At Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s gospel concert in South Carolina this weekend, singer and ex-gay activist Donnie McClurkin had an opportunity to take the high road: Show good will and extend an olive branch toward his gay co-singers and audience members.
Instead, according to the New York Times political blog, The Caucus, McClurkin took the low road.
The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.
He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.
“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.
As XGW has noted previously, pro-tolerance advocates do not object to McClurkin’s decision to identify as ex-gay and to refrain from homosexual behavior. They object because McClurkin:
- told The 700 Club — a Christian media outlet — that same-sex-attracted persons are child-killers and vowed to wage “war” — not peace nor Christian outreach — against gay people
- mischaracterizes his ongoing sexual attraction to men as if it were fully overcome and declines to discuss his lack of significant attraction to women
- asserts that because a handful of individuals with unstable or fluid sexual attraction claim to change, anyone can
In reaction to the initial controversy, Obama sought to deflect charges of antigay bias by including a gay Christian representative in the tour. But Obama passed over two black gay pastors and two black gay-affirming pastors and instead hired a white gay pastor, the Rev. Andy Sidden. According to CNN’s Political Ticker blog, Sidden appeared only briefly at the concert, before much of the audience had even arrived, and refrained from mentioning sexuality.
South Carolina African-American gay activist Alvin McEwen attended a small protest outside the concert and wrote his observations:
No matter how many times it was emphasized that none of us care about McClurkin’s personal decisions regarding his orientation, folks have continued to claim that we are angry at McClurkin’s belief that he is “ex-gay” rather than his statements against the lgbt community.
Hat tip: AmericaBlog
This just proves to us that gays and lesbians cannot assume Democrats are going to be there for us. This is not simply the “we’ll take your money and pat you on the head” method that many Democrats have been involved with for years. This is a major national politician inviting an influential ex-gay presence to preach his beliefs to new audiences. I will never, ever support Barack Obama after this, but this goes beyond Obama. There are many Democrats who will sell us out as soon as they see any flimsy benefit. I truly hope that someday, with enough work and care, we will have more people in either party who are willing to not just “tolerate” us, but love us for what we are, and defend what we are, support us for our accomplishments, not pay us lip service while profiting from those who hate us.
I personally agree with your repudiation of Obama. When he passed over black gay pastors to hire a white pastor that would hide in the background, it seems to me that he resorted to racism for political gain and further sought to reinforce antigay black churches’ bigotry against their own gay members.
Obama has proven he has little integrity. (Not that Hillary Clinton does, either — she’s just much more skillful at disguising this while allowing her opponents to self-destruct.)
This illustrates, to me, why an “all eggs in one basket” approach to partisan politics has not been very beneficial. Because the gay community is perceived as a loyal Democrat voter bloc, the Republicans are free to disparage us while the Democrats are free to condescend and patronize.
Perhaps if both parties had to earn our votes, our equality as citizens would be taken more seriously. Perhaps (just perhaps) if Giulianni wins the nomination, he may make an attempt to appeal to the 4% of American voters who identify as gay and that could only be beneficial to all of us – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or whatever.
Let’s say you’re an alcoholic. You haven’t touched a drop for 20 years and these days whenever you’re tired or down and fancy a drink you realise what’s going on and don’t succumb to temptation. Would you say such a person has “overcome” his alcoholism?
I would say that comparisons of sexual orientation to alcoholism are facetious and serve only to further demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding about the entire issue.
So true David.
I have debated enough on Christian websites where they bring up everything but the kitchen sink instead of sticking with the gay issue at hand.
how about this timothy –
politically, you may be forced to put all of your eggs in one basket.
but that doesn’t mean folks have to be aware of that fact ;p
Obama didn’t just touch the third rail, he pissed all over it with this one. I think his handling of this particular complication is indicative of what we could expect from President Obama: appointments of anti-gay religious figures to significant scientific and policy positions covered by some insignificant positions for homosexuals as a pacifier. And that’s worse than what we have with a Bush presidency, where the bigotry is blatant and self-defeating.
Frankly, anyone taking extra measures to lend legitimacy to religious bigotry is very unlikely to earn my vote. I’d prefer to deal with someone openly homophobic. Timothy is absolutely right: Democrats treat us like crap because what are we going to do, vote for a POS like Romney?
A is A
Yes, McClurkin is a bigot – no question. I saw a CNN clip of the “performance” from the TruthWinsOut website:
https://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/29/mcclurkin.speech.cnn
(I’m really bad about this posting stuff – just learning).
Given his track record, I was slightly surprised that McClurkin was so gushing at the beginning of this clip about being tolerant and inclusive. The other interesting thing about this clip was that the entire message seemed more concerned with disputing the blog re:homosexual affair than with reiterating his past homophobic comments. He spoke about being a new creation – the old has passed away. Basically, he isn’t a homosexual anymore (including the present), no matter what one may have read on the internet. Rather than seeing him continuing his anti-gay rant, his speech was more concerned with his own “base” than the whole Obama aspect. His reference to not being a bigot due to his ability to identify with the gay community, in my opinion, had more to do with emphasizing that he was once a homosexual than disputing his past remarks. This rhetorical flourish should be contrasted with his assertion that he has been healed (i.e., is no longer a homosexual). It seemed to me that he was attempting a little damage control. I think that his comments were motivated purely out of self-interest and self-preservation. The interview must have him a little scared – why else address it so openly, but in a totally muted way. I hope his antics convince the mysterious “Rob” to step forward!
Concerning the clip Peter B posted above, what a farce.
Perhaps it’s just the pentecostal experiences in my past, but this kind of display makes me ill. And to take such an opportunity to slip in some self-serving bigotry is about more than I can take. If you are that screwed up, get some therapy instead of parading about on a stage sharing your confusion with others.
Does he think that if he says it loud enough, and to enough people, it will make him somehow less gay?
Obama had a couple of opportunities to show that this was just a mistake, that he didn’t agree with the sentiment, but as far as I’m concerned he failed on all counts. I’m not even in his party but I had a degree of respect for him at one point.
Well, it’s time to return the autographed copy of his book to Obama and cover the Obama 08 bumper sticker with another candidate.
There’s a reason why the LGBT community looks to the Democrats for leadership on LGBT issues, btw.
Name the laws that protects the LGBT community or decrminalizes being gay that was passed by the Republican Party. It was Democratic legislators that support and make things like ENDA possible on a national level, or who got sodomy laws overturned (here in California it was Willie Brown thirty years ago).
Not every Democrat can be counted on to truly support the rights of LGBT folks, just like not every Republican can be counted on as automatic opposition. But, in general we will find more support among Democrats. Another good example: Twice now a state legislature has passed a bill to authorize marriage between same-sex couples. Twice now the bill has been vetoed by that same state’s Governor.
The State: California
Majority party in control of both houses of State Legislature: Democrat
Party of the Governor: Republican
Democrats aren’t perfect when it comes to support of our community. However, they are, by a vast majority far more supportive than the alternative. Unfortunately for Obama, it’s more about his poor handling of this whole issue than about having McClurkin in the mix that is why he has lost my support. I’ve seen the statements he made on the MTV forum this evening, but it wasn’t enough after this much damage has been done.
Transcript of CNN Video:
Donnie McClurkin: “Jesus came for everybody. And God has called us to love everybody. Now don’t believe everybody tries to vilify a folk just to make another man’s campaign look bad. We believe that everybody should have the same rights. But there’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [to audience] I don’t hear nobody here. We don’t believe in discrimination, we don’t believe in hatred. [to audience] I don’t hear anybody here. And if you do, you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s the whole premise of God, that’s the whole premise of Christ–is Love Love Love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgement. And ALL sin, is against God. Even hypocrisy in the church, especially hypocrisy in the church.
Hallelujah. Everybody sittin’ here with baited breath wondering where I’m goin’ go next. Well, let’s make this plain. Let’s make this plain. Don’t call me a bigot, or anti-gay, when I have been touched with the same feelings. When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don’t call me a homophobe, when I love everybody. And that means I’m afraid, phobia means I’m afraid, I’m not afraid of anybody. Because greater is He that is in me. Don’t tell me that I stand up and say vile words against the gay community, because I don’t. I don’t speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality.
And no matter what you read on whatever blog you read it on. No matter what imaginary confession is given. Let me tell you the Bible says, that if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. The old things, the old people, the old ways–passed away. And behold. [to audience] Somebody scream real loud.” [End]
I do believe in this to a certain extent. However, my sexuality has remained fixed throughout my relationship with Christ. It has not changed. So, in their eyes I do not have Christ within me even tho I know he IS with me and I have put my faith in him.
I pray one day their eyes will open and understand and accept the GLBT community for who we truly are.
From his 2001 book: Eternal Victim / Eternal Victor:
He blames his “former” SSA on having been raped as a child. By his uncle at 8, and then again by that uncle’s son at 13. I’m still unclear as to the extent of the abuse; whether it was once each time, or multiple times in either case. From what I can tell, given the several references to it, it happened once each time. Obviously it’s tragic either way, but I wanted to clarify. Now, flashback to before any of that:
He and his sisters lived with their mother at the time, as he describes his parents as having been estranged. His mother was understandably “devastated,” and “had to get away.”
He eventually found sanctuary with gospel music and the church, but as he describes (from what I can gather, his early teen years in the church) :
He has a lot more interesting observations in regard to that portion of the story, but as far as I can tell, that’s the most hateful thing that was said in the book.
To be honest, I was tempted to post that quote on it’s own in relation to what was said on the video:
But I thought it prudent to ensure that it was put into better context of his life experience of the gays he knew of being predatory. In this sense, he’s at least speaking from experience, as opposed to quoting “studies.”
The following quotes are from the “Child killers” link above:
Two things:
1) Though the carelessness of his anti-gay rhetoric is inexcusable, his personal experience at least helps puts his “gays are child killers” hatred into better perspective.
2) Since he believes that molestation is the cause AND effect of same gender attraction:
That makes his cause to help children suspect in the worst way possible.
David,
I’m not making a direct comparison of alcoholism with homosexuality. All I’m doing is using a comparison situation to raise the issue of what real change means.
It seems that for many on this website, “change” means “becoming totally 100% heterosexual”. For some of us though “change” means “a life no longer dictated to by homosexual desires, whether they have totally gone or just diminished in some way”.
I think if we started trying to listen to each other and what our experiences were we would have a better dialogue, instead of just treating all comments from those we don’t like as being derogatory.
I’m sorry but I’m going to have to jump in here.
It’s not a valid comparison situation. If you want to argue via comparison situation, use a valid and legitimate comparison situation, like left-handedness.
VS.
Granted, left handedness is not a sin. But even if it were, I would say no, they haven’t “overcome” it. I would instead ask why that person felt that their left handedness needed to be “overcome.”
Self destructive behaviors like drug addiction, alcoholism, and over eating are NOT fair comparisons. It is a fundamental logical flaw.
__
As well it should be when one hears that “freedom from homosexuality is possible,” without ALSO hearing that “The opposite of homosexuality ISN’T heterosexuality, but holiness.”
You forgot to mention “or not diminished at all.” Also: “diminished completely but not attracted to the opposite sex in the SLIGHTEST.”
Honestly, what good is the definition of the word “change” when it can mean absolutely anything? It was designed to be used within a specific context.
