Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

Post by **_Derek** » Thu May 17, 2007 6:42 pm

<b>Here is a great aticle by Greg Boyd, in his usual uncontroversial manner!!</b>

God bless,

Post by **_Homer** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:37 pm

Thanks Derek. Can't say I disagree with what he says!

Post by **_PAULESPINO** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:25 am

Greg Boyd wrote:

He had his followers putting pressure on Caesar and Pilate all the time to make life tough on these select groups of sinners (Jn. 18:36)

Derek and Homer is Greg being sarcastic on the above statement?

Jn. 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding of the verse Jesus was saying that he and his disciples will not engage in politics because his citizenship is in heaven and not on this earth.

Post by **_Derek** » Fri May 18, 2007 5:15 am

Paul,

Yes, the whole thing is meant to be sarcastic. He is saying the opposite of what Jesus actually did the whole time. That's why he says (warning Satire ahead) at the beginning.

Quote:
Jn. 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding of the verse Jesus was saying that he and his disciples will not engage in politics because his citizenship is in heaven and not on this earth.

You are absolutely right!

God bless,

Post by **_TK** » Fri May 18, 2007 7:11 am

What Greg writes is true.

Nonetheless, if this law ever is enacted, there is no doubting the rather pervasive impact it could have on Christian ministries, including The Narrow Path. I think Bush should veto that bill. But we should also be behaving as Jesus would have us behave. The two are not mutually exclusive.

TK

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:35 pm

FBFF member "JC" posted a link to some sermons by Greg Boyd...I found them interesting and "from a unique angle" on things.

Hi TK, you wrote:What Greg writes is true....

I read the link Derek provided and tried watch the Charlie Rose appearance Boyd made with Rick Warren (but my putr's too olde)....

Anyway, I have to disagree with a fair amount of what Boyd seems to be saying. I won't quote him but will just make a list:

1. Though Jesus may have, and probably did, come into personal contact with homosexuals, the NT never reports it.
2. The popular notion that Jesus was "especially friendly to (tax collectors and) sinners and always hung out with them" isn't really accurate, imo. In the NT era the Jews called anyone a "sinner" if they weren't a member of their particular sect! (as well as people who actually were sinners, obviously).
3. Therefore, Jesus didn't always hang out with prostitutes, homosexuals, or any other "kind" of sinners or make deliberate efforts to seek them out (they've always been everywhere, folks). The Gospels portray Jesus as "hanging out with EVERYone" including the high-dollar theologians in the Temple! While the Lord did say He "came to seek that which is lost" he didn't target any certain demographic (sinners of every type are everyplace). Jesus went: everyplace...and talked with: everyone.
4. Jesus WAS political! Why? In the first century the Jews had no such thing as "separation between church and state"! Steve Gregg points this out in his Kingdom of God lectures; till the USA came along every kingdom or government that existed till that time had a national religion!
5. Therefore, when Jesus and the Apostles made "appearances" before the Temple officials and/or Roman officials they WERE political, albeit in a "religio-politial" sense: There just WASN'T a "separtion" from religion (faith) and politics in first century Palestine! The Jewish Sanhedrin was "religio-political" (religion AND politics). One interesting note on this is how these appearances before officials were involuntary...hmmm.....

At any rate, when Jesus said in Jn 18:36: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place"...He was talking about the nature of His Kingdom and how His Kingdom was to come (a spiritual kingdom originating in heaven, existing in the hearts of people, and is not one not to be inaugurated by military force).

How guys can go to universities, get multiple-degreed, teach theology, and miss the basics of what life was really like back in First Century Palestine is...(quite) BEYOND ME!

Anyway, TK also wrote:Nonetheless, if this law ever is enacted, there is no doubting the rather pervasive impact it could have on Christian ministries, including The Narrow Path. I think Bush should veto that bill. But we should also be behaving as Jesus would have us behave. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I haven't been keeping up with this legislation much. But one (Christian) article I read commented on how the law could actually be beneficial for Christians. How so? The article said that Christians could (or would) become the "victims of pro-gay hate crimes"...as the Constitution protects our rights to believe as we do, etc. "It goes both ways," iow.

Canada enacted similar legislation a year or so ago. A friend of mine who lives there said that, now, preachers from the USA who speak against homosexuality as being "ok" are banned from the airwaves. But, hopefully, in this country our rights will be preserved. I, personally, don't see this legislation as a real threat; I believe our Constitution will offer us (Christians) protection. I have faith it will, anyway.....

Post by **_Michelle** » Sun May 20, 2007 7:07 pm

Hey Rick,

I think you agree with Greg Boyd more than you let on. I think Boyd was saying much the same thing as you, when you said: "The Gospels portray Jesus as 'hanging out with EVERYone'..." In his tongue-in-cheek manner, Boyd is saying that all kinds of sinners found grace in Jesus, that's why they "hung out" with him. Do you imagine that there were any kind of sinners that Jesus wouldn't interact with if he came upon them? I don't think so, and I don't think the Bible makes mention of any. Even though the Bible doesn't record any meeting or conversation with a homosexual, I think we can pretty safely assume that Jesus would have offered grace and forgiveness.

