Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Church|Thu, Jul. 10 2008 08:53 AM EDT

Emerging Pastor Encourages Open Talks, Preaching on Homosexuality

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

As Christians across California grapple with the legalization of same-sex "marriage," the shock factor at one emerging church remains small.

And it's not because the young and growing church embraces a liberal theology or supports gay "marriage," but because they don't avoid talking about sexuality, including homosexuality.

"In our church, at least from the people I have been hanging out with, I have not yet heard too much 'Oh my gosh, look what happened,'" said Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, Calif., and a well-known emerging church leader who subscribes to a more conservative theology. There wasn't much of a reaction at Vintage Faith to the May 15 court ruling that allowed same-sex couples to wed, he said. Many believed it was inevitable.

And Kimball had more conversations with pastors outside the state who were more curious about the impact of the ruling than those around his church. He believes people at his church were not shocked partly because of their openness in discussing marriage and homosexuality.

At Vintage Faith, they've created a culture of addressing and responding to such issues. Kimball encourages other churches to do the same – to create a culture of teaching the theology of these controversial issues in a way that people can understand and not approaching the issues just at the surface level.

"I hope then people will be able to respond in a healthy way and not [be] reactionary," he said in a recent interview with Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership journal.

Kimball is currently teaching out of the New Testament book 1 Corinthians in a series titled "Sin City: Being the light of Jesus in a darkened culture." Early in the series, which launched on June 15, he addressed marriage and human sexuality, teaching the theologically conservative position that marriage is designed for a man and a woman. An open forum followed the sermon last weekend.

While Vintage Faith does not endorse homosexual "marriage" theologically, the church – like any emerging church – is ingrained in the culture, a culture that has becoming increasingly tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle.

"To me, I really believe that if church leaders aren't involved in people ... [who] are gay outside of their church, that needs to happen so that they can just understand [their] lives more," Kimball said in the interview.

"So when they think about [homosexuals], it's not just this population of people that is faceless; they really can think of hearts and minds and eye expressions," he added.

Church leaders need to see every human being, regardless of their sexuality or lifestyle, in the image of God, he stressed.

"That to me is critical because then you respond differently," the emerging pastor said.

Kimball's seven-week "Sin City" series continues on Sunday with a message on "Single Like Jesus." The series aims to help Christians share the way of Jesus in their culture and avoid being consumed by a sin-saturated culture.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
  • Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    DP

    All Christians believe the Nicene Creed or they aren't Christians by definition. It has nothing to do with being Catholic since catholic (small c) is the universal church without the Roman Catholic Church claim of the only church.

    And your comment, "isn't the term 'emergent' the same as 'coming out of the closet'?" is juvenile at best, a broad brush false accusation which constitutes slander and is a serious sin (false accusation) in Yahweh's eyes. Although I am not emergent and I find much of the Emergent church to be heretical, making adolescent attacks on people is not how we are told we should think and act.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    from the history of Vintage Church(http://www.vintagechurch.org/about/history):
    "Vintage Faith Church" (the first formal church plant of Santa Cruz Bible Church, a non-denominational church) merged with "First Presbyterian Church".

  • Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Vintage Church website is http://www.vintagechurch.org/

    The doctrinal statement is there. They are apparently Catholic and believe the nicene creed:

    http://www.vintagechurch.org/about/theology/truths-in-the-nicene-creed

  • Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    indy, what several people are sharing is their opposition to the emergent church as opposed to the way this church is choosing to deal with the issue, but I agree Dan Kimball appears to be biblically sound on this issue.

  • indy »
    Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am confused by the negative comments here. In this article, didn't Dan Kimball clearly state he is conservative theologically on this issue and say that he teaches his church that marriage is for a man and a woman? It states that twice in this article that he believes and teaches that marriage is for a man and woman.

  • Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    isn't the term 'emergent' the same as 'coming out of the closet'?

  • Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:39 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "emergents are trying to spin God's Word in a way that hurts Christianity and convince whoever will listen that Bible believers are dumb and intolerant. "

    I think its worse than you suggest. I think that at least some emergent leaders are and have said that we need to not focus on eternity, that we should not concern our silly little heads with whether Christ is the substitutionary atonement we need to be with God, but instead focus only on the here and now and only help people with their physical and emotional needs - rather than deal with the cause for those needs, their spiritual need.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The point being, of the three very plausible interpretations of 'except for porneia' – namely, unlawful unions within certain degrees of kinship, marital unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, or that the phrase simply refers to the matter-of-fact recognition that if the wife has already committed adultery then her husband cannot be held guilty of driving her into it by divorcing her, none of them allow for divorce and remarriage as many Christians would like this exceptive clause to allow. I think that we as Christians, although perhaps very sincere, have had a serious lapse in judgment regarding this issue, and this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, by the moral laxity in this single area, the divorce rate among believers is virtually indistinguishable than that of unbelievers. So much for being salt and light...

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here's another scholar - Dr. William Heth. In his book Divorce, he states, "The 'except for marital unfaithfulness' clause does not need to mean any more than the fact that divorcing an unchaste wife would not make her an adulteress, for she has made herself an adulteress, adultery being the most common type of sexual offense covered by the term porneia . . . The exception clause in Matthew 5.32 is simply a matter-of-fact recognition that if the wife has already committed adultery, her husband cannot be held guilty of driving her into it by divorcing her . . .

    "But immediately following, we find Jesus' absolute and unqualified conditional statement that 'whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery . . . [which] strongly suggests that Jesus never intended to sanction remarriage after divorce for marital unfaithfulness."

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    But I still believe that my posts at 12:02 am, 11:56 am, and 12:13 pm (ignore the lengthy quote at 11:09 am) is very reasonable. The loophole that many Christians hinge their hopes on is the exceptive clause of Matthew, which is not supported by Mark, Luke, or Paul, so it seems reasonable that it have a certain significance to Jews. Many conservative scholars have come to this same conclusion, so I'm not sure why you believe that this position is not adequately supported.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    I apologize that I inserted a lengthy quote where I merely cut and pasted from some evangelical study that I had found. I usually try to use my own words and keep it much shorter.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I,

    I went to begin a post in response to what you have written, but I realized what you had posted since I posted my latest response was a page and a half in Word. I appreciate that you have done considerable research to support your position.

    However, I still do not think the position is adequately supportable, given what I perceive to be flawed examples and the usage of the word elsewhere.

    But due to the obvious effort this would take to refute this theory in your eyes or confirm it in mine, and the fact this is not an important enough issue to me to attempt to type this up and I do not have access to the resources you mentioned at this time, I decided to not continue this discussion at this time.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Recall that when Mary was discovered to be with child by the Holy Spirit, Joseph had in mind to divorce her quietly (Matt. 1:19), yet they were only in the betrothal period. Matthew perhaps had reason to clarify why Joseph's planned course of action was legitimate, given what Jesus said later regarding marriage.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I completely forgot to mention another possible reason for 'except for porneia' being unique to Matthew's gospel. Some scholars have taken it to refer to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated; i.e., during the betrothal period. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated. Since this would be relevant in particular to a Jewish audience, this again lends credence to the specific nature that this phrase may have had for Jews, and possibly explain why this exceptive clause is contained in Matthew's gospel and omitted in Mark's and Luke's. If 'except for porneia' merely meant any sort of sexual immorality, then certainly the Greco-Roman world would have needed to know this as well, if not more, than the primarily Jewish community to which Matthew was directing his gospel.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    There is no 'trap door' in the Bible. It is clear as to what the conditions for remarriage are.