__
At this point, at least for me, the word “change” is a red
herringflag that someone is trying to avoid the specifics.Surely if I used to be ruled by a certain emotion and now no longer am, then I have changed?
Peter, not to be rude, but I think if your life was “ruled” by homosexuality, then there were other issues going on than just attractions to the same sex. Is your life now ruled by attractions to the opposite sex?
But yes, I would agree that is at least some sort of change. But, as emproph notes, just saying you have changed really implies to the general public this notion that you are no longer attracted to the same sex and probably attracted now to the opposite sex. Since that is the implication they get (thanks to many ex-gay organizations out there), I think anyone claiming “change” should be clear about what they specifically mean. If they mean completely 100% attracted to the opposite sex and not the same sex, great. If they don’t, let’s be clear about what the claim really is. Right now it’s too convenient to be vague.
Have you changed from the “emotion” to love and be loved?
Peter O–
You plead for us to listen to each other and have a better dialogue.
But perhaps you don’t realize how incredibly offensive your most basic suppositions can be. You try to present a more modest definition of change in terms of “a life no longer dictated to by homosexual desires.” Do you stop to think how you are defining those of us who do live openly as gay? As people “dictated to by homosexual desires”?
I can honestly say that the period when homosexual desires dictated my life was the years I spent as ex-gay. Then, my whole life was focused on struggling with my desires, feeling ashamed of my desires, trying to overcome my desires. My constant struggle to suppress those nasty old homosexual desires gave them enormously inflated importance.
Since I’ve come out again, sex and sexual desire have actually fallen back to a much more normal, balanced place in my life. Contrary to what you may think, Peter, most gay people don’t live a life of constant orgies and sexual hook-ups. Even those who are not in totally monogamous relationships have a lot more going on in their lives than the constant pursuit of their “homosexual desires.”
I was married for 26 years, so I have some basis for comparison. I can honestly say that the big difference in my life now is not the sex. It’s the freedom I have found in being honest about who I am.
Until ex-gay leaders are willing to rise above their own stereotypes, and show real respect for gay people and our lives and relationships, I don’t think we’ll be able to have a better dialogue.
Contrary to what you may think, Peter, most gay people don’t live a life of constant orgies and sexual hook-ups.
I think you’ll find that I don’t think that Nick.
Not only is the analogy between homosexuality and alcoholism completely misconceived; it is also a most unfortunate analogy from the point of view of the ex-gay lobby.
I’m no expert on alcoholism, but I learnt quite a bit about the subject from a very dear former work colleague of mine whose husband was an alcoholic – and she deserves a medal for the way that she stood by him through some very difficult years – and who ran the local branch of Al-Anon.
The alcoholic who refuses to describe himself as “alcoholic” is “in denial” and is unlikely to make any progress. My friend told me that when her husband first went to AA meetings he would introduce himself to the group by saying, “My name’s Tim, and I’m supposed to be an alcoholic.” Only when he dropped the “supposed to be” nonsense did he start to come to grips with his alcohol problem. By contrast, it seems that those who seek the ex-gay experience are firmly discouraged from using “gay”, “homosexual” or any synonymous term to describe themselves.
My friend’s husband said, “I haven’t touched a drop of alcohol for years now, but I’m still an alcoholic.” A recovered alcoholic can’t revert to the sort of “ordinary” drinking that non-alcoholics do, e.g. a pint or two at his local; he can’t even risk a glass of sherry or ginger wine at Christmas. Why not? Because he’s still an alcoholic. I’m told that it’s not uncommon for recovered alcoholics to refrain from receiving the wine at Communion, because they daren’t take the risk. By contrast, we meet this absurd pretence that a homosexual person who has embraced celibacy/sexual abstinence – call it what you will – is no longer homosexual. Absolute poppycock! No-one pretends that heterosexual monks, nuns and Catholic priests cease to be heterosexual once they take their vow of celibacy.
Has an alcoholic who hasn’t drunk any alcohol for 20 years “overcome his problem”? If you mean, “Has he got his problem under control?”, the answer is “yes”. But if you mean “Is he no longer an alcoholic?”, then the answer is “no”. I suppose he can call himself a “post-alcoholic” if he likes.
A frequent response to the widespread phenomenon of ex-gays who finally admit that they aren’t really ex-gay and that they’ve just been deceiving themselves, and to that of ex-gays who are discovered to be still having gay sex (sometimes with the clients of their ex-gay ministries), is “Well, so what? Anyone can fall back into sin, just as recovered alcoholics can fall off the wagon.” But, prescinding from the fact that I don’t believe that gay sex is a sin in itself, if God has changed their sexual orientation, I mean really changed it, then they should now be sinning sexually – if sin they must – with people of the other sex.
It is hard to read this thread and not come to the conclusion that Peter O is admitting that he is not fully rid of his homosexual attractions.
This seems completely consistent with what we hear over time from all the ex-gays who claim to have overcome their homosexuality.
Peter O- You say that you don’t think all gay people live a life dominated by sex. I believe you. I’m sure you have heard from enough healthy gay people to realize that is a false stereotype.
So why do you keep using such disparaging language to describe us? In this one thread, you first compared homosexuality to alcoholism and then talked about being “dictated to by homosexual desires.”
How do you expect us to listen sympathetically to you when the very words you choose show such disrespect for our lives and choices?
William-
You make a very important point. My first ex-gay group, a chapter of Homosexuals Anonymous, followed the 12-steps model. But I remember how we struggled with the most basic starting point of a 12-steps meeting.
In any other 12-steps group, you have the ritual introduction: “Hi, I’m Nick. I’m an alcoholic.” Or, “I’m a drug addict.” Or, “I’m sexually compulsive.”
In HA, we essentially introduced ourselves with “Hi, I’m Nick. I’m not a homosexual.”
The actual words were a litttle different, of course: “I struggle with homosexuality.” “I’m trying to overcome homosexual feelings.” We were constantly trying to find new wording. Anything other than to acknowledge that “Yes, I am a homosexual.”
From the moment we introduced ourselves, we spent each meeting pursuing the exact opposite of the 12-steps philosophy: denying who we were, rather than honestly facing ourselves.
Why were we so afraid to simply say, “Hi. I’m Nick. I’m a homosexual” ? Maybe because the next logical question would have been:
And what’s wrong with that?
John,
You’re absolutely right, and that’s why I call myself “post-gay”. I’m past gay, moved beyond it as a determiner in my life.
I think part of the problem here is that you’re debating the wrong man. When people come to me and say “help me be cured of homosexuality” I say to them “I’m not going to be able to do that”. However, I can help people who believe that the Scriptures tell them homosexual activity is a no-no. At that point we begin to look at what letting God be God over their lives might look like.
Often it’s the peeps who surrender their life to God, who say “You know what, even if I’m still attracted to men till my dying day and never fancy a woman – I still won’t do what God tells me not to do” who make the most progress, because they are really dying to self in a way that the people who say “Well if I haven’t changed then God must think it’s OK for me to be this way – I choose ‘gay’ “.
So by all means, criticise the ex-gay practicioners who make a golden calf out of becoming “straight”. Just don’t criticise me for the things that I don’t say.
How right you are, Nick. And I’m sure that many people would be spared a long, frustrating – and in many cases destructive – wild-goose chase if they realised from the outset that the correct answer to that question is:
Nothing.
But William, if you want me to accept that plenty of people who identify as gay lead happy lives, why do you categorise my happy story as “a long, frustrating and destructive wild-goose chase”?
Often it’s the peeps who surrender their life to God, who say “You know what, even if I’m still attracted to men till my dying day and never fancy a woman – I still won’t do what God tells me not to do” who make the most progress
I believe that to be true.
Unfortunately it doesn’t sell so well politically so many of the ex-gay groups don’t adopt this philosophy.
Hi, Peter. What you describe sounds simply like controlling your same-sex desires. A Christian who lives a celibate life does the same thing with his heterosexual desires, but would he claim he was no longer straight? For that matter, even an open and happily gay Christian who chooses celibacy has to control his homosexual desires in much the same way you describe, but would he describe himself as no longer gay?
Peter,
Thank you for being so frank. You are conceding that for some gay people a change in sexual orientation is simply not going to happen. I would add that the evidence indicates that the number of people to whom it is going to happen is, at a generous estimate, negligible.
It seems to me that the issue for you is a different one, namely, whether all sexual expression of a homosexual orientation, no matter what the circumstances, is sinful – which is not the issue with which Ex-Gay Watch is primarily concerned. Your answer is clearly “yes”. Many people, including many Christians (of whom I am one), would answer “no”. I fully endorse the position of Dignity:
“We believe that gays can express their sexuality in a manner that is consistent with Christ’s teaching. We believe that all sexuality should be exercised in an ethically responsible and unselfish way.”
Obviously we disagree very sharply on this, but let’s not conflate the two separate issues. It doesn’t make for understanding and clarity in the debate.
Peter, you made the request earlier, “Just don’t criticise me for the things that I don’t say.” An absolutely legitimate request, but please extend the same courtesy to me. I said “many people”, choosing my words carefully. I didn’t “categorise [your] happy story” at all. I realise that blanket statements are perilous, and that’s why I try to avoid making them.
William,
Yes, I belong to a generation of pastors who don’t make the absurd claims that others do. I’m grateful when those who disagree with me credit me for what I do believe, not what others say.
I think I’d disagree with you over whether the number of people who change is “negligible”. There’s as much anecdotal evidence to support large numbers who see some change in their orientation.
Dave R,
I think it’s much more complicated then just saying it’s about celibacy and controlling desires. For me “post-gay” is simply about moving beyond “gay” as an identifier in my life. Let me put it another way. I’m currently dealing pastorally with a lady who has a history of anger and violence. She has given her life to Jesus, handed over the hurt of the past and is seeing definite change in her behaviour patterns. Is she still someone who needs to watch her reactions to others and is tempted simply to lash out? Yes. Is she someone who has no control over her responses to those who irritate her? No. She has moved beyond letting her past dictate her future – she has seen some change but is aware that this will always be a factor in her life.
So in my case I’ve moved from a position where I wasn’t vaguely interested emotionally in women to a point where I’m happily married, in love with my wife and with a baby on the way. Does that mean that I’m “100% straight”? No. Am I still gay? No. Am I “half-way inbetween”? No, because for me “gay” just doesn’t fit into the picture of who I am. I’m a happily married man who is still occasionally attracted to men. Gay? Straight? Bisexual? All these labels miss who I really am sexually.
Peter:
Thank you for your post. I clicked on your name and found a link to an Orthodox Christian website. I also read in your most recent post that you counsel others based on Christianity. So, I thought I’d reply emphasizing some church teachings based on scripture.
English is a language of implied meanings. By just a choice of words, we can imply so many things. As a writer, we carefully try to choose our terms in knowledge of the semantics we are invoking and in light of the audience to whom we are speaking. Here are some such terms:
“sin” – to miss the mark, as in missing the target. Sin is often, in theory, a neutral word among Christians since “all have sinned”; but has strong negative semantics in common use.
“Sin of choice; sin of the fall of man; sin of consequence; sin of disorder” – a method of clarifying the source of missing the mark.
“Sin of Choice” is when we choose to miss the target God has established.
“Sin of the fall of man” includes birth anomalies, genetic diseases, and even natural death.
“Sin of consequence” is often thought to include the reactions we have to someone that has abused us and/or the result of our own previous actions.
