On CNN this week, Tulsa Pentecostal pastor Carlton Pearson described how he had a change of heart about fundamentalism after his best friend came out gay. Bishop Pearson graduated from ORU, and was well-known for his association with such charismatic superstars as Carman and Oral Roberts.
At one time he headed up a 5,000-strong megachurch in Tulsa, OK, but was denounced as a heretic by fellow charismatics when he began embracing the “Gospel of Inclusion” in 2003. The one-time fundamentalist now preaches that God accepts everyone – including gays and lesbians – a message that has cost him the best part of his congregation and his career. He says he looked around the Bible Belt and saw that fundamentalism “probably wasn’t working”.
He also talks about his former support for ex-gay ministry, which he now rejects:
The people who were gay were disfigured and dysfunctional and confused. I mean, those were the only explanations we had. And God would not be pleased with that; it’s not natural. … This is of the Devil. We need to rebuke this thing and bind it. I had all my gay friends fasting and praying and seeking God; we were anointing them with oil and encouraging them to go further into counseling.
Pearson appears to have put his money where his mouth is: He is now a firm supporter of gay rights, and earlier this year joined gays and lesbians for a Washington rally in support of hates crimes legislation.
He is on target with his final observation:
I think we have idolized the Bible and used it (and I call them “Bible bullets”) to denounce anything we don’t like or don’t understand or anything we fear. And I would like for that to be corrected in the Christian consciousness.
Watch the video here.
I heard about this guy on PBS’ “This American Life;” it was a fascinating story to listen to – describing the arc of his enlightenment and what his integrity has cost him.
What an American Hero!
Wow…this gentleman, and Joe Murray….amazing. They are prime examples of reason over hysteria, logic over irrationality.
And faith, over intractable religious certainty.
I have been baffled myself at folks whose ability to pass judgement on gay lives, are doing so without accounting for the collective behavior against gay people.
And they can’t get their heads around why their hostility isn’t breeding a love for God, let alone respect for the glass houses they are throwing stones from.
Bishop Pearson at least, found love enough to KEEP his friend in his life, instead of denouncing him for this revelation.
The ULTIMATELY acknowlegement of what God’s love really means.
That you have to HANG IN THERE, give yourself AND who you have loved, the same connection…..and that’s when the light shines.
There is no reason for God to test your love for him, when you’re sitting around with people just like yourself, who don’t challenge you, or anything you’ve always known.
I have tried to convey such epiphanies to reluctant hearts and minds. If they only knew what they were missing.
If they only knew….
I’m glad Bshp. Pearson had HIS. And see, he’s still a happy man.
Beautiful family too.
As Regan was getting at, Bishop Pearson is an example of what happens when what you know runs head into what you believe.
Pearson knew his friend and he knew him to be good. So when his beliefs were challenged, they yielded to reality.
Others let their beliefs overpower what they know to be true. They call it “faith”. I call it cowardice.
Unfortunately they then have to come up with bizarre mental exercises in which TRUTH means something other than what they know to be true and LOVE is something that doesn’t look like love. The next thing they know they are claiming “change” and “freedom”.
All because they were not courageous enough to challenge their beliefs when they ran up against reality.
What an inspiring man. He’s sacrificing everything to do good – and in doing good, he’s getting closer to God. He left behind a very profitable career – fundamentalist charismatic preacher – but he traded it for a truly loving spirituality.
Amen and Hallelujah Bishop Pearson
Carlton Pearson was denounced as a heretic for embracing the “inclusion” doctrine. This doctrine is a belief which is contrary to the Christian faith – it teaches that all people, regardless of religion, beliefs, or actions in this life, are going to heaven; and that hell is simply a temporary waiting place of purification.
Let’s not be fooled into thinking that this doctrine of inclusion is something which is a necessary change for all of Christendom. Although inclusion is a nice idea, it completely contradicts what the bible – and Jesus – teaches (and yes, I can provide solid and sound scriptural reference to refute this doctrine).
There are many, many churches and organizations out there which accept gays and lesbians without undermining the foundation of their Christian origins.
I am no judge on anyone’s personal beliefs – you believe what you like. But don’t call yourself a Christian and then turn around and preach things which go against basic and fundamental Christian doctrines.
