Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[Guest]

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.

I read this review before I read the book. I disagree with the reviewer, but, oh well, a lot of people probably agree with him.

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your response.

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

Perry: 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.

A casual observation will reveal that you comment on equitability and even-handedness. This thread has engaged a controversy between supporters of homosexual liberties and religious persons who oppose homosexual behavior. You may (or may not) appreciate the margin of parity in my "druthers," that both religious and homosexual impropriety may incur capital punishment.

Perry: 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.

Ah, but that affronted posture never gets old....

I could chalk some of that up to Southern culture, but I understand that you are sensitive to personal speculation.


Simple name-calling is an activity for boys and the emotionally inflamed - and on occasion, for the calculating. Declaration of personal woundedness is fit for any of the above, as well.

But as for a "manly" man, one might imagine him to brush such offenses aside, or a Christian man to turn his cheek.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_Perry]

Simple name-calling is an activity for boys and the emotionally inflamed

Fine. Cling to your more sophisticated and indirect version of it.

For my part, I'm done bickering with you.

Perry

[_Rick_C]

Hi Michelle

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.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to sit back and take the time to discuss this stuff. The time wasn't wasn't wasted. And, um, I'm unemployed, so this gave me something to do!

I've been having discussions with my neighbors, who's church I visit, about similar (almost the same) topics and noticed their approach was kind of like Greg Boyd's. I've been evaluating my own approach to things....

Also, I haven't discussed any "movements" and/or controversial issues that have been happening with Evangelicals and other groups for some time now. When I posted at Beliefnet a couple of years ago we discussed all of the latest news, all the time. I was busy there when Gene Robinson became a bishop in the ECUSA, Marcus Borg or N.T. Wright wrote a new controversial book, and debated several "pro gay theologians" and so on.

So I guess "I'm trying to keep up with the times" and this thread and your posts are helping me do that: Thanks again

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've heard 4 of the sermons now and will need to listen again. I haven't read the book but generally agreed with the points Bob Robinson brought up in his blog review. It isn't the most objective way to evaluate Greg's ideas: just sermons, book reviews, and articles; so I can't really claim to be fully informed without reading the book....

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm on a campaign to put Greg down. Before I heard any of the sermons in this series I heard others that I liked and benefited from. But leaving this thread's topics aside; I don't think I would be happy with a steady "diet" of Greg's menu (I wouldn't regularly go to his church if I lived near it). Not that I go to church to just to feel happy! I prefer a more well rounded approach like if Steve Gregg was a pastor near me...

Greg has strong beliefs and narrowly defined ideas about the nature of the Kingdom of God, the kingdom of the world, and political and social action. "Where he's coming from" isn't exactly where I do. His ecclesiology (ideas about (the Kingdom of God and) the Church) reminds me of Calvinism and Dispensationalism. How so? Imo, his ecclesiology is inside a kind of "box" or framework through which he interprets everything. To be a Calvinist one has to see the Bible and everything else through that "lens". To be dispensationalist, the same thing. One has to "buy the system", agree with the basic assumptions and then with each successive point. Since I don't subscribe to Greg's system (his presuppositions or basic assumptions); much of what he says naturally seems like micro-management to me. (On a real positive note, Greg's church at the time of the sermon series was building a center to help pregnant women and other people)!!!

To sum up: About every 2 or 3 minutes in The Cross and the Sword series I found myself questioning Greg's use of scripture, how he was interpreting and applying it. What he says makes sense within his "system" but I don't subscribe to any system. And as I've said before, my understanding of first century life, of Palestine, and of the Jews in particular, are significantly (if not radically) different than Greg's.

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.

Through the "fuzzyness" I've discerned a lot of things I do agree with Greg about (I should definitely mention)! His basic "push" that America isn't and never was "a Christian nation" I couldn't agree with any more. That no political party offers a platform that Christians could go with 100% is another (though I do feel Christians might have legitimate differences on fiscal policy and other more "neutral" stuff....that is, if one thinks fiscal policy is neutral, lol).

