In the aftermath of New Life Church pastor Ted Haggard’s fall from grace amid allegations of gay sex and drug use, a subtle controversy emerged among conservative Christians.
Three weeks after the Colorado Springs pastor left for an undisclosed treatment center to grapple with his sexuality, pastor Tim Ralph announced that Haggard had emerged from those meetings “completely heterosexual.” Among those who questioned this pronouncement was Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, an umbrella organization for what is called the ex-gay movement. Chambers politely contended that Ralph had possibly misunderstood the dynamics of sexuality involved in the Haggard case. He was quick to caution that Haggard’s story is not typical of people involved in ex-gay therapy and that “recovery” from homosexuality is a long process.
The ex-gay movement is controversial and misunderstood. Essentially, ex-gay leaders argue that homosexuality is caused by a particular kind of home environment and that homosexuals can change their behavior with the help of therapy and through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Two recent books help make sense of the ex-gay movement and its complexities through careful research. Tanya Erzen wrote Straight to Jesus after spending a year at New Hope Ministry in California, a residential treatment program for men who hope to change their homosexual behavior. Erzen interviewed both participants and leaders, attended group meetings, worked in New Hope’s office and helped design the ministry’s Web site. Her book draws on a wealth of personal relationships.
At the heart of Erzen’s analysis is a point about ex-gay ministries that the media often miss: most ex-gay ministries are skeptical about their ability to “cure” homosexuality. While many people involved in these ministries have heterosexual marriage and biological children as their ultimate goal, and while they idealize heterosexual relationships, most ex-gay people find themselves part of a third category.
Ex-gay people believe that they will still experience homosexual desire and maybe even occasionally “fall,” but that through gradual religious conversion, sexual conversion can happen as well. “Sexual identity is malleable and changeable,” Erzen writes, “because it is completely entwined with religious conversion.” Religious conversion and sexual conversion are so linked that participants don’t change their sexual orientation so much as commit to a life of “following Jesus.” As one ex-gay woman put it, “First I considered myself a lesbian, then a woman who struggles with lesbianism; now I consider myself a woman of God.”
A well-written review, considering the complexities of the issue addressed by these two books. I’ll be going to the bookstore soon!
Too complex and nuanced for reappraisers. They want immediate and full relief from same sex attraction or full approval.
That’s a great sentence. Too often, we hear about people trying to “convert” others sexually, as in a great Seinfeld about trying to get people to “switch teams.” This is all about the ego needs of the one doing the “proselytizing.”
Conversion is to Christ. This might well involve a call to celibacy and to the alternative forms of communal support described in the article.
Amy hit the nail on the head. First she considered herself a lesbian!
The major problem in dealing with GLB is that they cannot seperate who they are from what they do. So in a counseling setting, that is step one, the separation. If one considers oneself a Christian first, then the problem/sin will go away. In the tradition of Jeff Foxworthy: If you think the GLB lifestyle is not a sin…..You might be an Epsicopal Bishop; and if you think the Scriptures are nice literature, but that there are many avenues to God…..You might be an Episcopal Bishop.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. If a person is NOT a Christian, I see nothing wrong with being a pagan gay or lesbian person. There is absolutely NO justification in Scripture for that perverted lifestyle….only condenmation. Praise God that Amy was able to escape it ! !
#2, #4 – Did I miss the announcement of June as “National Sweeping Generalization Month”?
Rev. J.
I’m sorry, but you are misplaced in your assumption about “GLB” and the problem you perceive. There is no more separation between “GLB” people and what they do than there is between “straight” people and what they do.
While lots of people want to believe that we can separate orientation from the person, evidence suggests otherwise. As the review suggests and as personal experience supports, even those who believe themselves to be “ex-gay” still admit that they face a lifetime of struggle with same-sex attraction. Behaviors are the domain of action. Orientation is the domain of being.
Show me heterosexuals who can separate their heterosexual orientation from themselves and then perhaps I might be more able to see the consistency in your account of the “problem in dealing with GLB” people.
#5 Henry Troup re my #2,
I had just read “John Chilton Explains Why the Episcopal Church isn’t Growing: Simple People Want Simple Answers” over at Stand Firm. So I had just been confronted with the reappraiser claim that reasserters are simplistic in thinking. Clearly, the books reviewed in this article indicate a complex and nuanced understanding of overcoming same sex attraction. So I was reversing the accusation that reasserters want simple answers by claiming that reappraisers want simple answers to this complex and nuanced topic.
RE: “The major problem in dealing with GLB is that they cannot seperate who they are from what they do.”
So very true. And true for any person who is in counseling for anything at all! Much of the therapeutic process is about teaching the counselee that they are not their [feelings] or their [actions] or even their [thoughts]. That is one of the first steps towards gaining a sense of integrity and realism about how to deal with feelings/thoughts/actions.
The same thing for those who struggle with particular behavior. For instance, with someone who struggles with constant lying . . . the therapist helps a person understand why he or she lies, helps him or her to separate her actions of lying from her identity, helps him or her to reclaim a new identity, then helps him or her to change her behavior based on that new identity. In this way, someone may say “I’m not a liar, although I struggle sometimes with telling the truth — I am working to change this behavior and take responsibility for my actions.”
And of course . . . the gospel of Jesus Christ has so much to say and do with a “new identity”.
RE: “Show me heterosexuals who can separate their heterosexual orientation from themselves and then perhaps I might be more able to see the consistency in your account of the “problem in dealing with GLB†people.”
No BobG, the correct parallel is “heterosexuals who can separate their heterosexual orientation from their actions” . . . and that would be every Christian unmarried person who works to maintain sexual purity and avoid sexual relationships outside of marriage.
#6. Bob G+,
That is an interesting assertion, but making an assertion is a thoroughly different task from adducing objective evidence to support an argument. In addition to which, it would be nice if you defined your terms (specifically orientation) such that one might, at least, understand their precise meaning in your analysis, and, perhaps, assess the cogency of whatever assertion or argument you adduce.
Thank you very much Sarah. If I am oriented toward abusing children, that is what I am born with…right? Wrong! We all have urges to sin, it is called “temptation”. Living a life in Christ is about overcoming temptation, dying to oneself and living into Jesus. It is no different from someone who retires, and cannot seperate what he did from who he was….that is a miserable retiree! But, he can learn to seperate what he did from who he is, it just takes time and dedication to create a new life for himself.
Sarah, you wrote:
I agree with this, when consistently and equally applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Being able to recognize that one does not have to be controlled by one’s feelings/actions is very important. This is different, however, that trying to separate one’s orientation from one’s “being.” The degree to which sexual orientation drives behavior isn’t dictated by what that sexual orientation is.
Of course, the whole controversy is over whether there can be a place for homosexual relationships of any kind – unions, marriage, whatever. As I’ve said before, the jury is still out despite how many on both sides of the issue want the case to be closed.
#10 Martial Artist –
People on this blog have gone through this a thousand times before. If you want to get into this, then e-mail me off the blog.
As a man, I have a tremendous urge to have sex with every attractive woman I see. That is my “truth.” That will never go away. That has zero to do with whether I should act on such desires, and if I had lived a life of promiscuity, it would be a lifetime of having to redirect my thoughts and understanding towards a wholesome Christian life, both for myself and to reflect a Godly lifestyle with my friends, family, and faith community.
Bob G+:
WHO I am is child of God, and WHAT I am is alcoholic and several other nasty things. I’m not homosexual, but WHAT I am is equally hard to deal with. There are other orientations (WHATs) than sexual.
However, as child of God and adopted brother of Jesus Christ through baptism, I am also the adopted son of the Blessed Virgin and brother of all the saints who have successfully struggled with their WHATs before me and who cheer me on. Therefore, I can focus on my WHO rather than on my WHAT, and with Jesus’ help, and their help, become more like the WHO I am supposed to be. (Did that make sense? ^_^)
See Romans 7:13+.
Also, the Jury’s opinion about homosexuality (or about my things) isn’t relevant; the Judge has already decided.
In faith, Dave
RE: “Of course, the whole controversy is over whether there can be a place for homosexual relationships of any kind – unions, marriage, whatever. As I’ve said before, the jury is still out despite how many on both sides of the issue want the case to be closed.”
No Bob, the jury is not still out. In fact, both sides have determined their stance, and both sides are willing for the church to divide over their vision of the gospel’s identity.
Hence, “the controversy” is over who gets to be a part of the Anglican Communion now that the Episcopal church is divided.
Re ‘Who will be a member’… +++Rowan has done something definitive with the invitations but I can’t figure what: Has he decided to cut off both “extremes” and stick with the middle, or has he decided to stick with TEC’s money?
In faith, Dave
Hmmnnn…. Sorry. Got excited and got clear off the topic. Ignore the above.
In faith, Dave
Phil 4:8-9
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
RSV
……………………………………………………………………………..
Thoughts define us. We become that which we we allow our thoughts to dwell upon. I’m a married guy. When I see an attractive young lady I can choose to think: “Boy she’s hot! She’d be great in bed” or if she’s single, “She’s very attractive; she’ll make a lovely wife for some young man”. I believe alot of the problem is not being attentive to what’s going on inside our heads. The Holy Spirit will help us clean up our thinking if we truly want to be faithful witnesses to the glory of God.
Peace,
Barry
Sarah (#15) –
The jury is still out. All one has to do is look at the arguments over homosexuality that are going round and round, not just within Anglicanism but within all denominations and within society as a whole. Despite what some liberals want to claim and despite what some conservatives want to claim, most people are somewhere in between and undecided with regards to how it should all play out (the jury).
As someone alluded to above, the Judge will do the judging, but how we understand the Judge, how we understand Scripture and its application (rightly dividing the Word of God), does depend on the people.
My point is not to compare homosexuality to chattel-slavery, but to point out that people are the ones who accept or reject certain readings of Scripture and how we are to understand it and apply it. As I’ve said before, the people – society – (the jury) changed with regards to how we understood Scripture concerning slavery (remember the recent movie about William Wilberforce, ‘Amazing Grace’). The Tradition (reluctant tolerance for to outright Biblical justifications of slavery) changed because people had a “new” reading of and application of Scripture.