“Sin of disorder” is to miss the mark by virtue of an interrupting disease or interrupting disorder. [The first three are based on Matthew 19:12, as well as Galatians 6:7; the fourth is based on Second Corinthians 12:7-10]
By selecting my terms as a writer, I can imply what type of “sin” I believe a person is engaging:
– “Why not repent and overcome the temptation?” [implies I believe the issue is sin of choice]
– “Why not accept who you are, and make responsible choices?” [implies I believe the issue is sin of the fall of man]
– “Why not repair the damage from when your father abused you?” [implies I believe that the issue is the sin of consequence]
– “Why not ask God to heal you of this?” [implies that I believe the issue is the sin of disorder]
Thus, when you wrote within your analogy the term “temptation” and that a man could “overcome”, you intentionally or unintentionally implied that the issue is “sin of choice”. For many that are GLBT, the concept that “sin of choice” is dominant in our lives has been tested, and found to be false. That is, a number of gays and lesbians have ‘chosen’ heterosexualism, worked with counselors to establish hetero patterns, and engaged in levels of self-discipline, hypnosis, self-talk, and even electro-shock therapy… all to no avail.
That is, no matter how often Caryn “chose” to act male, think male, or believe Caryn was male, that Caryn remained fully mentally female. Indeed, I lived in denial as long as I could, and still begged God to heal me. He did not. I had to come to grips with the incurable, and accept God’s path for me. [I hope you noticed just by my choice of terms concerning me – that is “Caryn” – I implied that I believe transsexualism is dominantly a ‘sin of disorder’.]
Thus also, when you wrote and used ‘alcoholism’ as your analogy, you accidentally or intentionally implied that that the issue is ‘sin of disorder’. There are indeed Christians that believe homosexuality is an interrupting disease/disorder (and not incurable), and therefore try to ‘cure’ the homosexualism and revert the client to the ‘hidden but underlying’ heterosexuality.
Some people look within their lives, and sense conflict. They may then seek to lessen the sense of conflict.
When the conflicted person seeks a Christian counselor, my hope is that the counselor will help the person to understand the four categories of ‘sin’, help them through any grieving process, and then let the person’s conscience decide the next steps. [As taught in Romans 14, individual conscience must dominate corporate conscience, but that discussion is for another day….]
Hence, because of your choice of terms, you earned a few tough-and-honest replies. Please hang in there with us. Please also consider that all four types of ‘sin’ may work in amazing patterns of complexity within people. Please consider also, that (per your last reply), you found an individual solution that may not be a universal solution to others. Most sincerely; Caryn
Good grief, more ex-gay political correctness. Do you hear yourself Peter? You started with the alcoholic analogy which has always been absurd, but then you dig in deeper with comparisons to a problem with “anger and violence,” and “not letting the past dictate her future.”
I have a question. What would you do for someone who comes to you with an understanding that scripture admonishes sexuality in general?
Getting back to facts, have you noticed how difficult it is for anyone to get a group of those you describe together? Jones and Yarhouse were unable to find even their minimal goal of 100, and lost nearly 25% after the first time period. Spitzer tried for years and was basically fed employees and volunteer workers from ex-gay ministries, and barely managed 200.
Well, sorta.
Peter, I have read your blog sometimes, although I haven’t recently. Congratulations on your upcoming fatherhood.
If I’m wrong, I apologize for my bad memory, but haven’t you said on your blog that you never actually had any relationships with men? Didn’t you just have desires that you never acted on? So you never knew whether or not your feelings went anything beyond simply that desire.
I don’t really like the term “just a phase”, but I do think in some people, they may have attractions to their own gender which fade in time. They can move on from those feelings because as their sexuality develops, other feelings or desires replace/supplant their former desires. Others can’t do that. Your desires were never strong enough that you actually took that next step. Since you never acted on your feelings, and went on to a happy heterosexual relationship, don’t you think that your story is very different from gays and lesbians who have acted on their desires and have had relationships with their own sex? You were able to grow out of or curb what you felt. Perhaps they were not, even if they tried. Often there is a, “Well this worked for me, so this means it can work for other people too” mentality among those who are ex-gay, or post-gay, what have you.
Post-gay strikes me as every bit as dishonest as ex-gay. Both imply that the person is no longer gay, which in fact isn’t true.
There might be the rare person out there who actually converted completely from homosexual to heterosexual. I suspect that person might just say they are heterosexual or straight.
For all the rest who want to be heterosexual, perhaps a more honest term that better describes their plight would be appropriate.
Many of my queer friends describe themselves as being complicated sexually, as well. I wish that a “complicated sexuality” was acceptable for those who settled upon a homosexual relationship as well as those who settle for a heterosexual one (that is, Peter O’s situation).
And when Jones and Yarhouse performed their study, they found that 89% of those who were desparately seeking reorientation had not found any increase in heterosexual functioning after 4 years.
I am still in the process of determining whether I believe that the 11% experienced what could be ojectively described as a change in orientation. I do know that they are not what I would call “straight” but I’ve not finished the study and don’t wish at this point to discount their experiences.
However, given even the most generous definition of “change” in orientation (some decrease in homosexual desire and some increase in heterosexual functioning), such a small number out of such a determined population surely demonstrates that there indeed ARE NOT “large numbers who see some change in their orientation”. And it does begin to approach “negligible”.
Tim K,
I think your words “desperately seeking” highlight my pastoral observations as well. Those who are desperately seeking tend to see little or no change. Those who choose (from a traditional sexual morality perspective) to honour God with their sex lives regardless of change or not are the ones who see some movement. I find that very interesting indeed as a pastor as it highlights for me the real need to “die to self”, which includes the self that demands change.
So we have a new qualifier (disqualifier?) — those who want change too much — to be added to those who don’t want it enough, or don’t try hard enough, or don’t have enough faith, etc.
I would like to hear your response to my question above, Peter.
David R,
I’m simply saying that from my pastoral experience, those who enter the “post-gay” journey with a need to change are the ones less likely to. That’s not a qualifier or a disqualifier – it’s a pastoral observation.
As to your question, can you flesh it out a bit? What exactly are you meaning by “admonish sexuality”? Give me some examples so I can answer adequately.
As in, “Pastor it is clear to me from scripture that sexual relationships are sinful, and I feel wrong for even wanting to be close to a member of the opposite sex in such a way.”
What do you do, how do you answer?
Gotcha. You’re saying that the poor person has an Augustine complex?
I think we start by looking at where Scripture celebrates sex, so for example the Song of Songs. We’d then go back to Genesis 2 and move on from there and see how the Bible treats sexual union within marriage as something to be celebrated, not refrained from. We’d probably also want to look at Ephesians 5 and the like.
Of course, there could be emotional / relational issues why the person wasn’t interested in sexual union. Abuse / rape / emotional deficits.
That good for starters?
I have to back up a little bit in the discussion. Some posts back, Peter O explained:
Peter, you’ve described me perfectly as I was for many years. Except that I got well past the baby-on-the-way stage. My three children are all in their 20s. In fact, my oldest son will turn 30 in January!
Of course, my path took a rather different turn in the long run. Despite the genuine happiness I found in my marriage, I also felt a deep inauthenticity that grew stronger as the years went by. But that was me. I don’t presume that you or others must have the same experience. I can accept fully that you are happy in the life you have chosen.
The obstacle I see to true dialogue between us is that you seem unable to extend the same degree of acceptance and respect to my life choices. It doesn’t seem quite enough for you to say: “Based on my personal religious beliefs, it would be wrong for me to act on my homosexual desires.” Instead, you must constantly suggest that the only moral choice–the only choice that honors God, that is not dictated by sexual desire, that represents true dying to self–is the “post gay” path you have chosen.
As I’ve asked before, how can I have real dialogue with someone who doesn’t extend full respect to my life decisions?
Peter,
You said:
This is a mystery too great for my understanding. Why on earth should the thought of entering the “post-gay” journey even occur to anyone other than those who need to change, or think that they need to?
Fr Bernard Lynch, SMA, said on television some years ago that in his ministry he hadn’t met a single gay man with a religious upbringing who, when it had dawned on him during his teenage years that he might be gay, hadn’t prayed repeatedly along the lines of: “Please, God, please, don’t let me be a faggot. Please let me be ‘normal’, like my Dad, or my elder brother, or my mate Jim.” (I must admit that I did so myself.) And that is precisely what the adverts for ex-gay ministries and the ex-gay books with their suggestive titles seem to promise.
It may be that some, when they find that what they are actually going to achieve is to become asexual, or “post-gay”, or heterosexual “in a meaningful but complicated sense” – not really “like my Dad, or my elder brother, or my mate Jim” – or when they are fed a piece of sententious claptrap like “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality; it’s holiness”, will be happy and satisfied. But I submit that the vast majority will conclude – and quite rightly – that they have been led up the garden path. Their feelings will be similar to those of Ben in Philippa Pearce’s children’s novel A Dog So Small, who longed for a dog and had been more or less promised one for his birthday. When his birthday came round he was presented with a very charming framed picture of a dog.
William,
I love the picture of the dog analogy.
By the way, I can’t understand why someone who was well adjusted enough to know that their sexual orientation wasn’t likely to change one iota would join Peter O and his post-gay group. It would make far more sense and be the path of least resistance to stay in their current religious (or non-religious) group, and commit themselves to a life of celibacy.
Because he’s right and you’re wrong. Or so he is convinced.
The most Peter can do is look down at you and say, “Isn’t it sad that you are so misguided. I’m so glad I know The Truth.” Oh, he may not think he is looking down at you because he speaks to you benevolently. But if you strip away all the niceties of language, that’s what he–and others like him–are truly doing. They are enlightened; you’re not. As a result, your life experience can be dismissed as irrelevant because you did not arrive at the same theological conclusion.
I’m sure Peter is a very nice person, but let’s be honest here. He can’t extend the same courtesy to you, because by doing so, it would “condone sin.” So, I wouldn’t bother wishing for the same courtesy. It’s not going to happen.
NickC and Christopher observe what seems like a classic case of the golden rule of Christianity being violated, as well as a case of projection:
First, a culture warrior declines to treat neighbors (Christian or otherwise) as they wish to be treated: with respect (golden rule) and truthfulness (not half-truths).
Then, second, the activist falsely claims to uphold Christian values even though he’s violated the key Christian rule and halved his own truthfulness.
Third, he expects the neighbors to condone his own sin as though it were a virtue, even as he projects his repudiation of virtue onto his opponents.
Culture warriors project their flaws onto others so that they won’t have to confront or overcome those flaws — and so that they have an excuse to be proud, not humble.
My point was not that Peter had broken the Golden Rule, but that his theological understanding (and the theological understanding of those like him) make him unable to show “acceptance and respect” for your life choices. In his view, your life choices are sin, and he would be violating his convictions by doing so.
You’re out of luck. Sorry.
Doesn’t matter what life you lived, how you may have wrestled with the issue for years, how much you prayed and cried and pondered and re-read the Bible. You’re made the wrong choice, so no soup for you.
Christopher’s absolutely right to say that it’s a theological issue and that I would be violating my convictions to tell you that I thought that you were doing the right thing. But it is possible you know to respect somebody while disagreeing with them.
