Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals

Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 15:22:28 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: I didn't think Adam had the capacity for error until Eve was created..."


    You are definitely correct in that we are not to alienate people. God called
    us while we were yet sinners - imperfect, sinful, and wrong. We are like
    fish, men help catch us but God always cleans us.

    Judging, however, is not always prohibited. Matthew 18 gives a very clear
    definition of when we are to judge, who has the right to judge, and how we are
    to judge. For example, I am not allowed to judge you because you have not
    wronged me nor am I a spiritual leader in your life. When we make ourselves
    accountable to spiritual leaders, we give them the right and responsibility to
    judge us. Prohibiting judgement of any kind is wrong because judgement and
    consequences is what allows us to be reconciled and restored to proper
    relationships with each other and God. We are, in fact, responsible for
    judging wrong behavior in ourselves and others so that we can maintain our own
    spiritual walk without stumbling. The problem is when we judge


    Quoting Jim Armstrong <>:

    > You've touched on the heart of the issue in your last sentence. So what
    > will you/we do with and toward these who are also part of God's
    > creation, also "neighbors", also brothers & sisters, and fellow
    > participants in our domain of stewardship in His creation. Oh, and I
    > suppose we must also be mindful of those "judging" prohibitions, and the
    > egalitarian nature of sin (in the view of many of us). "Just as I am"
    > comes to mind.
    > This is not an easy or trivial matter. However, I am persuaded at the
    > end of the day that attitudes and actions that result in alienation do
    > not reflect the patterns modeled for us in the life and teachings of
    > Christ, which often transcended the traditional and written heritage.
    > Because we live in the light of the additional revelation afforded us
    > through the life of Christ, I'm pretty sure that we are now held to that
    > higher standard. Also, best I recall, conviction is not our job. We may
    > be amicus curii, but we are notably neither judge nor jury. We are left
    > very little wiggle room by the relational examples Jesus, uncomfortable
    > or not. JimA
    > Jan de Koning wrote:
    > > At 09:50 AM 22/01/2003 -0700, John Burgeson wrote:
    > >
    > >>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, John Burgeson wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> >
    > >>> You
    > >>> > and I, Michael, did not "choose" our heterosexual orientation, we
    > >>> acquired
    > >>> > it either by nature or by nurture. Likewise, my homosexual friends
    > >>> did not
    > >>> > "choose," but found themselves to be simply different from the
    > norm.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Being different from the norm does not mean that you are now allowed
    > > to do anything that comes up in your mind.
    > > As a defence for homosexual relationships I think the defence is not
    > > sufficient. Many of us have sinful wishes, that we must contain all
    > > our life. I do not necessarily want to throw out all homosexuals, but
    > > thus far I did not find a biblical, and logical defense of even
    > > "committed" reationships.
    > >
    > > Jan de Koning
    > >
    > >
    > >

    Sheila McGinty

    This mail sent through GeoTEC Webmail:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 15:23:20 EST