Nothing remarkable about it at all. He's been a professing Christian for at least 15 years. I know someone who went to a church in Ireland where I am told he and others from U2 (The Edge for sure) helped lead worship. And don't forget the song "40" on the "War" album--the words are from Psalm 40.

He's for real even though from a conservative perspective he's not always a guy with whom we can agree.

Actually it's been over 20 years.

In the early 80's after the band had released 1 or 2 albums, 3 of the guys became members of a group of Christians in Ireland that nearly tore the band apart because they were supposed to spend their time in service of the lord and not be members of a band. The only 1 who didn't join up was Adam. Edge came the closest to leaving.

Um, as long as we're playing the numbers game, make it more like 25; he was an evangelical Christian by high school (read the book "Killing Bono" by a high school friend). Adam Clayton has since also been converted.

I'm not surprised. Bono is a fairly down-to-earth Christian, not wrapped inside the "churchy" box.

Reminds me of a late conservative Bible scholar, Peter Craigee, who--opining regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch--said, "Some layman have achieved a knowledge of Scripture that evades even scholars."

I can't say I agree with Bono on matters of polity and economics, but theologically he seems to get it.

Perhaps I should clarify: I don't think it's remarkable that Bono is a Christian; I think it's remarkable that he can articulate the Gospel message so well in contrast to other Christians in the public eye (as David notes).

A bit rough around the edges theologically in terms of tossing the notion of Karma in there. Karma seems to suggest an immaterial vengeful force which God interrupts by grace. In proper Christian thinking, of course, God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful by pouring out the wrath reserved for sinners on Christ as the offering for sin, and thereby securing in Christ's blood the grace for remission of sin without cheapening the justice of God. So all men are held to account not ultimately so much for sin but for rejecting or accepting God's provision of mercy in Christ Jesus.

In other words, as Bono might put it, "we fucked up, God is holy, so he can't just excuse it, but he loves us. So he sent his perfect son to take the shit we deserve, so that by his shed blood and broken body, we might get off from the shit we deserve. And those who reject Jesus get the shit they deserve and more, since they told God, "up yours" for thumbing their nose at his great love by pouring out His wrath on his only, and perfect and sinless, son."

The sad part: even that explanation--expletives and all--is more Biblically correct than most of the claptrap you'll hear in mainline Protestant churches.

That's one of the reasons I've always liked Bono. Aside from the fact that I enjoy the music and I think he has an amazingly charismatic stage presence, he also seems to be more thoughtful than your typical crusading rock star.

That isn't to say that I always agree with him or the remedies that he proposes, but he actually seems to think before he talks. I appreciate that.

As for what he describes, suffice to say that I've had the same conversation with myself about the idea of grace--that miracle that gives me hope for salvation when I know that I can never achieve it by myself.

As for that being more or less biblically correct than "most of the claptrap you'll hear in mainline Protestant churches"--well, that doesn't seem quite right to me. I grew up in Protestant churches and most of them preached the self-same message: this isn't something that we deserve, it's something that God gives freely from His infinite mercy.

Certainly, some churches to teach that it is our works that earn us salvation, but I don't know how mainline that is.

I actually think that people such as Billy Graham and Rick Warren have given some pretty decent interviews over the years. Further, prominent pastors are often asked more theologically divisive or challenging questions. Still, I get David's point. It was, after all, lay folks who saved us from Arianism.

Bono does well with effectively sharing a "we cretins" point. God says "you cretins" but we often translate that to exlude ourselves such that "you" becomes the ungifted, the ungraced, the lost -- in other words, God speaking to "those people", not to us.

"I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity."

If I were asked who I thought gave this quote, and in what publication it could be found, I would be nowhere near correct. The apostle Paul’s words had power because he was a Hebrew and a Pharisee proclaiming Christ. What about Bono and his roots in pop culture? I am greatly encouraged!

In all fairness, Bono mixed up the idea of Karma; Karma is neither vengeful nor beneficent, it is more simply a non-deistic form of 'grace'; to the extent that one is connected to the 'good' of the spiritual world he will in fact experience the peace and strength that that 'good' naturally provides. Needless to say, that 'good' can grow and grow as it is extended to others by the individual.

ultra conservitive people drive me crazy. before you give bono a compliment, you have to describe him as a "foulmouthed rockstar"...

rick warren has given some good interviews over the years...

Technically, karma cannot be "a non-deistic form of grace", since grace by definition implies the deliberate action of someone (regardless of whom you attribute it to) treating you well despite whatever you've done.