Many people would argue just as stringently that the acceptance of homosexuality undermines the historic Christian faith, going against “basic and fundamental” doctrine. And they can provide the scriptural evidence to refute those who say otherwise!
Dave,
Yes they “would argue” (and of course, do argue). They often go a few steps further and try to influence the laws of the land to include those “basic and fundamental doctrine[s].”
Some of us infidels can equally provide the scriptural evidence for genocide, polygamy, women keeping silent and not teaching a man, selling all your worldly stuff to follow Jesus, etc.. I wonder at how the “Christian” selects what they’re going to follow and preach, and what they’re going to ignore.
Paul, I don’t disagree – that was precisely my point. There is scriptural evidence to justify all kinds of beliefs, including exclusivism, inclusivism and, as you say, genocide, polygamy etc. You don’t have to be an “infidel” to see that – just honest.
Dave,
Gotcha. I didn’t think you were disagreeing but probably responding to “many people,” so I referred to “they.” Consider my comments as an amen and ditto. While I’m at it, you have my further agreement that one doesn’t “have to be and infidel to see that- just honest.”
I agree that the scriptures have been used in the past (and are still being used today) to justify things which are wrong. Condemning people, misogyny, slavery, etc, etc. But with very few exceptions, such misguided justification is a result of taking scriptures out of context.
Adherents to Christianity are, as with most other religions, required to accept certain ideas / doctrines / teachings as central to the core of their religion. One such central idea of Christianity is that Jesus is the only way.
“I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes to the Father but my me” – John 14:6
“Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!” – Matthew 7:21-23
I could throw scripture after scripture to you about how the bible says the only way to heaven is through Jesus, but I won’t take up your time. My point is simply this: that to be a Christian is to accept the understanding that it’s God’s way or the highway. Plain and simple. And those who go around saying they are Christian but can live any old way they want and worship whatever they want, are in fact, not Christian by any definition.
I am not trying to justify any particular behavior. I am not trying to pass judgment. I am not trying to tell anyone how they should live their lives. All I am saying is that, to the Christian world, this doctrine of “inclusiveness” is not a good thing.
I apologize if I have caused any offense or anger or bitterness by my words. I simply wished to point out that there is a very good reason why Carlton Pearson is not accepted by most of Christendom, and that there are alternatives by way of churches / organizations which realize that being homosexual is NOT a sin.
Hiya Frank,
Apparently “understanding that it’s God’s way” is the tricky part. Of course, you understand, so it’s plain and simple to you. Why can’t people just see as you do?
Not sure if you’re referring to what I said here? I actually sited genocide and polygamy (from the Tenach), women teaching and materialistic ‘followers’ of Jesus from the “New Testament.” I was quoting examples of “God’s” directives, not peoples “misguided justification…”
No apology necessary for me, I am not offended by anything you have said. You don’t come across as angry or bitter to me. I understand pretty well how Carlton Pearson violates the fundamental Christian idea of God. I imagine he probably does as well.
Frank
But don’t call yourself a Christian and then turn around and preach things which go against basic and fundamental Christian doctrines.
While you do demonstrate a familiarity with orthodoxy, you misunderstand both the definition of “Christian” and the teachings of the Gospel of Inclusion.
Like those who ignore the definition of American and say things like “he is against the war, he’s not a real American”, you define Christian as being in agreement with orthodoxy or the accepted tenets of some church. But, much to the annoyance of those who want to claim ownership of the term, a “Christian” is simply one who relies on Christ as Savior.
And Carlson does do that. His inclusive salvation of all – regardless of their faith – is based on the redemption paid for by Christ through his crucifiction. You may not agree with Carlson, but his doctrine is – by definition – Christian. While you are seeking to define a Christian by their behavior (“those who go around saying they are Christian but can live any old way they want and worship whatever they want, are in fact, not Christian by any definition“), Carlson is using a different and more exact definition.
You are not the first to make such a claim. In fact, the “you can’t behave any way you want” v. “all is forgiven by grace” debate is the oldest conflict in the family of Christianity. The earliest apostles fought over this in a very public way – as is shown in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles.