For example, if some non-Christian friends of mine got a Civil Partnership and invited me to the ceremony, I’d probably go. I mean, they’re not Christians so why should I insist they have the same moral standards as myself? But if some Christian friends of mine invited me to their Civil Partnership I’d politely decline. Why? Because as Christians I would feel they were making the wrong choice and I couldn’t support them in that.
William – you’re absolutely right. I haven’t met a single guy either who has ssa and hasn’t prayed it wasn’t so. But when they come to me I tell them that the real journey they have to make is to die to self, and that involves dying to ones desires for the future, placing them instead in the hands of God and letting him be in charge of their lives. “Thy will be done”. I don’t lead anybody up the garden path. I tell them very clearly that there is no definite sunny garden path, only a narrow winding road that might take them anywhere God wants to take them, including life-long celibacy with no change in sexual attractions.
That makes me much more “catholic” in my approach and far less like the (majority) evangelical groups who claim automatic victory this side of glory. From all our experiences we know that just isn’t true.
I’m now off out for the day, but I’ll try and reply to folks when I get back in (prob towards lunchtime your end in the US)
Congratulations Peter. You’ve just met a man that has never asked God to have his ssa taken away.
I have put my faith and trust in God (above the Bible and the Church) yet I still feel the call to be the entire being, gay and all, I was called to be. There is no disorder. No struggle. No need to be anything other than who I am. Perhaps it is because I have been blessed by the fact I can claim I have been in God’s presence. He even spoke to me. However, I was unable to see his face. I tried but he would not allow me to look upon him. Unfortunately, I have no proof of this only what I experienced. And each time I look back on that experience I believe he has a purpose for me. And that unique experience is what has kept me going. I have fallen away for periods I cannot count. This past year has been a real change for me since I have had and felt a born-again experience. So through it all I no longer worry what other Christians think of me being gay because it is irrelevant. They have their own journey which they must take themselves. And I have mine.
What I have noticed as a trend in Christian practice is the condemnation I and others receive within the GLBT by those like you Peter who claim to be practising orthodox biblical principles but in the same breath accept and affirm positions that run contrary to Scripture. This is something I cannot and will never understand. Even the most orthodox and traditional believer does not cling to every position Jesus spoke out against. Why must some issues be accepted as “Truth” (gay love being a sin) while others are no longer viewed as sin or are now viewed as an unfortunate reality in this age? (divorce and remarriage)
I don’t quite get the distinction that allows Peter to attend the civil partnership of a non-Christian friend while staying away if the friend is a Christian. I’ve experienced the same kind of shunning from friends who were very loving and supportive when I was struggling with my sexuality, often ‘slipping’, and occasionally suicidal, but who have deliberately cut off contact now that I’m happy in a committed, monogomous partnership. Like Peter, they would say it’s a ‘theological issue.’ I guess I believe in a more practical theology – or at least one that can celebrate the happiness of any friend, whether Christian or otherwise.
Peter O says that he would not attend the Civil Partnership ceremony of a Christian couple, but would attend the same ceremony of a non-Christian couple.
But what if the question was turned on it’s head. I personally would have qualms about attending the wedding of someone who delcares themselves ex-gay or post-gay, and are planning to marry someone of the opposite sex despite the ex-gay’s ongoing attraction to the same sex.
I am rather amused by Peter O’s assertion that he could attend the commitment ceremony of non-Christians, but not of Christians. So he respects the choice to reject Christianity completely, but he cannot extend the same respect to fellow believers who prayerfully and sincerely reach different conclusions on how to apply Christianity to a particular human situation.
Peter stands in a long tradition of Christians showing their greatest intolerance toward other believers who hold different theological opinions.
Ken R,
I would humbly suggest that your understanding of God’s revelation to us on how to live our lives is wrong. You would say the same to me. As for picking and choosing, well, you obviously haven’t asked me what *I* think about divorce and remarriage. You might be surprised (and have to go away and read Hillel and Gamalliel as well).
Rick – I’ve never cut-off contact with people who have chosen to enter a gay relationship. I’ve simply said that if they knew Jesus I couldn’t support such a blessing / commitment ceremony. Most of my friends have respected my conscience on that (and I theirs).
John – For me, once I was married it didn’t really matter whether I looked at a man and listed him or another woman (apart from my wife). Both would be out of bounds so the issue at that point of my sexual preference for one or the other doesn’t really come into it. Once I was married I became not homosexual or heterosexual but wifesexual.
NickC – You mistake tolerance and condoning something. It is perfectly possible to tolerate something without condoning it.
Peter said:
Only as evidenced by your civil union comment, you don’t actually allow them to accept a path that may end in having no issues between themselves and God concerning their orientation. Instead you insist on imposing your own idea of what the journey must consist of. You are free to deal with that issue in your own life as you believe He is leading, however don’t be surprised if others pick up on the hypocrisy present in your dealings with others.
Neither do I think anyone is going to give you a pat on the back for not lying to them about the possibility of “change.” I’m glad for their sakes that you don’t, but it seems like a low bar to set.
I find that statement absurd, and as advice downright dangerous. I wonder how Pam would comment on that?
David R,
How is that (not going to Christian friends’ Civil Partnership) intolerance different from your intolerance displayed by criticising me for not going to the Civil Partnership? In other words, if you are the tolerant one, why are you intolerantly criticising me for having a moral opinion on this?
Peter:
I did once have a discussion with an American pastor that would not even say my name, in fear that speaking my name out loud would be taken as him condoning transsexualism. By the way, that same pastor welcomed a woman and her third husband into church membership, and called her “Mrs. //third husband last name//”. He refused to even talk to me about the matter.
I and my spouse invited another American pastor to my home for dinner. He declined. Twice later, he pressed me hard on telephone to give him a personal gift of $50,000 by selling him property below market. I’ve wondered if he believed that accepting dinner was an official pastoral act, while accepting cash profit was a private action.
I’ve heard of pastors that will not visit prisons, drug dealers, or even pool halls for fear of being perceived as condoning crime; and of pastors that will not speak to smokers (while they smoke) for fear of being perceived as condoning cigarette smoking. I’ve heard of pastors that will not perform a second-marriage ceremony for heterosexual couples, but will allow the remarried couple to attend their church or become members.
To this day, I wonder about such reasoning. After all, Jesus had no problem with speaking the name of Zacchaeus the corrupt tax collector, attending dinners given for Him by many unsavory people, or blessing a Roman centurion by healing the Roman’s servant. Jesus lived the scripture to ‘bless those that curse you’. And Jesus is the example we are to pattern our life after. At least, that’s what I thought.
I’ve learned since that there is school of thought among pastors that they are indeed “Ambassadors of Christ”, but that their own conscience dictates their official actions, and that the policies of Christ do not dictate their official actions. In short, this school of thought allows a pastor to say, “I was invited to dinner by a //gay couple, wife of a prisoner, tax collector, etc.//, and I declined. I realize that Jesus would have accepted the invitation and dined with them, but I am following my conscience even in official actions.”
For the sake of continuing dialog; and for the sake of improving my understanding; could you comment on any of the above? Sincerely; Caryn
I don’t find where I claimed my own tolerance or your intolerance. You can have any opinion you like, but it would seem hypocritical to say on the one hand that the person who comes to you must “die to self” and “give all things over to God” only to stipulate your own path as a boundary for how God must deal with that person after having done so.
One of the best nights of my life was getting blindingly drunk on far too much good red wine with a (gay) ex flat mate and his partner out on the town. I think we went to Wagamamas for food and then moved on, picking up a TV celeb friend of the partner (who was camp as a row of marquees and very intelligently funny). Much fun had by all.
Does that answer your question?
Tolerance means “I disagree with your life-style choices and that might make me occasionally say I can’t do things with you”. It doesn’t mean “I will acquiesce all my personal beliefs and never say that you’re wrong”.
I don’t think it’s intolerant. I genuinely believe that the Biblical picture of sexuality prohibits such a choice (a gay relationship) as part of the “dying to self”. That’s exactly the kind of thing that dying to self means – dying to sinful desires AND the demanding of things from God.
Would you expect me to accept without criticism any lifestyle choice made by someone who came to me and claimed “This is what God is telling me I should do”? Bestiality? Polygamy? Adultery? Incest? Paedophilia?
Peter, with whom are you conversing? Let me just restate what I said before:
Again, I said nothing about your tolerance or lack thereof — that is all your stuff. That you are willing to get drunk with somebody who is gay or that you enjoy a campy guy is irrelevant, particularly when you use it as a trophy.
Well, haven’t we all ended up here at some point or another? It’s sad, but this is the end point of so many such conversations — it’s quite predictable and it’s old.
You are entitled to any opinion you wish, but please don’t expect a pat on the back for being less overtly dishonest about the issue than the next guy. If you want to mold people in your own image, don’t claim it as God’s.
Peter O,
I’ve simply said that if they knew Jesus I couldn’t support such a blessing / commitment ceremony.
Let me warn you that what follows is harsh: From this statement, I would question whether you know Jesus yourself.
That seems extreme – and it is. I don’t question your sincerity. I don’t question your devotion to your faith. I don’t question whether you seek to live your life in accordance with what you think God the Father wants you to live, as laid out in the Law and Prophets.
But I do question whether you know the person Jesus.
The reason I do is because what you are saying seems to run in direct contradiction to the teachings of that person. And it seems to me that if you really knew Him you would not say such things.
Above all other law, above all other commandments, there are two commandments upon which ALL OTHER commandments hang: love God, love your neighbor as yourself.
And though many talk about “tough love” or “love the sinner, hate the sin”, if you knew Jesus then surely you would know what he demonstrated as love. It was physical observable non-abstract love that looked nothing like “hate the sin” or “tough love” or any of the other excuses given for unkindness. And His love didn’t much care what sort of message it was giving or what it looked like it was condoning or what others might think about it. It was treatment-based love, not words-based love.
Now perhaps you might argue that Jesus was willing to hang out with sinners but not the theologically-incorrect. But who were these “sinners”? They were the chosen of God, not the pagans. They were those Jews that didn’t live the way the “good church folk” thought they should, not those who were enemies of Judaism. In other words, they were the part of the flock that others thought were sinners.
There isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that Jesus would be at the civil union of whatever friends invited him, be they non-believer or theologically divergent.
And because you don’t know this, it makes me wonder if you know Jesus all that well. Or at all.
Tim K,
Give me a single example of a sinner that Jesus chose to hang out with who didn’t then reform, or receive a call to reform, his/her immoral behaviour?
I think perhaps you don’t know Jesus that well.
Dave R – What gives you the right to call me intolerant and then criticise me when I call you intolerant? That’s hardly fair. You’re coming across, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is saying “I want you to accept my choice of behaviour, regardless of your ethics, and if you don’t I will brand you intolerant”.
I think Nick’s point isn’t to make Peter agree with him. Nick is just asking Peter to honor the fact that he has put as much time and effort and prayer and thought into his life choices as Peter has, but has come to a different conclusion. In other words, Nick wishes Peter to extend the “priesthood of the believer” toward Nick as much as Nick extends it toward Peter. That’s all.
Christians have disagreed over points of theology constantly over the years. Before homosexuality became the big boogeyman of recent years, the big disagreement was between traditional and Pentecostal worship practices. Are the gifts of the Holy Spirit meant to be used by believers today, or were they only to serve a purpose when the apostles were alive? There are still some Christians today who believe that anyone who speaks in tongues publicly during a worship service is at best deluded, and at worst, controlled by demonic forces.