Karma is the attitude that what goes around comes around - there is no escaping it. It's not a question of deism or non-deism; it's the idea that you will get what's coming to you, regardless of what anyone else (God or not) has to say about it.

The sheer majesty and beauty of grace is that it is completely undeserved and unmerited. If you could earn it, it wouldn't be grace - it would be wages. Karma is all about getting your "just reward" so if anything, karma is just an agnostic's idea of earning righteousness without any concept of what it even means.

I would SO rather have grace than karma!! Without grace, I would be completely and totally lost.

No, Karma is not an 'attitude'. It is a noun; Per Wikipedia:

Karma is a sanskrit word and a concept of eastern religions. Simply explained, it is a sum of all that an individual has once done during many lives and is currently doing. The effects of those deeds actively create present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life.

Operative words: 'Sum','of' 'Done', 'doing'.

To what extent one chooses to act to 'improve his Karma' can be a function of the individuals attitude. But doesn't have to be.

Is the person who does 'good' b/c he's concerned about going to Heaven (or avoiding Hell) less than the one who does 'good' b/c he's he loves Jesus and Jesus' work and simply wants to be like Jesus?

People follow God for many reasons. And so too there are many reasons that a person may contemplate his Karmic state.

And, about the non-deistic Grace line...It's a metaphor. Try thinkling outside the box a little here. ;-)

you first..... ;)

Almost forgot - your other comments:

"Is the person who does 'good' b/c he's concerned about going to Heaven (or avoiding Hell) less than the one who does 'good' b/c he's he loves Jesus and Jesus' work and simply wants to be like Jesus?"

Doing good or not doing good does not affect whether a person goes to heaven or hell, nor does it mean that one person is "more" or "less" than anyone else.

According to the Bible - God "so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16. Not just that He loved only those who obeyed Him, but the world.

Whether someone goes to heaven or not depends on whether they accept Jesus' sacrificial death, burial and resurrection. "Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.'"

The Bible also says: "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one."

How do you determine what is or is not "good"?

It is simply not true that doing good or not doing good has no effect on whether one goes to heaven or hell. I think that is a distortion of being "saved by faith alone." "Faith without works is dead" such that there is the essential unity of faith and works. Works on the one hand do not earn salvation. On the other hand, a lack of works is pretty good evidence of a lack of faith. So, someone not engaging in good works should have some concern about the truth of their faith.

As well, as opposed to the destination itself, the measure of our reward in heaven or our punishment in hell does relate to the measure of good or evil we do here. Someone who is justified but resists God's santifying grace will receive a lesser reward in heaven. By the same token, an Adolph Hitler can expect a harsher hell than most others.

"Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5. The distinction you're making is between whether there is evidence of a new birth - not whether the person has been "born again."

I John presents a wonderful discussion on the subject, and the usual interpretation is that if you continually sin, you cannot be secure in the belief that you are a child of God. You've captured that exactly.

None of that means that people should not do good - it just means that doing good things won't get you into heaven, and that even people who live their whole lives committed to evil can satisfy God if they repent.

For additional discussion on that subject, take a look at the life of Manassas, who was one of the most wicked kings of Israel, yet he repented on his deathbed and that was enough. The thief on the cross was another example - he said "Lord I believe," and Jesus said "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

As far as whether there are degrees of punishment in hell, I don't know - what I recall about what the Bible has to say about it is simply that it is complete and eternal separation from God, that it is torment, and that ultimately hell and death will be cast into the lake of fire.

We do know that, if we are Christians, the works that we do on earth will be judged to see whether they were done for the right reasons, and that we will be given crowns as rewards. The Bible also says, however, that we will lay those crowns at Jesus' feet.

I don't know what purpose would be served by any degree of punishment in hell, but I also don't know that there isn't one - I just know that because I have trusted in Jesus Christ as my savior, I won't have to face that, and I want to invite as many people as possible to be in heaven, too.

Sincere death bed repentance would be an exception perhaps to James' teaching that works without faith is dead. However, repentance must be a matter of the heart, and not mere fear of eternal death. Granted, such fear could engender a real change of the heart. But just as many convicted criminals who say they are sorry prior to sentencing are really just sorry they got caught, mere words of repentance would be unacceptable.

My main concern is the multitude of folks I have known personally who go around cheerily exclaiming "your works won't get you into heaven" all the while selfishly withholding use of the spiritual gifts they have been granted.