God’s Word doesn’t change – it means what God intends it to mean – but we do change and our understanding of its meaning changes, and hopefully more inline with God’s intent. I believe God does bring us into a more complete understanding of His intent as we are able to understand, be challenged by, and incorporate the change. Change happened concerning slavery and many other issues over the past couple of millennia.
I suggest the jury is still out over whether the issue of inclusion of people who have a homosexual orientation (which is not behavior) will have a full place in the Church or not and whether we have been or have not been mistaken in our reading of and application of certain verses of Scripture.
FYI for #19 – I don’t know why the “smiley” face appeared, but it shouldn’t be there. “… ‘Amazing Grace’).”
RE: “I suggest the jury is still out over whether the issue of inclusion of people who have a homosexual orientation (which is not behavior) will have a full place in the Church or not and whether we have been or have not been mistaken in our reading of and application of certain verses of Scripture.”
Bob G — nice switch there! ; > ) From the jury is still out about “whether there can be a place for homosexual relationships of any kind – unions, marriage, whatever” to these words “the inclusion of people who have a homosexual orientation”.
As we both know the two are quite different.
And though it is now a “no, you” assertion argument, the jury is not still out on either of your assertions.
You see, when you say “all one has to do is look at the arguments over homosexuality that are going round and round” I have to laugh. Those arguments are being made by people who have already made up their mind.
You’ve already made up your mind and I mine.
The truth is, those in the middle have already made up their mind, as well. They’re just wishing that you and I would stop arguing about it because they don’t want to be sucked into expressing what they’ve already decided they believe. And they’ll quietly indicate how they’ve made up their mind by choosing the various churches that end up coming from the split that will occur in every mainline denomination.
The consequences of that will be quite far-reaching. As of course, the vast majority of those who have made up their minds also happen to have very different gospels from the other side. In consequence of those different gospels the rift will be, in my opinion, permanent and deep and broad.
I am sorry that this is the “presenting symptom” issue that will end up inciting the remaking of the church in America. There are certainly other obvious “symptom” issues of the different gospels that the two sides believe in that are even more serious.
But there it is.
You’re whistling in the graveyard, BobG, if you think that the train has not “done left the station” . . . but I certainly can’t convince you of it. How about five years from now, if I’m still around, you let me know “you wuz right, Sarah”. ; > )
Sarah –
As you know, it is all tied together. Decisions about the legitimacy of such a thing as “orientation,” which by now is pretty much accepted, decisions about the acceptability and legal status of same-sex relationships within society, and fights about whether homosexuals can have a place within the Church universal – some saying not at all, some saying only if celebrate, some saying that forms of same-sex relationships are permissible. All three (and others I’m sure) use Scripture to back up their points of view, some for effectively than others.
My mind isn’t made up, Sarah. I want God’s Truth, and where that Truth resides is where I want to be. I was a strong proponent of one side, but because of Scripture I changed my mind. I am open to change, again, but I have yet to read better arguments from the side I formally agreed with.
I try to keep up with what is going on in American Evangelicalism, because that is where I grew up. I am amazed at the number of people who are engaging for the first time in the issue of the place of homosexuals in society and the Church, particularly by the younger folk. The Emergent Church conversation and many others are really taking a seeking perspective, a middle group, thinking that God may well be doing something but cautious and not sure. Despite what the politicized Religious Right claims, American Evangelicals (and Catholics and lot of others) are deeply engaged in this, and many are changing their opinions to the chagrin of their leaders.
We are in the midst of fundamental period of change all the way around – socially and religiously. Times of tumult and conflict are inevitable, but as Christians how are we to respond and act? The question for me is whether we are realistic, honest, consistent, humble, and open to real conversation as we strive to grow in our understand of God and His will. I think the best way to do this is with people with whom we disagree – it keeps us honest – as long as we can still love them as Christ loves them. Too many of are unwilling or unable to do this, regrettably and for whatever reason.
We shall see what happens. My purview isn’t on the next five years, but the next fifty. I probably won’t be around, but I pray God’s will be done.
RE: “I am amazed at the number of people who are engaging for the first time in the issue of the place of homosexuals in society and the Church, particularly by the younger folk.”
Yep — we’re “engaging” all right. ; > )
RE: “The Emergent Church conversation and many others are really taking a seeking perspective, a middle group, thinking that God may well be doing something but cautious and not sure.”
No, actually the progressives — you know, the ones who also have made up their minds — are simply regathering and clustering themselves under new names. A transparently obvious move, sort of like Jimmy Carter’s “new” [but really old] church formation of progressives into another grouping.
I’ll grant you one thing. The very young — as with every generation — have to make up their minds. And they will.
Those who wish to claim to be “Christian” will pretty much segment out into those churches with 1) Gospel A, and those with 2) Gospel B.
Those who do not wish to claim to be “Christian” will pretty much segment out into 1) conservative and 2) liberal.
You know — as all of these “new” issues have been determined over time.
I’m not so much interested in the latter divisions in the secular world; I’m more interested in the Christian church. And as I’ve said over this thread — the decisions have been long made, Bob G, and the only thing we have to observe is the church fallout.
I think in the church world, at least, those with the reappraising gospel will need to somehow learn to evangelize for their “young converts who are already progressive” since statistically speaking, we know that progressive churches are not actually producing the children. And those of us with the reasserting gospel will need to make certain that our children are formed and discipled.
But I am confident that the churches with the reasserting gospel will have plenty of children, and those with the reappraising gospel will have to work plenty hard to attrach the “seeker younger folk who are progressive”.
Once those divisions are complete — and remember, both sides are willing for the church to divide over their gospel — it will be interesting to observe how things go for those two types of churches.
Bob G+, the basic fact is that God has said homosexual acts are detestible abominations, and our problem is how to secure greater understanding of and obedience to that Word. Whether people AGREE with it is in the end not relevant, except that the disagree-ers will cause God a great deal of anguish because of their separation from him.
The truth you’re looking for was expressed thousands of years ago, and all the efforts of “searchers” hasn’t changed it since. It’s good that so many people, especially the young, are “engaged” on the issue of homosexuality… IF that engagement results in greater obedience to God’s Word and not just more intellectual efforts to distort and destroy it.
For, of course, it can’t be destroyed, nor even distorted for very long, as will be seen when we all gather before the Great White Throne. There REALLY IS a Lake of Fire. I hope I can stay out of it myself. Your role as priest is to bring people the message that they are so much in need of God’s salvation and so much in need of admitting and repenting their sins. If you do that you will save them, and God, a great deal of sorrow.
Reality is needed, not wishful thinking about a jury still being out.
In faith, Dave
Um, back to the article….
I think it would help a great deal if we stopped calling people “gay” and “straight’ altogether, since there is no real scientific evidence to support such dichotomies, and stand with the actual evidence that the default of human sexuality is somewhere on a continuum of bisexuality. Thus, one is never an “ex-gay,” but one with same sex attraction in recovery. Just us many of us (a much higher percent than those dealing with SSA, if recent studies are correct) are not monogamous, but rather polyamorus in recovery.
Come to think of it, if we read St. Paul, we understand that ALL of our sinful natures are part of our orientation and being – but our new life in Christ is our “recovery” process in this world, making us whole, and inching us back to the creatures we were created to be.
What a concept. Thanks be to God! 🙂
<i>scripture teaches against left-handedness – so does centuries of church tradition
BobG+:
Rather than writing to you in a PM, I do have a question, and there may be others posting or lurking here who, like me, were not present for the earlier threads. Inasmuch as you seem to be using the term orientation as a term of art, it would be helpful to ensure we are talking about the same phenomenon. Therefore, I still request an unambiguous definition of the term, even if it is simply one, somewhat lengthy, sentence.
But the purpose of this post is to get at the following question. What other forms of (at least questionable) behavior are, by your definition, actually or potentially, expressions of an orientation? Some examples of the kinds of behavior which I might include in what I have referred to as questionable are:
(a) so-called pathological lying;
(b) serial murder;
(c) pædophilia;
(d) bestiality;
(e) habitual violent anti-social behavior absent a diagnosis of mental illness;
MJD_NV:
“Thus, one is never an ‘ex-gay,’ but one with same sex attraction in recovery. Just us many of us (a much higher percent than those dealing with SSA, if recent studies are correct) are not monogamous, but rather polyamorus in recovery.
“Come to think of it, if we read St. Paul, we understand that ALL of our sinful natures are part of our orientation and being – but our new life in Christ is our ‘recovery’ process in this world, making us whole, and inching us back to the creatures we were created to be.
“What a concept. Thanks be to God!”
What a wonderful way of putting it, and I agree completely! As a person who has always experienced same-sex attraction, I think we are all in this together. There is only one Biblical standard for human sexuality, and it is an important part of bringing us all to “recovery” through our new life in Christ. It is equally demanding on all, and equally liberating.
Why does anyone think that faithful monogamy comes naturally to heterosexuals? Clearly, it does not. We are all somewhat “polyamorous” thanks to our fallen nature, and it is surely a tall order for men and women to submit their randy sexual appetites to the demands of the Gospel, but this is precisely what Christians must do.
For those of us for whom a lifelong monogamous relationship of male and female is not possible, we are called upon to demonstrate faithfulness in a different way, through a chaste commitment to celibacy. For the Christian, there simply is no other way. We are free to decide for ourselves that these demands are too high, and that we are unwilling to live up to them, but we cannot insist that the Church herself should modify or abandon them because we find the cost of such discipleship too high for us to pay. We must take it or leave it on God’s terms, not ours.
I have come to find more than a little amusing any suggestion that celibacy is too onerous a burden to place upon anyone, and that being without a “life partner” is the worst of all possible fates. That has not been my experience at all. In fact, my sympathy is reserved for those Christian men and women who have taken on the awesome responsibility of being husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and my heart goes out to them. Talk about hard work, and something not really possible apart from God’s grace! No, I’m the one who has been given the easy part.
I have benefited greatly from the support of what is called “ex-gay” ministry in the past. Perhaps those of us who have done so ought to reach out in ministry to our heterosexual brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, whose record of failure and brokenness has sometimes been as great as our own. Wouldn’t that be something, and why not? The kind of recovery we’ve experienced is just as available to them too, and they won’t find us unsympathetic.
