It must be easy to write stuff like this if you're heterosexual. I'd take this more seriously if instead of using homosexuality as his one and only example of transactional religion, the author had used DIVORCE as the example. Jesus condemns divorce nine times in the Gospels, and in the last century we've seen every Christian denomination and every mostly Christian society struggle with the sheer misery caused by traditional Christian views on divorce. Christians can maybe cite a translation problem or two from Aramaic, or something like that, but they can't exactly come out and say "um, well... Jesus was wrong about divorce" even though that's obviously what most of them quite literally believe without admitting it to themselves. Seems pretty "transactional."
I would be happy to read any post you choose to release on the question of hypocritical reasoning among Christians where divorce is concerned. Unfortunately, the subject of my own post wasn't Christian hypocrisy, but the distinction between thinking about socially contentious issues transactionally or as questions of human nature as constituted by God. Nevertheless, I heartily agree that there are some Christians who are hypocritical about divorce, just as there are atheists and Muslims who are hypocritical about divorce, as well as various flavors of hypocrites in regard to many other subjects. Hypocrisy is, I'm afraid, endemic to any human society. My use of homosexuality as an example was purely an artifact of it being current as a contentious issue among Christians, as evidenced by the Sojourners example, something which was readily at hand from a so-called Christian organization that was celebrating it.
Jesus was addressing a custom of the times; very different from now; it was the attitude of the heart he was calling out, not simply divorce. But then, one would have to study the Bible and understand the culture and practices in Jesus time to understand that. It is quite a thing, to call oneself "Christian", then try to justify a LIFESTYLE clearly abhorrent to God. A decision to blatantly, proudly and defiantly engage in a clearly sinful lifestyle leads to spiritual death. There is no moral equivalent here.
The local Catholic and Orthodox efforts (ministries) toward the poor are the ones who do not give this view of human nature under God. The poor they encounter are not fit for conversion into their communities but are perpetual victims of injustice. (Be sure to celebrate Mental Health Awareness this month!) The solutions are all material and financial, while assuring their permanent place as medical patients.
We evangelicals in service to the poor are pilloried as fundamentalist rule-enforcers, which as you point out, is bait we often take. However, at least we see this view of Man under God (anthropology) as implicit in our curriculum (teaching) if we cannot yet make ourselves express it more explicitly.
But make no mistake the Church's teaching to the down and out are where the rubber meets the road on this subject.
> What I increasingly find curious is the degree to which, outside of Catholic and perhaps Orthodox circles, many of these contentious issues tend to be contested by Christians almost entirely on transactional grounds.
At least in my experience as a lay Catholic (from Europe), transactional attitude among lay believers is rampant. Only in the last 10 years the "personal relationship with Jesus" is arriving on the scene.
If you are a Christ follower, then you heed His words; "go, and sin no more". Obedience matters. The majority are only justifying doing what they want. Can a Christian lose their salvation? I say no; a true Christian finds disobeying God a soul crushing experience. A spirit filled Christian does not think or act in terms of transaction, we act with the focus of submitting to a life that reflects God's glory. I believe a huge part of this conundrum is Biblical illiteracy. Too much time in the "modern" church is spent on entertainment and pretty words, not enough on understanding God's word. But the real problem is the ego and the human heart.
It must be easy to write stuff like this if you're heterosexual. I'd take this more seriously if instead of using homosexuality as his one and only example of transactional religion, the author had used DIVORCE as the example. Jesus condemns divorce nine times in the Gospels, and in the last century we've seen every Christian denomination and every mostly Christian society struggle with the sheer misery caused by traditional Christian views on divorce. Christians can maybe cite a translation problem or two from Aramaic, or something like that, but they can't exactly come out and say "um, well... Jesus was wrong about divorce" even though that's obviously what most of them quite literally believe without admitting it to themselves. Seems pretty "transactional."
I would be happy to read any post you choose to release on the question of hypocritical reasoning among Christians where divorce is concerned. Unfortunately, the subject of my own post wasn't Christian hypocrisy, but the distinction between thinking about socially contentious issues transactionally or as questions of human nature as constituted by God. Nevertheless, I heartily agree that there are some Christians who are hypocritical about divorce, just as there are atheists and Muslims who are hypocritical about divorce, as well as various flavors of hypocrites in regard to many other subjects. Hypocrisy is, I'm afraid, endemic to any human society. My use of homosexuality as an example was purely an artifact of it being current as a contentious issue among Christians, as evidenced by the Sojourners example, something which was readily at hand from a so-called Christian organization that was celebrating it.
Jesus was addressing a custom of the times; very different from now; it was the attitude of the heart he was calling out, not simply divorce. But then, one would have to study the Bible and understand the culture and practices in Jesus time to understand that. It is quite a thing, to call oneself "Christian", then try to justify a LIFESTYLE clearly abhorrent to God. A decision to blatantly, proudly and defiantly engage in a clearly sinful lifestyle leads to spiritual death. There is no moral equivalent here.
The local Catholic and Orthodox efforts (ministries) toward the poor are the ones who do not give this view of human nature under God. The poor they encounter are not fit for conversion into their communities but are perpetual victims of injustice. (Be sure to celebrate Mental Health Awareness this month!) The solutions are all material and financial, while assuring their permanent place as medical patients.
We evangelicals in service to the poor are pilloried as fundamentalist rule-enforcers, which as you point out, is bait we often take. However, at least we see this view of Man under God (anthropology) as implicit in our curriculum (teaching) if we cannot yet make ourselves express it more explicitly.
But make no mistake the Church's teaching to the down and out are where the rubber meets the road on this subject.
> What I increasingly find curious is the degree to which, outside of Catholic and perhaps Orthodox circles, many of these contentious issues tend to be contested by Christians almost entirely on transactional grounds.
At least in my experience as a lay Catholic (from Europe), transactional attitude among lay believers is rampant. Only in the last 10 years the "personal relationship with Jesus" is arriving on the scene.
If you are a Christ follower, then you heed His words; "go, and sin no more". Obedience matters. The majority are only justifying doing what they want. Can a Christian lose their salvation? I say no; a true Christian finds disobeying God a soul crushing experience. A spirit filled Christian does not think or act in terms of transaction, we act with the focus of submitting to a life that reflects God's glory. I believe a huge part of this conundrum is Biblical illiteracy. Too much time in the "modern" church is spent on entertainment and pretty words, not enough on understanding God's word. But the real problem is the ego and the human heart.