versus
"The Evangelical Left" (Boyd and other postmodern evangelicals)

When did you hear him make this "polarization?" I heard Boyd say that he is making the distinction between the kingdoms of the world and the Kingdom of God; the kingdom of the sword and the kingdom of the cross, but I never heard him say that it's a left vs. right thing. In fact he seems to take pains to make it clear that it's not that.

I don't recall Greg using "evangelical left" in his talks but he operates from within this sector of evangelicalism. He may see himself as in "The Emerging Church" movement, I don't know. These movements are related but not necessarily the same. They are both post-conservative and to differing extents postmodern.

Does this paragraph mean something? Could you explain how you know that he "operates from within this sector of evangelicalism?" While you are at it, could you explain how this makes a difference? Is it that you are showing how Boyd sets himself against the "evangelical right?"

I've only heard the Abortion sermon in The Cross and the Sword and need to listen again (I fell asleep last nite, lol). I've heard the Q&A Sessions about 3 times.

In the Abortion sermon he talked about how we should approach the issue in a "Kingdom of God way". That we should get involved with pregnant women who might be considering abortion and offer them all the help they need to take the child to term. He also said that we should not approach the issue in a "kingdom of this world way" by getting involved with the questions like "When does life begin?" And, If I'm not mistaken Greg says Christians have different views on when life begins -- I have to verify this.

No theological conservative questions when life begins: conception. Whether Greg said "Christians" question it or not; we know other "Christians" do: theological liberals. This takes us into issues of biblical authority. We're familiar with "Christians" who do not accept the authority Old Testament or who radically re-interpret it. The "gay" "bishop" Gene Robinson of the ECUSA is a perfect example of this type of "Christian" (he believes the OT writers were "ignorant" of what medical science now tells us to be "true"), etc.

Are you making the point that since Greg Boyd said we should avoid arguments about when life begins, he has revealed himself as something other than a "theological conservative" and must therefore be considered a "theological liberal" which places him next to Gene Robinson? If so, this would clear up a later paragraph.

Greg doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that: The people who make public outcries against abortion are the very same people who fund and operate centers all across the nation that help pregnant women carry babies to term. These centers provide a wide range of services and assistance: education, medical, financial, temporary housing, and child placement for adoption. PBS had a special on this a few months ago (I think on the Frontline program). These people do What Jesus Said To Do in Matthew 23:23 -- "in a Kingdom of God way"-- practicing what they preach.

Because there are people who actually agree with him and live that out, Boyd must be unaware of it? Are you also saying that because some people, well maybe a lot since you said they are "all across the nation," agree with Boyd, he must be wrong? That's kind of strange logic.

It's simply not necessary to be as polarized as you portray it. Being outraged by weightier matters doesn't preclude one from being outraged by lesser ones.

Should all Christians outraged about every single "weightier matter" like:
The persecution of Christians (who are being martyred as I type)?
Global warming and pollution spewing out of Third World Nations?
Child labor?
Iran?
Radical Islam and Middle East issues?
Radical Islam and the rest of the world?
The death of European Christianity?
Liberal Christianity (Gene Robinson style)?
(just add any other of probably hundreds of "weightier matters")

Well, maybe, if they've become aware of each of them.

Does Greg or the average Christian or person really have the time and energy to take on every single problem on the planet? No!

Does "outraged" mean the same thing as "take on?"

Greg seems to be making many false dichotomies. But his polarization between himself (and those who adhere to his worldview) Versus The Christian Right is a true, and very real, dichotomy.

This is the paragraph I was hoping to clear up earlier. Has Boyd shown you by at least one of the statements he made about abortion that he is definitely in opposition to the Christian Right?

I think it is a false dichotomy to "weigh in" any sin, evil, or wrong as having more or less weight than another. They all matter, as Jesus in Matt 23:23 confirmed.

I don't see how Greg Boyd disagrees with this. What I hear him saying is that the kingdom is about loving God and your neighbor, not about deciding how egregious some people's sins are in comparison to our own. I think Matthew 23 goes on to confirm this.

Greg seems to be weighing the motives and some of the actions of other Christians -- judging them as lacking -- and doesn't seem to know that they Practice What They Preach in The Real World!!!

Again, because they agree with him, he's wrong???

.......gtg, bbl, thanx, Rick

This cracks me up. Why do you type a long post, but use all those abbreviations at the end?

Your sister,
Michelle

[_Rick_C]

Michelle,

How can I reply to all of that?
Okay, I'll give it a shot....

next you wrote:
I'm trying to understand the polarization Greg constructs (and/or participates in):
"The Christian Right" (self-explanatory)
Versus
"The Evangelical Left" (Boyd and other postmodern evangelicals)

Your reply: When did you hear him make this "polarization?" I heard Boyd say that he is making the distinction between the kingdoms of the world and the Kingdom of God; the kingdom of the sword and the kingdom of the cross, but I never heard him say that it's a left vs. right thing. In fact he seems to take pains to make it clear that it's not that.