Finally, I believe that many people are brought to faith by engaging in good works because such works soften their (our) cold hearts and incline them to be convicted of their own need of grace. Seeing evidence of grace bestowed on others is often a good way to recognize its need in our own lives. (Even though I am a believer, just interacting with people on this blog has helped me to identify areas of my own heart that remain stone cold.)

"[R]epentance must be a matter of the heart, and not mere fear of eternal death. Granted, such fear could engender a real change of the heart. But just as many convicted criminals who say they are sorry prior to sentencing are really just sorry they got caught, mere words of repentance would be unacceptable."

It always comes down to repentance, though - and I think that's what we are unable to properly evaluate in anyone else. Fortunately, God knows the heart and the decision is His about what He does with a deathbed confession.

I think you're right - if someone just made the decision that he was going to do whatever he wanted and then make a deathbed repentance speech without really repenting of what he had done, I don't think that would cut it.

It's an interesting idea that people are brought to faith by the good works of others - what I recall of what the Bible says about how other people will know whose we claim to be is by our love for each other.

I've seen too many self-proclaimed Christians spend the bulk of their time talking about how horrible or heathen someone is because of their observations of what that person does without any compassion whatsoever. I wonder if their "good works" drowns that out, or vice versa.

lawyerchik1,

I quite agree that it is not up to us to decide the sincerity of someone's repentance as it relates to salvation. For the purposes of evaluating church leadership and deciding who is prepared and equipped to do particular ministry tasks, we can make an evaluation of repentance for limited purposes. We can also certainly warn people that their salvation might be imperiled, but it must be done humbly and without any attempt to project ourselves as the judge. Further, although we believe in possibilities of full reconciliation with God and our fellow human beings, it is not judging repentance to prohibit certain positions of responsibility. For instance, in the United Methodist Church we have a specific policy that child molesters and people in certain other other categories shall never work with children. In doing so, we neither withhold forgiveness ourselves nor deny God's forgiveness. The sin is wiped away, but consequences can remain.

On other blogs I've been in some heated discussions with those who would deny church membership to practicing homosexuals. Even asisde from the fact that I have differing views on homosexual relations as sinful per se, I believe that churches must be very cautious about evaluating who has and hasn't repented. Joining the UMC takes confessional vows. I encourage prospective members to take the vows seriously, but if they proclaim them, I accept them at face value and allow for membership even as I might invite the person in for private counseling as to whether they are truly taking those vows to heart.

I also pointed out in the threads at places such as Wesley Blog, that some of the worst sins are our secret sins -- what we do in private. Recently, one of the United Methodist Church's leading spokespersons for church reform, the Rev. Dr. David Seamonds, a retired Asbury Seminary professor, had to step away from the pulpit after admitting to a long-running affair. He has been one of the loudest of all voices in the UMC against homosexual relations. His fall doesn't invalidate his views but undermines his credibility severely. I wish him no ill will. Just as many liberals have been involved in sex scandals. But Dr. Seamands was, for years, a secret sinner. Part of my reaction was "you self-righteous hypocrite." The other reaction was my acknowledgement that under the wrong circumstances and temptations, it could have been me.

Denying membership to practicing homosexuals (on the basis that they are unrepentant sinners) in many cases would simply encourage them not to attend church or to live a lie by coming to church alone and pretending they weren't sexually involved. For the great majority of churches that find homosexual relationships sinful, I would quite expect that they would want to counsel practicing homosexuals in private and of course preach on the subject now and then, but not disproportionately. But I would be opposed to the denial of church membership.

We Christians can at times be far too harsh in what we direct either toward fellow Christians or toward those who would seek to know Christ. I have fallen into the harshness and self-righteousness trap far too often. So I agree with your views on "self-proclaimed Christians" and heathen talk. The line between being faithful and prophetic in defending the faith can be separated by a fine line from prideful judgmentalism.

I'd totally agree with you that since we are all sinners anyway, we ought to exhibit love for each other, including homosexuals. But the difficulty with "practicing homosexuals" is the same difficulty one would encounter with "practicing adulterers" or "practicing murderers": how can you allow someone who has not repented of his sin and in fact is openly living a lifestyle in contradiction to scripture to enjoy fellowship in the body of Christ?

I compare it to adultery (and any form of extra marital sex), because it's essentially the same thing. People are sexual beings - those who are not married are to refrain from engaging in sexual behavior outside of marriage. Period.