    It gets back to Karl Marx saying the US Constitution is the best foundational document for running a country as long as it is implemented properly. Of course, those of us here in the US would take exception to his 'interpretation' of our Constitution! The same is said by Christians to those who do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. It's apples and oranges.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The following excert came from an evangelical paper; however, I could not find the author's name:

    Based on these observations these scholars are able to rest firmly in the position that they may take the "natural" understanding of porneia as "unrepentant adultery," "sexual unfaithfulness to the marriage," or "sexual sin of any sort." Divorce and remarriage can be legitimate since the sexual promiscuity of the one partner has fundamentally broken the "one-flesh" union.
    At first glance, this position seems safe from refutation, but such is not the case. On account of space limitations, the problems inherent with this view can only be addressed briefly. (1) The idea that the "one-flesh" union is created by the act of intercourse and thus can be broken by an act of intercourse is not in fitting with the text. Though the sexual union appears to be the means by which the two are brought together, it is not what joins them together--God is the one doing the joining. This is why Jesus says, "What God has joined together, let not man separate" (19.6). If it were the case that "one-flesh unions" were broken by adultery then it would only follow that if a wife committed porneia, the husband would HAVE to divorce her since she has become "one flesh" with another man and therefore, she is no longer his wife. For him to remain with her, then, would be adultery. This is clearly not what the text is saying. Moreover, if a lustful glance is adultery (5.27-30) and "sexual sin of any sort" is grounds for divorce (5.31-32), then it is difficult to see how Jesus is being strict on divorce at all. This argument amounts to nothing more than a "Christian statement of the Shammaite position" excepting that where Shammai demanded divorce, Jesus merely allows it. This hardly accounts for the disciples' shock in 19.10.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, I found an article regarding divorce from a book where FF Bruce is a consulting editor that said porneia was adultery. This does not invalidate the idea that the illicit sexual acts that occurred during marriage (adultery) were what was described in Lev 18, 20; Dt 24;13-30. Of course, this does not mean Bruce wrote it.

    I'm still looking.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    looks like someone has flagged all of Prophet's posts. ddddd (formerly ccccccccc) must still be angry with him.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    I think F.F.Bruce makes this argument in his book "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free." L. Carl Laney's book "The Divorce Myth" treats this subject as well. I believe David Bercot addresses this as well in one of his books, but cannot remember which one.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,
    But are there really any who come in here who are actually seeking? It seems that everyone is pretty much set on one side of the fence or the other, though some are wolves in sheep's clothing.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    Another implication that 'except for porneia' does not merely mean adultery. Mark's and Luke's audience (who were primarily Greeks/Gentiles and Romans, respectively) were not given this exception and would have missed out on this point. It's one thing if one of the gospels choose not to narrate a particular story or account, but in this case, the conversation between Jesus and his disciples concerning divorce is recorded in all three synoptics, but with subtle differences. Compare Matt. 19:9 and Mk. 10:11-12. Notice how Mark's gospel includes Jesus addressing the case of a woman divorcing her husband. Matthew didn't include this part of Jesus' statement because a Jewish woman was not permitted to divorce her husband. Similarly, 'except for porneia' must have had a certain significance to the Jews that it may not have had with the Greeks or Romans. Also, by translating 'porneia' too broadly, Jesus would not be teaching anything above and beyond what the school of Shammai taught. It would be difficult to understand why the disciples would ask such a question in Matt. 19:10 concerning Jesus' supposedly strict teaching if His teaching was not anything different than what some others were already teaching.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    "But I do dislike these people masquerading as Christians coming in here trying to flaunt their humanistic, carnal view of the Bible. It's really annoying. I'm gonna stop responding to them."

    I also dislike it. I consciously choose to respond so as to provide refutation for the ones who are seeking truth. If I were to leave the bad hermeneutics without refutation, unbelievers or believers who are spiritually immature, would be led astray. Otherwise, I too would not offer a refutation.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You want to talk about marriage fidelity...think about the disciples/apostles. They left everything, work, home, family for the cause of the Gospel. And I am fairly certain that they didn't divorce their wives, or vice-versa. Even when they went abroad. Though the Bible doesn't say whether the wives accompanied them, but I doubt it.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "F.F. Bruce ... Dr. Carl Laney "

    I'll see if I can find their commentaries. I don't have them.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It is my experience in dealing with people concerning marital problems, regardless of what they are, it is always a matter of the condition of the hearts of the people involved. They have, for one reason or another, hardened their hearts against one another, and against God. They each often feel they have a 'right' to some feeling or thought or behavior.

