Andrew - you and Spencer frequently bring tears to my eyes with your beautiful commentaries. As several other people have said much better than me, your writings are both profound, beautifully written, and make our faith journey much more real. I was a religion major in college but have learned much more by reading these commentaries than I learned from all my professors. Would really appreciate it if you and Spencer would make these writings into a book.
You need to share these commentaries with so many others. Blessings to you both.
Well said Andrew, hate the sin, but love the sinner! As challenging as that can be, to fail to abide by that rule would leave us with no option but to hate and condemn ourselves. Funny thing about concupiscence, we all seem to see our own as somehow less damning than that of others. We can love each other and be tolerant of each other’s failings without celebrating sin. It doesn’t seem that difficult to me.
I agree that part of what “judge not” means is we aren’t another persons final judge, God is (additional it means, don’t be a hypocrite). But with the guidance of scripture we can judge behavior. Jesus told the woman at the well to sin no more. He is the final judge and spoke more of hell than Paul did (Paul never mentioned it). To encourage a person to sin isn’t loving them.
Andrew. The letters you and Spencer are exchanging have been brilliant and edifying in so many ways. But this - this! You have articulated my beliefs in ways I could never express so eloquently. Some of the powerful stories Jesus tells - the woman at the well, the Good Samaritan, the woman not stoned for adultery, and certainly the Prodigal Son - all speak to the unexpected mercy of God. Every one of them defies the religious rules of the day. Those rules are replaced with love and forgiveness. Like the older brother in the Prodigal Son story, the church needs to be faithful to the father and hard working to keep the farm running and the land prosperous. But there will always be those pesky younger brothers that remind us of the incredible power of God’s mercy and love abundant.
Thank you, Andrew, for bringing this up. It surely is the elephant in the room we would all like to ignore, leave to God to judge and just say, you sin your way and I will sin mine. Ok, we can not fully understand these Gnarly problems of mortality, but we can understand Gods love and mercy in the form of Jesus Christ, as said. I love that you keep moving, keep progressing toward more truth and a Christ-like character, even if it means leaving behind those churches and doctrines that do not satisfy. I love that you have submitted to God and will let Him lead you on through the Holy Spirit, admitting the paradoxes and perplexities. Some day we will see more clearly those who serve God and those who serve themselves. Until that day, let us be found doing good, praying without ceasing and gathering together a great army of Gods people to serve him and bring glory to Him. You are loved.
Only got to this essay today. As much as I like Matt Fradd, on your second point, Fradd is wrong. Matthew 25:31-46 tells us this explicitly, the good anf faithful servants who claim that they never knew Him. Once again, it is our love, expressed in action, which speaks for us in the eyes of the King. Jesus returns to this refrain again and again, telling us that those who call out “Lord Lord” but do not act with love will not enter the kingdom. I have not been able to locate the precise passages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but it affirms that Christ’s second coming will judge all men, and it is not those who cry “Lord” but those who do care for the least of their brothers who will enter the Kingdom. Fradd’s belief may be old-style Catholic belief, but is not upheld to my knowledge by the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
As for sins, including homosexual acts, the Magesterium has spoken clearly. The acts, as mentioned in another comment, Paul Timothy Jensen, is correct. The ethics are founded in natural law, and the only licit sexual acts are within marriage, and marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and those sexual acts must be open to conception. Therefore, mutual masturbation, all homosexual acts, or any sexual act targeting some other bodily orifice is not licit. Natural family planning is allowed in that the possibility of conception is present. There is nothing which compels a couple to have intercourse when the woman is fertile, as long as the choice is mutual. Likewise, after menopause, there is no difficulty with relations, as the infertility was not intended. Vasectomy and artificial birth control act counter to the natural scheme, and are therefore not morally licit (sorry about the long discourse, but an explanation why homosexual acts may not ever be considered licit and are felt to be a serious sin in the eyes of the Church). Do we condemn those who actively practice homosexual acts? No, but as these are harmful acts they should be discouraged. We can discuss how these acts harm the practitioners, but I have one more point I wish to bring up.