I think that the same criteria should apply to couples who are living together without being married to each other - in this society, that is considered to be extremely harsh, but take a look at what the Bible has to say about it, specifically Matthew and I Corinthians.

It isn't that the impulses or needs are sinful; it's that dwelling on them (lust) or acting on them (fornication/adultery) is sin. There is no real difference between a heterosexual engaging in sex without being married to his/her partner and a homosexual doing the same thing.

Further, since homosexuality is a sin (and the Bible is clear about that), marriage is not permitted - that would lead one to conclude, then, that someone with homosexual rather heterosexual "orientation" or whatever the PC term is cannot marry. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

A heterosexual person who is for whatever reason unable to find a mate at some point accepts it and develops other skills and gifts (bearing his or her cross, as it were). We have this idea that being in a committed marital relationship is essential for fulfillment and for leading a full and complete life, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, and it's simply a distortion of what the Bible says we are to do.

Regardless of what people think, however, sex is not essential for individual survival - unlike eating or drinking or breathing, individuals can survive without sex. I think it's the concern that if churches take such a strong stand on the issue they will lose membership that prompts the giving in to pressure from society, and we compromise the integrity of Scripture when we do that.

lawyerchik1,

By your understanding, every Southerner who supported segregation and didn't repent of such evil before their death is now in hell. Every person who ever supported an unjust war should also be denied membership. A Biblical case can be made that consumption of distilled hard liquors is a sin. Some churches regard all alcoholic consumption as sinful. Should we deny them membership. We certainly don't deny membership to unrepentant greedy, arrogant or prideful people. I don't think repentance should be regarded as a legalistic matter. Repentance is something of the heart. Is the heart seeking after Christ? Is the person seeking to do God's will as they understand it after prayer and careful study of Scripture? If perfect repentance is required, we are all doomed.

We don't deny membership to bankers who charge immoral interest rates. We don't deny membership to non-tithers, which I continue to maintain is among the worst sins, constituting not only greed but stealing from God.

There are exceptions but by and large it is married heterosexuals who insist that sex isn't necessary. It reminds me of the celebrties and other wealthy people I've seen interviewed on TV who own several huge homes, private planes, etc. and tell the TV audience that money doesn't mean anything to them.

I don't agree that it is clear the homosexual relations are per se sinful, but we'd never convince each other on that issue. Conservatives tend to look at what the Bible says and take it at absolute face value without examining the purposes behind the Scripture. I prefer to look at the purpose and see that over and over Scripture focuses on community, wholeness and reconciling love. (That's why the UMC, even though there is undoubtedly a Biblical basis for corporal punishment, voted 892-7 in 2004 to condemn it and to encourage legislatures to pass laws banning the practice in public schools and public day care centers.)

From many years in the ministry I have come to the conclusion that denying sexual relations among committed monagomous homosexual couples destroys community by contributing to self-loathing, suicidal tendencies, feelings of alienation from both society and God, and more. Countless marriages have been wrecked because homosexuals tried to suppress their orientation. Bishop Robinson of the Episcopal church told his to-be bride of his homosexual inclinations prior to marriage. She married him anyway.

Celibate homosexuals aren't treated any better by society than practicing homosexuals. Both should be loved and respected. I hear the lie all the time that no one would know orientation unless it is broadcast. But the nature of humans is to constantly ask unmarried people, particularly men over the age of 30, why they aren't married. Unless celibate gays want to lie or mislead, they really have to reveal their orientation.

In the end, I really believe gays are treated differently with respect to membership because of what some have called the "ick" factor. We can abide a dishonest banker, stock broker, or car salesperson much better than a practicing homosexual. One of the most annoying anti-homosexuality ranters I'm subjected to has had numerous affairs as has her husband. One of her sons is in jail, the other is living with his girlfriend and their child. But it is the "perverts" who are destroying America, in her mind.

Increasingly, the question of denial of membership to practicing gays will be somewhat moot because they will be less and less likely to have any interest in attending churches that won't accept them as members. The United Methodist Church, while approving ordination for celibate homosexuals only, has made it clear that practicing gays may not be denied membership on that basis alone. In 1988, the UMC voted down a change to the Book of Discipline that would have banned practicing homosexuals from non-ordained leadership positions in the church. Further, more recently the Virginia Conference of the UMC, which is somewhat more conservative than liberal, voted overwhelmingly to discipline and remove from the pulpit a UMC pastor who denied membership to a practicing gay. I'm quite aware of the great disdain and mockery with which many people hold the United Methodist Church, but I believe it was one of our finer moments. Then, of course, there is the UCC,the Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) along with a handful of independent Baptist churches that have moved rapidly toward more welcoming stances.