HV – No, dear, your argument is silly because it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.
But keep trying! 🙂
Thank-you, episcop_alienated, for your kind words and beautiful testimony. I agree with you completely, and I have no doubt that you have wonderful ministries ahead of you in this arena for which you’ve been well equipped! May Our Beloved Lord continue to richly bless you!
RE: “More and more people are relegating this silly prejudice to the dustbin of history.”
Heh. If you actually believed that, you wouldn’t be posting it over here on this blog. Instead you’d be yawning, rather than publicly triumphalizing, which is nearly always the action of the doubtful, weak, and insecure.
RE: “. . . and that being without a “life partner†is the worst of all possible fates.”
You know, for years, unmarried women [and so some extent, unmarried men” struggled with others attempting to tell them that their being unmarried was “the worst”. And once that was beaten back, and society began to acknowledge that it is possible to be happy and content without a life partner, it was suddenly announced that the real “worst of all possible fates” was not having a sexual partner. That was Really Really Really Awful and of course not to be born.
RE: “Perhaps those of us who have done so ought to reach out in ministry to our heterosexual brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, whose record of failure and brokenness has sometimes been as great as our own. Wouldn’t that be something, and why not? The kind of recovery we’ve experienced is just as available to them too, and they won’t find us unsympathetic.”
A helpful comment, Episcopalienated. I often think that those who struggle sexually would be well served in support groups together, no matter what the particular desire or temptation. It’s helpful to recognize that “no, I’m not the only and special person dealing with this”.
Of course, in the old days, we called such groups “the Church”.
; < (
Sarah –
I remember reading recently about alarm bells that were sounding among many American Evangelicals leaders when a new study came out that suggested that only 4% of American-Evangelical young people who grew up in the Church remain in Evangelicalism after entering adulthood.
RE: “…it will be interesting to observe how things go for those two types of churches.”
We will probably witness the same kind of differences we can watch between Calvinist and Arminian churches, or “Spirit-filled” churches and those that do not accept the Gifts of the Spirit in operation today.
I think people are burning out over all the partisan social issue stuff. I can foresee everyone just going back to their corners and recup’ing for a while. Some will leave, some won’t, period.
RE: “No, actually the progressives…”
Well, I guess it depends on how you want to define “progressive.” The folks I’m thinking of in the Emergent conversation are squarely Evangelical – Scripture is inerrant and divinely inspired, Salvation in Jesus alone, no problem believing in the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, etc. If that is “progressive,” then there are far more progressives than I could have imagined. ; – )
I agree with you that there are different groups that hold very different theological beliefs (I will assume that this is what you may mean by different Gospels). It is easy for me to say that Process-theism is a whole different thing than Christian-theism and despite many similarities – kind of like the difference between Morman and Christian theology.
Whether one believes that Scripture supports double-predestination or a true free-will, whether one holds a view that Scripture does or does not condemn all forms of same-sex relationships, or whatever interpretative differences people hold, this is a different kind of thing than what I described in the above paragraph. I don’t think it necessitates being considered as a “different Gospel.”
Martial Artist –
There are people whose affectual and sexual attraction are realized in members of the same-sex in the same way that there are those people whose affectual and sexual attraction are realized in members of the opposite-sex.
This is generally referred to as one’s “sexual-orientation.” They are affectually and sexually “oriented” towards either the same-sex or opposite-sex.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary:
“The direction of one’s sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.”
With respect to the article and those I know who consider themselves “ex-gay” or who consider themselves “ex-ex-gay,” there is rarely ever change in the “orientation.” The intensity of sexual drive may lesson (as it does with everyone with age or in certain situations), they may be celibate (change their behavior if they were sexually active beforehand), but not in their “orientation.”
Any more, e-mail me.
As Paul said, he wished that all would be as he was, but if we must and can’t control our passions, then we should marry. Better to marry than burn. This doesn’t sound very family-friendly to me. Marriage, to Paul anyway, was a regrettable solution for people who control themselves for the sake of the Gospel.
It seems God has given some the “gift of celibacy” and those who live into it do so happily, even if there is struggle from time-to-time.
RE: “I do notice multiple postings from you – far more than mine. Do we get more insecurity points the more often we post? You win.”
Heh. So the “insecurity” word, you didn’t like? ; > )
RE: “isn’t it a bit early to be philosophizing about unmarried people since you know nothing about marriage? There are plenty of extremely happy unmarried people . . . ”
Why no, I don’t believe it’s too early at all! I’m one of those happily unmarried people and that was precisely my point in my comment to Episcopalienated. And I know plenty about being unmarried. ; > )
My point was that it is not at all the “worst of all possible fates” to be either without a life partner or without a sexual partner, despite what society attempts to tell us.
Perhaps you should try reading Episcopalienated’s excellent comment again?
RE: “I don’t think it necessitates being considered as a “different Gospel.â€
I think it does, obviously. The divide would not be as great as it is, in ECUSA for example.
No, the believers of both gospels are willing for the church to divide over it, so fervently do they believe they gospel, and so intrinsically antithetical is the opposing gospel to theirs. The same-sex issue is merely the presenting symptom for the much larger issues of authority, church discipline, the qualifications of leaders, the primacy of scripture, the theology of marriage, and on and on and on.
But I recognize that we are not going to agree on this. I do believe, however, that this will all pretty much tidy up with the holders of the various gospels in different churches. And then folks in both churches will certainly be much more peaceful.
; > )
Henry Vincent ignores (or is unaware of) the obvious distinction that lefthandeness is not inherently harmful, while there is a lengthy list of harms that inhere in homosexual practice. Most significant is that active gay men lose 20-30 years of life. What is so sad is the reappraisers continue to ignore this, even though the harm cannot be eliminated by monogamous realtionships.
BobG+:
Thank you for the clear and courteous response. If I have any further questions in re the question, I will send you a private email.
Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist
Sarah –
You wrote:
I agree with you – it is an issue that people have glommed onto in order to attempt to deal with other issues. That never works. Deal with the other issues specifically and not through a secondary issue (even if the secondary issue is important in-and-of-itself). This is why we get wacky arguments – we attempt to prove a point concerning one issue through an unrelated other issue.
You really believe that the distinction between Morman and Christian theology is of the same kind as the differences of Scriptural interpretation between Christians dealing with an issue like homosexuality (as an issue all by itself)?
The theological issues and implications of such drastic differences between Arminian and Calvinist (and I mean something like double-predestination that is not a direct theory of Calvin’s but of his later followers) perspectives present profoundly different understandings of who God is, how He interacts with the world and specifically humanity, salvation, and other issues. Here is an example of significant differences, yet all but the most extreme holders of the two positions will not call the other a “different Gospel.”
I’m amazed that people want to make the claim of belief in a “different Gospel” over the interpretative differences of five or so portions of Scripture presumed to all deal with homosexuality, when there can be absolute agreement on what most consider the essentials of the faith (as detailed for Episcopalians and Anglicans in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, for example).
You wrote:
What a shame that we do not heed the second great commandment of Jesus and love our neighbors as ourselves even in the midst of great controversies, rather than believing that we can only truly “love” (or be at peace with) those who think like we do, thus believing that when we finally get like-minded people around us all the problems will go away.
The flaw in our human nature will always find issues to divide over. Once the two belief-camps (actually more like four camps, but not all will divide) concerning homosexuality divide up, people will simply find other issues to fight over and divide again. This is demonstrated so profoundly throughout history and within Protestantism. Anglicanism tended to resist this kind of thing, but not anymore it seems. We’re becoming just like the Protestants and not learning from history.
How much better to learn to love one another in humility, admit that none of us have the full-truth and won’t until we see Him face-to-face, and learn to leave the casting into outer darkness to the Judge who does know all and who judges rightly. Romans 2:1-2 comes to mind.
Bill, you wrote:
It all depends on the behavior (or specifically, sexual-acts), and certain behaviors practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal effects, whether negative or positive. Believe me, after working on college campuses over the years, I realize that what goes on between people sexually cannot be relegated to one sexual-orientation or another. Both groups do the same things to one degree or another.
RE: “it is an issue that people have glommed onto in order to attempt to deal with other issues.”
I disagree of course. The issue of sexual morality comes because of the larger disagreements over the gospel. No one’s glommed on to it. It’s simply that those who hold to the one gospel have determined that their gospel means moving toward regularizing same-sex behavior. And they’re right! Their gospel does determine that. They couldn’t hold to their gospel at all without moving forward on their smaller issue about sexual morality and practice — it would be impossible for them not to.
Both Stand Firm and T19 have — over a period of four years — nicely articulated what both sides believe through their clear and ever continuing statements and actions. The fact that two different gospels are attempting to work within the church — and that they are inherently contradictory — is inarguable.
But still . . . you don’t agree, and that’s fine. But the truth is . . . you’ve already chosen your gospel. It’s the gospel that allows you to feel good about same-sex behavior. And as a result, that gospel will affect all of your other beliefs about much bigger and more important matters.
Not my job or interest to convince you otherwise. But the boundaries and distinctions are clear.
RE: “What a shame that we do not heed the second great commandment of Jesus and love our neighbors as ourselves even in the midst of great controversies, rather than believing that we can only truly “love†(or be at peace with) those who think like we do, thus believing that when we finally get like-minded people around us all the problems will go away.”
Not certain why you’ve decided that we don’t love one another. I love lots of people that I would certainly not have as leaders of a corporation or organization.
People in an organization need to have the same goals, vision, and purpose — the gospel, you know — and we don’t. The two gospels are inherently contradictory, and no organization can take two groups of people pulling in the opposite direction, as they indeed are.
But I’m sure our friendships will continue cross-Anglican-churches. And both organizations will be far healthier.
Bob G,
Strongly disagree. There is massive evidence of the physical and psychological harm in active homosexual lives. In contrast there is nothing inherently harmful in heterosexual relations. Promiscuity is a different thing.