I "resonate" with Greg sometimes. But the problem I have is it doesn't last because he shifts back and forth almost at the speed of light, metaphorically speaking: in/out, black/white/gray/white, us/them, us-them/them-them, them-us/us-us-us.... He either confuses me or I just disagree with him or both, Michelle!

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.

Hmmmm...new thread material? "Two Views of the Kingdom".....

From what I recall Steve and Greg (which is hard to type, almost added the extra "g") agree on some basics but differ on specifics.
Greg has a dualistic view that: we are in two kingdoms (God's and the world's) and have a kind of dual-citizenship. He sees our citizenship in the Kingdom of God as primary (like Steve does) and our worldly citizenship as: We are the radicals in it because the kingdom(s) of the world are Satanic! Pretty Rad, eh?

Steve, if I'm not mistaken, believes the Bible teaches we have singular-citizenship and are called to just one allegiance to: the Kingdom of God. This citizenship is primary (like Greg , basically, sort of). One area where Steve and Greg differ is that Steve sees worldly citizenship (like I'm an American) as secondary, if not inconsequential or insignificant. In other words, it isn't important what country one lives in as members of the Kingdom of God. Both say that we should live as member's of God's Kingdom but Steve doesn't really see us as "citizens of this world" and also "in the Kingdom of God" in a dualistic sense. He doesn't make this dichotomy as we have a singular allegiance to God's Kingdom.

Another area of significant difference is: I don't think Steve accepts the view that worldly kingdoms (countries) are completely ruled by the devil; that everything in all governments, inclusive of those who govern them, are ultimately controlled by satan, being inherently evil. (I find this weird, a kind of Calvinist model of "the sovereignty of satan")....I wonder how members of Congress would feel if they knew they are really being swayed and controlled by the devil (Greg's ideas on this are too strange for me...I don't see it in the Bible)....

I don't think, well, I know Steve doesn't give the devil this much power! Steve might say something like, "All power in heaven and earth has been given to Christ and the Kingdom of God is making inroads in the nations." In this sense, the Kingdom of God is taking over the devil's domain in every country where the Gospel is preached and the devil can't do a thing to stop it! Steve would also say that governments are under the overall control of God in that their role is to keep peace and offer basic services, so to speak. What I mean is, Steve would not say governments have "total depravity"! To be sure, not every government offers these services and some if not most of it is due to satan. But ascribing every evil due to "the devil's reign" in a Calvinistic sense does away with human responsibility and doesn't take into account the weaknesses of human nature (aka, the flesh). I mean, for crying out loud! Is the too low minumum wage satanic? Does the devil whisper in those evil Republicans' ears to oppose raising it? Maybe...but I don't think things necessarily work that way.....

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.

Amen, Michelle!
Oh yeah, that other book: The Jesus Creed!!!
Have a Great Day & Week,
Rick

P.S. I have my hopes set on a job I just heard about. Chances of getting it sound: Good.

[Guest]

Rick/Michelle:

it seems that one of the reasons evangelicals seek to "take back america" via electing the right candidates (and thus get the right laws passed) is because they see this as the most effective way to influence the culture for the Kingdom. I am not saying this is correct, but it seems to be the way people think.

For e.g.,most people dont personally know women in crisis pregnancies. some do, but most dont. rather than "seeking out" women in crisis pregnancies, many christians simply support making abortion illegal in all cases. i think most christians, if they actually know a young woman in a crisis situtation, would do the loving thing, if possible. many also support ministries that help women find alternatives to abortion (like what rick said).

regarding the homosexual issue, most christians dont know gay people. so its hard to be loving to them. i am sure they around here where i live, but i dont see them. so i am not sure what my responsibility is-- do i purposesly go to the city to seek them out so that i can love them? or do i deal with people/issues where i live? since most christians dont know a lot of gay people, they simply see them on TV or read about them; they dont like what they see, so they disfavor laws that would "legalize" or "condone" the sinful behavior. cant blame them for that.

as always, i struggle with the practicality of what Greg B is suggesting. i dont necessarily disagree with him, but many things are easier said than done.

TK

[_Rick_C]

Brother TK, Hello

I'm liking this thread!

it seems that one of the reasons evangelicals seek to "take back america" via electing the right candidates (and thus get the right laws passed) is because they see this as the most effective way to influence the culture for the Kingdom. I am not saying this is correct, but it seems to be the way people think.