Re: polarization:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

Whether we call it: polarization, delineation, distinction, division (and the like); Greg "very clearly separates himself" from The Evangelical Right. I've bolded two things: 1) how Greg says Christians should be a-political and, 2) they should stop "moralizing" on sexual issues. These are the 2 issues we have been discussing in the thread.

Greg doesn't say if he has preferences for any political party or how he votes. But his statements are anti-Christian Right and, therefore, could be interpreted as being anti-Republican by default (I have serious doubts Greg votes Republican)....

You say Greg doesn't see these things as "left versus right" and that he takes pains to say it isn't that.

"A significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry… For some evangelicals, the kingdom of God is largely about, if not centered on, 'taking America back for God,' voting for the Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the culture war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings."

Who are the "some evangelicals" (above) and are they on the left or to the right?

I don't recall Greg using "evangelical left" in his talks but he operates from within this sector of evangelicalism. He may see himself as in "The Emerging Church" movement, I don't know. These movements are related but not necessarily the same. They are both post-conservative and to differing extents postmodern.

You replied:Does this paragraph mean something? Could you explain how you know that he "operates from within this sector of evangelicalism?" While you are at it, could you explain how this makes a difference? Is it that you are showing how Boyd sets himself against the "evangelical right?"

Yes, the paragraph means a lot. There have been many changes in the Evangelical movement since its beginnings in the 1940's when they separated from the original Fundamentalists. Listed briefly in chronological order were the: first Evangelicals (separating from Fundamentalists), Neo-Evangelicals, Post-Conservative Evangelicals, The Evangelical Left and The Emerging Church Movement. The latter is a kind of sub-set or branch of The Evangelical Left (Greg Boyd is "emerging church", keeping in mind there are several varieties of emerging church)....

This article/book review is 10 years old and describes this branch of Evangelicalism very well (click):
The Evangelical Left.
You may note that some of the emphases have changed or evolved into newer issues in the last few years. Also, The Evangelical Left is identified as "post-conservative evangelicals" in the article. But the post-conservative movement is actually (now) older than the Evangelical Left.

To answer your question: Yes, Greg Boyd Boyd is in the Evangelical Left camp and seems to identify a lot with a branch that stemmed from it and/or is within it (Emerging Church).

Are you making the point that since Greg Boyd said we should avoid arguments about when life begins, he has revealed himself as something other than a "theological conservative" and must therefore be considered a "theological liberal" which places him next to Gene Robinson?

Semantical problems always arise when these things are talked about and definitions are always needed. "Theological conservative" means: one's theology is conservative. One could firmly hold to this theology and yet be politically liberal on some issues (but obviously not on certain moral issues like homosexuality and abortion).

I have doubts that Greg is a theological conservative because, if I am not mistaken, in one of his sermons he said "Christians have differing views on when life begins" (and I apologize for not having a quote and need to verify this)...I could be wrong....

Gene Robinson's brand of theological liberalism (his own interpretations) are unique. He differs significantly from other "pro gay" theologians (yes, they have their "camps" also).

Greg Boyd is orthodox on the essentials of historic Christianity.

Gene Robinson is decidedly heterodox and quite outside the range of anything that could be called "Evangelical" (Right, Left, or Emerging).

gtg, bbl.......(I had to take-off FAST! yesterday when I suddenly posted << that)
Thanks,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

...Michelle, Cont'd....

Greg doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that: The people who make public outcries against abortion are the very same people who fund and operate centers all across the nation that help pregnant women carry babies to term. These centers provide a wide range of services and assistance: education, medical, financial, temporary housing, and child placement for adoption. PBS had a special on this a few months ago (I think on the Frontline program). These people do What Jesus Said To Do in Matthew 23:23 -- "in a Kingdom of God way"-- practicing what they preach.

[You replied:[/b]Because there are people who actually agree with him and live that out, Boyd must be unaware of it? Are you also saying that because some people, well maybe a lot since you said they are "all across the nation," agree with Boyd, he must be wrong? That's kind of strange logic.

I don't understand your second question but:

My Mom hasn't been to a an anti-abortion protest in her life. But she helps out financially with a local trans-denominational organization that helps unmarried pregnant women. It isn't a "full service center" like others but it does what it can...and is very busy! You don't hear much about these centers in the secular media but they are there.

Once again, I don't see how Greg wouldn't know about the centers. Because they aren't on the news much? As before, I haven't heard every sermon in the series. In one Greg mentioned that (I think it must have been) his wife helped an unmarried pregnant woman, the daughter of a couple they knew. The help given was "a lot" and on a personal level, 1:1. I say, Great! This lady, and how my Mom helps out financially, are good examples of how individuals can make a difference.

In the quote from page 11 of Greg's book (which I copied off the web and haven't read) we see a "list" of what identifies the Christian Right though Greg worded it as "some evangelicals" -- we know who he meant.

Now, in one sermon Greg talks about how political candidates support stuff that Christians do or could. Democrats and/or political liberals (note: political not theological liberals) support things like helping the poor and homeless and other similar issues on a national and global level. Greg points out that for Christians -- this puts us into confusion on who to vote for. Why? A candidate may be for "Christian" things on the one hand and for decidedly anti-Christian things on the other. This goes both ways, for both (prominent) political parties.