Bill Matz, the problem is not ignoring that something is inherently harmful. The problem – for the Church, anyway – is ignoring what is inherently sinful. Mark 7:20-23
Henry Vincent –
There is nothing Scripturally relevant to left-handedness in moral law. Your argument is a complete red herring. It also makes the mistake of assuming that people are “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals” instead of being humans that have homosexual and/or heterosexual desires and actions. Since science, psychology, and theology all disprove you, your argument is completely irrelevant. Can you not tell the difference between apples and oranges? Apparently not. More’s the pity.
Bob G:
<i>You really believe that the distinction between Morman and Christian theology is of the same kind as the differences of scriptural interpretation between Christians dealing with an issue like homosexuality (as an issue all by itself)?
RE: “It’s all the juvenile little smiley faces that get rather tiresome.”
[chuckle] They’re cyberspace speak for letting people know that I’m having fun. Which I am . . . ; > )
RE: “If we are going to be just, then everyone should be celibate (if unmarried) but also be given the option of being married, if not able to remain celibate.”
That’s cool. I have long stated that I would be just fine for everyone to get married to any arrangement they like . . . as long as it’s all equal. For instance, if two women and a man wish to get married — that’s fine. If consensual, mutual, loving, adult siblings wish to get married — that’s fine. If consensual, mutual, loving different species get married — that’s fine. And if . . . as has already happened in France, a “life challenged” person and another wish to get married — that’s fine.
It’s good to know that you’re not one of those people who merely wishes to extend the societal and legal definition to marriage only to those individuals that you happen to approve of, those with same-sex attraction.
This isn’t off the topic, at least I don’t think so. There’s a pro-homosexualist line of reasoning which goes, “Why pick out that one thing? Why lose track of other things, including social services and justice?”
While other things ARE important, realize that homosexuality is different, and special. It is the first absolute sin which has been picked out for “beatification”. Contraception and abortion aren’t *specifically* prohibited in scripture, and not even liberals yet deify adultry, theft, murder, or the others.
Just homosexuality.
I’ve wondered why Satan picked homosexuality rather than something else. Yes, contraception was the point man and abortion has provided excellent flanker support, but the massed charge has been led by homoexuality all the way. Why homosexuality?????
However, I have faith in Satan… and I believe he chose that one single thing which would do most harm to Christians.
Thus, in a way I don’t understand, there is something implicit in a support of – or sympathy for – homosexuality (the acts, not the people) so that somehow it more than anything else constitutes a direct attack on God’s Word using the one weapon which most defiles both those who use it and those it is used against. That considers Satan’s absolute hatred of his tools as much as his targets. And it seems he has chosen well.
So it absolutely is right to resist homosexuality “to the last man” and not be distracted by agenda-based arguments and defenses of that tool and those who use it or support its use. We simply cannot love homosexualists if that means condoning their activities. And if we resist IN SUBJECTION TO God’s will, he will see to it that his little ones are cared for in the process. Only if we do it for reasons of combat or winning will they be left out.
And, therefore, The homosexualists’ argument about concentrating on the “real” issues is a spurious one and must be resisted along with the rest of their agenda.
In faith, Dave
Sarah,
You wrote:
Somehow, I believe that statement does not reflect your true belief with full accuracy. Rather, I suspect that it is only partially descriptive of your position. I also suspect that you see your “job” as being to bear witness to those truths you believe to have been demonstrated. You may have meant this latter, and that whether or not BobG+, or anyone else, comes to agreement with those truths is not your responsibility, but I very much doubt that you do not see making truth accessible to those whose understanding is different.
Henry Vincent, I think you are absolutely right. I am pleased to hear that you are going to stop being a bigoted juvenile – especially since it is apparent that you cannot make a grown-up argument, merely descents to the ridiculous and attacks ad hominem. Most sensible thing you’ve said yet.
Dave, good commentary! I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Bill (#49) –
Bill, your assertion cannot be legitimately generalized to include the entire gay population, or even the majority of it. If you use statistics produced from NARTH & Joseph Nicolosi or Cameron, et.al., it is quite easy to find that their statistics are unreliable due to their methodology, cohort size, etc. I have no problem admitting to anything backed up with reliable data that shows that thing to be bad, unhealthy, etc., but the “proof” needs to be reliable and verifiable. It does the cause no good when we rely upon bad information and distortion of data. Yes, certain behaviors or sexual acts can be emotionally and physically damaging, but for whomever is engaged in them – gay or straight.
If you use statistics coming from the CDC, etc., they pertain to certain behaviors and emotional/mental conditions of certain groups of people. The same can be concluded if the cohort group were among the same kind of heterosexual people. They cannot be generalized to the entire gay (or straight) population, no matter how easy it is for some to make such an assumptional leap or assertion.
This is one reason why the Religious Right is not winning and will not win its self-prescribed battle against the “homosexual agenda.” The stuff they say and the generalizations they make about all homosexuals – what they do or don’t do, their mental or emotional condition – just doesn’t bear up to real life. People hear/read what they say and realize it just isn’t true concerning the gay people they know.
Are there those gay people who are sex-obsessed, drug addicted, emotional damaged, anti-Christian hedonists? Yes, just like there are the same kind of people within the heterosexual population, but these kinds of people are not the majority within either orientation class. It is already a lost cause when a group has to resort to misrepresentation, distortion of supposed facts, and bearing false witness against a whole class of people. It didn’t work concerning blacks during the civil-rights era, or women over the past 40 years, or will not concerning Central-South American Hispanics today.
This is another reason why the ex-gay movement and ministries have such a hard time and refuse to do follow-up studies. They promise change in orientation (or at least most did and some still do) from homosexual to heterosexual. Well, it just doesn’t happen and when the people who join the ex-gay ministries realize this, too many leave and reject God because what the ex-gay proponents promised them God would do didn’t happen. Terribly, they don’t realize that it wasn’t God who failed them, but those who presume to speak for God.
Sarah –
If you read the beginning of my my post in #43, where you pull the quote from me, “RE: ‘it is an issue that people have glommed onto in order to attempt to deal with other issues.’ and then assert in your post #45 that, “I disagree of course… ”
All I did was AGREE with you, are you now saying that you disagree with the statement I made agreeing with you?
You wrote:
A Gospel, in our situation, is: “The story of Christ’s life and teachings, esp. as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” (one of the definitions from Dictionary.com) This is the Gospel I have chosen – the Gospel of Jesus Christ I don’t know what other Gospel you are referring to. according to writers of the Gospels of Jesus. Remember what is said at the beginning of the gospel lesson every Sunday, “The Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to Matthew or Mark or Luck or John.” The teachings of the apostles help us understand how to live the life of faith in Jesus the Christ. Thanks be to God.
Actually, I think both organizations (really there will be far more than just two) will be profoundly less healthy, primarily because all of us have failed to be what Jesus calls us to be. We are failing, all the way around, everyone one of us, from every perspective. It is only by God’s grace that our ignorance and arrogance are not our complete undoing.
RE: ” I am pleased to hear that you are going to stop being a bigoted juvenile – especially since it is apparent that you cannot make a grown-up argument, merely descents to the ridiculous and attacks ad hominem.”
Oh, now, MJD_NV . . . Henry Vincent’s not very happy. For one thing . . . HV got irked early on, and then tried to throw a few names like juvenile around . . . and when no one cared about that, it makes you even more frosty then before.
It’s distressing when even your low opinion of others causes no concern. ; > )
RE: “Somehow, I believe that statement does not reflect your true belief with full accuracy.”
You know, Martial Artist, it really does reflect my intentions . . . Henry Vincent and Bob G, for instance, are simply people who have an utterly different foundational worldview. With such a worldview — completely opposed to my own in its essentials — we really aren’t going to convince one another to change. It’s just not going to happen. For Bob G to change his opinion on this one matter would require him to uproot huge, foundational beliefs. And to do that is a remaking that is just very very difficult.
The same is true for me as well!
So we don’t hold similar enough worldviews to agree on these smaller issues. It’s not possible. Sort of like a libertarian and a Marxist attempting to agree about private property — but the Marxist does not believe that private property should exist at all!! So there won’t be agreement on the smaller issues concerning property either.
Does this make sense to you?
RE: “This is the Gospel I have chosen – the Gospel of Jesus Christ I don’t know what other Gospel you are referring to.”
That’s cool. We don’t agree on that gospel, though, BobG, however much you wish to claim that we do. We don’t — and the result is the vast disagreement that we have on sexual issues, morality, the qualifications of leadership, authority of scripture, the sacrament of marriage, sin and the nature of humans, the Fall, transformation and sanctification, and on and on and on and on. But if you would like to pretend that we agree on the same gospel, that’s fine. Not really my place to convince you, again.
RE: “All I did was AGREE with you, are you now saying that you disagree with the statement I made agreeing with you?”
Well no, you didn’t agree — you merely claimed “I agree” then proceeded to say something different from what you claimed you were agreeing with. ; > )
I said originally: “The same-sex issue is merely the presenting symptom for the much larger issues…”
And then you said: “I agree with you – it is an issue that people have glommed onto in order to attempt to deal with other issues.”
Two different things.
At any rate, thanks for the exchange. This thread has moved off the main page and you are welcome to the last word.
Sarah,
Yes, I think I allowed for that possibility by saying
(emphasis added).
I am still fairly new here, and was simply attempting to ascertain whether you were speaking “precisely” or “loosely”, and it was clearly the former, in which case you said exactly what you meant. I am sorry if I posed the question in an inelegant or imprecise manner.
Henry Vincent, we’re all simply shattered to lose you.
Your low opinion of me will have me scrambling to recover from my broken esteem, I assure you.
. . . And I certainly agree that there’s no danger here at all! For one thing, the IRD and Ahmanson checks are awfully slow to get to us laypeople, so we’ve had to post and act and pray and remain as concerned as we all are based on credit — confident that we’ll be paid someday with that faithful IRD check that’s so stirred us all up. Amazing what trusting souls all these laypeople are who are so upset, huh? Someday, that good old IRD check will arrive in my mailbox, paying me back for all those years of posting on blogs and lay action and outrage that the IRD artificially ginned up.