Klavan the Elder raised the question of allowing Eucharist to those who are in a serious state of sin. Jesus again gives us the parable of those invited to the feast and are provided with the proper clothing for the feast. The man (of course it was a man) who refused to dress properly was bound hand and foot and cast out into the darkness where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Our proper presentation to the Eucharist should be in a state of grace. There are two reasons for withholding the Eucharist. The first is that if one is in a state of serious (Mortal) sin is not worthy, and one who knowingly takes the Eucharist is not able to derive benefit of it. In effect, it is another serious sin if done knowingly (and one can only commit mortal sin knowingly).
An experience from my prior life will illustrate this. We had an emergency admission of a morbidly obese female, who was semicomatose. Repeated studies including MRI and bloodwork could not determine the cause. We did everything that was possible, hydrating the patient, treating for infection, and so forth, but became comatose and eventually died. Prior to her death, our brilliant infectious disease physician noted some mucosal membrane injury, and got additional information from the family. She had decided to lose weight, and for 6 months ate nothing but a little mashed potato and diet soda. We checked thiamine levels, and they were essentially zero. When we hydrated her, we used saline and dextrose, which triggered Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome with destruction of several centers in her brain, causing her death. Her body was not prepared for normal food, and it caused her death. Just so, a person in serious sin will come to harm if not properly prepared to receive real food and real drink.
Finally, we cannot know the mind of God, and what ways He works. I am not saying anything to condemn anyone. I wish all well in their journeys and hope all will meet up at the biggest party in all creation. However, the second reason to withhold Eucharist is to prevent Scandal in the Church, which in this case means leading others to sin by the acceptance of such actions. For instance, It is my belief that those who full-throatedly support abortion, euthanasia and transgender mutilation should be not just denied the Eucharist but excommunicated, as their actions condemn them as causing positive harm to others, and allowing them the Eucharist will not only harm them but cause others to believe that the Church, and by extension, Christ, approves of these actions. The Church is always open to those who truly repent, and may enter back into full communion with the Church, but this decision is on the sinner, not the Church.
This moved me as much as any of these I've read, and in it, I feel all of my inadequate searching made whole. I feel this tension, while longing for Christ.
I watched that interview between you and Matt Fradd. He was drilling down his point on the topic you raised here. I loved your very calm demeanor and gracious, respectful responses.
Brother Andrew your approach is intimacy with Christ as John 17-3 states and indeed is the Way to His Peace and His power for living. It doesn't seem possible to know the one true God and His son Jesus, accidentally, but must be on purpose recognizing our "need" for a Saviour. Jesus said in His own words that He is the "Way", the "Truth" and the "Life" and no one comes to the Father but through Him. I do not know how God works that out but it will be His way which way is not like ours but as Christians we , I believe are called to help others, as the Holy Spirit leads us, to consider Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life and to work out our salvation in fear and trembling as we do so! God bless and thank you and Spencer for all you do for His Kingdom!!!
Andrew- Thank you for clearly explaining the exact situation millions of professing Christians find themselves in, myself included. As I sit down to meditate, your words help me focus my prayer and sharpen my desire to listen.
Well said. It brings to mind the way C.S. Lewis put it The Great Divorce: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
Thank you for yet another well-written and thoughtful essay! It reminds me of something Emmanuel Swedenborg wrote back in the late 1760s. It’s from a book called Marriage Love, sometimes translated Conjugial Love, section 523, here:
The Lord says: “Judge not, that ye be not condemned.” (Matt. vii. 1)
By this can by no means be meant the judgment of the moral and civil life of any one in the world, but the judgment as to his spiritual and heavenly life.
Who does not see that if one may not judge as to the moral life of those that dwell with him in the world, society would perish? What would society be if there were no public judgments? Or if every one might not form his judgment of another?
But to judge what his interior mind or soul is, thus what is his spiritual state and therefore his lot after death, of this one may not judge, for it is known to the Lord only; and the Lord does not reveal it until after death, in order that every one may do what he does in freedom, and that by this fact the good or the evil shall be from him, and thus in him; and thence that he may live to himself and be his own to eternity.
That the interiors of the mind, hidden in the world, are revealed after death, is because it is of interest and of advantage to the societies into which man then comes; for there all are spiritual. That they are then revealed is plain from these words of the Lord:
“There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hidden that shall not be made known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which you have spoken in the ear in closets, shall be proclaimed from the housetops" (Luke xii. 2, 3).