Finally, by your standards, even though I am a pastor, I really shouldn't have church membership. The truth is that I can be a rather arrogant person -- not so much in person -- but particularly on blogs -- and I'm not sure I'm really repentant. I mean I worry about it, but I don't really take any concrete steps to address the problem. And there are many folks who have e-mailed me that I am a teacher of false doctrine, which if true, would be a sin. However, I don't knowingly teach anything false. Yet, nevertheless, I feel called by God to the ordained ministry.

If practicing homosexuals sincerely believe that their unions are blessed by God, even if they are sincerely wrong, I would accept their confession of Christ as Lord and Savior and their repentance according to the knowledge they have been granted, to be sufficient for church membership.

As a pastor, you should know, then, that the point of Paul's discussion of the subject in I Corinthians was that the sin was so blatant that it was obvious even to non-believers, and was therefore damaging the reputation of Christ and the church. If you want to take the argument to its absurd conclusion, no one could legitimately be a member since all have sinned.

Usually when people start down that road, it's because they don't know how to interpret Scripture and they fill in the gaps of their knowledge and understanding with cultural expectations and human reasoning.

The point is not to start flogging people for the most minute or secret of sins - just as Jesus pointed out in the sermon on the mount, the purpose of the law is to show us that we can never be perfect in ourselves because no one can keep the whole law. It isn't to give us tools to redefine sinful behavior as excusable so that we can feel good about ourselves.

If anything, maintaining the definitions of sin as sin is supposed to prompt us to regularly seek God's forgiveness and daily (hourly) rely on the strength Christ promised to provide us in living in obedience to Him - if we stop acknowledging sin as sin, then we don't need God because we can handle our lives just fine on our own.

As far as repentance (whether outward or inward), we already know that we are sinners by nature and by choice. That's why in I John, he distinguishes the one who habitually practices sin from those who sin when he says that anyone habitually practices sin is of the devil, and that no one who abides in Christ sins. He prefaces that with the verse: I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, he has an advocate with the Father.

Deceiving ourselves and, worse, congregations by telling them that somehow whatever it is that they're doing or not doing isn't really sin misleads them terribly.

IF homosexual relations are sinful, it is one of the least significant of all sins.

In the neighborhood I grew up in, whites would not sell to blacks; real estate agents wouldn't dare to allow a black person into a home for it to be shown. Many if not most of these people were God-fearing, church-going people. Yet their sin of racism was grievous and most of them died unrepentant, believing that God ordained the separation of the races. Minorities were not welcome in the church I grew up in until I was long out of high school. If unrepentant practicing homosexuals are in hell, then so are those who participated in segregation, owned slaves, or discouraged minorities from attending church with them -- again, blatant sins.

Preachers of the South regularly got up in the pulpits and denounced Martin Luther King, Jr. as a Communist agititator. Were those preachers of the devil? Their practices certainly were. We need to hear the warnings in case they apply to us, but it seems to me that homosexuals always get the short end of the stick.

What about the lawyers who drew up deed covenants providing for no sale to blacks? Does the mandate of zealous representation of a client excuse the lawyer from participation in extreme wickedness? Sounds pretty blatant to me.

Human reason is a gift of God. Scripture cannot be interpreted or understood without it. If cultural context doesn't matter, then all the people wearing gold to church can expect to burn in hell. All those pastors who raised money to build their churches by selling pews might be in the great down under, as well, for that, too, would be a sin 1,000 times worse than homosexuality, if it is a sin. The book of James makes it clear how utterly corrupt and heathen the practice of favoritism in the church. But the number of pastors who indulged in such evil is very high.

I don't fear what I teach or preach about homosexuality; I mightily fear what I am not teaching about witnessing and engaging in mission work.

On Joe Carter's blog, the Evangelical Outpost, he writes that he despises the French. I don't expect he'll get more than one or two people to disagree with him, even though his view is 100% evil. No one will tell him his salvation is at stake, either. No, just the gays, who some day, by God's grace, will overthrow the shackles of oppression and get to the promised land.

"IF homosexual relations are sinful, it is one of the least significant of all sins."