And the first centuries were filled with battles between a great many diverse beliefs – all within the family of Christianity – that make Carlson appear staunchly conservative. It was only after those who later became “orthodox” had won, that these others faded into obscurity. Yet none were any less Christian than you, though you might find their beliefs to be quite odd indeed.
I am not going to try and persuade any of you as to whether or not Carlson’s theology is correct or is heretical, but I would suggest that indignant denunciations of his Christianity show ignorance of both Christian history and theological debate and evolution.
Perhaps it would be better to just suggest that you disagree with him as do many Christian churches.
I would be hard pressed to find a doctrine more fundamental to Christianity than justification by faith.
All this fussing over who’s in and who’s out suddenly reminds me why I left evangelicalism!
Frank,
Don’t assume everyone on here is Christian or ascribes to your brand of Christianity – your interpretation of the Bible is not everyone’s interpretation of the Bible.
What is so sad, is that the Bishop stood up for what he believed in despite the fact that he lost everything – his supposed brothers and sisters in Christ left him – that is real Christian love for you. I admire the man for sticking up in what he believes to be right – especially at such a great personal loss to himself
Frank,
I’m curious as to WHICH “Christian World” you are referring? Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Catholic, Any of the 20,000 Protestant denominations in the country who have different takes on the Bible? – There is no ONE Church anymore, so you cannot claim to speak for Christianity as if you own it. You are free to have your beliefs and interpretations, you’re even free to claim yours are the only true and right beliefs as do others who I’m sure disagree with you, but you may not impose them on others or claim they are the only ones.
ok, jew speaking on the topic:
If jesus is the only way, then laws condemning homosexuality are not part of the plan. After all, Jesus was silent on these. If you’re going to say “well Paul spoke against it, and he connected directly with Jesus and God” – I submit that is flawed logic. Paul never claimed to have any contact w/ Jesus’ teachings (In fact in the pastoral epistles, he chastises followers who become obsessed with the “Knowledge of Christ” rather than the saving grace of the “Christ Crucified.”) AND, if you’re going to cite scripture from the Tanakh (“Old” Testament), that is also a flawed argument because Paul diminished the importance of the Law. If you’re gonna cite Leviticus as proof, you better be keeping away from shellfish and not wearing any polyester.
Just MY humble opinion.
Just want to once again thank everyone for jumping on me when I submit my comments on topics which are close to my heart, regardless that I constantly go out of my way to point out that I’m not trying to “impose” – as was so aptly used – my beliefs on anyone. I’m just trying to add my personal “spice of life” to the conversation.
And to be quite honest, I’m tired of being pounced whenever I add my 2-cents. Regardless if I am for or against a position, agreeing with or disputing user comments. It seems like I am just no good at choosing my words correctly, or something.
Thank you all, I’ve enjoyed this site and the information it brings. But I’m not going to hang around a community where my thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and – gasp! – even expertise are constantly singled out and rattled by everyone else, with exception of the few who have been courteous to me.
Perhaps I’m just crazy. I don’t know. I don’t care. All I know is that I have constantly been left feeling very unwelcome by the majority of you. So it is time for me to move on.
Thanks – Frank
Frank,
I’m sorry you feel put upon, but when you label your Christian views as the only correct ones, and then call every other Christian who believes differently wrong and sinful – I’m sorry, but you bring a great deal of this on yourself.
Frank –
I meant to add a very sincere apology to that last comment. It was never my intention to drive you away, merely challenge some of your assertions. I am sorry
Frank,
Sorry. Didn’t mean to pounce.
But when I hear “he isn’t a Christian”, I tend to come to the defense of the outcast.
Hang a while longer. It’s perfectly OK to say “my opinion is… ” or “the reason he isn’t accepted in orthodox faith is…”.
I stand by my statement – I don’t believe I said anything inappropriate. But I encourage Frank to hang around on the board, even if just to take it all in, and read a bit.
Two issues ended up being discussed here: Mr. Rattigan emphasized Mr. Pearson’s acceptance of gays and lesbians. Frank however focussed on Mr. Pearson’s doctrine of inclusion which is about issues of salvation rather than specifically speaking to sexuality. In both cases, Mr. Pearson’s positions depart from fundamentalist thinking, but which one got Mr. Pearson in more hot water with his former peers? Anyone know?
