Dear Prof. Gagnon, to be honest, I don't understand the point of the card game analogy. Two groups only can play the game together after negotiating on the rules. The rules are not made by the cards but by the people playing the game. Using the same set of cards you could play different games depending on the rules applied. The analogy does not explain why a certain set of rules have to be applied, yet this is the point you seem to be trying to make - the understanding of the one group on the rules is correct and has to be adhered to. (then only you accept the authority of Scripture and Jesus Lordship) The other group is wrong. This reveals a certain self centeredness. You seem to assume that a certain group of Christians have the only true view on homosexuality based on a certain interpretation of the texts. (which you call "plain reading", but the decision to do a plain reading already is part of an interpretation.) In my perspective this ignores that morality is not about right and wrong but it is about good and evil. Something that is right according to the law, could still be evil. And something that is at first sight prohibited may still be good. And to be clear I don't want to question the goodness of the law here in general. Let me provide some examples. Even though work was prohibited on the Sabbath, Jesus was healing people. The Law was made for people and not the people for the Law. Or take the example where people said they were giving their valuable things to God instead of supporting their parents who were in need. Jesus clearly said that thus you would not have to honor your parents at all. When people are thrown out by their families and churches for being gay and maybe ending up on the streets as homeless I think that should be a point when we need to ask ourselves whether we are following rules for the rules sake or whether such decisions are made out of true love for our neighbors. Paul makes it clear that the law is for the lawless one and not for the righteous. God already made us righteous through the blood of Jesus. When God puts his law into our hearts as he promised and pours his Holy Spirit into us, then we will act on it being motivated by our heart. (And interestingly most of gay people don't claim that God changes their attraction, why wouldn't He?) We will then be motivated by love and not by fear. (1John 4,18) And we will simply follow our innate impulses. That is how good works follow that are due to faith. That is what I believe it means to be the image of God. It is God's spirit dwelling in us and guiding us through life's decisions. Doing the law out of fear is nothing because only that which we do out of love really counts (1Cor 13). As long as we still need a law or rules we have not yet been made perfect in love, because love is the fulfillment of the law. Someone who loves does not need a law for doing good. Love always does the good for others. God bless, Thomas
Dear Prof. Gagnon,
to be honest, I don't understand the point of the card game analogy. Two groups only can play the game together after negotiating on the rules.
The rules are not made by the cards but by the people playing the game. Using the same set of cards you could play different games depending on the rules applied.
The analogy does not explain why a certain set of rules have to be applied, yet this is the point you seem to be trying to make - the understanding of the one group on the rules is correct and has to be adhered to. (then only you accept the authority of Scripture and Jesus Lordship) The other group is wrong. This reveals a certain self centeredness.
You seem to assume that a certain group of Christians have the only true view on homosexuality based on a certain interpretation of the texts. (which you call "plain reading", but the decision to do a plain reading already is part of an interpretation.)
In my perspective this ignores that morality is not about right and wrong but it is about good and evil. Something that is right according to the law, could still be evil. And something that is at first sight prohibited may still be good. And to be clear I don't want to question the goodness of the law here in general. Let me provide some examples.
Even though work was prohibited on the Sabbath, Jesus was healing people. The Law was made for people and not the people for the Law.
Or take the example where people said they were giving their valuable things to God instead of supporting their parents who were in need. Jesus clearly said that thus you would not have to honor your parents at all.
When people are thrown out by their families and churches for being gay and maybe ending up on the streets as homeless I think that should be a point when we need to ask ourselves whether we are following rules for the rules sake or whether such decisions are made out of true love for our neighbors.
Paul makes it clear that the law is for the lawless one and not for the righteous.
God already made us righteous through the blood of Jesus.
When God puts his law into our hearts as he promised and pours his Holy Spirit into us, then we will act on it being motivated by our heart. (And interestingly most of gay people don't claim that God changes their attraction, why wouldn't He?)
We will then be motivated by love and not by fear. (1John 4,18) And we will simply follow our innate impulses. That is how good works follow that are due to faith.
That is what I believe it means to be the image of God. It is God's spirit dwelling in us and guiding us through life's decisions.
Doing the law out of fear is nothing because only that which we do out of love really counts (1Cor 13).
As long as we still need a law or rules we have not yet been made perfect in love, because love is the fulfillment of the law. Someone who loves does not need a law for doing good. Love always does the good for others.
God bless, Thomas