Actually, according to Romans 1: 21- 27, it is the bottom of the rung and represents the level of sin at which a person who worships created things rather than the Creator who made them: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Further, just because something happened and people thought it was right at the time, doesn't make it either sinful or not sinful - you still have to go back to the Scripture and not omit things that you disagree with. If I recall my history accurately, there were countless preachers who taught against slavery, discrimination and other social evils.

There used to be a principle of biblical interpretation that distinguished between absolutes, convictions and preferences. I think that where the Scripture says absolutely yes or no, do it or don't do it, there is no room for redefinition. The 10 commandments is one example - there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

Where there is evidence either way for people reading the Bible to come up with differing conclusions based on the same verses, and either version is consistent with the rest of Scripture, they can maintain their convictions. If the Bible is silent on whatever it is, and people develop their beliefs consistent with the rest of Scripture, they're entitled to their preferences.

The difference usually is when someone wants to change an absolute into a conviction or a preference, and they usually come up with all kinds of "logical"-sounding reasons why they're right in contradicting something the Bible is very clear about. Usually, the reasoning starts with "the Bible doesn't actually mean that..." That's exactly what Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden - "You shall not surely die." He directly contradicted what God had said, and the whole human race has suffered ever since because she listened to him and her own reason, instead of God's word.

That doesn't mean that we ought to disregard reason altogether. You're correct that God gives us "common sense" and that using it is appropriate. It's just that we have to be sure that our "common sense" is guided by God's principles and His Word. Common sense to an abuse victim might tell him or her to never trust anyone, yet clearly, that "common sense" is not always accurate.

God's word is intended to tell us of His love - His laws, however, were intended to show us that we can never measure up to His standards on our own merits and that as a result of our sin, we need a savior. That message is too often diluted or distorted, and I think it is done to the body's detriment as well as the organized church's.

I have a gay brother who may very well worship the true Creator more then you or I put together. He's certainly a lot more gracious and forgiving soul than I am.

If you don't want him as a member of your church, so be it. In the end its God's church anyway.

I'm sorry - for you, your brother and your family. That can't have been an easy situation to handle.

As a pastor, though, don’t you have an obligation to be sure that you don’t lead your sheep astray? Yes, your brother’s situation gives you an extra sensitivity to the needs and issues of homosexuals in your community, but it doesn’t give anyone license to distort the word of God based on personal experience.

I don’t know if you have children or not – the question I usually ask is if a parent told his child to do something like not playing in the street, and the child played in the street anyway and nothing bad happened, does that mean the child did not disobey?

And, to carry the analogy further, if the child told a sibling that it was OK to play in the street, even though the parent had told them not to, does that mean that the parent didn’t say it? The answer doesn’t change if the sibling was struck by a car and badly injured, or if nothing happened at all. What changes is the child’s relationship with the parent – the child has a sense of guilt for disobeying what he was told, and if he continues in disobedience, his fellowship with his parent suffers. A former colleague told of his experience with his brother playing ball in the house after their parents told them not to and they broke a lamp: they loved their parents, but they did not love their appearing, and their relationship suffered until there was confession and reconciliation.

I realize these are simplistic examples, but they are still true – our experiences in the world do not allow us to change God’s word based on those experiences. If we allow ourselves to change the word of God to fit our experiences, we see examples of just what you described from the past: instances in which the church and pulpits across the world justify not only terrible atrocities but the routine, daily sins that erode our fellowship with God and our reliance on Him to meet our daily needs, all in the name of religion.

United Methodists believe that personal experience is an important part of God's revelation and of our understanding of Scripture.

Yes, I have a duty not to lead people astray. However, I don't consider homosexual relations per se to be a sin and in fact believe that discouraging committed monogamous homosexual relationships simply fractures the community and contributes to a higher incidence of pathologies among gays. To me, that seems much the approach of refusing to allow healing on the Sabbath in that the purpose of the law is completely ignored.

Theologically I'm to the left of "free will" and to the right of "open theism." So it would not be surprising that I believe that God is changed by his interaction with human beings. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in eternal truths. In fact, I believe that the Logos as the pre-existent Christ has been from all time. I believe that there are absolute truths; other matters are culturally relevant truths subject to change. I believe that Paul's teachings on homosexuality were necessary for that culture at that time, just as the need for women to keep silent in the church was and the need for people not to wear gold. The church at that time was necessarily rooted in a patriarchal society; that doesn't mean Paul expected it would be so for all time. Paul looked partially at those things that would divide the body of Christ; excluding gays from church membership is more divisive by far than including them.