So, for those who think that Pentecostal expression is in error, it doesn’t matter whether the Pentecostal individual has researched the Greek texts thoroughly, examined the context of the passages, prayed over the subject extensively, or even had a personal, supernatural experience with God. The non-Pentecostal has already made up their mind about the subject, and cannot conceive of the fact that the other person could possibly be right.
And that’s the central issue here. Nick is not asking Peter to abandon his convictions; he is asking him to extend grace. Either one of you could be completely wrong on this issue, and there are compelling theological arguments to be made in both directions. If the situation were reversed, and Peter was the one getting married, I doubt Nick would decline to attend, even if he personally felt that Peter was making a badly-reasoned decision. However, Peter has clearly stated he would not do the same in Nick’s case.
Which means that it is more important for Peter to appear morally superior than it is to extend love and grace to another fallen human being. And that misses the heart of the Gospel.
Peter O,
Evidently you think love is conditional. It is only to be offered when accompanied by rebuke. You seem to think Jesus only hung around with sinners when he was rebuking them.
Yet I don’t see that in Scripture. For the most part it’s silent on what Jesus said or did – providing only information that his accusers disapproved of his eating with sinners. Jesus told them that he was sent for the lost – but he didn’t tell the Pharisees, “I only go there to rebuke them” and Scripture doesn’t, in fact, tell us that he DID rebuke them or, as you phrase it, “receive a call to reform, his/her immoral behaviour”.
Now I expect you will drag out the Woman at the Well – the sole example of Jesus saying, “go and sin no more”. But when you do, please remember that this Scripture has the least credibility of all the Bible – with many scholars doubting that it was in the original text.
Your seeing Jesus of the condemner of his dinner partners leaves me further pursuaded that you don’t really know Him.
To compare something benign with something destructive or malicious in order to show that it is “bad” only shows that your standard of sin is whatever you want it to be. It’s called moral relativism. Your beliefs about the sinfulness of gay relationships may coincide with the Bible, but they aren’t based on it.
If your beliefs were BASED on the Bible, your comparisons would have reflected that. The “sinfulness” of gay relationships would be compared with the “sinfulness” of something like masturbation, or long hair, or eating shellfish, or not working on Sunday, etc.
You can’t very well make the case that human intimacy with a member of the same gender is sinful until you can first show that it is harmful, or that there is no correlation between sin itself and harm. As it stands, by your standard, the color green could be sinful.
Peter, again please, who are you talking with? You seem to be responding to accusations that don’t exist. I know I didn’t make them, and I don’t see where Dave Rattigan did. Please clarify what you are responding to before you continue. Thank you.
David, you’re wasting your time.
Those are faith-based accusations he’s observing. It doesn’t matter if anyone ever actually accused him of being intolerant, all that matters is that he believes that they did.
If you “die to self” then it doesn’t matter what the ears hear or the eyes see, they are part of self. But dying to self allows you to claim anything you want.
If your faith requires that you believe that all gay people accuse you of intolerance, then you will believe it. Facts are immaterial.
Are you saying that there is ONLY one way of understanding God? That the Orthodox Church has it all figured out? Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time believed they had it all figured out. Jesus proved them wrong. Their traditions made void the commands of God.
While I do believe that there is only one way to salvation which is through our Lord Jesus Christ , there are many paths to Christ. Each one unique for the individual. To say there is only one way to know him is simply saying that God would never reveal himself by any other means other than through the church’s understanding of Scripture and through the traditions practiced by the church and its clergy.
Strange tho. The Virgin Mary appeared to the poorest children. To the most in need of charity. Not to Catholic clergy to reveal messages from God to the world.
Actually, Peter O could come to my big ol’ gay wedding. I’ve given up on Christianity, so I’m now in that non-believer category he can apparently condone as well as tolerate.
I would suggest that tolerance must be judged not only by the attitude I myself think I present toward others, but also by what others tell me of how my attitude, words, and actions actually affect them. Peter has simply made up his own mind that he is tolerant, and wants us all to accept his tolerance on his say so. After all, he did get drunk with a gay guy once. Then he blithely goes on comparing us to alcoholics and telling us we’ve just surrendered to our lusts.
It’s not all that different from the way he has made up his mind that he no longer has a homosexual orientation even though he still has sexual attractions toward men.
I guess Peter is like the Bush administration: Reality is what I declare it to be!
My only real question at this point is WHY Peter is so intent on convincing us of his tolerance. His actual statements–as so many of us here have pointed out–show that he has no real respect for our decisions and life choices. So why is it so important for him to convince us otherwise?
Peter:
1.) You wrote, “Give me a single example of a sinner that Jesus chose to hang out with who didn’t then reform, or receive a call to reform, his/her immoral behaviour?”
I’m a bit lost on this point. The New Testament is filled with the teachings of Jesus, which do include instruction, dialog, rebuke, and/or insight. We are all sinners, so all the pages amaze us and challenge our wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and behaviors. The call to reform our understanding is almost on every page. The call to reform our behavior does occur in several places, as well. But there is no one-to-one correspondence, as you imply.
In John chapter 3, Jesus instructs Nicodemus, but there is no obvious immoral behavior on the part of Nicodemus. In John chapter 4, Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman, and there is obvious immoral behavior of divorce and co-habitation – yet Jesus instructs her on worship. In John chapter 5, Jesus gives no instruction but does heal the man at the pool of Bethesda, and then calls him to reform some unnamed immoral behavior. Later in John 5, Jesus observes the obviously immoral behavior of the desire to murder, and yet overlooks desire to murder and instructs on believing in Him as the Messiah.
Again, Peter, there is no one-to-one correspondence for the thesis you propose.
– Based on John 3, you should be willing to share your insights with us; based on John 4, you should be willing to overlook homosexuality and teach proper worship to us; based on John 5, you should be willing to heal us and ask us to refrain from immoral behavior; based also on John 5, you should be willing to overlook sins greater than homosexuality and instruct us on how to strengthen our faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
Please do re-examine your thesis, and do please continue to dialog. Unless there is dialog, there will never be understanding of the underlying belief systems, definitions, logic, and evidences. We need to work through the frustration of trying to communicate with each other, for I truly think that without dialog we shall not have reconciliation.
For the sake of dialog, then:
I am very curious how you would treat the verse, “”Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” [Acts 10:15] when you aligned us with “Bestiality? Polygamy? Adultery? Incest? Paedophilia?” I offer that such implications are contrary to the instructions of our Lord to Peter, and will not help with the dialog we need to establish and maintain.
And also how you would treat the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15? “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses.” “ [verse 5] We that are GLBT are not unique to the challenge facing the historical church. Can you, for the sake of dialog, draw a parallel of reasoning based on Acts 15?
Can you also, for the sake of dialog, explain how the letter of the Jerusalem Council was later changed/not changed by the writings of Paul the Apostle in Romans 14?
Sincerely; Caryn
Just a thought to several of the Christian writers here… I think that you are way ahead of many that visit this site in reasoning, experience, and in maturity.
Please do consider that you are ‘strong’ and the visitors that write are ‘weak’. They visit here, and write a few sentences. We chat kindly back. They grow more bold and write more. We overcome the initial arguments. They are in shock, and struggle for words… their next set of statements may indeed be clumsy… and even with insults laced within. And we reply in kind with yet stronger words. And then, we lose the dialog.
I do not like being compared to an abuser of children or someone that sexually uses animals… I do not like the strong hint that I am addicted like an alcoholic… but I offer that those who are strong need to ‘turn the other cheek’ and ignore the insult, and continue the teaching of our Jesus that you believe is most beneficial. At most, we can point out that some comments implied an insult, and then reply with words laced with love that is “patient… kind… not rude… not self-seeking…not easily angered… but rejoicing with the truth” [I Cor 13]
Why? I believe that most blogs have far more readers than writers. And the audience of readers needs to see the clear teachings of our Lord Jesus. With your words, you are perhaps persuading far more than just one visiting writer. Most sincerely; Caryn
Peter O, may jump in here? I am a heterosexual black woman and always have been. My experience with anecdotal racism, paled in comparison to experiences two light skinned aunts of mine had.
They lived in a ‘two world’ situation. They knew they were black, although looked white, and they knew what damage the institution of Jim Crow laws did to black lives.
Blacks then and even now, have to live down the ‘child/adult abuser’ relationships in that legal system.
Meaning, their status, the expectations of the white racist majority and that of the laws didn’t allow for, or for blacks to live fully as adults.
They weren’t even addressed formally by their surnames. And even elderly blacks were described as if or addressed with ‘boy’ or ‘girl’.
And blacks aren’t considered to have mature, reliable or moral sexuality. And given popular culture that exacerbates this image, the stereotype won’t go away soon.
It in THIS that gay citizens have the most in common with blacks. This treatment is couched in religious teaching, but it isn’t NOT justified. No matter how gently or compassionately the intentions to change homosexuals are stated, the goal is that gay people disappear or otherwise are treated like children.
That gays and lesbians KNOW what they are from early childhood isn’t acknowledged by the ex gay industry, except in the negative and a behavior for intense intervention.
It does not occur that the basic response is in itself emotional and mental abuse of gay children.
Similar to the inculcation of inferiority and immorality black children were subject to in racist institutions.
My aunts, ‘changed’, themselves into white people by affecting the speech and dress and hairstyles of white women. And the things said in their presence was as hurtful, damaging and dangerous as it gets. For my aunts to be outed, would have meant for them the same issues for gays now. Destruction of careers, social networks, if not outright assault.
My point is, my aunts were not wrong to walk on the white side, or desire to.
What was wrong was for white people to insist that blacks were not their equals, nor had ANY capability to do anything of merit for society.
It’s understandable why someone gay would want to be heterosexual. The pressure is enormous to do so.
I am, however and always have been a heterosexual. I have at times, hated being black. Or resented the treatment I’ve received from boorish, if not threatening men. And often some people have altered their gender or color to see what it was like to live free and study those who are in power over the lives of minorities.
The fact remains that what you are now, is without identity but that dictated to you on terms from who controls it.
It happens to other people. In other ways, but it’s not good and and unless people are faith are as willing to accept what gay people REALLY are, and are willing to help and support gay youngsters in achieving their full status as adults, I cannot see that such pressure to be straight is for compassionate reasons.
If you think you are living in Christ, cool. But you died as a gay person. And that empowers other gay youngsters to die too.
Whether figuratively, literally, religiously, or symbolically…the point is….that they die.
And do it before anyone really knows who they are, what they wanted to do, or what they hope for. Honesty and education die with them. And the world has a right to know who gay people really are. Everyone is entitled to that knowlege and it’s wrong to keep it from them.
That is diabolical to me.
And being heterosexual isn’t all it’s cracked up to be by the ex gay industry. And making it sound like the ultimate of life as a human being is ridiculous.
We are all unique and individual and should realize our full potential, whatever it is.
And the gender stereotyping and myth and misinforming that the ex gay industry does is a illegitimate and damaging as the white supremacist institutions of my and my parent’s and grandparent’s childhoods.
And full recovery from that outrage may never come.
How can YOU or Alan Chambers or the rest not see the repeats of the past, and STILL feel so certain you’re doing the right thing?
No one could be doing right by God, when the opportunities to know gay people better still occurs again and again, and the symbiosis of gay and straight in the world together is thus far, INDESTRUCTABLE?