Every time it starts to feel like the ex-gay movement is heavily trampling on me and the rest of the LGBTQ community, I read articles like this on XGW and it helps to put me right again. Thanks for being there 😉
PW wrote:
Pearson’s acceptance of the Gospel of Inclusion was what drove him out of the evangelical/charismatic community. That was in about 2003. So far as I know, he wasn’t vocal about the LGBT angle until more recently. It can’t have helped, though.
Frank,
I can appreciate it can’t be nice – and is perhaps even intimidating – knowing that the majority here is going to criticize your opinion. However, it was your choice to make a very contentious statement about who can and cannot call themselves Christian, and that was bound to elicit some strong reactions, especially when most of us have heard all our lives that we have no right to call ourselves Christian. How would you feel if someone came here and said, “It’s fine to be an evangelical – just don’t call yourself a Christian”? You’d be quite rightly indignant.
Anyway, peace, Frank.
But this sort of thing is not just in the evangelical churches. It is in ELCA Lutheran too. I am a former ELCA pastor. I say former becuase I could not be open and be a leader in the church. Often the ELCA is lifted as the shining example of tolerance and acceptance but I am unemployed and in foreclosure not because I was a bad pastor but because I was gay.
Bishop Pearson is high profile, but there are those of us in the trenches that are fighting too.
Yo Frank,
Surely you’re not giving up on us that easily? You didn’t put up much of a fight to keep us from going to hell. What are you about, being a “light in a dark place,” or are you just wanting affirmation? Geez, so much for “love never fails.” I know I certainly didn’t “pounce.” What exactly did you expect? A free ride? Did you really think you could walk into a fireworks factory with fire and expect no reaction? Many of the people here have been deeply hurt by the religious system you seem to espouse, are quite familiar with it, and, even have some-gasp- expertise of their own. The onus is on you to be sensitive here. I haven’t walked into your church waving the rainbow flag. This is “Ex-Gay Watch” after all.
From a personal standpoint, Frank, I could not honestly continue to say that I “knew” God/Jesus, though I worked at it for 35 years. Yet, even though I do not claim to “know” (or speak for) “God/Jesus,” I still pay attention when someone else does, who know’s I might spot “God/Jesus” in those who claim to have “him” indwelling. From where I stand, you are just like the rest of the human race who want to be loved and accepted for who we are. In other words, I see no indication of a “God/Jesus,” or anything beyond ‘normal’ in anything you have said. Perhaps sincere belief, minus substance, at best. On the other hand, I see a few here apologizing for offending their offender. Who’s loving their enemy?
Frank, you have now learned that one can find the same dogma amongst those espousing an ever widening gospel of inclusion (Christian Universalism) as those who believe Leviticus precludes a man from entering into a loving, monogamous relationship with another man. I hope you can look past that and stick around 😉
I don’t personally find any support for Universalism in scripture. It seems like a very human solution to issues which are not easy to understand this side of heaven (looking through a glass darkly). It also does not resonate with that part of God which I believe lives within me. So, for me to say I think it is an accurate view of God’s relationship with man would be wrong — certainly for me. Others will have to make up their own minds.
That said, PW is correct in that there are two issues here and they should remain separate. XGW does not officially espouse any particular theological doctrine, but I personally would not want anyone out there to get the idea that one must gut a core tenant of their faith in order to see that scripture does not condemn their lives. You can be a gay Christian without accepting Universalism.
I want to make this point clear because this is similar to the choice we are given by many ex-gay and anti-gay ministries, and it leads a lot of sincere believers to seek out conversion therapy because they are unwilling to give up their faith.
Need I remind you that it was Frank who dogmatically insisted that those who disagreed with his evangelical exclusivism have no right to call themselves a Christian?
You said, “make up your own minds,” which is fine. On the other hand, Frank said, “Don’t call yourself a Christian.” Don’t call us dogmatists because we refuse to take such insults lying down.
I think he could have been more tactful about his comments, certainly. But the response as it unfolded was just as dogmatic, and not understanding of how Frank has probably been hurt as much as anyone here (as I mentioned at the end of my last comment).