. . . And by the way . . . when you change your blog name in order to “live into” the promise of not coming back to this blog ever . . . you do understand that it goes in and changes all of your original comments under the old blog name to the new blog name . . . thus allowing everyone to see when you post yet another comment — after you’ve claimed you “won’t be back” and that you have “far better things to do that revisit this blog” — under the new name.
; > )
So I’ll see you around, TPaine/Henry Vincent[insert some other name here, when TPaine realizes].
MJD_NV:
– Christian God – spirit, eternally existent, creator of all things.
– Morman God – physical, created being as a spirit child to another heavenly mother and father and progressed his way to godhood over this planet.
Now, that is one kind of difference. Another kind of difference is this:
– Adhere completely to the Nicene Creed and believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the authority of the Church, but believes we have misinterpreted and applied the few verses assumed to speak of homosexuality.
– Adhere completely to the Nicene Creed and believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the authority of the Church, but believes that we cannot and God will not bring about a change in how the Church regards and deals with homosexuals.
They two differences are not of the same kind. It is our individual choices with regard to how we want to deal with the differences of kind.
Sarah, you wrote:
Now Sarah, you are make one huge assumption by this statement. I would not for a moment presume to know your worldview from a few lines of type on a weblog. It might be better all the way around if you asked what one’s worldview is before making these kinds of statements.
MJD-NV (#50)
You wrote, “As John Stott put it, he had more in common with Pentecostals than he had with liberal Anglicans.”
Me too, considering I grew up as a Pentecostal. I also have a lot more in common with lots of people involved in the ex-gay movement than I do with some people who are a part of the MCC. (Considering the article referred to by this post.)
Bob G+: Re Sarah’s worldview, hers and yours are actually pretty obvious. Maybe not in detail but certainly in their broad outlines. For example, I can predict she will not agree with you to take the Bible as the inspired Word of God “except” for a few lil’ ole verses about homosexuality.
Let’s see if I have her figured out?
In faith, Dave
dpeirce – Yes, we can generally predict what one’s worldview might be, but to extrapolate as Sarah does is not wise. Sarah goes a long way in her assumptions about what I might or might not believe concerning “sexual issues, morality, the qualifications of leadership, authority of scripture, the sacrament of marriage, sin and the nature of humans, the Fall, transformation and sanctification, and on and on and on and on,” as she stated in post #60. I have to wonder.
I think she can’t or won’t believe me, no matter what, when I say that I do consider the Bible the inspired word of God, with no exceptions. She has it all figured out in her mind (it seems), and I think that we humans don’t – even as Scripture says that we don’t. You know, the whole “my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts,” thing, etc.
That’s a good point, Bob G+. No one should assume your position on sexual issues and scripture. You said you “consider the Bible the inspired word of God, with no exceptions“. So, I’m going to ask you directly this question:
In view of Romans 1:16-32, and several other passages, do you consider that God approves or abhores homosexuality?
That way we can go from your own (short?) statement without making any assumptions.
In faith, Dave
dpeirce:
I believe Romans 1:16-32 is absolutely true and applicable to all things pertaining to salvation and dependent on Paul’s intent in writing these words, which must include the beginning of chapter 2. If you take that portion of Scripture, follow the progress of thought and action and the resulting conditions/reactions, I know homosexual Christians who do not fit as Paul describes. I know straight people who absolutely do fit, yet do not become homosexuals.
The progression:
:16 – Paul isn’t ashamed of the gospel – power to save all who have faith.
:17 – through it God’s righteousness is revealed, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”
:18 – God’s wrath is revealed to all who by their wickedness suppress the truth
:19 – what can be know about God is plain – God has shown it to them
:20 – His eternal power and divine nature have been understood through the things he has made
:21 – though they (those who suppress the truth) knew God, they didn’t honor him or give thanks to him, futile thinking, senseless minds were darkened
:22 – claiming to be wise, they became fools
:23 – exchanged God’s glory for images resembling moral human beings, birds, or animals (idolatry)
:24 – God then gave them up to the lusts of their hearts, impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves
:25 – worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator
:26 – God gave them up to degrading passions – woman exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural (with respect to the next verse, we assume with one another)
:27 – same with men, giving up natural intercourse with women they were consumed with passion for one another – committed shameless acts with one another and received due penalty
:28 – they didn’t acknowledge God, God gave them up to debased minds & things they shouldn’t do
:29 – they were filled with every kind of wickedness…
:30 – they know God’s decree that those who practice such things (spelled out in v.29) deserve to die, yet they did and approved of others who did
Since these past verses where used by Paul to set up the situation for chapter 2, the first part of that chapter should also be included. (We can’t separate them, because if we do we loose Paul’s intent and meaning)
Romans 2:1
:1 – Therefore (with regard to the preceding), you have no excuse when you pass judgment on others because you do the very same things.
:2-3 – do you think you will escape judgment from God?
So, the progression:
1. People who once knew God strayed
2. They became idolaters
3. As a result, God gave them up to their idolatry
4. Rather than worship God, they began worshiping physical idols for resembled created things
5. Their minds became even more debased, and God let the consequences of their actions take place
6. We assume that those who would have naturally engaged in intercourse with the opposite sex engaged in it with the same sex
7. They still didn’t honor God so he gave them up to debased minds and they continued to descend into more and more sin, even thought they knew better
8. Those who love to play Judge of such people, you better watch out because God knows you are and do the very same thing – do you think you’re going to avoid The Judgment from The Judge?
Now, what is plain in the above progression is that turning from God to idolatry will result in our minds being darkened and our getting involved in all manner of things we should not and that are harmful to us. We, in a sense, kill ourselves spiritually and in some cases physically. The context of those verses is not just about those who act contrary to their nature and engage in sex outside of it, there is also the whole list from vs.29.
What is Paul’s purpose for those verses? It is not a treatise on homosexuality, but to include a group of outrages acts that are contrary to God’s ways in order to bring it back on those who self-righteously wish to play Judge, play God, and not think that they will be judged by the Judge for being/acting in the very same ways.
To limit this portion of Scripture to just homosexuality is to lose the full meaning intended by Paul. The chapter divisions are arbitrary, and in this case work against Paul’s intent.
Your specific question was: “In view of Romans 1:16-32, and several other passages, do you consider that God approves or abhors homosexuality?”
I don’t think that those verses hold up to the way most Christians want to interpret them – proof positive that God abhors homosexuality. I think it is a limited interpretation of the entire pericope and not living into Paul’s intent for the those verses.
I don’t think God approves of or abhors an orientation, in my opinion. It just is and is found in God’s created order, whether do to His intent or the fallness of His creation. God approves or abhors of the intent of the heart that leads to behaviors that destroy (and primarily the intent of the heart!). There is a whole list in Romans 1, one of which seems to be heterosexuals who through their idolatry turn from their natural sexual engagement with the opposite sex to their own sex. What Paul details in Romans 1 & 2 are equally applicable to us all, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Bob G+, I’ve been all through those arguments several times. They can be found multiple places in the internet. But I consider that you did NOT answer my question.
The question was: In view of Romans 1:16-32, does God approve or abhore homosexuality? It’s a yes or no-type question, so you SHOULD be able to begin your answer with a “Yes, he approves homosexuality because…” or a “Yes, he abhores homosexuality because…”
If you’re going to say the answer is complex and depends on many factors, etc, I’m not going to buy it. God HAS NOT made his answers complex and hard to understand so that only the well-educated can comprehend them. He has made those answers SIMPLE because they are intended to lead *all* of us to salvation. It’s nothing we have to “live into”, God has laid it out for us because he does NOT want us to misunderstand. If we misunderstand, then his dying on the Cross was wasted.
And, please note, I’m not asking whether God approves or abhores an ‘orientation’… I’m asking whether he approves or abhores ACTS of homosexuality. My orientation, for example, is alcoholic; but it isn’t that which would kill me… ‘drinking’ is what I must not do.
So, could you begin again, using one of the two phrases I suggested? It’s perfectly OK to refer to your previous post after the “because” in order to save time.
In faith, Dave
I answered your question in my final paragraph, but you don’t accept it. I can’t help that. I don’t find your dichotomy to be true. I don’t find it is Scripture, particularly in the Romans verses you provided, and I don’t find it in God’s creation, or “nature.” I don’t find it in the gay Christians I know. The evidence simply isn’t there, even though so many people want to believe it is. And, they are so good at gathering around themselves teachers who scratch their itching ears.
Jerry Falwell used to talk about his “conversion” from being a racist, segregationist. He talked about how he thoroughly believed that Scripture supported his opinion. The “plain teaching of Scripture” support the separation of the races. Yes or No, the segregation laws should be revoked, and he used to say inextricably, NO. Then, God began revealing to him that he and those like him were not understanding Scripture correctly. They were misinterpreting it. He changed his view of Scripture, and suddenly it was not as black-n-white as he once believed, taught, and demanded.
Did Scripture change? No. But, what Jerry first thought was clear and proven by Scripture, turned out not to be so. It was far more complex than he wanted to believe, and in that complexity shaded by the times and our culture then, he realized he was wrong. He admitted it, publicly.
Bob G+: You didn’t answer my question. Your final paragraph talks about “orientations”. I’m not asking about orientations, as I stated in my post #71. I’m asking about actions.
So, based on Romans 1;16-32, does God approve or abhore homosexual actions?
In faaith, Dave
dpeirce,
I think you are misphrasing the question. Approval is not the opposite of abhorrence. To abhor is to “loathe, detest, or hate”. In contrast, to approve is to “consent to officially or formally, to consider right or good, to confirm or sanction.” The difference is a matter of intensity. So your question is not truly one that can only be answered “yes or no”.
If you had phrased it as “love or abhor”, or, alternatively, “approve or disapprove”, that might be answered “yes or no”, but it is still open to the rejoinder that God’s standard could, just conceivably, take account of intent, i.e., of the nature of the participant’s motivation, in which case the question is still not necessarily one that is only answerable by “yes” or “no”.
Please understand that I am not saying that your understanding of the scriptural injunctions is necessarily wrong. I am only addressing your assertion that the question can only be answered “yes” or “no”.
Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist
Hmmnnn…. MA, I used the word ‘abhor’ because it seemed to fit better with the words Paul used in Romans 1:24-28 which deal with homosexuality. In these verses God through Paul uses words such as “unclean”, “degredation”, “disgraceful”, “unnatural”, “shameful”, and “depraved” (New American Bible, Catholic version; the KJV words are very similar). Therefore, to ask whether God approves or “disapproves” of that behavior seemed to me to fall far short of Paul’s condemnation of it – considering the words he used. And I really don’t see anything in the passage which bears on intent of a person committing homosexual acts… except for calling them shameful, disgraceful, etc.
But, if it will help Bob G+ answer the question, I will modify it according to your suggestion.
Bob G+: In view of Romans 1:16-32, does God approve or disapprove of homosexual acts?
In faith, Dave
dpeirce –
If you re-read the last paragraph from #70, you will notice that I do mention behavior, not just orientation. But again, I do not accept your dichotomy.
From Paul’s writing in the Romans passage you gave, including at least the beginning of chapter 2 because they cannot be separated, we can glean from the verses that God abhors/disproves of idolatry. When people turn from the worship of God to the worship of created things stuff happens – we lose sight of the way things are within God’s economy. Paul’s lists a whole series of behaviors/wrong intentions that are the result of people turning from God to idols, and God gave them over to the progressive results of that turning. Plus, God abhors/disproves of self-righteous judgmentalism (which is the purposeful lesson Paul is conveying to his audience within this pericope).
Again, Paul’s intent was not to spell out what God thinks about heterosexuals that turn and begin engaging in homosexual behavior contrary to their natures. To insist upon this intent alone is to relegate the significance of the others – “envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, doing evil, disobedience toward parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless” – and to ignore the real purpose of Paul’s whole argument – the condemnation of self-righteous judgmentalism. To understand these verses outside of the whole context and Paul’s intent is to misunderstand/misinterpret what God is saying to his original audience and to us today through Paul’s writing.
From the verses, we can glean the supposed attitude of God (if we are interpreting the verses correctly) towards idolaters who by nature are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but then because of the progressive result of their idolatry begin to engage in sexual acts with members of their own sex. In the situation as described in these verses, God regards these people as behaving in abhorrent ways – He disapproves.
Now, to those of us who love to point at other people and condemn them to hell, Paul says – “Therefore, you have no excuse when you pass judgment on others because you do the very same things – do you think you will escape judgment from God?” A sobering accusation from God, I do think. What does God really abhor and disprove of gleaned from Paul’s writ?
OK, I need to get some straw men out of the way so as to concentrate on the issue. Yes, in the Romans passage Paul is condemning self-righteous judgment and other sins such as envy, murder, strife, etc. But there are some included issues there as well, such as idolatry and… homosexuality.
So, homosexuality being the issue seized on by revisionists, that’s the one I’m concentrating on.
And, referring to “judgmentalism”, I’m not asking about their ultimate destiny; I’m only asking whether homosex behavior is right in God’s view. What God does about it later on is up to him.
However, there’s a curious gap in your response. You say that God disapproves homosex if it is done by a person who by nature is attracted to the opposite gender, but you didn’t mention homosex between persons who are attracted to members of the same gender.
You were referring, I suppose, to v 26-27 (“Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men…” Or, as KJV puts it for v 27, “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly..” ).
I’m shooting for an upfront, clear, specific, and simplified understanding of your basic worldview on homosexuality. Therefore:
In view of Romans 1:16-32, does God approve or disapprove of homosex between people who are attracted to members of the same gender?
In faith, Dave
Dave –
What you are wanting to do is proof-text and that is very dangerous. I can make the Bible say whatever I want it to say by proof-texting. It is a poor method of discerning God’s will and God’s intent concerning Scripture applied to our lives today. I try as hard as I can to not do that and I won’t now – much too much of that happened and still happens within the tradition I grew up in to the detriment of the cause of Christ.
vs 26-27 refer to people (presumed to be those who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex in the first place, else what’s the point of the verses) who because of their idolatry gave up their natural inclination toward the opposite sex and engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. This is what Paul wrote about; this is what Paul says that God is against.
I don’t think we can legitimately say that these verses enable us to conclude that all forms of same-sex behavior are condemned by God. We can only imagine what Paul meant by the “shameful things.” We don’t know whether the “shameful acts” meant men treating other men as if they were women by engaging in intercourse (which is a legitimate understanding given the culture of the audience), just kissing, intercourse, oral sex, S&M, pederasty, we don’t know. We don’t know definitely what “natural” and “unnatural” meant – there is no list to check off. We presume all kinds of things and declare them to be fact, but if we are absolutely honest, we don’t know.
We know that idolatry leads all kinds of other problems, so we shouldn’t practice idolatry and hopefully be spared all these other resulting conditions. We know when heterosexual men and women engaged in some sort of “shameful acts” with members of the same sex, it is ridiculed and condemned. We can project our own want-for-meaning upon the verses, but that gets us nowhere. No part of these verses speak to those who have never been sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. To assume such a thing is to read into these verses something that isn’t there.
We now understand that not all people are heterosexuals. Why? We don’t know, but this is the case not only in a certain percentage of humans but in animals also. Can we conclude from these verses that God condemns all forms of same-sex behavior, even for those who have never been sexually attracted to the opposite-sex? I think to attempt such an interpretation is to extend the meaning of these verses beyond Paul’s intent. So no, I don’t think these verses condemn all forms of expressions of intimacy (sexual, or whatever Paul meant here).
We have to take the plain reading of Scripture, admit what we know and what we don’t know in humility before God, else we are inclined to allow our own prejudices and proclivities to wrongly influence us in our interpretation and application of Scripture.
The question of my “worldview” concerning homosexuality is a very different question than what you asked concerning the meaning of Romans 1:16-32. Two different questions.
Well, basically you’ve said “God didn’t say about homosex between homosexuals”, or you’ve said “God doesn’t disapprove of homosex”, or you’ve said “God didn’t express himself clearly”. And, yes, your worldview on homosexuality and your notion of whether God approves of homosex are one and the same, at least for the purpose of my question. That’s where it starts – does GOD approve or not. Then we proceed from there.
I’m not tryng to argue whether God approves or disapproves homosex. I went through all that in depth with my old Episcopal pastor before I converted to Rome. I’m simply trying to get a straight understanding of your beginning point on homosexuality.
My beginning point is that God disapproves of homosex and wants to redeem homosexuals and all other sexual deviants. I don’t know of a single scripture which approves any kind of sex other than between one man and one woman within a marriage. That’s where I begin on the subject of homosexuality.
That’s specific. From there I *could* fill many pages of arguments about all kinds of implications, but I’m only interested now in the beginning point. However, if I can’t state my beginning point in only a few words then I haven’t organized my thinking properly.
I would like to understand just as specifically where you begin on that subject. So far, my understanding, from what you’ve said and what you haven’t said, is you will not agree, period, that homosex between homosexuals is condemned, because God hasn’t spoken or hasn’t spoken clearly on the subject. Is my understanding correct?
In faith, Dave
Dave –
I know what you are trying to do, and I’m saying you are using a portion of Scripture that doesn’t directly pertain to what you are trying to do.
You are trying to use a portion of Scripture to force a definitive conclusion about what God thinks of all forms of same-sex behavior regardless of a person’s orientation, period. I don’t think we can legitimately draw such conclusions from this portion of Scripture.
You wrote: ““God didn’t express himself clearlyâ€.” God absolutely expressed(es) himself clearly, for what God intended(s) to say. WE don’t understand clearly! WE try to demand, “This is what God said without question,” and I think that demand isn’t applicable here and the conclusion demanded isn’t what God is saying.
I’ve said clearly what I think the verses say, what I think God intended to say through Paul, and what we can/cannot legitimately conclude from these verses. You make broad generalizations that don’t fit the verses, for example: “God didn’t say about homosex between homosexualsâ€, or you’ve said “God doesn’t disapprove of homosex.” Not all forms of sexual expression are healthy for us (not approved by God is another way of saying it), whether they are expressed by heterosexuals or homosexuals.
Hokay. I’m going to “assume” about Sarah’s worldview and predict she would say I’m wasting the time. I had hoped you would say a clear yea or nay but that won’t happen.
Have a good day.
In faith, Dave
Dave –
Back when I was in college, I worked with a woman whose father was the local bishop of the Mormon church (bishop is their word for local pastor, if you didn’t already know). She was a student at Brigham Young University and home for the summer. We both worked a pizza place and we evangelized each other. I agreed to take their missionary talks, she agreed to attend a church I suggested (the Grace Brethran denomination – a favorite among students at the time).
During the Mormon missionary talks, the idea that God is a physical being came up. It is important to their theology. They showed me several Scripture portions in the old and new testaments that “proved” that God was not a spirit, but was in fact a physical being.
They kept asking me whether I agreed that these verses proved their point that God was physical. I kept saying that they were attempting to use these verses to prove a point that the author of the verses never intended. I kept saying that the missionaries were taking those verses out of context and were misinterpreting them in an attempt to prove, wrongly, their theological position. I couldn’t give them the kind of answer they were asking for because I didn’t believe the verses they used were properly interpreted – in reality, they didn’t prove their point at all. To me, it was more important that they saw the integrity of Scripture, their proclivity to read into the verses what they wanted to find, rather then to give them a Yes or No answer, which is what they wanted. It made no difference what I thought, after all. What Scripture actually and plainly said was important, and handling Scripture in a way that guards its integrity, consistency, and validity was and is very important.
I frustrated them to death, but would you agree that I was correct in not concluding that they were right in the way they used Scripture?
This situation is similar in my mind. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from this portion of Scripture, and attempting to get me to either agree with your way of interpretation and the resulting conclusion or not. Again, I don’t accept your dichotomy of Yes or No, because to do so would be responding to an assertion from you that I don’t believe these verses deal with – namely, that God has shown us conclusively His attitude (abhorrence of) all forms of same-sex behavior for all people.
I never think discussion, even frustrating discussion, is ever a waste of time. I’m sorry you seem to.