Segue warning…
And blacks aren’t considered to have mature, reliable or moral sexuality. And given popular culture that exacerbates this image, the stereotype won’t go away soon.
You gave me something to think about here… The pimp/ho image perpetuated by current culture is always something that has bothered me. And I have been guilty in the past of thinking it was a “black problem” that should be addressed in the black community.
But I do realize that this imagery is not solely under black control. It is evident and everywhere for one reason: because it sells. And I wonder if those same white people who buy this image of black people as sexually irresponsible would be so quick with their dollars if it were white people imaged thusly. Somehow I doubt it. I don’t see white entertainers projected as illiterate, oversexed, or pimp and ho nearly as much.
And if white dollars didn’t support this imagery, would not there be a place for black entertainers that appeared responsible and intelligent – at least as much as any other entertainers (paris, britney, and lindsey notwithstanding)?
Is this prevailing imagery really any different than Amos and Andy?
OK – rant over. Returning now to the topic at hand.
I think perhaps you don’t know Jesus that well.
Don’t feel bad Timothy, none of us do.
I understand he’s been dead a very long time. We rely on what others have said, and on what has been allowed to be published and not suppressed since that time.
(Unless, of course, Peter O has actually met Jesus in the flesh; so to speak.)
By the way, the war in Iraq is going really well. George said so. See how that works?
Speaking of wars, a kindly centurion told me Jesus said he’d “never seen such faith” after he asked Jesus to heal his urgh, umm, “friend” who was feeling a bit poorly.
“Friend”.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more.
I also remember some story about a “good” Samaritan.
Can’t have been that good, though — he was one of them awful Samaritans, after all.
Splitters!
(and that, dear, will do with the Monty Python. It’s boring. Drop it.)
Peter O. has gone to Oxford and studied a lot. He is very smart and made some very specific decisions. He is unique in many ways and probably feels that way. I have met the Peter O.’s of the world. England’s education system and culture seems to produce them more than the US, but the English have always admired or at least tolerated eccentrics in ways that Americans actually do not. The English countryside in particular likes them.
Given all that, nonetheless, I find the Peter O.’s of the world impossible to have discussions with unless one has infinite time and patience. And even then, failing a internally driven personal change on his part, such discussions never lead to change of opinions on their part. As to you, well, either you must buy his whole self-developed world view or you too are left thinking, “what was that all about” . See, they are very self directed, have thought about things, they have answers which they have, over time, developed themselves. A conversation with “outsiders” (anyone who is not them) is pointless. This is what extreme eccentricity is all about.
I feel sorry for Peter in some way, he is locked in by now, happy enough I suppose, living out the role he has chosen as curate of an evangelical C of E parish, oddly introducing Sacred Heart of Jesus devotions to it, entirely out of touch with our times and probably never again able to have real human contact with gay people, I mean, you know as post gay and all that.
It really comes down to this one point: is God true or is He a liar? Is the bible, the word of God, a work of fiction or is it The whole truth and nothing but. The bible states that The Lords position on homosexuality is against, along with many other activities that we the people, created by God, get ourselves involved in and must be wise enough to reject. Against God is the way of death. But, God is a deliverer, a redeemer and can change our minds. We can be transformed to think the way we should if we embrace the truth and turn from our own sinful way. We have the mind of Christ those who believe anyway. I submit that God is True and every man, who is contrary to Him, a liar. He created and controls the world we live in. What God says is LAW. We have been given a free will choice to serve Him by doing what is right in His sight, not our own, and to abide in this life in love and peace. There are many path ways to death and hell, but to life and God is a straight and narrow path. Only right is right. God is right.
T.H. How’s ’bout we meet at the Red Lobster for some shrimp and discuss this. Oh, that’s right, if you are going to follow all laws of Leviticus, then we can’t meet at Red Lobster. And I am damned before we even go to the gay thing, I have had tattoos before I ever had gay sex. (Sorry, TMI!) So according to Leviticus, I was already and abomination. We cherry pick Leviticus, what makes your picks any more authorative than mine?
T.H.
The question that many have is not whether God is true or a liar. The question is whether some men’s understanding of God, as taught in some conservative evangelical churches, is accurate.
I understand that some people feel the need to accept their church’s teaching lest they begin to doubt. And I understand that some are not capable of studying scripture or delving into theology, philosophy, or history and as such cannot apply context to Scripture. And I understand some just need to view those who find differing interpretaition to be “liars” or “enemies of God” and to see themselves as culture warriors.
I recognize such limitations. And I do try to show sympathy and not simply dismiss them as ignorant, uneducated, or childish in thought.
But please do also realize that many people who disagree with your recitation of your pastor’s sermons do not do so out of ill will. And they are not in opposition to God. They simply have found through study, thought, observation, or perhaps divine revelation that narrow interpretations (requiring wild assumptions about meanings) do not adequately explain the message of Christ.
T.H., I see what you’re doing as sort of a tactic, one that I’ve seen used by other people. You take your understanding of the bible and you codify it as self-evident truth. What the bible reads, and what the bible means or says, is one and the same to you. After that there’s really no room for, or need for, debating over interpretation.
With that established, there’s really no such thing in your eyes as a person who reconciles their homosexuality with their Christian faith because they think that homosexuality isn’t condemned, instead all that exists are people who either believe in God’s word, or don’t; God is either “the truth, or a liar.”
In other words, you’re conveniently leaving out the entire issue of interpretation so that you can reduce the issue to a very neat little black and white dichotomy, but I don’t buy it one bit, and I think that your point is not at all what it “all comes down to.”
I’m a self-affirmed Gay Christian and, and that doesn’t mean that I think God is a liar, or that “all of the bible is false,” it means that I don’t agree with you on the meaning of the scripture in question.
T.H. Thank you for posting. Just like you, I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. However, I think Jesus taught a hierarchy of scriptural truths.
For example, in Matthew chapter 12, Jesus’ disciples sinned by harvesting on the Sabbath day. And so, Jesus rebuked them bluntly… uh… wait… He did not. Something very amazing is shown in Matthew chapter 12. Is it possible that there is a truth (or principle) that is superior to (or dominant over) a life of sacrifice?
Please do answer. Just thinking over that one example caused me to change many of my own views towards others. Most sincerely; Caryn
To all the gay “christians” here – your exegesis of the bible is tortured. Just admit it. The bible is not only homophobic, but also blatantly un-scientific, exceedingly patriarchal, and pro-slavery. Trying to massage the bible to say what it clearly does not say is dishonest. Both the bible and tradition speak in unison about this issue. Just admit that the bible is wrong and move on.
However, I have no problem with people who still retain the bible only as a piece of literature from an unenlightened era, one where they draw personal inspiration from (even a Neo-Orthodox position is credible) or appreciate its literary beauty; there is nothing wrong with treating it like a Walt Whitman poem. What I take issue with is this understanding that you have to legitimize your existence and behaviour by making the bible agree with you. You don’t need biblical “approval” for what you do. Only fundamentalists think like that; they just haven’t realized that they too are modernizing the bible (where in the bible does it ask you to ‘ask jesus into your heart’?). The issue of biblical “authority” is an issue that is no longer valid and shouldn’t be debated. We don’t live our lives according to its every dictates because it is an outmoded, and dare I say demonstratively erroneous, book. I don’t see what is wrong with stating that the bible is not the foundation of your faith – as if it was handed down from god himself.
Like I have beens saying, when the LGBT community tries to argue with the ex-gay and right wing movement(s) based on scriptural interpretations, we will always fail. No amount of special pleading or pulling out novel interpretations of texts that clearly are anti-gay will convince anyone that the bible can be even remotely interpreted to support a gay identity. Sorry, it just can’t. If you want to admit that you are handling the bible in a new, more modern, way – just admit it. Don’t be so afraid to completely dismiss the bible.
Peter: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” Even if this was only the saying of a wise man, it prods me. Even if this was only poetry, it stops me. It speaks of immature and mature views of reasoning, and as my Lord Jesus knows, I have been guilty of the former quite often, and so negligent of the latter.
I hope I have been gentle in my debate, and not rude. If I failed you, I then honestly apologize. But those that are young in Christ, often rightfully debate “what is evil?” or “what is good?” I think this is good for a time.
I offer that those that are mature in Christ then ponder, “What is mercy? What is faithfulness? What is social justice? What is impartiality? Why the command to reconcile with each other? What is reconciliation? What does it mean to love your enemy? What does it mean to resign your case in court? What does it mean to ‘not judge those that are outside the faith’? What was the sin of Edom? What was the principle that allowed Jesus to defend His disciples ‘harvesting’ on the Sabbath?” [Matthew 23; Matthew 5; I Corinthians 5; Obadiah 1:10-15; Matthew 12].
I forbade my child at the age of 4 to ‘cross the street’ for it was ‘bad’. It was a good rule at that time. He is now 30 years old. How sad, if a neighbor collapses in his full view, and my son says, “I could not help him, for I wanted to avoid being ‘bad’.” I hope my son has matured in his understanding.
I shan’t abandon the Bible at all. I hope instead, that many of us will continue to dialog, to understand the more mature arguments, and to help each other move into the full maturity of Christ.
In my opinion, there are people collapsing in full view on both sides of the Biblical debate, and yet I hope many of us cross the street and strengthen them all — even our ‘enemies’. Most sincerely; Caryn
Peter, is there some constructive value in using scare quotes to refer to all of the gay “Christians?”
Be careful not to confuse seeking approval with refuting purported condemnation. I’ve never once felt the need to find approval of my sexuality from my faith, but that doesn’t mean I won’t say that I disagree when someone tells me that my faith explicitly condemns it.
Okay, I may have been a little aggressive in that last post. Please understand that it is borne out of a sense of frustration, not animosity. I just don’t see the point arguing with people who can’t see beyond their red-letter edition KJV.
I qualified the word christian to highlight the way in which the vast majority of “bible-believing” christians see you – as something questionable and your faith suspect. Read some of the responses on this site and on others; posts such as T.H.’s above are a good example. They really don’t think that LGBT people can be true christians because we violate “God’s word”.
Please don’t misunderstand me here. You can believe whatever you want. If your faith/belief is fulfilling and satisfying to you, believe all you want! I left my faith behind while attending bible school; at least I come by my atheism honestly! It wasn’t because I finally accepted my sexuality, but because I found that the bible didn’t make any sense to me living in the present (Bultmann was especially helpful). I think what I want is for people to recognize that the bible is a foreign book, whose content is largely alien to most peoples’ lives today. We can’t keep viewing it as “God’s word”, because the god of the bible doesn’t make sense today either. As such, we must approach it in a different and new way. I see attempts at “refuting purported condemnations” as a way of maintaining that old way of thinking, one that requires an external authority like the bible. Instead of saying from the beginning that the bible is outmoded, we try to harmonize it with our current understanding (I guess that is what I was trying to say). I think that we try to re-interpret the text to make it more congruent with today because most people still feel that they need to hold onto it. Why do we need the bible at all?
If you went to Bible School I’m sure you understand the answer to that one. I suspect you ask the question to emphasize again your own position, i.e. lack of faith in God. You are entitled to that but, as you recognize, others are entitled to their own beliefs as well.
I haven’t the slightest doubt that God exists, and I don’t believe as I do about passages of scripture because the need to adjust has been imposed on me. I read the Bible for what it is to me, the Word of God. I want to know more about Him and scripture is an important part of that.