A general judgment like the following is allowable:
“If in internals you are such as you appear in externals you will be saved, or will be condemned.”
But a particular judgment such as, “You are such in internals and therefore will be saved, or will be condemned,” is not allowable.
The judgment of a man’s spiritual life, or of the internal life of his soul, is meant by the imputation here treated of. Who among men knows which one is a whoremonger at heart? Or which one is a good husband at heart? And yet the thoughts of the heart, which are the purposes of the will, are what judge every man.
Sexual immorality is a sin and it is not loving to leave your brother or sister in unrepentant sin. The loving thing is to share God’s word and encourage repentance. (This goes for all sins). It is also not loving to keep the good news of Christ from people who do good yet do not know Christ. I agree we shouldn’t judge or be self-righteous, we are all sinners, but we should guide each other to repentance. And I agree that God will have mercy on who he wants, and he will call the elect, but that doesn’t let us off the hook to spread the gospel.
Interesting that you wrote this on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned. I feel it may be a little early in the UK liberal-conservative pendulum swing to be a boon to the church. I pray they pick someone with actual Christian values instead of a corporate climber.
Beautifully expressed. The tension between two poles that makes for a life truly lived. I think of the line between Order and Chaos (Jordan Peterson). Or: Can I trust Jesus more than myself? - Pastor Paul VanderKlay (friend of Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, and John Vervaeke)
Thank you Andrew. There is a wideness in God’s mercy as the hymn affirms.
Over many years I’ve come to these conclusions.
1. The only unique sexual act is coitus.
2. Homoeroticism is involuntary.
3. There is no sexual act unique to two men or two women, so in evaluating sexual acts, one is not being homophobic.
4. Any act that gratuitously harms the human body is wrong. So, anal intercourse is always wrong even when engaged in by consenting adults.
5. Any act that degrades or dehumanizes, even when engaged in by consenting adults, is morally wrong. So “water sports” such as urinating into the mouth or rectum is wrong as is felching and other related acts.
I’d be interested to know whether you agree or disagree. Blessings to you my brother. I’ve recommended your book A Great Good Thing to many.
Andrew - you and Spencer frequently bring tears to my eyes with your beautiful commentaries. As several other people have said much better than me, your writings are both profound, beautifully written, and make our faith journey much more real. I was a religion major in college but have learned much more by reading these commentaries than I learned from all my professors. Would really appreciate it if you and Spencer would make these writings into a book.
You need to share these commentaries with so many others. Blessings to you both.
Richard
Agreed.
Well said Andrew, hate the sin, but love the sinner! As challenging as that can be, to fail to abide by that rule would leave us with no option but to hate and condemn ourselves. Funny thing about concupiscence, we all seem to see our own as somehow less damning than that of others. We can love each other and be tolerant of each other’s failings without celebrating sin. It doesn’t seem that difficult to me.
I agree that part of what “judge not” means is we aren’t another persons final judge, God is (additional it means, don’t be a hypocrite). But with the guidance of scripture we can judge behavior. Jesus told the woman at the well to sin no more. He is the final judge and spoke more of hell than Paul did (Paul never mentioned it). To encourage a person to sin isn’t loving them.
Andrew. The letters you and Spencer are exchanging have been brilliant and edifying in so many ways. But this - this! You have articulated my beliefs in ways I could never express so eloquently. Some of the powerful stories Jesus tells - the woman at the well, the Good Samaritan, the woman not stoned for adultery, and certainly the Prodigal Son - all speak to the unexpected mercy of God. Every one of them defies the religious rules of the day. Those rules are replaced with love and forgiveness. Like the older brother in the Prodigal Son story, the church needs to be faithful to the father and hard working to keep the farm running and the land prosperous. But there will always be those pesky younger brothers that remind us of the incredible power of God’s mercy and love abundant.
Thank you, Andrew, for bringing this up. It surely is the elephant in the room we would all like to ignore, leave to God to judge and just say, you sin your way and I will sin mine. Ok, we can not fully understand these Gnarly problems of mortality, but we can understand Gods love and mercy in the form of Jesus Christ, as said. I love that you keep moving, keep progressing toward more truth and a Christ-like character, even if it means leaving behind those churches and doctrines that do not satisfy. I love that you have submitted to God and will let Him lead you on through the Holy Spirit, admitting the paradoxes and perplexities. Some day we will see more clearly those who serve God and those who serve themselves. Until that day, let us be found doing good, praying without ceasing and gathering together a great army of Gods people to serve him and bring glory to Him. You are loved.