Actually, no, it hasn’t been a waste of time. I’m retired and have plenty of that, along with a desire to learn from dependable sources. But I didn’t succeed in getting you to state plainly your basic starting point re homosexuality. That’s a shame.
Thing is, I might very well be wrong in my exegesis but you at least know exactly where I’m coming from — and I *don’t* know that about you. If I don’t know exactly where you come from I can’t trust you. That’s a REAL shame. I wish strongly you could have simply stated your basic starting point about homosexuality without a lot of hedging… but you couldn’t. Now, there might be some wisdom in what you’re saying, but I can’t trust it. That’s three shames.
Without your plain statement I have to make assumptions on how to filter what you say. With your plain statement I might disagree but I don’t have to make assumptions and I know just how to filter your statements. Yes, a starting-point statement is necessarily greatly simplified and fails to account for lots and lots of contingencies; but without understanding that basic starting point I’m not able to govern my filters properly.
As it is, I can only assume that you believe God does approve of homosexuality, at least in some circumstances, and that therefore you consider certain portions of scripture to be wrong or misunderstood for thousands of years, but that you refuse to say so plainly. That might not be correct but I have nothing else to go on.
And I think you should have told the students that, no, you didn’t believe God is physical. Yes or no is definite and specific and makes a good foundation for further discussion. It isn’t a sparring match, it’s evangelization.
In faith, Dave
Dave –
Oh, to have time! I hope you are enjoying (and are able to enjoy) your retirement. I know that retirement can be a traumatic time for many. My dad has just retired for the fourth time, and I think this time he actually will after refocusing on fishing.
You haven’t ask me where I’m coming from concerning homosexuality. What I “heard” you asking me to do is take a portion of scripture, take your interpretation of it and state Yes or No concerning whether I agree with it. I’ve been commenting primarily about how most of us engage this portion of scripture and the conclusion drawn, and I don’t think that conclusion is right.
Outside of only this particular portion of scripture, there are a whole list of things that I try to think of or use when considering this issue.
I strive to:
– take all of scripture into consideration
– be as consistent and honest in my dealing with all of scripture (no proof-texting for my own benefit)
– consider what the authors actually intended for the verses traditionally interpreted to condemn all forms of same-sex intimate relationships in context
– consider the testimonies of Christians who are homosexual (and here I make a definite distinction – Christians who are homosexual, not the entire homosexual population, which like non-Christian heterosexuals do not strive for the Way of Christ.), and whether the word of their testimony is consistent and evidenced by the Fruit of the Spirit
– know what reliable research has to say
– consider what “reparative-therapy” and the ex-gay movement have to say, including the testimonies of those who have gone through the ministries (positive and negative)
– recognize that even among animals, homosexuality exists – it is part of Nature
– know my own prejudices
I’ve changed my opinion on the permissibility of intimate same-sex relationships for a variety of reasons.
– Research strongly shows sexual orientation is not chosen – few people challenge this any longer.
– Most people accept that sexual orientation is something that happens so early in life, if not within the womb, that it just is. Some still argue that it is only environmental, and perhaps for some it is, but not for the vast majority.
– There is no evidence that for the overwhelming majority of people that sexual orientation ever changes. I’ve spent a lot of time with people who have gone through the ex-gay movement. The definition of “ex-gay” is simply someone who no longer defines themselves as “gay” or homosexual, regardless of their feelings or attractions. This is not a change in orientation, but simply a change in self-identification, which in these cases I think is self-delusional. This bears out in the terribly poor “success” rates of the ex-gay ministries.
– If you take the few portions of scripture that people traditionally string together to condemn all forms of same-sex intimate relationships within their own context and considering the audience of the writer, I don’t think those verses can be strung together to support the traditional conclusions. It is weak exegesis, in my opinion, to assert that because there are no examples of same-sex relationships in scripture that we should then not do it or because all examples are heterosexual that it is the only orientation for which relationships are allowed.
– It is profoundly presumptuous to think that all homosexuals are given the gift of celibacy. There needs to be consistence when dealing with people, whether gay or straight. As Paul said, we should all be single like him and if we can’t control our lust, then we should get married(!). Better to be married than burn with lust.
Now, I know of straight people who also have sex with their same-sex along with the opposite sex. They claim to be straight, and I have no reason to not believe them. They are hedonists who just want to have sex with whomever they can. I think the Romans portion of scripture you provided speaks directly to these people, not to all forms of same-sex relationships.
In light of all the above (which is not at all a detailed explanation of my position), I do not think all forms of same-sex intimate relationships are forbidden, whether by God’s design or within His permissible will due to the Fall. Constitutionally homosexual people who abide by the same standards we as Christians demand of heterosexual committed relationships (marriage) can be within God’s permissible will.
Is that good enough?
Bob G+: It took you a really long time to get there :^>, clear at the bottom of a lengthy post, but you’ve stated clearly that you believe homosex is OK with God if it meets the standard of commitment. However, all the reasons you gave are humanistic and you haven’t referred or alluded to any scripture which authorizes homosex. So, a couple of observations…
First, there’s a really serious problem with that homosexual commitment (not to even mention God’s opposition to it). I found this on CaNN ( http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/003305.html ); it’s a statement by homosexual activists about what they want. The gist if it goes
In their own words, the homosexual objective is getting from the A of God’s intention to the Z of mandatory sex without restriction, with the “committed” thing merely a waystop. They are taking advantage of your desire to be fair and merciful to homosexuals and are selling you a lie.
Second, homosexuality is very much like alcoholism. It’s partly genetic and partly taught, and extremely difficult to deal with. However, it’s either “celebacy” for an alcoholic, or death. It *IS* possible to be celebate; it’s just hard, and it’s not what I want, but it *is* possible. Same for homosex. Celebacy is not impossible, just hard and contrary to desire. What good thing isn’t?
You want to be fair and merciful to homosexuals, but you’re telling them the equivalent of telling me, “It’s OK to drink under some conditions”. If you really want to be fair to them, don’t condone them — bring them to repentence before God. Get them “on the wagon” so they can begin recovering.
Maybe they will always be homosexual just as I’m always going to be alcoholic, but they DO NOT have to drink and they CAN live normal Godly lives.
That’s the eternal shame of TEC. They have hung the homosexuals out to dry; they have ABANDONED them to their fate in the name of inclusivity. That’s why I both cry for and curse TEC. My old home has done this!
Sorry for the passion, but I feel deeply about TEC’s betrayal of sinners. I’m a sinner too.
In faith, Dave
Dave –
I used to be involved in a campus ministry as a student that is part of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. A sister church of theirs, with another campus ministry at my former school, was the Non-Instrumental Church of Christ. They believed that since no where in the New Testament is there any mention of instruments, or authorization for their use, all instruments are strictly forbidden in their churches. All singing was accapella(sp?). Do you think that they are theologically correct and have drawn good exegetical conclusions in their ridged belief that no instruments are permitted in worship because the New Testament does not authorize them?
To use an argument that all forms of same-sex intimacy should be forbiden because there are no verses “authorizing” it is not a good way to discern what is or is not within the will of God. There are lots of things that are not mentioned in scripture that we consider perfectly normal and right. Then, there are things that are mentioned a lot, not condemned, yet we condemn them – polygamy, for example. Not only that, but Jesus said that at the time the disciples were not ready to receive all that Jesus wanted to teach them, but that the Holy Spirit would reveal the stuff when the time was right.
What is or has been that additional teaching that came after Jesus? A new attitude about slavery? An heliocentrism universe? Justification by faith alone? Sola Scriptura? Double-predestination? The Baptism of the Holy Spirit? The place of women in society and the Church? Can all that God wants us to know be contained in this one book called the Bible? I don’t believe anything new will contradict the Bible, as God’s revelation to humanity. But, we have to be careful not to read into the Bible our own objectives and proclivities.
Your fairness argument makes the assumption that all forms of same-sex intimacy are forbidden. I don’t share that belief, because I don’t believe scripture supports it. So then, when considering what the fair for or a right attitude towards homosexuals, well we will differ.
Do you recall the distinction I made between Christian and non-Christian homosexuals (and Christian and non-Christian heterosexuals)? The paragraph you cited above was put out by a group of gay people (even if they claim Christ) stating their particular viewpoint and goals. Should I assume that since Karl Marx was a heterosexual that all heterosexuals are Marxists? Or, since Hue Hefner or Larry Flint are heterosexuals that all heterosexuals believe in pornography and free-sex? Of course not, so why do you believe that if a group puts out such a statement that all homosexuals will believe it or accept it? As much as some people want to believe it, there is no grand “gay agenda” that everyone agrees on.
Dave, homosexuality isn’t something to “recover” from. If a homosexual has a sexual addition, just like a heterosexual who has a sexual addition, then we can talk about “recovery.” If people, period, have an alcohol addiction or a food addition, then we can talk about “recovery.” Homosexuality is not an addiction for a psychological illness.
Again Dave, you make an assumption that to live a “normal Godly life” homosexuals must never be engaged in an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex. You base that beleif on your interpretation of scripture as has been understood by the Tradition and social and culture points of view. I think that line of thinking is wrong; I think scripture does not support the traditional understanding (as are a growing number of scholars – even a growing number of evangelical scholars).
I have tried to briefly lay out for you a way of thinking through scripture and real life before God that suggests that all forms of same-sex relationships are not forbidden by God, but are perhaps within His permissible will. You don’t accept it. Okay. I will not cast you into hell and I will not refuse to worship with you, because I believe your heart’s intent is to do the right thing, even if you are wrong. And, oh, is our Lord ever good at lovingly bringing us out of error and into truth no matter how much we fight with Him. My regret is that you seem to think that if I think differently than you, then I am unworthy as a person to worship with you, or some other such thing. Let me bring up Romans 2:1-2 again. That is the point of Paul of the whole Romans 1:16-2:?, after all.
“If not authorized in scripture, then not valid”… Not the same thing here. Scripture rather clearly specifies that homosexuality is an abomination, even though some theologians try to obscure that; and no scripture whatsoever authorizes *any kind* of homosexuality. Music might not be specifically authorized, but we all know some of the psalms were set to music and there is no scripture calling music an abomination.