We get people coming through here in all stages of their journey, sometimes hurt by both extremes. I hope you will agree that understanding and compassion is more important than defending a point of view — certainly here at least.
David,
I’ll agree with you that I could have been more understanding with Frank, and I agree that compassion is MUCH more important than simply defending a point of view – and maybe its because I’m biased here, or maybe it is simply an unimportant matter of semantics – but I don’t believe our responses were necessarily “dogmatic”. Frank’s choice of words was not good and I think we were just trying to bring that to his attention – although, perhaps, not in the best possible way.
Put plainly, Carlton Pearson personfies that change IS possible.
And at no time has the anti gay or the ex gay proven that THIS change is a bad thing, nor that it isn’t a change worth accomplishing to be closer to God, and all his OTHER children.
I have found that believing the change possible that Pearson has accomplished is virtually the path that seems to bring loving people closer, a larger more important truth into the light. Trust between human beings and an alliance to build on better things.
Change is possible indeed. And Exodus doesn’t represent change, but a MAINTENANCE of an unhealthy standard in which to address and deal with homosexuality.
However, change FROM that standard, requires courage and I have noticed that those who support Exodus or represent it, have little courage for a lot of things.
I heard of Carlton Pearson on “This American Life.” It was his belief in Universalism that lost him most of his congregation, I believe. Like David Roberts said, justification by faith is a fundamental Christian belief. Saying that you can do whatever you want, be as selfish, wicked, or immoral as you want, and still get to Heaven without believing in Christ at all is simply insulting to the vast majority of Christians.
There are probably many GLBT-inclusive churches that still hold the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that salvation only comes through belief in Him. Not all such churches have to be as extreme as Pearson’s.
Jay –
“nobody comes to the father but through me” is a very confusing statement. Does this mean that people who never hear about Christ, who don’t really “know him”, or who don’t believe in him simply won’t go to heaven? I don’t think any self-respecting Christian believes that. The kind of God that would allow that wouldnt be the God of the Bible I read. As to Mr. Pearson, I can’t speak directly about what he believes because I don’t understand all of it, but I admire him for standing up for what he believed, especially in light of all that he lost. True Christian love shouldn’t involve outright abandonment – even if you disagree with someone.
I will agree, though, that you can’t willingly, and through choice, be a terrible person and not expect consequences – but I have a hard time believing that that is what Mr. Pearson actually espouses.
As for justification by faith – that is not a fundamental or ancient Christian belief – it is a doctrine that came to Christianity much later in its existance.
The Eastern Church, for instance “sees humanity as inheriting the disease of sin from Adam, but not his guilt; hence, there is no need in Eastern theology for any forensic justification.[35] Second, the Reformation was the catalyst for extremes in precision regarding justification[clarify][citation needed]; however, the Eastern and Western churches had already divided long prior to that event. The Orthodox see salvation as a process of theosis, in which the individual is united to Christ and the life of Christ is reproduced within him. Thus, in one sense, justification is an aspect of theosis.[36]. However, it is also the case that those who are baptized into the church and experience Chrismation are considered to be cleansed of sin.[37][clarify] Hence, the Orthodox concept of justification cannot be reconciled to Protestant concepts, while it is not considered as being in disagreement to Catholic concepts” (Wikipedia)
I’m the last one to be a fan of Pearson’s theology in general – for all I know, he’s still preaching the WoF stuff that made him famous – but to say that he and other inclusivists/universalists deny the uniqueness of Christ is a severe misrepresentation. He may not believe that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but that is a far cry from saying Christ himself is not necessary for salvation.
My very limited understanding of this doctrine is that all are saved through Christ. Even those who live a vile life have had their redemption purchased by Christ’s sacrifice and redemption cannot be earned by good deeds – because none are good enough – nor punishment avoided by ashewing sin – because any sin is heinous.
The significant difference between this and orthodoxy, as best I can tell, is that the standard belief is that redemption requires a repentant prayer. I think – though I’m not certain – that universalism as practiced by Pearson allows for that repentance to be after one had died (I may have that wrong).
In any case, can I remind us here that one of the nice things about this site is that it does not make judgment calls about theology and whether or not one doctrine or another is correct or appropriate or central to Christian faith.