The leaders of the "Let's Take America Back!" movement are now either seniors or have passed on (James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell). Though there are newer evangelicals (emerging church) there remains an evangelical mainstream that's still aligned with "taking back".

Steve comments on "America back when" in the Kingdom series, with "back when" being the 1950's or so and earlier. At that time Christian values, or what things Christians valued, were more permeated through society. Steve gave an example of how "back then" most Americans would think it was the right thing to go to church, whether they were Christians or not. But he also pointed out how people thought that just going to church "makes me a Christian". So, "America back when" wasn't really a Golden Age of American Christianity, even though it was a time when "Christian" morality and standards were more widely accepted or certainly, much less opposed!

For e.g.,most people dont personally know women in crisis pregnancies. some do, but most dont. rather than "seeking out" women in crisis pregnancies, many christians simply support making abortion illegal in all cases. i think most christians, if they actually know a young woman in a crisis situtation, would do the loving thing, if possible. many also support ministries that help women find alternatives to abortion (like what rick said).

If people don't personally know a woman in a crisis pregnancy they probably know someone who does. What about "pro-choice" women who just get abortions? Are these "crisis pregnancies?" I would say: Yes. With this wider definition: you might have a co-worker, neighbor, the cashier at the grocery store, TK.....

regarding the homosexual issue, most christians dont know gay people. so its hard to be loving to them. i am sure they around here where i live, but i dont see them. so i am not sure what my responsibility is-- do i purposesly go to the city to seek them out so that i can love them? or do i deal with people/issues where i live? since most christians dont know a lot of gay people, they simply see them on TV or read about them; they dont like what they see, so they disfavor laws that would "legalize" or "condone" the sinful behavior. cant blame them for that.

Christians probably see homosexuals about every day unless they live in rural areas, imo. I live in a small town (20,000) and come into contact with them fairly regularly. One person was a lesbian co-worker of mine. She was constantly made fun of and generally harrassed. I didn't witness to her but I made it a point to be kind to her (especially since no one else was). I considered talking with her about going to EO (the Equal Opportunity representative) and thought about going there myself without her knowing. Had she or I reported this...almost the entire department would have been called on the carpet, including one supervisor! But a couple days later...she quit....

as always, i struggle with the practicality of what Greg B is suggesting. i dont necessarily disagree with him, but many things are easier said than done.

Greg B challenges me too, bro! (though I do disagree with him significantly).

After the woman I spoke about above quit...I wished I had spoken with her more. She was so upset on the job that when she said "Hello" back: it was a quiet and depressed common courtesy...(with no smile) When this lady didn't show up for work (quit) I wondered if, in the back of my mind, I didn't want to make waves because it could have gotten me fired (supervisors can come up with any reason)...Or if I may have gotten promoted (EO likes this kind of activity).

Lesson Learned (and I'm still taking classes): Always be prepared to:
Do the right thing regardless of the consequences.
God bless,
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

I told you earlier that I had read your post, but I was mistaken. I had read the later post, but somehow missed the earlier one you addressed to me. I'm not on a mission to defend Greg Boyd, however, you acknowledged that you based your assessment in part on the review by Bob Robinson and because of that I think you misrepresent Boyd's position, just as Robinson did.

Hmmmm...new thread material? "Two Views of the Kingdom".....

From what I recall Steve and Greg (which is hard to type, almost added the extra "g") agree on some basics but differ on specifics.
Greg has a dualistic view that: we are in two kingdoms (God's and the world's) and have a kind of dual-citizenship. He sees our citizenship in the Kingdom of God as primary (like Steve does) and our worldly citizenship as: We are the radicals in it because the kingdom(s) of the world are Satanic! Pretty Rad, eh?