I'm not at all convinced that in Paul's time there was an understanding of sexual orientation other than heterosexual. It seems to me that too many conservative evangelicals want to close their minds to modern scientific and psychological understandings. I grant that there is not conclusive proof that homosexual orientation is genetically based, but there is some evidence that there is a genetic predisposition for some. It seems to me that homosexual orientation may be part of God's creation, not due to man's fall.

If, morally, a man must be a man by certain sexual absolutes and standards of behavior, then what of people who are born with sex organs of both sexes? In prior times, the idea was to try to force orientation and behavior, often to include surgery, ruled by which sex organs seemed to dominate physically. The result was that those thus identified as "male" often suffered immensely because they were emotionally wired as "women" and vice versa.

That's why United Methodist support the full inclusion of homosexuals, celibate or not, in the life of the church. Yes, the law is there to show us the need for forgiveness. It is not there, however, to defeat the purposes of living in Christian community.

No, we're not going to all agree. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that masturbation represents an intrinsic moral disorder every bit as evil as homosexual relations. My own view is that masturbation can be a healthy sexual outlet for single people or for people whose spouses are physically incapacitatated, or it can result in alienation from God, depending on the focus and the reasons. If masturbation is a means of avoiding the forming of a deep and intimate sexual bond with a life partner according to one's sexual orientation, then it indeed can be a sin. Homosexual relations simply to fulfill feelings of lust are wrong. But lived out in devotion to a life partner as just one aspect of the person's personality, I believe that it can be God-blessed.

"I believe that Paul's teachings on homosexuality were necessary for that culture at that time, just as the need for women to keep silent in the church was and the need for people not to wear gold."

Except the point was that women in the church were shouting across the aisle separating the men from the women at the synagogue to ask for an explanation of what the rabbi was saying, and it was disruptive - there is nothing wrong with maintaining order, and that was consistent with Paul's point about speaking in tongues: that things should be done decently and in order.

There is a difference between that instruction and the extrapolation that women should never speak in church, and again, it goes to interpreting Scripture in the context of the rest of the word, not in the context of human experience.

If you look at the rest of the Bible, you see that God not only wanted women to be active in their service to Him, but He actually used women instead of men in those places and instances where the men at hand weren't doing the job.

As far as the admonition in Timothy about wearing gold, the point was that women should not be so consumed with outward appearances at their worship that they forgot why they were there. That is not limited just to that culture; it's a proper admonition to the present, in that the focus of going to church should be worshipping God, not who's wearing what designer or driving what make/model car.

And again, look at how God judged Sodom and Gomorrah - how can you consistently interpret Romans and Genesis (and those are just 2 passages off the top of my head) as being "cultural"?

Look at Paul telling slaves to obey their masters. Not because he approved of slavery but because he (wrongly) considered that Christ would return in Paul's lifetime and that further, resistance to slavery at that time and place was futile.

To me, society's attitudes toward homosexuals is so illogical as to make traditional interpretation of Scripture on that issue suspect.

I will admit that I might be wrong; I can't imagine you admitting that you could be wrong, however.

Wow. You can't imagine my admitting to being wrong because I disagree with you? I think it is safer to say that we disagree on the authenticity of Scripture and whether it should be taken as written or not, instead of saying that I can't admit I'm wrong because I don't think that changing the Scripture to suit current mores is an appropriate way to approach Biblical interpretation.

Paul's admonition to Philemon, as well as his admonition to slaves to be subject to their masters, was neither wrong nor short-sighted. The purpose of his instruction that slaves should be submissive to their masters was intended to encourage them to acknowledge that they were to be obedient no matter what their circumstances.

In follow-up to the previous, I have a tendency to be a know-it-all, and I have successfully been accused of being a smartass many times, but if I'm wrong, I usually have no trouble admitting it. :)

I think where we're missing the connection here is that we disagree about interpretation - I don't think my interpretation is incorrect, based on what I know about the Bible.

What you've shown me so far has not established that my interpretation is incorrect, invalid, unreasoned or at serious odds with the rest of Scripture. Under such circumstances, I'm not sure that "admitting [I] could be wrong" is either warranted or even the right issue.

I didn't mean my words as an insult. I was simply acknowledging that when one, as I, take the Bible as God's inspired Word but written nevertheless by flawed human beings, that I will always be at a disadvantage in arguing from a Scriptural viewpoint because I don't consider the Bible inerrant. Your belief seems to be that if I don't accept the Bible as inerrant that I cannot accept it as having any authority at all. I, on the other hand, don't insist that you view the Bible the way I do in order for it to have authority. So I disagree with your assessment that I don't accept the authenticity of Scripture. From my viewpoint, authenticity doesn't stand on all the same legs for me as it does for you, but it still stands.