I find the doctrines mentioned to come closer to Judaism, minus the who “Christ” thing. God’s grace and forgiveness is ultimate. We believe that doing good makes one good – and the one who is the most good is God. THEREFORE, when one does good, one comes closer to God. I believe this is similar to the Orthodox view presented by Jayhuck. We believe man sins, but sins are not an insurmountable hopeless wall put between man and God- man overcomes that wall by doing good, and repenting when you do bad. The hebrew word for repentance, “T’shuvah,” means “to return.” Repenting is about returning to God. This is also present in the Orthodox faith, I believe- and the Gospel of Inclusion believes that if you act as though Jesus acted (that is, a good person); like Ghandi for example, then you are saved. The final (possible) similarity is that when the body dies, the soul is sent to be purified in the afterworld, for no longer than a period of 11 months. During this time, the family of the deceased prays for that soul. A chance is given even after death.
I always found the salvation doctrine of Christianity to be rather unloving- one man I read about even likens it to Hitler’s attempts to purify the German people of those who are impure. He questions the loving nature of a God who bases salvation not on how good you are, but on whether you believe a certain dogma. Hitler condemned good people to death because they didn’t fit the Aryan mold – in Christianity, Ghandi is in hell because he did not believe exactly the right thing. It is a sort of “Final Solution” – even the most saintly non-Christian is burning, while Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the Holocaust, is in heaven because he took Christ as his Savior before he was hanged in Israel. The afterworld is purified of everyone except those of the same religion; the same beliefs and attitudes.
Like Emily, I found the whole concept of only getting to Heaven through Jesus to be bizarre. If that’s the case, then Heaven isn’t some paradise to reward good people, it’s just an eternal country club–you only get in if you have the right connections.
With due respect to my fellow posters, it is incorrect to say it’s about having the right connections to get into heaven or that is it about excluding all those good people in other religions from the afterlife. What I was taught (and I was raised Evangelical Christian) is that sin is an insurmountable wall between man and God and Jesus is the only doorway through that wall. Is it unloving that there’s only one doorway? Is it unloving to point out the only doorway? As for goodness, you can’t be good enough which is why you need to go through Jesus. This means that heaven isn’t about rewarding good people, it’s about rewarding those who have faith in the One who is the Door, the Way. As for who came up with this idea, it goes back to Jesus who said of himself as recorded in John 14:6: I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (NIV)
Emily, the comparison with the Final Solution is offensive. It is simply not necessary to carry a debate regarding the inclusivity/exclusivity of Christian salvation out to this extreme. An extreme where the comparisons are ludicrous, the connotations are meant to irritate and disturb, and meaningful discussion is derailed.
I was quoting these people – their article is far from irritating and disturbing – but that’s not the point. The idea that humankind is hopeless, sinful, and inherently evil is exactly the kind of irritating ludicrous extreme that I find derailing of understanding between people- and especially Jews and Christians. This idea is certainly not present in the Tanakh, my bible- Paul of Tarsus consistently misquotes and takes things out of context to justify what seems to me to be his own self-loathing, which is in turn based on the popular Hellenist beliefs of the time that everything of this earth is bad, and everyone must transcend to the outer realm. Think of Plato’s “allegory of the cave.” Now, Paul offers a transcendent hope for all people, but this transcendence wouldn’t even be necessary if humans weren’t seen as such a failure in the first place.
Absolutely. This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous comment. Jews have a salvation plan for Jews and Non-Jews alike, and the Torah gives 613 ways for Jews to get closer to God. There is not simply “one doorway.” Paul’s view that a person’s goodness is based on 613-minus-the-sins-you-commit is flawed – rather, the mitzvot (“commandments,” good deeds) you fulfill are cumulative and bring you closer to the divine.
Christians will be forever quoting John as justification for their exclusive salvation program – it’s practically a mantra. Doing this does the best job of irritating, disturbing, and derailing discussion. Declaring your infallible scripture as speaking of the “only way” renders a debate or discussion already closed, already won, already settled; because “Jesus said it, and Jesus is God, and the Bible is his word,” etc., etc.
I don’t need to talk about how extreme the Christian salvation program is, because the Bible – and a great amount of Christians – already do it for me. That is my opinion, and honestly, this really isn’t a good topic to debate upon, because you’ve already “won” your end, and I’ve already “won” my end. So that’s all I feel I need to say about it.