I think you get the "dualistic view" from Robinson. In the Q&A series you linked to, Greg and his partner Paul (?) explained how their view differed from a dualistic view. They called their position a separatist view of the kingdom. The kingdoms of the world are under the power of the evil one:

• 1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (NKJV)

Steve, if I'm not mistaken, believes the Bible teaches we have singular-citizenship and are called to just one allegiance to: the Kingdom of God. This citizenship is primary (like Greg , basically, sort of). One area where Steve and Greg differ is that Steve sees worldly citizenship (like I'm an American) as secondary, if not inconsequential or insignificant. In other words, it isn't important what country one lives in as members of the Kingdom of God. Both say that we should live as member's of God's Kingdom but Steve doesn't really see us as "citizens of this world" and also "in the Kingdom of God" in a dualistic sense. He doesn't make this dichotomy as we have a singular allegiance to God's Kingdom.

Greg Boyd doesn't create this dichotomy either.

Another area of significant difference is: I don't think Steve accepts the view that worldly kingdoms (countries) are completely ruled by the devil; that everything in all governments, inclusive of those who govern them, are ultimately controlled by satan, being inherently evil. (I find this weird, a kind of Calvinist model of "the sovereignty of satan")....I wonder how members of Congress would feel if they knew they are really being swayed and controlled by the devil (Greg's ideas on this are too strange for me...I don't see it in the Bible)....

I can't, and won't, speak for Steve, but I'm working my way through the Kingdom series for a second time and I'll be on the lookout for his views about the kingdoms of the world. As for seeing it in the Bible, here's another verse:

• 2 Cor 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

And:

• Eph 2:2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

I don't think, well, I know Steve doesn't give the devil this much power! Steve might say something like, "All power in heaven and earth has been given to Christ and the Kingdom of God is making inroads in the nations." In this sense, the Kingdom of God is taking over the devil's domain in every country where the Gospel is preached and the devil can't do a thing to stop it! Steve would also say that governments are under the overall control of God in that their role is to keep peace and offer basic services, so to speak. What I mean is, Steve would not say governments have "total depravity"! To be sure, not every government offers these services and some if not most of it is due to satan. But ascribing every evil due to "the devil's reign" in a Calvinistic sense does away with human responsibility and doesn't take into account the weaknesses of human nature (aka, the flesh).

Well, government is appointed by God:

• Romans 13:1 LET every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

but that doesn't mean they are God-like or even God-led in the way they govern.

To say that a government has "total depravity" is interesting. Do you mean that theoretically the government couldn't turn to God and seek salvation even if they wanted to? That's a little strange because God doesn't offer salvation to governments, only to people.

As for "doesn't take into account the weaknesses of human nature (aka, the flesh)," I think that is exactly what Gregg and Boyd (I managed the extra "g" HA) are doing. The kingdoms of the world are the kingdoms of the world because they are ruled by human nature, aka "the flesh."

I mean, for crying out loud! Is the too low minumum wage satanic?

Yes

Does the devil whisper in those evil Republicans' ears to oppose raising it? Maybe...but I don't think things necessarily work that way.....

Great visual, however.

Thanks
Michelle

[_Perry]

as always, i struggle with the practicality of what Greg B is suggesting. i dont necessarily disagree with him, but many things are easier said than done.

You're not alone, brother, you're not alone.

Perry

[_Rick_C]

Hi Michelle,

After hearing Steve's Kingdom series a few times (maybe 3); I didn't hear anything of real significance that differs from how I see things. So I may just post what I think coz there doesn't seem to be much difference in Steve's and my views, lol

I also want to re-listen to Greg's Q&A which I heard some this morning...but right now I have to go get my resume' ready & apply for a job.....

Oh, one more thing! "The Religious Right" is what the media and most people call those Christians who think the USA was, is, or should become [again] "a Christian nation". So I will refer to them as that too (or just "RR").

gtg........bbl.......will reply soon (I just love that editing feature)!
Have a Nice Day

[_Rick_C]

Hello Michelle (if you are here?)

I'm not on a mission to defend Greg Boyd, however, you acknowledged that you based your assessment in part on the review by Bob Robinson and because of that I think you misrepresent Boyd's position, just as Robinson did....