If I truly believed that God did not want me living as I do, I would adapt my behavior, not my interpretation of scripture. In fact I have done so many times as I have grown and I have no regrets about that. These are my priorities in life, because I love Him.
You’ve spoken forcefully on this a couple of times now and I think we know your personal position. Let’s try to avoid attacking the beliefs of others in the future. I’m sure you can find a way to contribute to the debate without that.
Benton, You’re bent on religion, and you’re missing the point. The question is Right and wrong. What is right? What is wrong? Who determines which is which? Man? NO! Opinion as we all know is not neccesarily the truth. The answer is simple God is right, He judges all things and He has determined what is right and what is wrong. He is the creator of all things. Therefore we as the created must adhere to His truth about reality. Gods’ Word is truth and we must live by every word even if it doesn’t make sense to our finite minds. Any other ” reality” is no reality, it is deception. Deception leads to err, err leads to destruction. God wants to save you from destruction. Homosexuality is a cleverly devised deception perpetrated on mankind by satan. Man thinks he’s a woman, woman thinks she’s a man? deception plain and simple.
Timothy Kincaid, It really is about whether God is True or a liar. It is not about what the consensus of the church is, nor is it about the opinion of the pastor. The bible states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is not of God. The Holy Bible says that. The Word Of God. If you don’t believe what the bible says just be honest with yourself and admit that and let the ” you’re not interpeting it right” spin rest. Is it right to be honest? God says yes.
No, T.H., the Bible does not say that marriage is between one man and one woman. I honestly wish the Bible were that clear about such matters, but it is not. Unfortunately, various sections of the Bible promote polygamy. This affirmation of polygamy was gradually reversed by Catholic and Protestant philosophers (and, I assume, Jewish rabbis and philosophers) centuries after the various books that comprise scripture were written. Some conservative-led, antigay African churches permit polygamy to this day.
Furthermore, throughout much of scripture, marriage is assumed to be a familial, financial and contractual affair — not a romantic one — that is pre-arranged by relatives.
The nuclear family as we understand it today — a unit distinct from the extended family — did not emerge until the medieval period, and arranged marriages persisted among Jews and Christians until (approximately) the industrial revolution. Arranged marriages persist today among some highly traditional cultures.
I am told it is contrary to New Testament teaching to add or subtract from the Bible, and so I hope you will repent of your own sin in this regard. Going forward, T.H., please cite chapter and verse — and please do not butcher verses to suit your biases.
Timothy Kincaid, It really is about whether God is True or a liar. It is not about what the consensus of the church is, nor is it about the opinion of the pastor. The bible states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is not of God.
T.H.,
This may come as a startling surprise, but you don’t speak for God.
All you are able to say is that you speak what YOU believe ABOUT God. But God and His nature and His wisdom were not divinely revealed to you. In fact, all you have to go on are the English translations of the writings of devout people several thousand years ago in a different culture and with different understanding of the world around them.
Personally, I believe that only the most arrogant and self-righteous of people would assume that their understanding of Scripture is absolute and correct and that all others are flawed.
I am not saying that God is not right. I’m saying that you are not right.
Let me go right out on a limb here and make some guesses about you, T.H. I’m willing to guess that:
1. You do not read ancient Greek
2. You do not read ancient Hebrew
3. You do not read Aramaic
4. You have not studied any of the cultures surrounding the Biblical writers
5. You have not personally studied the scriptures that you are relying on for your condemnation of others
6. You have never made any effort to weigh the context of the scriptures (i.e. against the rest of the text from which you lift them) or the cultural understanding of those to whom the scriptures were written
7. You haven’t even been to seminary
8. You are relying solely on others for your interpretations
9. Your self-righteousness still allows you to think that your opinions based on ignorance are correct and they trump all others who have actually done all of the above.
But I’m just guessing. Feel free to correct me.
The bible states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman
I think it’s time to bring back something I wrote some time ago:
You know T.H. you and others are in error claiming that the Bible IS the Word of God when the bible itself does not make such a claim. The bible is only the inspired word. John 1 states clearly that Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD made flesh. Jesus is the only one that can claim such a title as the Word of God. But those that thrust their bibles upon the heads of those they disagree with are always forgetting that. Sad.
Remember Jesus Christ is THE Church’s one foundation. The bible is the source that tells us about Jesus. However, the bible itself is not the foundation of the Church. Remember it is Jesus that saves.
I just love fundamentalism. They always know exactly what God thinks and says.
Only?
Inspired in this instance means “God breathed” IIRC, that sounds pretty important. I’ve heard you say this before, and I’m never sure what your point is exactly. How do you propose one find out about God if not from His inspired Word? And what priority would you place on that?
David,
The distinction is that the Bible is not divine. The Holy Spirit, however, is a part of the godhead and it’s guidance IS divine.
This isn’t to suggest that we go with our whims or with what we think the Holy Spirit is telling us via some dream or moment of inspiration. After all, those to whom God spoke in the biblical narrative were quite reluctant to assume that it was really God speaking.
Nonetheless, adherence to “what the Bible says” generally means “what I’ve always believed the Bible says”. And every fresh revival has been based on the direction and moving of the Holy Spirit. And every fresh revival has always been opposed by those who Rely on The Bible As The Word of God.
If we become too reliant on textual authority, we replace God with an idol, a book.
Or so I believe.
Thank You Timothy for explaining it so well. But I would like to add to what Timothy was saying.
For those that claim to be “bible believing” (many not all) for the most part have shut their minds off to any new revelations that God may be trying to tell us. That is why you get those Christians that say, “science will never trump the Word of God = Bible”. For them God has already spoken and anything that science may reveal that goes against their interpretation of the bible is irrelevant and in error. One good example is the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic Church. It was the CC’s use of scripture that condemn Galileo’s findings. The same is happening today. Fundamentalists refuse to believe anything other than written Scripture to reveal God’s will. And to me that is not only dangerous but very blasphemous. This makes us lock the Almighty God into a book and I am quite sure that was not his original intention. I truly believe it is God that reveals through science the things we once held as “mysteries”. Medical breakthroughs and cures are all being guided by God himself.
David, I firmly believe that we cannot just shut ourselves off to the possiblity, no to the reality, that God is still speaking to us.
Let me first recognize that we are getting into some pretty specific Christian doctrine here. That’s fine, but I don’t want to drag everyone through it too long – I’m sure it matters only to a slice of our readership. Thanks for your patience.
I’m not sure if I totally agree with what both you and Timothy have said Ken. I feel that Timothy is more concerned with those who blindly claim something is a command from God without really ever having investigated scripture to know if that is what it says. To question the authority of scripture because some misuse it is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater to me.
By the same token, inspired does not mean that God wrote the book directly, so there most certainly are issues of culture and chronology which the reader must take into consideration. Otherwise you have things like slavery and concubines being a Biblical mandate, when I feel certain they are not. Suffice to say, just because it is mentioned in scripture does not mean it is a command.
I’ve never looked to scripture for my science, and I don’t think it was meant for that. There is only vague mention of things that, when taken extremely literally, could suggest that the earth is flat (four corners of the earth – but we still say that and know the difference) and the sun circling the earth (sun rises and sets, again we use that). As for the Catholic Church, well I don’t agree with the idea of purgatory either 😉
Again, I think that is too broad. Opposed by some, yes. Opposed by some who may have idolized scripture, yes. But indicting all who “rely on the Bible as the Word of God?” I don’t think that is fair.
I have no doubt He still speaks – God is not dead. But I personally challenge whatever I hear against the Word. If something conflicts with what God has said in there, I question it. I have no other way to guard against the counterfeit. Senses can be mistaken, emotion can cloud the mind, but I trust the Word. God provided it for a reason.
Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Perhaps a more accurate statement would have been:
“Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. And, if you let the devil deceive and puff up your mind believing sensual knowledge is higher than what God said you will be lost because science will never trump God. God created the principles we call science.Therefore Gods’ Knowledge is higher than our science and infinitely further ahead. All that I’m hearing here is a bunch of lawyering to try to weasel out of believing what God said in His word. But it won’t work. I say this out of a concerned heart not condemning. Concerned for your eternal state, because God is going to judge and He’s not going to be swayed by the things that are deceiving you. This is not the U.S. supreme court where law is subject to the opinions of highly esteemed men, were talking about judgement where everyone is subject to THE LAW. Law that will never change. Those found in violation will perish. God even esteems his Word above his own name. How much more should we esteem it above ours. Don’t look at the deeds of men as the example you should follow. The bible does speak in some detail about the err of men, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob,David, Solomon Etc… But, that does not mean that we do as they did when they erred, We should infact avoid it. The wages of sin is death. Homosexuality is sin it’s cost is death eternal.
Jesus was quite clear that he came not to destroy THE LAW but to fullfill it. If we are still bound by THE LAW then why did God offer Jesus up as a sacrifice once and for all time? Paul even states that if you are going to observe THE LAW then you will be judged by it. Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross brings us freedom and in that freedom and sacrifice he fullfilled THE LAW. THE WHOLE LAW. And as Paul states love fullfills THE LAW – Romans 13 v. 8-10
THE LAW brought the knowledge of sin and eternal death. But Jesus brought us freedom and eternal life.
Do we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Jesus said: “If you love me keep my commandments”. Now you must die and be reborn. Die to your own ways and embrace Gods’ way and he will deliver you. Even from homosexuality. Even from drug and alcohol addiction. He did it for me 🙂
Yield to His righteous ways and you will never be the same again. believe it or not I look back on my past life with regret because I was so twisted and decieved, and also with thanksgiving because God loved me even then and was able to save and deliver me as He promised.
The commandments Jesus was referring to was love of God and neighbor. Which fullfills the whole LAW.
I have been reborn, but I’m still gay. Hammering at us about our sexuality is nothing more than self-righteous arrogance IMO. Some Christians live in a black and white world. One that I refuse to live in. There is color out there my friend! 😉
It’s wonderful that you got away from drugs and alcohol. Those things damage not only your body but the relationships around you. I’m glad you came to know Christ and was delivered from such addictions. 🙂
I will praise God with my entire being, including my sexuality. As I have stated here on XGW several times, I have been in God’s presence and he has spoken to me. So I do not fear and I remember that he chose to speak to me before I even accepted him as Lord and Savior.
God does work in his own way and in his own time. 😉
T.H.: Escaping into any form of sexual activity, even hetero marriage, is a tough road to travel. Escaping into drug and alcohol addiction is an even tougher road to travel. Escape and/or addiction is not what is being advocated at all by the vast majority of writers here.
You wrote,
Like others, I am glad for you too. Like a man that worked for me, who is an alcoholic no longer drinking, you may need to refrain from even rum-flavored Christmas fruitcake. It perhaps struck him as ‘madness’ that we others could debate the best flavors for fruitcake. Please continue to use the strict rules that are moving you into a close relationship with our Lord. Sincerely; Caryn
“I will praise God with my entire being, including my sexuality.”