    If I can help them begin to soften their hearts towards God, then they will soften their hearts towards each other.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I totally agree with everything you said. I too have counseled separation for certain circumstances.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irenaeus,

    "If 'porneia' refers to adultery or marital infidelity,"

    I hold that porneia refers to various sexually illicit behavior. Doing these things while married is what makes it constitute adultery.

    "then there's a loop-hole. Let's present a hypothetical case here... if I wanted to get out of my present marriage, yet understanding that Jesus clearly teaches the permanency of the marriage bond which cannot be separated by man, how would I dissolve this supposedly indissoluble bond. I cannot divorce my wife if no marital infidelity or adultery has occurred. Why? If I divorce my wife and marry another woman, I commit adultery (according to Jesus) � right?. "

    I agree so far.

    "However, if I am unfaithful and commit adultery while still in my marriage, I have now dissolved the indissoluble bond and am free to re-marry. So what's the difference? In either case, I'm guilty of divorcing and adultery... "

    No I think you miss the point with your example. Let me modify it a little.
    If I want out of my marriage, I can not because I would be considered an adulterer. However, once my wife commits adultery, then I am free to divorce without being an adulterer.

    "The only difference being that my remarriage in the first case is invalid (because I was not free to re-marry since no infidelity had occurred), and my re-marriage in the second case is valid because I dissolved the previous marriage bond through my infidelity. "

    No,the problem is not the marriage. The problem is the adultery. The marriage is not valid because of your adultery - you would already be an adulterer. The marriage would be allowable only if the other person's adultery broke the bond.

    "Some may argue that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. But if the marriage bond is dissolved, it's dissolved for both; i.e., one person cannot be bound in marriage while the other is not. And in a sense, there is but only one case here. For at the moment that I illicitly divorce and re-marry, I committed adultery. Would this not constitute marital unfaithfulness in which case I am now allowed to divorce and re-marry?"

    As I said, if your partner commits adultery, she is an adulteress and you are free to divorce. If you commit adultery, you are the adulterer and she is free to divorce you. There must be just cause for the divorce inorder for the marriage. If you commit adultery you are an adulterer. You might be able to divorce, but you are still an adulterer.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wb, I agree that I would never recommend divorce, but I have recommended separation in the case of serious abuse out of concern for the well being of the individual. I guess because I have been a pastor I may see this issue a little different then some, but in most of the cases I dealt with not only were a husband and wife involved but children as well. Identifying divorce and remarriage as sin is one thing, that's the easy part, but the repentance and reconciliation process is very different and very difficult. And as a pastor I have learned in this area we must be patient and compassionate to all of those who are involved and if couples think that I as a pastor have a one size fits all mentality to this issue there is a good chance many couples would be hesitant to seek my counsel and would continue to live in sin rather than even attempt to seek reconciliation.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    porneia, that's where the word pronography comes from

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    If 'porneia' refers to adultery or marital infidelity, then there's a loop-hole. Let's present a hypothetical case here... if I wanted to get out of my present marriage, yet understanding that Jesus clearly teaches the permanency of the marriage bond which cannot be separated by man, how would I dissolve this supposedly indissoluble bond. I cannot divorce my wife if no marital infidelity or adultery has occurred. Why? If I divorce my wife and marry another woman, I commit adultery (according to Jesus) – right?. However, if I am unfaithful and commit adultery while still in my marriage, I have now dissolved the indissoluble bond and am free to re-marry. So what's the difference? In either case, I'm guilty of divorcing and adultery... The only difference being that my remarriage in the first case is invalid (because I was not free to re-marry since no infidelity had occurred), and my re-marriage in the second case is valid because I dissolved the previous marriage bond through my infidelity. Some may argue that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. But if the marriage bond is dissolved, it's dissolved for both; i.e., one person cannot be bound in marriage while the other is not. And in a sense, there is but only one case here. For at the moment that I illicitly divorce and re-marry, I committed adultery. Would this not constitute marital unfaithfulness in which case I am now allowed to divorce and re-marry?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But I want to point out that while I am discussing what I understand to be Biblical reasons that divorce is allowable, and whether remarriage is acceptable before God, I have yet to advise anyone to divorce. I suggest people need to work things out. While there might be a legal loophole, it is clear that God intended marriage to be till death do us part.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irenaeus,