To me, it’s a matter of obedience or rebellion. Obedience means conforming to all of God’s word to the best of our ability, whether we like it or not, and repenting where we fall short. Rebellion is trying by argument or other means to escape from God’s word in favor of our own desires. Obedience is the very dickens, extremely hard to achieve, maybe imposible to achieve fully for most of us. That does NOT make disobedience “natural”, and does not mean our disobedience is OK or even accepted.
Any kind of disobedience, including any kind of homosexuality, causes a need for recovery and reconciliation with God. All of us, including homosexuals, need desperately to resume a normal life in the Grace of God and according to his intention. We cannot substitute our own desires, no matter how we justify them, for God’s intention. He made the place, so he gets to make the rules. His rules are final and refusal to accept them is rebellion.
Your method of reading scripture is exactly the same as that used by my old Episcopal pastor. It leads toward substituting my own preferred interpretation, one which justifies my own desires in opposition to God’s intention, and is therefore by definition false. Whether your motive is mercy or something else, it’s still false.
It cannot be true if it leads to contradicting God’s intention. Nor can it have any kind of a good outcome. It can ONLY lead toward spiritual death.
I may believe you are at this time (possibly inadvertantly) a false teacher but, so long as you are upfront and truthful about your basic starting point, I can talk with you. I’m not judging you; what your destiny is I don’t know, and it is not up to my determination. But I couldn’t be in communion with you because we aren’t in union. As to your current worthiness, again, you are (inadvertantly or purposefully) betraying the sinners who come to you for help and that needs to stop. You are also the adopted brother of Christ and, therefore, the adopted son of the Virgin and brother of all the saints who have gone before you or stand with you now; accept their/our help in repenting so you can lead others to repentence.
In faith, Dave
You know, this is off topic, but I’m reading through the lectionary readings for this Sunday. I find in them a theme of profound change – the two sons being raised from the dead – profound change physically. Paul describing his profound spiritual change. Whenever we come into contact with God wantingly and willingly, there will be profound change – that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Within that gentle and often slowing transformation caused by the Holy Spirit, people begin to perceive the transformation (if we allow ourselves to be changed). Some react positively and some react negatively (to some we become the smell of life, to some the smell of death – as Paul describes).
The problem we have in this Church (and the problem infecting American Christianity in general) is that we don’t understand God’s ways of things. We cop the world’s ways and attempt to make them our own. The politics being played out in our Church and Communion these days are straight from the World’s playbook, not from God’s. We may attempt to justify our politicking, our misrepresentation of the facts – spin, our hatred, our conniving and scheming in holy, godly, or standing-up-for-the-truth kind of language, but our methods and attitudes are the world’s. We try to justify to the world (and ourselves) our methods and means of dealing with our differences and pressing issues and concerning how we deal with one another, but the non-Christians and the world look at us and say, “How are you any different than politics in Washington or the hatred of other people we see in so many parts of the world?” They aren’t stupid. They see through our self-deception and lies and know that we are hypocrites in our relating to sinners of the world.
They are right. In this case, the world’s critique of us is right on target. We act no different than worldlings as they try to get their way, force their political or social perspective upon everyone else, or justify their brutality. This is an attitude and behavior irregardless of political or social persuasion, and we have aquiesed to it rather than being transformed into a different way of being and doing – one in which the world cannot deny that there is something profoundly different than what they commonly see in the world.
Take the reaction and attitudes of the Amish in Pennsylvania when their school was attacked and their children killed. The world took notice and was amazed – this is a profound example of the transformation that the Gospel of Christ should cause within us as we respond and react to situations of life and belief. To act and understand in ways that the world simply cannot understand, but to which they are drawn. Instead, within the Episcopal Church and within much of Christian American, we just play politics and fight and call one another often vile names.
The world is not impressed, because we are just like them. Too bad we are not more like the Amish, who are so much further along in understanding how to love God with everything, love their neighbor, and even love their enemy, at least as demonstrated in the recent tragedy.
So standing up for what it says in scripture about homosexuality is worldly and hateful? Hypocritical? Loving God means we should not do that (stand up for his word)?
(“Yes” or “No” ^_^).
The world may not like what God has said but, since he is the one who made the place he is the one who gets to make the rules. Saying it ain’t so is a deception which won’t stand the test of Judgement. That’s why it’s a betrayal to say something else.
Jesus didn’t say go out and impress the world. Rather, he said go out and baptize the world and preach his gospel to everyone even though it would cause a lot of conflict (father against son, etc).
In faith, Dave
dpeirce – you completely misunderstood what I wrote, completely. This is part of the problem. How in the world could you draw from what I wrote that I would suggest such a thing (from your first sentence)?
I’m talking about is the WAY we do things, the _attitudes_ we have, and _how_ we treat one another. The world sees our hypocrisies, even when we are blind to them, and they are not impressed. By impressed, I mean that they could possibly see in us something profoundly different that causes them to pause and think, “Maybe there really is something there.”
Did you hear what recently happened at the Crystal Cathedral?
I observed that pause and consideration by non-Christians when the world and media encountered the Amish in Pennsylvania after their tragedy. My experience and what I’ve read tells me that when the media (religious or secular, liberal or conservative) reports on our troubles and secular people I know comment on the battles we are fighting in this Church and the Communion, what they see is the same thing they see in the world – regardless of the political, social, theological, or scriptural position one side or the other may take. This is the bane of the politicized Religious Right in this country, which Evangelicals and conservative are finally beginning to turn away from. Their whole methodology is out of the world’s playbook (and liberal relgio-politicos are generally no better). As I said, we all fail and I think that in the Amish example we better see how we should be and act.
I think what you believe the Bible says about homosexuality is wrong (assuming from your first sentence what you may actually believe), and my opinion on the rightness or wrongness of some same-sex relationships was changed as I read a growing number of people and scholars whether conservative or liberal. That’s the reality, and easily realized if we are intentional in engaging the argument rather than simply shouting a position and covering our ears.
When we think we have it all figured out, when we think we know exactly what every part of the Bible absolutely says despite historical evidence that it has never been the case, we place God in a straight jacket. He can do whatever He choices to do, regardless of whether we like it, whether it make sense to us, or even when it seems to completely contradicts what WE thought was God’s will all along. History is full of such examples where we have changed the traditional understanding of Scripture – not Scripture, but our understanding of it. I believe we are in the midst of another such change and we are almost perfectly following the same pattern as all other changes from the past.
This change and the process of change is profoundly witnessed in the whole gay and ex-gay debate.
Dave –
You wrote: “As to your current worthiness, again, you are (inadvertantly or purposefully) betraying the sinners who come to you for help and that needs to stop.”
So, what do you presume I do or say when someone comes to me and asks about homosexuality or his/her struggles with it? I bet your presumption is wrong.
Dave –
Considering other parts of your post, what else does Scripture call an abomination? There are a lot of things that despite Scripture saying so, we no longer accept as so. All we have to do is read through the Levitical Code and the Law.
We have to be consistent when we use and deal with Scripture as we apply it to our lives and seek God’s Truth. We generally don’t do a very good job of it, whether we are liberals or conservatives, whether we believe Scripture forbids all same-sex relationships or may allow for some.
The question, in my mind, is not whether we need to be reconciled with God, whether we need recovery through repentance and forgiveness, whether we need to be under God’s Grace – of course we need all those things, sinners that we are. What I contend is that we need to continue to better understanding God’s very intention as revealed in Scripture (and what Scripture actually says as it reflects God’s intent)! I think we miss the boat most of the time, and not just on the issue of homosexuality. We know in part, we see in part, we will not know God’s fullness until we see Him face-to-face. That part of Scripture, well we would be wise to heed it. Too many of us thing we have it all figured out right now, in the beginning of the Twenty-first Century.
We all make judgments – we have to. You are judging me. You are judging my interpretation of Scripture and my desire to love God with all my heart. If you look up the definition of the word, it is evident. We always make judgments about one another and we should concerning what we demand is true or right, the question is whether we can subjugate our all too human proclivities and love one another as God calls us to despite our fallible human judgments. When we are so confident that we are absolutely right in all our beliefs right now, we are already in big trouble. Romans 2 gets at this, as in our self-righteous judgmentalism, as opposed to making judgments.
We cannot be in communion because we disagree on around five portions of Scripture? Despite that we probably agree on issues of salvation, sin, the unique role of Jesus as the Christ, the position and role of Scripture, marriage, all Creeds, etc., you think we are not in union as members of the Body of Christ? It is a tragedy, and history will show it as such as history has shown over so many of our past divisions.
>> So, what do you presume I do or say when someone comes to me and asks about homosexuality or his/her struggles with it? I bet your presumption is wrong. << OK, what do you say? For my benefit, please say in 50 words or less. Really, that helps. I'll cheerfully apologize and even grovel if I'm significantly wrong. 1) I don't see standing up for God's word as he gave it to us as hypocracy, not even if it hurts someone's feelings. If hearing about the real gospel doesn't make him feel better than there's nothing I can do for him and he's in God's hands. 2) Yes, there are many things God considers abominations. Homosexuality is only one of them, but it's also the only one people have tried to change into something glorified. That makes it special. 3) I'm making judgements about whether what you say is Godly or not Godly, but I am making no Judgement as to your destination. If we are to confront our brother, we must decide whether he is in error; but Judgement (you're stupid, or you're going to hell) is not our function. 4) We cannot be in union because you deny God's scripture in basic ways. You're trying to teach me that God didn't say some of the things he said. Being wrong is one thing; being a false teacher is something else. I can easily be in union with someone who is wrong but not with someone who is defiant of the Word. However, I can talk with someone who is defiant if I know what his beginning point is. (Taking the actual Body and Blood of Christ with or from you, though, is different as we are not members of the same denomination. That doesn't criticize you, it just says that we are from different sections of Christianity). In faith, Dave
dpeirce –
I’m going to wait until Dave conveys to me what he thinks I would say.
You can keep asserting that I deny parts of God’s Scripture, but you are patently wrong. I’m not at all denying any part of Scripture or its truth. I have a differing interpretation of certain verses than you do. Those two things are very, very different.