Only got to this essay today. As much as I like Matt Fradd, on your second point, Fradd is wrong. Matthew 25:31-46 tells us this explicitly, the good anf faithful servants who claim that they never knew Him. Once again, it is our love, expressed in action, which speaks for us in the eyes of the King. Jesus returns to this refrain again and again, telling us that those who call out “Lord Lord” but do not act with love will not enter the kingdom. I have not been able to locate the precise passages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but it affirms that Christ’s second coming will judge all men, and it is not those who cry “Lord” but those who do care for the least of their brothers who will enter the Kingdom. Fradd’s belief may be old-style Catholic belief, but is not upheld to my knowledge by the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
As for sins, including homosexual acts, the Magesterium has spoken clearly. The acts, as mentioned in another comment, Paul Timothy Jensen, is correct. The ethics are founded in natural law, and the only licit sexual acts are within marriage, and marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and those sexual acts must be open to conception. Therefore, mutual masturbation, all homosexual acts, or any sexual act targeting some other bodily orifice is not licit. Natural family planning is allowed in that the possibility of conception is present. There is nothing which compels a couple to have intercourse when the woman is fertile, as long as the choice is mutual. Likewise, after menopause, there is no difficulty with relations, as the infertility was not intended. Vasectomy and artificial birth control act counter to the natural scheme, and are therefore not morally licit (sorry about the long discourse, but an explanation why homosexual acts may not ever be considered licit and are felt to be a serious sin in the eyes of the Church). Do we condemn those who actively practice homosexual acts? No, but as these are harmful acts they should be discouraged. We can discuss how these acts harm the practitioners, but I have one more point I wish to bring up.
Klavan the Elder raised the question of allowing Eucharist to those who are in a serious state of sin. Jesus again gives us the parable of those invited to the feast and are provided with the proper clothing for the feast. The man (of course it was a man) who refused to dress properly was bound hand and foot and cast out into the darkness where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Our proper presentation to the Eucharist should be in a state of grace. There are two reasons for withholding the Eucharist. The first is that if one is in a state of serious (Mortal) sin is not worthy, and one who knowingly takes the Eucharist is not able to derive benefit of it. In effect, it is another serious sin if done knowingly (and one can only commit mortal sin knowingly).
An experience from my prior life will illustrate this. We had an emergency admission of a morbidly obese female, who was semicomatose. Repeated studies including MRI and bloodwork could not determine the cause. We did everything that was possible, hydrating the patient, treating for infection, and so forth, but became comatose and eventually died. Prior to her death, our brilliant infectious disease physician noted some mucosal membrane injury, and got additional information from the family. She had decided to lose weight, and for 6 months ate nothing but a little mashed potato and diet soda. We checked thiamine levels, and they were essentially zero. When we hydrated her, we used saline and dextrose, which triggered Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome with destruction of several centers in her brain, causing her death. Her body was not prepared for normal food, and it caused her death. Just so, a person in serious sin will come to harm if not properly prepared to receive real food and real drink.
Finally, we cannot know the mind of God, and what ways He works. I am not saying anything to condemn anyone. I wish all well in their journeys and hope all will meet up at the biggest party in all creation. However, the second reason to withhold Eucharist is to prevent Scandal in the Church, which in this case means leading others to sin by the acceptance of such actions. For instance, It is my belief that those who full-throatedly support abortion, euthanasia and transgender mutilation should be not just denied the Eucharist but excommunicated, as their actions condemn them as causing positive harm to others, and allowing them the Eucharist will not only harm them but cause others to believe that the Church, and by extension, Christ, approves of these actions. The Church is always open to those who truly repent, and may enter back into full communion with the Church, but this decision is on the sinner, not the Church.
This moved me as much as any of these I've read, and in it, I feel all of my inadequate searching made whole. I feel this tension, while longing for Christ.
I watched that interview between you and Matt Fradd. He was drilling down his point on the topic you raised here. I loved your very calm demeanor and gracious, respectful responses.