You didn’t win anything Emily, you merely drove the wedge deeper with a comparison that you have to know is offensive. And worse you top that with a comment that infers that my response is some kneejerk reaction and that I was pulling the old ‘the Bible says it, you must believe it’ ploy. I was doing nothing of the kind. I understand how Christian thinking is viewed and the questions it raises, and have no problem with discussions of those questions. My post was not a conversation ender but rather an explanation in a thread that is becoming unnecessarily hostile to the Christian point of view.
Let me please remind everyone that it is not our purpose here to discuss which faith is correct and which is not. To the extent that these issues intersect the ex-gay equation, we discuss them. Anything beyond that, and certainly any discussion which belittles another’s belief, is out of scope here.
Emily, regardless of who said it first, I feel it important to mention that your Nazi comparisons are, as are most such comparisons, not appropriate for civil debate. Considering the topic, they are particularly distasteful and bound to cause deep feelings of hurt and anger. I’m sure you don’t want that.
Many beliefs are mutually exclusive and will likely never be otherwise — nor should they necessarily be. The best we can do, particularly here where this is not our primary topic, is be respectful of eachother’s sincerely held beliefs and carry on.
David, they are not “my” comparisons. Please give credit where credit is due. I presented them but I don’t claim them to be my own. but you’re right, i don’t want to cause civil unrest here- Point taken, let’s move on.
PW –
I agree that the comparison’s were not good, but from what I’ve seen of Emily’s posts, I’ve yet to see her outright denounce Christians or even be hostile to them – I think she just made a mistake, and I think she’s right, we just need to move on.
I really haven’t seen or heard anyone on here be hostile to Christians, per se – most of us on here, myself included, ARE Christians – at least many seem to be. While we may disagree on interpretations and historical matters, most of us share a belief in Christ. I guess what amazes me sometimes, is that it is not non-Christians who are hostile to Christians, but the ability of Christians to be hostile to each other
The exact same thing can be said for the Jewish people. Yes, let’s move on, and i don’t mean to be hostile to the Christian faith at all but simply to point out where i differ – my mother is a Presbyterian (an extremely liberal one) and my father is a Reform Jew. [btw – before anyone makes the claim that i’m not jewish b/c my mother isn’t, i was put through a naming ceremony at birth and essentially “converted” then, Bat Mitzvah’d, then confirmed – I was raised to be 100% Jewish.] Anyway, coming to terms with Christianity isn’t easy for me b/c of the history of the relationship between my people and their people, but nonetheless, it’s a Christian world I live in, and half of my family is non-Jewish, so I better learn and grow as a result.
PW –
Just as a response to the Evangelical teaching of Christ being the only doorway – I was brought up in an Evangelical Church and then switched to, what you might call, a more historical and traditional church. Anyway, we say that we know where Christ and the Church are, but we don’t know where they aren’t.
I guess that just shows how wide the divide can be, even among Christians regarding all sorts of issues 🙂
I did, by saying:
Let’s not split hairs, you presented them and it really doesn’t matter where they came from — you made the decision to bring them into this discussion. I’m not trying to pick on you but we have criticized Randy Thomas for doing exactly the same thing.
As someone said, let’s move on. If there is anything else to be said about the original topic, go ahead.
Jay said…
That’s a great way to put it, it covers the reality without some of the speculations that often come from the Evangelical perspective.