What I see in Greg's opposition to the Christian Right is this same quagmire. There are some things in the Christian Right that I believe are wrong and/or un-biblical; I agree with Greg on those. But on abortion being debated in the public sector (Christians opposing it en masse and also operating the centers I've mentioned) I disagree.

If we could imagine The Christian Right as a political candidate; Greg Boyd, we know for sure, wouldn't vote for it. But yet there are elements of the movement (people in it) who are actually living out what Greg is preaching! (and does he know this?). Do you see what I'm saying Michelle?

If Democrats would oppose abortion and homosexuality they would have my vote! (sorry, Republicans, but take heart because I'm still voting on the moral issues!)...poor as dirt but, well...you know.......

Well, maybe, if they've become aware of each of them.

What if I think the death of Christianity in Europe is more of an immediate problem than global warming? and that we should focus our energies on evangelizing Europe? Do you think Greg Boyd would find this to be kosher? What is his is criteria on how we prioritize these things? (I'll listen to the whole series eventually)....

Greg seems to be making many false dichotomies. But his polarization between himself (and those who adhere to his worldview) Versus The Christian Right is a true, and very real, dichotomy.

You replied: This is the paragraph I was hoping to clear up earlier. Has Boyd shown you by at least one of the statements he made about abortion that he is definitely in opposition to the Christian Right?

He opposes them. Need I say more? (Remembering that some people in the CR are doing what Greg says we should do)! This is a dichotomy that I don't know he sees! He rejects the movement outright yet people in it are actually on "his" side! (but they shouldn't be talking about it)??? < another weird dichotomy. They're doing what he says we should do -- but -- they shouldn't say anything about it??? Mmmmkay....

I think it is a false dichotomy to "weigh in" any sin, evil, or wrong as having more or less weight than another. They all matter, as Jesus in Matt 23:23 confirmed.

Your reply was: I don't see how Greg Boyd disagrees with this. What I hear him saying is that the kingdom is about loving God and your neighbor, not about deciding how egregious some people's sins are in comparison to our own. I think Matthew 23 goes on to confirm this.

Do you think Greg feels the CR ("some evangelicals") are sinning? Greg clearly believes Christians should be a-political (though he's in quite a deep and heated debate about politics---which is beside the point, ROFL). Let's say Greg sees the CR as "slightly mistaken" for argument's sake. Are they "slightly mistaken" to run centers that help women keep babies till term? Are they "slightly more mistaken" when they also get involved in political action that opposes abortion? How does Greg "weigh" these things? Is running the centers "tithing mint" and being politically active "neglecting the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy?" See how this gets so contradictory and confusing, Michelle? He's opposing the CR's "platform" but doesn't seem be aware that there are folks in the CR who do what he says we should be doing (with that odd dichotomy of "be hush-hush" about it)....strange, very strange.

Greg seems to be weighing the motives and some of the actions of other Christians -- judging them as lacking -- and doesn't seem to know that they Practice What They Preach in The Real World!!!

You interrogated: Again, because they agree with him, he's wrong???

He's preaching against himself! as he totally agrees with the Christian Right on what some (but not all) of them are doing and may not even know it!

He opposes their platform but fully supports some of their activities whether he is aware of it....or not!
Goodnite
Rick

[_Rick_C]

a thread aside...

How Greg Boyd sees the Kingdom of God (and the kingdom of this world) is different than how Steve Gregg sees them.
Akshully, well, I'll just say that what Steve says has no dichotomies!....g'nite!

[_Rick_C]

I just read all of this (clickit):
Vanguard Church:
a blog review of "The Myth of a Christian Nation"
by Bob Robinson

Didn't take long. Michelle, or anyone else who read the book:
If you get a chance to look at this...and comment....

Otherwise, I'm still downloading (on d...i...a...l...u...p) the Boyd sermons and am re-listening to Steve's Kingdom of God series.
Out.

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Thank you for putting all that time and effort into answering my post. I'm not going to answer your posts point-by-point because I don't think it will accomplish much. It seems to be a coward's way out and I'm sorry if I've wasted your time.

You and I don't agree about Greg Boyd. Obviously there are many people who agree with you -- the 1,000 or so members of his congregation who left and the reviewer who wrote that article, to name a few. Hopefully there are a few people who agree with me, but if not, oh well.

I tend to have a problem seeing things as in/out, black/white, or for us/against us. Maybe it takes my fuzzy thinking to be able to resonate with Greg Boyd. Whatever it is, I seem to get what he's saying in a very different way than you do, and I like the message I hear.

I thought I heard basically the same message in Steve's series, but maybe I should listen again. You've probably paid better attention, and if I know you, you've listened to them more times than I have. Besides, there's my fuzzy thinking that may have caused me to misunderstand something.

Anyway, I think both men agree that the Kingdom is not of this world, even in America, and that for those of us who have become kingdom people the instructions are to love the Lord with all we've got and love our neighbors as ourselves. Hopefully, in whatever ways I find to occupy myself, I'll be fulfilling these two great commandments and therefore be pleasing the King.

Goodnight,
God Bless You,
Michelle