For instance, I don't think God ever considered it "just" to stone adulterers or homosexuals to death. Rather, I believe God was moving humanity toward the Logos incarnated one step at a time. Thus, God didn't so much change his mind about an eye-for-an-eye as he saw that the prophets that he had given had adequately prepared the people to receive a higher level of truth.

I believe that God is still revealing (I like the UCC language "God is still speaking" and their ","), but I grant that is a tall order to discern because of the danger of false teaching and the possibilities of self-deception.

However, I didn't just wake up one day and say to myself, or to God, "I'm going to ignore your teaching on homosexuality." I read the Scriptures over and over. I prayed. I participated in Bible study and covenant groups. I read literature by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, associations of social workers, pediatricians, etc. I listened to school counselors. And even more, I heard the testimonies of people such as Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty. I faithfully believe that God is revealing different understandings about sexual orientation and how all of us can best live in community. But I admit to "seeing through a glass darkly."

Sadly, during the Civil Rights days, many people used Paul's words to Philemon as a justification for slavery. I didn't say Paul was wrong in what he told Philemon. But it is a matter of history that Paul was wrong in believing that Christ would return in his lifetime. And it is absolutely wrong to apply Paul's words to the institution of slavery.

Certainly the church has greatly contextualized Paul's admonition not to marry -- so much so that I have never heard much of a sermon on the passage even at the numerous Baptist services I've attended. The fact of the matter is the church as a whole is not very kind to people who don't marry -- the issue of sexual orientation completely aside. I'm confident of my position there, because as pastor I've been in quite a position to observe human behavior.

I believe that many conservative evangelicals place Scripture as a higher revelation than the being of Jesus Christ, when it is supposed to reflect his revelation, not confine it.

Thanks for all the interactions.

I think where the confusion arises is where people forget that God is holy in their efforts to emphasize His love. Yes, He loves His creation, but He is also holy, and that was why He sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world - because He could not look at sin.

But the discussion has been good - interesting and thoughtful.

"[B]ut whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6.

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." Rev. 22: 18-19.

Those are good Scriptures, however one must always be mindful that if they are intended to be aimed at someone that we disagree with in respect to interpretation or authority of Scripture that one finger pointed toward someone usually involves three fingers pointed back at ourselves.

Yes, the discussions have been good. I wish I were capable of having such discussions with more people, but I've wounded too many people and been wounded by others such that the trust factor is not always high enough to get this far.

Thanks for your respect. Shalom chaver.

You're welcome - thank you! "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

Shalom to you as well!

From a once huge U2 fan - I have devoted my life to Christ. Which is in large part why I do not listen to the bands music anymore.
Bono needs to learn that:
1) the reap what you sow stuff is from God
2) Jesus is the only way to heaven, and anyone who does not serve Christ is not of Christ and will justly burn in hell for eternity
3) it is not the hearers of the word, but the doers of the word that belong to God
4) ecumenicalism is of Satan; not everyone goes to heaven Bono; and many will say "Lord, Lord" and get the following response, "I never knew you, depart from me you who work eniquity"
5) Friendship with the world is enmity with God - I do not see Bono renouncing the ways of the world, serving God rather than self, preaching the law of God and the wrath to come on all who are not born-again - where is the fruit? A tree is known by the fruit
6)Our righteous deeds are like dirty rags to God - why? because they are done in the flesh as if we are trying to bribe God with our good works after much sin and rebellion to God - if I kill your mother, then give you 10 thousand dollars, would that 10 thousand dollars mean anything to you? That is our good works to God in the face of our rebellion and sin. Bono helping humanity in the name of Christ is pleasing to God, but helping humanity for the sake of humanity and "the reputation of our generation" (paraphrase from Conon O' Brian show), then his good works are filthy rages to a God that truly Bono does not know. In other words: Bono accepts Christ as savior, but not as Lord of his life - you must have Christ as both, or you are not a Christian.
Stop idolizing this man. He is flesh, sinner, and enemy of God and will burn in hell if he doesn't repent and become born-again.

somebody wrote : "Stop idolizing this man. He is flesh, sinner, and enemy of God and will burn in hell if he doesn't repent and become born-again."

And I agree 100%!!! Bono, If you are reading this then repent!! God Bless You all But repent!