I will like to ask this to Carlton Pearson: If you say that everybody in the world will go to Heaven, then tell me where Adolf Hitler is, Joseph Stalin, the hijackders that crashed in the twin towers, and other human monsters that have killed, torture, made children orphans, women widows, and other horrific things that other human beings have done to others in a monumental scale (some responsible for the killings of millions) without repenting of the evil they did on this earth, tell me: where are they now? are they with God? do you think for a minute that God will say to these murders: forget the horrendous evil things that you people did on earth to other people and enter in my Heaven. Where is the justice done to the people who were taken from this earth that could have lived their full lives as we all do. If that would be the case, there would be anarchy in this earth with people killing, raping, stealing, and on, and on, because they could say: I can do anything I want because Jesus Christ already gave me my salvation and I’m on my way to Heaven. This preacher says these things because a person has not murdered his family, or Hitler have not murdered his entirely family or even almost his entire race, and on, and on and other atrocities. I will like to ask this preacher: does he believe in the entire bible or has he taken out scriptures from the bible that best suits him? If he calls himself a Christian, preaching a: “gospel of inclusion” then what bible is he using?. I wonder if he is using the: ” bible according to Carlton Pearson” Know this, this preacher will have to give an account to God on weather he preached the bible as what it says in it(it talks a lot about Hell after a person dies) or he made his own believes. If he believes the bible as the written word of God, then why doesn’t he believes it all? and if he thinks that the bible was written just on the thoughts of men, then why does he stills believes in Jesus Christ since he says that it was written just by the thoughts of men? this preacher has a double standard. He probably doesn’t know weather he’s coming or going.
And you call yourself a man of Go, I know that none of us are perfect but being in the spot light praching to thousands I beleive God would rather you say “yes He loves everyone of us that’s why Christ died on the cross for our sins” and lead those that are living other life styles to salvation instead of giving them false hope of going to heaven. And yes Rev. you will have to answer to God as well for leading his sheep astray.
i live in tulsa and this man had almost as big of a church as oral roberts…being the mother of a gay son (and now many adopted sons..lol) i hate that people in general put him down…its not his choice…its not a disfunction in his brain…it drives me insain to hear those things…the whole point boils down to this…everyone no matter their color, religion or sexuality is equal in God’s eyes…He made all of us…we as Christians have been instructed to ‘Judge not lest ye be judged..” yet we are the first ones to say anything negative about anyone
My son is MY PRIDE…and I PRIDE with him…i am so very proud of him for everything he has done…i don’t care about anything other than God gave me this son for a reason…whatever it is God wrote it down in a book and here is my child
Yes i am a Christian woman…it doesn’t mean i have to be cruel just because in others eyes he is “different”…in my eyes and his brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents..he is just our family…
When I think of inclusion, I think of evey sinner who belongs in Church including the homosexual. Inclusion doesn’t mean that what your doing is alright. But means you have a right to reveive salvation. But salvation doesn’t mean you keep doing what your doing!!!!!!! Salvation has a price. As a sinner, I’m in Church to change what I am so God will get the glory for that change. If you want to stay in sin, what good is Church unless you need change? Church isn’t for the rightous, but the sinner.
Larry,
From what you said it sounds to me like you think committed monogamous long-term covenanted relationships between the same sex are sin. To which all I can say is don’t get in one.
For those of us who have read the relevant scriptures, studied their meaning, searched for comparable concurrent language, looked at evolving understandings of issues like slavery, gender and race and seen the coherency of the underlying message of equality before God, we have come to a different conclusion about the meaning of a handful of scriptures.
So you go on worrying about what you are doing and leave others to worry about what they are doing. The odds are that they’ve studied this issue and prayed about it a whole lot more than you.
But thank you for your discussion about inclusion in the church. The next time a gay couple comes and sits down next to you, it’s nice to know that you will shake their hand and make them feel welcome.
God bless you,
Timothy
Just stumbled on this site. I am an activley gay man myself. But I found it interesting how the “Inclusion” people here were not at all tolerant to include Frank or his opinions/beliefs. No one was willing to include Frank’s belief that christianity has a limited definition and does exclude some whose belief does not fit a certain (even his personal) standard. I often find the ‘tolerance for all’ people will not tolerate anyone who believes differently than they.
No, Veini, no one demonstrated intolerance toward Frank — some people simply disagreed with him, and some people demonstrated that Frank’s views are not very orthodox.
Tolerance does not equal agreement, and disagreement does not equal intolerance. Frank and his critics were tolerant of one another even as they disagreed. Frank was neither barred nor chastized for commenting. He remains welcome to comment. If Frank felt uncomfortable or insecure being disagreed with, then that has nothing to do with intolerance.
If you, Veini, are unwilling to tolerate civil disagreement among people of differing views, then you — and you alone — have a problem with “tolerance for all.”
I have never heard a gay person describe themselves this way. Just a thought.