Brother Andrew your approach is intimacy with Christ as John 17-3 states and indeed is the Way to His Peace and His power for living. It doesn't seem possible to know the one true God and His son Jesus, accidentally, but must be on purpose recognizing our "need" for a Saviour. Jesus said in His own words that He is the "Way", the "Truth" and the "Life" and no one comes to the Father but through Him. I do not know how God works that out but it will be His way which way is not like ours but as Christians we , I believe are called to help others, as the Holy Spirit leads us, to consider Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life and to work out our salvation in fear and trembling as we do so! God bless and thank you and Spencer for all you do for His Kingdom!!!
Andrew- Thank you for clearly explaining the exact situation millions of professing Christians find themselves in, myself included. As I sit down to meditate, your words help me focus my prayer and sharpen my desire to listen.
Well said. It brings to mind the way C.S. Lewis put it The Great Divorce: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
Andrew,
Thank you for yet another well-written and thoughtful essay! It reminds me of something Emmanuel Swedenborg wrote back in the late 1760s. It’s from a book called Marriage Love, sometimes translated Conjugial Love, section 523, here:
The Lord says: “Judge not, that ye be not condemned.” (Matt. vii. 1)
By this can by no means be meant the judgment of the moral and civil life of any one in the world, but the judgment as to his spiritual and heavenly life.
Who does not see that if one may not judge as to the moral life of those that dwell with him in the world, society would perish? What would society be if there were no public judgments? Or if every one might not form his judgment of another?
But to judge what his interior mind or soul is, thus what is his spiritual state and therefore his lot after death, of this one may not judge, for it is known to the Lord only; and the Lord does not reveal it until after death, in order that every one may do what he does in freedom, and that by this fact the good or the evil shall be from him, and thus in him; and thence that he may live to himself and be his own to eternity.
That the interiors of the mind, hidden in the world, are revealed after death, is because it is of interest and of advantage to the societies into which man then comes; for there all are spiritual. That they are then revealed is plain from these words of the Lord:
“There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hidden that shall not be made known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which you have spoken in the ear in closets, shall be proclaimed from the housetops" (Luke xii. 2, 3).
A general judgment like the following is allowable:
“If in internals you are such as you appear in externals you will be saved, or will be condemned.”
But a particular judgment such as, “You are such in internals and therefore will be saved, or will be condemned,” is not allowable.
The judgment of a man’s spiritual life, or of the internal life of his soul, is meant by the imputation here treated of. Who among men knows which one is a whoremonger at heart? Or which one is a good husband at heart? And yet the thoughts of the heart, which are the purposes of the will, are what judge every man.
Sexual immorality is a sin and it is not loving to leave your brother or sister in unrepentant sin. The loving thing is to share God’s word and encourage repentance. (This goes for all sins). It is also not loving to keep the good news of Christ from people who do good yet do not know Christ. I agree we shouldn’t judge or be self-righteous, we are all sinners, but we should guide each other to repentance. And I agree that God will have mercy on who he wants, and he will call the elect, but that doesn’t let us off the hook to spread the gospel.
Interesting that you wrote this on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned. I feel it may be a little early in the UK liberal-conservative pendulum swing to be a boon to the church. I pray they pick someone with actual Christian values instead of a corporate climber.
Beautifully expressed. The tension between two poles that makes for a life truly lived. I think of the line between Order and Chaos (Jordan Peterson). Or: Can I trust Jesus more than myself? - Pastor Paul VanderKlay (friend of Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, and John Vervaeke)
Thank you Andrew. There is a wideness in God’s mercy as the hymn affirms.
Over many years I’ve come to these conclusions.
1. The only unique sexual act is coitus.
2. Homoeroticism is involuntary.
3. There is no sexual act unique to two men or two women, so in evaluating sexual acts, one is not being homophobic.
4. Any act that gratuitously harms the human body is wrong. So, anal intercourse is always wrong even when engaged in by consenting adults.
5. Any act that degrades or dehumanizes, even when engaged in by consenting adults, is morally wrong. So “water sports” such as urinating into the mouth or rectum is wrong as is felching and other related acts.
I’d be interested to know whether you agree or disagree. Blessings to you my brother. I’ve recommended your book A Great Good Thing to many.