    I think you have to take what Christ said and what Paul said together. They do not contradict each other. So there must be a way to understand them in concert.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irene,
    "Yes, and the only exception is if one of them is an unbeliever, and the unbeliever wants to leave the relationship. With regard to two believers, the only options mentioned in this passage are to be reconciled with your spouse or to remain single."

    or death...don't forget death. why does everyone always skip over the obvious? remember, til DEATH do we part.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hmm. I need to slow down and proof my work more.
    I meant to write
    Mt 5:31-32 also mention divorce being NOT allowable except for the things known as sexual immorality as defined in Lev 18, 20, Dt 24:13-30,

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Iraneus,

    I wrote "A narrow interpretation of porneia would have made it less demanding, not more."

    You replied, "Wrong! A narrower interpretation of porneia makes it more demanding, not less. Think about it - taking the limiting case such that porneia is so norrow as to render absolutely no exception, then that would be even more demanding, right? Going the other way, expanding porneia to mean burning breakfast would of course make the teaching less demanding."

    No, you miss my point. To take a narrow definition of porneia to would reduce the qualifications of what is adultery. But in fact, Lev 18, 20, dt 24:13-30 all deal with multiple variations of adultery and other sexually illicit behavior (sex with animals for example). What Christ was saying is that if you divorce without the excuse of the other person having committed sexually illicit behavior, then you cause that person to become an adulterer. Otherwise, they are already an adulterer. Christ was saying people should not divorce for just any reason, but for the reason God gave in Dt 24:1-4, and rather than 'indecency', Christ spelled out what that meant with the term porneia.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    "Also, 1 Cor 7:10-15 give reasons a believer may divorce and not being bound by the marriage."

    Yes, and the only exception is if one of them is an unbeliever, and the unbeliever wants to leave the relationship. With regard to two believers, the only options mentioned in this passage are to be reconciled with your spouse or to remain single.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    " think you are mistaken concerning porneia. Christ used both porneia and moicheuo in Mat 5. The two are very distinctly different terms. Porneia covered all sexually immoral acts (such as mentioned in Lev 18 and 20, Dt 22:13-30), while Moicheuo specifically means to commit adultery."

    F.F. Bruce advocated this as a possible meaning. Dr. Carl Laney of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary also advocates this as a plausible interpretion, as well as a number of others that I don't currently have at my fingertips.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,
    Yeah, that scripture from I Corinthians 7 is pretty cut-and-dried.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I wrote, "sinful men and women can and have terminated it."

    irenaeus replied, "This is untrue. Men and women can act as if they have terminated it, but in actuality, they haven't, which is precisely why if a divorced believer remarries, they are committing adultery."

    Actually, you are wrong.

    Dt 24:1-4 deals with the fact of divorce - and it does not mention the man doing something wrong unless he remarried the wife whom he had divorced and whom had married a second husband and then was later frees from that marriage through divorce or death.

    Mt 5:31-32 also mention divorce being allowable except for the things known as sexual immorality as defined in Lev 18, 20, Dt 24:13-30,

    Also, 1 Cor 7:10-15 give reasons a believer may divorce and not being bound by the marriage.

    So, while marriage should be until death, the Bible recognizes the weaknesses of mankind and provides reasons why it is allowable.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    "A narrow interpretation of porneia would have made it less demanding, not more."

    Wrong! A narrower interpretation of porneia makes it more demanding, not less. Think about it - taking the limiting case such that porneia is so norrow as to render absolutely no exception, then that would be even more demanding, right? Going the other way, expanding porneia to mean burning breakfast would of course make the teaching less demanding.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But, then again, when dealing with a poser like him, maybe it's not.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hahahaha...that's not right! yeah, i think that might be a little much.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i almost went with "isquealfine" but thought that would be too much.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer,

    "The gray issue how do Christians and churches deal with these sins. For us to set blanket standards of discipline is in my opinion to try and make this gray issue a black and white issue."

