From: daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:50:14 GMT

In article <C1HxuK.607@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass) writes:
>
>[Daniel: This isn't a response to you per se....just random ranting and
> raving for which your article serves as a nice springboard....]
>
>>As a fellow believer, you certainly must agree that Matthew 18 demands that
>>Christians hold each other accountable for their actions.  If you know that
>>I am living in sin, it is your responsiblity to confront me and admonish me
>>to turn from it and seek to live in obedience with scripture.  This whole
>>process must take place through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>
>Oy, vey!  Why do I have the sudden image of "teams" of Christians
>trying to show the others that their team is the only one that 
>is following the Trvth.

This should not strike you as a "sudden" image.  These "teams", as you put it,
could otherwise be called denominations.  Even within these denominations
you will find a certain amount of division.  The reasons for this are many
and fairly understandable, so I won't waste bandwidth here going into why
Luther left the Catholic Church or why we have the American Baptists, General
Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Southern Baptists, etc.

Your assumption is that we should all live together in peace and harmony and
not point out error.

While this is certainly the desire in many people's minds these days, there are
millions of people in America (and even more throughout the rest of the world)
that believe that the Church has a responsibility to follow Biblical teachings.

One of those teachings is that of holding each other accountable (in love, of
course). I'm talking here of holding other Christians accountable, not the
rest of the World.  Our Biblical responsibility regarding the world is
that primarily of telling other peopld of the Good News that God came in human
form in the person of Jesus Christ to save us from eternal separation from God.

We are not told to "reform" the world,  or force it to conform to a Christian
morality.  This would be impossible.  They only way to reform the world is
within the heart of the individual.  According to scripture only knowing Jesus
Christ can perform that miracle.


>Hmmm...that hits a little close to the truth, doesn't it?


"The Truth" in it's fullness can not be fully known by man and so we must
be careful not to be too dogmatic about those areas that remain grey.

One of the dangers of Internet dialog is that none of us can fully know what
the experience, temperment, knowledge base, etc. is of any of the other
participants.  That's why we often see flame wars.

My position is that I won't flame because it doesn't provide
anything constructive to the dialog and because, as a Christian, I think it's
inappropriate for me to do so.  (That's just me and is not a slam against others
who use the flame as a major debating technique).  This is not to say that
I couldn't come up with some frightfully cutting, satirical remarks if I wanted
to...B-)

So you know where I am on the original topic of homosexuality, vis a vis
rights and responsibilities.  On a purely social level, I think people
have the right to partake in the activity as long as it doesn't adversly
affect others.  If it does start to have a negative influence, whether through
health or otherwise then, like any issue, it should be debated.  And so it is.
Not because "fundies" are all of the sudden preoccupied with other people's
sex lives, but because of the many complicated and far reaching ramifications
that such a major change will have in our society.

There have been homosexuals in our society since day one and yet,
I would say that there are probably less Fundamental Evangelicals today than
in the past.  So why the big debate?  In the past (pre 60's), sex, of every
kind was considered to be a private matter.  Out of sight, out of mind.  So
despite the fact that movements like the Quakers and the Puritans, who built
this country, were more strident in the sexual absolutes than we are today,
they didn't have to deal with the issue.

I am fairly well read on the roots of the modern homosexual political move-
ment, and so that colors my outlook.  Still in all,  as long as this partic-
ular brand of morality is not forced upon me or my children, and as long
as I don't have to subsidize the behavior or the fallout it might bring, I
will not personally stand against the individual who partakes.

It seems to me that the common thread I'm finding here is one of "fundaphobia"
where a lot of assertions are made about what Fundamental Evangelicals believe
and what they want to force others to believe.  Many of these assertions are
patently delusional but I recognize that they exist.  

>
>From where I'm standing, many of the issues that are dividing the
>Church today and are setting many non-Christians against what
>they perceive as being the Church, are really *trivial* in the
>whole scheme of things.

Considering that many Christians believe that the fate of a nation rests in
it's righteousness, I wouldn't call matters of societal morality "trivial".
But that's another discussion.

>
>Does it really matter what a person, Christian or no, does in his/her
>private life so long as he/she is treating others like he/she would
>want to be treated?

The private life of the non-Christian is his/her own.  Not so with that
of the Christian.  His/her private life will affect their public life.
They can not operate as a positive influence on those around them if they
are dealing with private sin.  This private sin can be anything, anger, pride
sexual immorality, laziness, whatever.  In the end, God demands of his
people righteousness (a dirty word, I realize, in today's climate). But what we
often see, from both inside and outside the Church is self righteousness. Not
a pretty picture.  Here I have to be a bit introspective.

I'm certainly not better than other people and it's only by the grace of God
that I have any standing at all in eternity.

So if I have come of as "holier than thou", judgemental. or "sick" as one
poster put it,  I apologize.  I'm only trying to mount a defense for a
Faith that has come under stronger and stronger attack in recent years.

Regards,

Dan Snodgrass
Lewis & Clark College

Standard Disclaimers


>
>--
>Michael D. Adams	| Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
>University of Illinois  | them from injustice?	-- Lillian Hellman
>StarOwl@uiuc.edu	| Religion has done love a great service by making it a
>Standard Disclaimers    | sin.			-- Anatole France


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14839 alt.politics.clinton:20948 alt.politics.bush:16257 alt.politics.homosexuality:10038