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:30 pm

Hi Michelle,

You wrote:I think you agree with Greg Boyd more than you let on. I think Boyd was saying much the same thing as you, when you said: "The Gospels portray Jesus as 'hanging out with EVERYone'..." In his tongue-in-cheek manner, Boyd is saying that all kinds of sinners found grace in Jesus, that's why they "hung out" with him.

Some people in the "emerging church movement" (and also the majority in liberal Christianity) seem to think Jesus had a "preference" for the outcasts of society; that he specially sought them out and was regularly with them ("hung out"). Kind of like He always rooted for the underdog, was their "champion". This almost paints a picture of Jesus, like, standing on a street corner "in the hood" harrassing the cops as they drive by...I can't quite see that! I picture Him more like David Wilkerson (of the book "The Cross and the Switchblade" notoriety) in the streets of NYC. Wilkerson befriended the gang members but never left his personal piety on the shelf, never approved of the gangsters' wrongful acts (sin). They could barely stand being around him till they repented! So if Jesus had "sinner friends" I'm sure they felt the same way. Who could stand to be around the Son of God without being deeply affected? and convicted of their sins? So I feel the "sinners" who followed Jesus (they who "hung out with Him" after He came to them): They repented sooner or later and probably sooner!

When Jesus was in the Temple debating the theologians (like in John 8-10), I see this as this (so-called) "hanging out" too. He wasn't rebuking them to embarrass them or just arguing to win a debate. He was calling them to repentance just as he does everyone. No one is singled out as any different by Jesus in the "sinners" category. No one gets preferential treatment, imo.

All "types" of sinful people followed Jesus. Some had had demons, some had inquiring minds and were soul-searching, some were pagans, some were priests or teachers of the law (Nicodemus, and where it says many priests followed Him in Luke, I think).

Btw, I'm not trying to "preach"...I just like the topic, lol

You also wrote:Do you imagine that there were any kind of sinners that Jesus wouldn't interact with if he came upon them? I don't think so, and I don't think the Bible makes mention of any. Even though the Bible doesn't record any meeting or conversation with a homosexual, I think we can pretty safely assume that Jesus would have offered grace and forgiveness.

I don't know exactly what Jesus would do (or did) if He "caught" anyone in certain sinful acts, what He would say. If He ever stumbled upon anyone committing a sexual sin, we don't know of it. He came to the woman who had been caught in adultery and we see how he treated her: with both mercy and sternness. I assume that Jesus would have treated others the same way, like, if he ever actually did catch anyone in an act of adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, rape, etc. (but we have no record of this happening, anyway).

"Go and sin no more."

Note, On the woman caught in adultery: The "man" is absent! In the first century: marriage, divorce, and adultery standards were pretty lax; people weren't being stoned very often for adultery as the Law of Moses required! Some priests and/or aristocrats had more than one wife! "Writing out a paper of divorce" for any reason whatever was common.

To answer your question:
I'd say: Jesus didn't interact with anyone back then who He wouldn't interact with now. Would Jesus go into a crack house? Possibly so. If He did, would He hangout there all the time? Probably not. David Wilkerson met the gangs on the street. I don't recall him actually going into (actual private) gang meetings. Both he and Jesus were "public" people but did things semi-privately for a reason.

He (Jesus) goes where we go as believers! Ive been in a "gay bar"...me & some guys were preaching out in the street on a "strip" where all the bars were. After hours, the owner invited us in for a drink. We got free Pepsi's...and witnessed to the guy. I heard he later got saved but never went back to the bar to find out...went home for the summer (from college). I wish I had gone back now: WWJD?

Anyway: Yes, Michelle, God's grace is for anyone!

Post by **_anothersteve** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:23 am

Rick wrote

2. The popular notion that Jesus was "especially friendly to (tax collectors and) sinners and always hung out with them" isn't really accurate,

Hi Rick, I didn't notice Greg Boyd making this contention in the article. Maybe I missed it or you heard him say this elsewhere. I only saw him contrasting the discomfort certain sinners now have with Christians today. I don't think he was saying they shouldn't be convicted. I think he was addressing the marginalizing of certain people by Christians and how it alienates them from the Church.

Post by **_TK** » Mon May 21, 2007 11:40 am

I have often wondered how Jesus would have confronted a practicing homosexual in his day. In his day, there was obviously not as much “PC” circulating around this issue. Today, the PC view is that it is genetic; that they cant help it, that it’s not sinful, etc etc. In Jesus’ day, there was no PC police around re-assuring homosexuals (and society in general) that they were perfectly normal and not sinful. In other words, there was no delusion about the idea- -homosexuals back then KNEW that they were sinners.

Boyd’s point seems to be that if Christians are more accepting of homosexuals, then homosexuals will be more accepting of us and our message. Fair enough. But when do we “spring on them” that what they are practicing is an abomination? In other words, we lure them in with promises of acceptance and “non-judgmentalness.” Perhaps they feel that we will accept them as they are. Then BAM! We call them sinners (maybe not in so many words).

I really don’t have any solutions- just tossing it out for discussion.

TK