In the Q&A series you linked to, Greg and his partner Paul (?) explained how their view differed from a dualistic view. They called their position as a separatist view of the kingdom. The kingdoms of the world are under the power of the evil one:

1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (NKJV)

From Q&A Session One, about 41:33, Greg Boyd said:

I've always been impressed by the fact that the devil tempted Jesus by offering him all the glory and authority of all the nations but Jesus resisted that temptation. He was going to acquire the nations of the world but not by "acquiring power over them" but by "exercising power under them." [With the devil saying to Jesus in effect] "I'll give them to you. They have been given to me and I can give them to whoever I want." And Jesus doesn't dispute his claim, doesn't say "You're exaggerating." They DO belong to Satan. But Jesus is not going to submit to him to as a way of getting them. Rather, Jesus is going to get the kingdoms of the world but he is going to do it the long, slow, painful, loving way. He's going to get the kingdoms by dying for the people who will be crucifying him.

This passage says a lot about the devil's authority over the nations. In Luke chapter four he [the devil] owns all the nations of the world. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 he [the devil] is called "the god of this age." In 1 John 5:19 he [the devil] is said to control the whole world. In Revelations 11:19 all the nations of this world are depicted as one nation that is under Satan. He is the lord of the kingdom of this world; it is referred to in the singular.

And I say all that to say this: For a "kingdom person" to take that passage seriously has got to have some consequences. If you really believe Satan that is the god of this age who owns all the authority of this world: How can that not help to cause us to back off SOME of any claim that we might think we are "God's nation"? Because the passage tells us that the CEO of them all is Satan. That would have to curb our enthusiasm to get behind various agendas. You might think that some agendas are better than others. That's normal, yeah, yeah, sure.

But to "Christianize" any one of them? Always be mindful of the fact that the kingdom of the world is a polluted kingdom -- all of it. Some are better than others, for sure. But the CEO that's behind them all according to scripture -- I'm not making this up -- is this polluting diabolical force of Satan.

Yes, I listened to it and paused and typed it out....not every word is "there" but I got the gist of it.

Greg's points about not "Christianizing" any certain agenda makes good sense in that: Any political party may have other agendas that could be, or are specifically known to be, un-Christian or even anti-Christian (there is no certain "Christianized political party", I agree). Greg also argues against the idea of the USA being "God's nation" on the basis that every kingdom on earth is ruled by the devil. My view is that since Israel was God's (chosen) nation; God no longer selects nor prefers any certain nation ("nation" here being: a particular geographical country and its citizens).

I will have more comments on this quotation later.

Yes, Greg identifies his view as "Separatist" and distinguishes it from the "Dualistic" view (of Luther). The other views as identified by Paul Eddy (another pastor of the church) were: "Triumphalism" and "Transformationalism". There were quite a few things I didn't agree with in this segment, especially right at the beginning, but that's beyond our current discussion.

Two good examples were given of Separatists: the Amish and Mennonites (or Anabaptists). Greg distinguished his view from them also by saying how the Amish in particular don't contribute much in society at large and that he wanted Christians to be very involved in it. He sees his view as compatible with the Amish due to a same (or similar) desire to "keep the Kingdom of God separate and holy" -- and that an integral part of doing this is to avoid getting entangled in worldly ways of seeing and doing things (i.e., don't get too political or wrapped up in controversies, lol).

The downside of Separatism in this lecture was that it can lead to isolationism (true) and cultural irrelevance (true). To avoid these, Greg advocates living out the Kingdom in "self-sacrificial agape love" by caring for the individuals we meet in daily life. He also isn't Separatist in that his church has several ministries that reach out in the community (unlike the Amish). Greg's church's music is probably pretty contemporary (so that's not really Separatist either...like my Mom's Pentecostal church that almost split over: Southern Gospel V. Contemporary Christian Music)!

I like a lot about Greg's version of Separatism and agree with him in principle. In his opposition to the RR and overall push to oppose their platform he does a great job on certain points (like on the USA being "God's nation")...I can't agree with him any more on that!

But I seem to have fairly significant, if not pronounced, theological differences in the categories of (alphabetically listed): Christology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, and Soteriology. Maybe you or anyone else can help me sort these out? (I think I'm really interested in all of this due to my Separatist background!)....Anyway, I'll analyze and/or critique Greg's ideas based on the above quotation and what else I have read and heard (gathered)...later.....so, bbl