    I agree that there can be various approaches to how to deal with these sins from a pastoral perspective. But there are certainly some things surrounding this that remain black and white – namely, that remarriage following divorce is adulterous – period. To remain in this state is to remain in an adulterous relationship. Repenting in this situation means to turn from the sinful adulterous lifestyle and turn toward God, so by definition, to remain in a sexual relationship with one's 'second' spouse is to remain in an adulterous relationship. Where the pastoral approach can differ between cases is when a couple should separate, when one or both parties should reconcile with their 'previous' spouse, or whether they should remain together (say, for the sake of children of the 'second' marriage) but live as brother and sister; i.e., as chaste singles.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hahaha, jester,
    You picked up on that? LOL. I like that... "ifeelswine"

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    now, proph, could you be speaking of someone in particular (*cough* ifeelkine *cough*)?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I,
    5th, Christ taught the only reason to divorce is if the other committed some sort of sexual immorality a defined in the Law. Some teachers taught Dt 24;:1-4 saying the indecency should be some sort of immorality, but other rabbis taught differently, to the point that in practice the men would put aside the women for what ever reason they chose - regardless if immorality had occurred.

    6th, It was not just marital unfaithfulness Christ wanted to convey - it included the entire gamut of illicit relations between a man and woman seen in Dt 18, 20. Otherwise, he would have used the term Moicheuo.

    7th, I agree that the Jewish nature of Matthew's audience is what required Christ to mention porneia as an exception to reasons to not divorce, specifically because of Dt 24:1-4.

    8th, There was no need to issue the exception to Paul's Gentile audience because they would not be familiar with Dt. 24:1-4, so there was no need to address this issue.

    9th, If the man in 1 Cor 5:1-8 had been married to his step-mother, surely Paul would have addressed this when he dealt with marriage. but as you mentioned he did not mention an exception .

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I,

    I think you are mistaken concerning porneia. Christ used both porneia and moicheuo in Mat 5. The two are very distinctly different terms. Porneia covered all sexually immoral acts (such as mentioned in Lev 18 and 20, Dt 22:13-30), while Moicheuo specifically means to commit adultery.

    You are the first to mention that porneia could mean unlawful marriage. I have never heard it, nor read it. I had to go look at many commentaries to find a single mention of this idea.

    1st, After searching many commentaries, I found only one that mentioned the term 'has' referring to marriage, as in the incestuous marriage Herod had his brother Phillip's wife (Mt 14:2-4). All other commentaries stated the term 'has' is a euphemism for sexual relations. This is supported by the discussion of sex within marriage and the term 'have' in 1 Cor 7:1-5. 1 Cor 5:1-5 refers to a man having sex with hist father's wife. It is unclear whether they were married. She was probably an unbeliever, since there was no mention of sanctioning her - which would be appropriate if she was an unbeliever. It may be the father was dead. Even if this was the case, porneia would still apply as this would be covered by Lev 18:8, 20:11.

    2nd, Acts 15:20,29 refer to immoral sex as defined by the old testament, which we can see in Lev 18, 20, Dt 22:13-30. This would include sex with kin.

    3rd. Christ is the Son of God. He would have taught what God the Father told Him to teach, regardless of whether some human school taught it or not.

    4th, Christ was dealing with the issues of the heart in Mt 5, and took the law further than had been humanly interpreted to that point. Ie. murder:anger, adultery:lust, divorce:adultery, oath:honesty. To say that Christ would not broadly interpret porneia is to ignore the context of the text of Mt 5. He took the normal meaning of what the rabbiis taught concerning the law and made it more demanding. A narrow interpretation of porneia would have made it less demanding, not more.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But I do dislike these people masquerading as Christians coming in here trying to flaunt their humanistic, carnal view of the Bible. It's really annoying. I'm gonna stop responding to them.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine,
    Of course I kept the money....and paid tithes on it too!

    Um, no, I'm not walking lightly. I know where I stand. And it is solid as a Rock, thanks.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links