Cain offered something to God and it was rejected. God determined your sexuality. If you are male then you carry seed. If you are female then you carry eggs. The seed and egg come together through sexual intercourse, hence our sexuality established. We have free will and we can choose to be against God. The devil is a deciever and homosexuality and sexual perversion in general highlights some of his most deceptive work. I suppose then, If a father raises his child up to enjoy sexual relations with him and they continue on as the child enters into adulthood can they go on and glorify God with their sexuality? They’re not hurting anyone and they are both consenting adults. I don’t think so. God spoke to me too before I finally accepted Him as Lord, and when He did I was a mess: sexual perversion, drugs, alcohol etc… was what I did, but the idea is that you move from that to what God is calling you to. He is calling you to holiness and the only way to get there is to yield all of your ways to his way and let Him change you and make you new. His word says that homosexuality is sin. Now, you agree with God and say the same thing and let Him rescue you from the devils lies. Anything that you won’t let go of that God says is evil you have made your god and it is a god that will not be able to save you. I wrote this in love for my fellow man 🙂
T.H., you’ve gotten some latitude because of the general direction this thread has taken, but this is not your pulpit. Please curb the preaching and comment more directly to the topics if you wish to comment. Thanks.
What was it Timothy said about love that only other believers of the same type recognize as “love?” None of the things T.H. has said apply to me dogmatically because I’m Jewish, and I’m sure most of the Christians on this blog would be loathe to agree with T.H.
T.H.
There is nothing you can say that will convince me to believe as you do. I cannot. It would go against my conscience. But thank you for your words.
I beginning to understand more and more the ways and coercive tactics of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Conservative Christianity would be a stumbling block for me, T.H. if I embraced your belief system. Even if I was straight I could not. For me, it lacks the act of love IMO. I would have to reject love being the fullfillment of the LAW and embrace legalistic and hateful rhetoric towards those I feel that I am superior to. I will not take on such beliefs. And the more I see your type of comments coming out from the mouths of those that say they love me, it sickens me to think that in order to be accepted and loved by you and others that believe as you do I must deny who I am and live a life of total misery. I cannot. I will not. I am not called to do so. I have been called to be free in Christ. To be guided by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has guided me to some wonderful things. Sorry, I cannot embrace what my conscience is telling me is the opposite of true love.
As for holiness, you may try your hardest to get there. However, you will never get there. No one on Earth will. Oh, you may feel that you are there but you are truly not. Remember God himself is holy. We cannot achieve a statis that is only reserved for God himself while on Earth. We will always be sinners striving to do good until we die. But we will never achieve holiness while on Earth. That will never happen. I’ve never bought into that belief. Good yes. Holy no.
We will finally achieve holiness when we die and are in the presence of God for all eternity.
The things that I write are not of my own “belief system” but instead what God said. “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God”. When I tell you the truth I don’t do so out of hate but out of love, even if the truth may hurt a little. Tough love, if we’re honest, we know is love we all need in our lives. I will always speak the truth but even more so I will hear it. Gods truth only, because only Gods’ ways are true and He wants what’s best for me. He knows a lot more about me and life in general than I do. He created everything even this spinning thing we live on. If you’re about to step into a pile a dog leavings, and I exhort you vehemently not to take another step in the direction you are going, I’m not doing so out of hate but out of love. Even if you might think I’m trying to control you or that I’m using coercive tactics, I’m just trying to help you keep your shoes clean 😉 God Loves you and He loves right where you are, but He wants to change YOU. He doesn’t want to leave you the same, He’s got something better for you. He wants to mold you and shape you and establish you in the purpose HE has called you to. But, there is a cost, a small price to pay even if some think it’s huge, I’m on the otherside now so it seems a very small thing, give your life to Jesus. Your WHOLE life. Pray this prayer and mean it with all of your heart: Lord Jesus, have your own way in my life. Amen. my exhortations are not to make you feel inferior or to make myself seem superior. On judgement day, if it were not for Jesus, I would be just as guilty as anyone. So, I come to you as a soldier wearing the same uniform you are wearing because we are fighting the same war against the same enemy, and just as a soldier in this world warns his comrad who is about to step on a mine, I warn you: Choose for yourself this day whom you will serve. Mr. McClurkin chose to serve God over homosexuality and abolished it from his life through the Power Of Christ as did I and many others. Praise God. Hallelujah!!!
“We will finally achieve holiness when we die and are in the presence of God for all eternity.”
1Peter
13Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Holiness comes from God and is available to us by faith. Faith in what he says.
Romans
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Second warning, T.H. Please respect our requests.
Ken R. et al ==> Heads
This debate ==> Banging Against
T.H. ==> Brick Wall
This whole discussion proves the point that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. The problem with fundamentalist thinking is that there is no room for disagreement or honest questioning, because one’s faith is based upon emotion, not reason. That’s why fundamentalists often scream and yell, and throw out threats of Hellfire and damnation if you disagree with them.
Fundamentalism, a relatively recent phenomenon of Christianity, is deeply anti-intellectual, and places a high value on the rejection of critical thinking. It also appeals to people who need an authoritarian figure to run their lives (because of the emotional security it provides). It is also based more on a fear of Hell than a love of God.
What’s ironic is that Christ’s apostles never appealed to emotions or tried scaring people into making a decision for Christ. Not once. They always used reason when making evangelical appeals, by either pointing to the miraculous (healings, the infilling of the Holy Spirit), prophetic Scriptures or a person’s recent first-hand knowledge of Christ’s life and ministry… depending on the audience.
But a fundamentalist doesn’t care to hear this. Just give them their list of “dos” and “don’ts” and they’re happy. Sad, really, but there’s not much else you can do. They have all their answers, so there’s no point in continuing the dialogue. Unless you want a bloody forehead.
Christopher,
I must admit I wasn’t sure what a fundamantalist was but now I know that, in terms of being a christian, I am indeed a fundamentalist. Anyone who is truly of the faith must be also. Strict adherence to what God says is my paraphased definition of the word. So, as a fundamantalist will I always see myself with Gods help. Your statements suggest that you are either a liar, hypocrite, or very decieved. I say that only as an opinion based on what you said, not as an insult. You are saying things that, to me , shows that you’re not really sure about what you are saying. You couldn’t possibly be. And, you have to admit it if you are honest. Infact you are indeed speaking from your emotions, the very same thing that you are accusing us fundamentalist of. Talk about anti intellectual, there are people who claim to be christians but think that what God says is subject to committee and majority rule. That’s foolishness from where I’m standing. If God, Creator of Heaven and Earth and you and me, came to you today, saturday, and told you that YOU have it wrong it’s wednesday, will you continue to believe that it’s saturday? Would you get a today is saturday committee together and vote that God is confused? As I said in an earlier post God determined and established your sexuality: If you are male you carry seed, female you carry eggs, and the idea is egg and seed get together through sexual intercourse. Hence your sexuality firmly established. listening to the devil you learn that there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can achieve sexual stimulation to the point of climax with a person of the same sex, or under age person, or mom, dad, sister, brother, sheep etc… and have a very close comfortable committed relationship with them while doing it. But, God said those things are not right and you should not do them. People foolishly believe that because the devastating results of sin are not always immediate that God must be lying. But, hell is coming and it’s not me threatening you, it’s not me speaking out of fear. God will not override your free will and He has given sufficient warning. Follow Him and live, don’t follow Him, and you’re like a man who believes gravity is a myth a jumps from the empire state building, even after warnings that the ground would be coming up hard and fast. The law of gravity is not changing because you we are decieved, and neither is Gods’ righteous law changing . He will continue to reward the good and expose and punish evil. Thanks be to God for that, Right? I love God because He loved me first, and I see that His ways are right , and I also love my fellow man because God asked me to and it is my reasonable service as a fundamentalist christian. Really you can leave the fundamentalist off, a real christian is a fundamentalist automatically.
T.H.
It’s all about your beliefs. You claim your beliefs are correct and anything and anyone that gravitates away from your interpretation is a liar and deceiver. You firmly claim your truths are “true” because of your interpretation of the bible. There are many who interpret the Bible differently. However, if those interpretations don’t line up with the Bible the way you interpret it, they are going to Hell. This is typical fundamentalist thinking. Your views are right and all others are wrong.
I’m sorry, but I cannot continue this conversation with you T. H.. I am not a fundamentalist or would ever be one. The mentality I must have in order to be one must be one of self-loathing and bigotry against others in order to feel superior and demand that others believe as I do or the final outcome will be my judgement of Hell against my neighbor. I will not do it. It goes against my very conscience.
For even Paul says (Romans 14):
What Paul was saying in Romans 14 was that if my conscience is bothering me, in anything, I must act according to my conscience. If I believed being gay was wrong and yet I have gay relationships then I am committing a sin because I know in my heart it is wrong. However, if my conscience does not bother me and I feel blessed in my relationship with another man as I walk with Christ then it is not a sin because my conscience does not bother me. Paul was not only referring to food but in all things. Even that Catholic Church teaches that Catholics cannot go against their own consciences even if it means it goes against Church teachings.
I will worship the Lord in peace and joy. In hope and love for God and neighbor. He has revealed to me that Love is the most important of all. And because of this I no longer get angry, self-loathe or hate others as I once did. I have found peace. True peace. Something that I could not find within Fundamentalism. Being gay is not all about sex. Its about mutual love and commitment towards one another.
While you and I don’t see eye to eye T.H., I pray that one day we can at least call each other Brothers in Christ.
Peace
Ken R
Comments like those of T.H. make me ponder… what if I were transported to ancient Egypt and were to find myself confronted with a priest who insisted that I throw my child to the Crocodile God. He would be absolutely certain that it would cause the crops to grow and that my failure to do was was an affront to the gods.
It would not matter in the slightest that I disagreed, his faith and certainty would not waiver. But at least I would know it not to be true.
But, what if instead of being transported, I was born in that time and place. What would allow me to determine what to believe? Would I simply accept the writings of the Book of the Dead as holy and irrefutable? Or would I measure these writings against that which my conscience (and, I believe, the direction of God) told me was good and right and true?
I would like to believe that I would reject the pagan trappings and search for the truth of the one true God. But it’s impossible to know.
But I am here now today. And I have a choice.
I can either measure Christianity in its various forms against what I know to be true, based on my observations, my reading, my study, and on the directions of my conscience or I can blindly cling to what I have been taught… because it is what I have been taught.
T.H. will cling blindly. And based on what has been written here, I believe that T.H. would have thrown his/her child to the Crocodile God.
Are you saying that celibacy is a sin? Just because a man can get a woman pregnant doesn’t mean he should. More than that, just because he is a man doesn’t mean he can get a woman pregnant. If he does not respond sexually to the female form, then what is he supposed to do? Get married anyway and fake it? The only proper option, in my opinion, is celibacy. The Bible, too, sees celibacy as something that is good and proper. Doesn’t that go against your arguments though? By your strict adherence to “natural law,” you seem to be saying that just because every human can be sexually active then they should be.
The Bible disagrees with you there. Sexuality is not firmly established through external features. Even if it was, what would be your response to people who are born intersex? Are they not of God because they are neither male or female? Every good Christian is not a fundamentalist. God gave us a mind so we could use it. If we went by every little detail the Bible said (which is what fundamentalists do), we’d still be thinking that the world was flat.
Didn’t Christopher™ admit to that much in the first sentence?
Opposite?
Just because a man can get a woman pregnant doesn’t mean he should.
Ah but a good fundamentalist knows he has an OBLIGATION to impregnate some women. For example, if his brother’s widow is without children he must have sex with her until she’s pregnant. Remember Onan?
Thankfully my brother did his husbandly duty!! And not just because she is a worman, she really is not a pleasant person.