Jennifer Knapp Interview with CT (It's about her being gay)

[James Johnson]

Is the Bible clear on pedophilia? Some have argued the Bible is not clear on homosexuality so it may not be sin. If the COTN takes the same stance with pedophilia as they do with homosexuality than it's only the act that's sin.

[Shea Zellweger]

Is the Bible clear on pedophilia? Some have argued the Bible is not clear on homosexuality so it may not be sin. If the COTN takes the same stance with pedophilia as they do with homosexuality than it's only the act that's sin.

Isn't that what I already said?


Well Jim, that's an excellent question. Let's start by determining what Pedophilia is.
Is pedophilia an attraction to minors regardless of whether you act on it? If so, then I would have difficulty saying Pedophilia is a sin
Is a 21 year old romantically pursuing a 16 year old pedophilia? the law seems to think it is, but I would tend to disagree.
When we talk about Pedophilia, there are so many going definitions, it's really hard to say whether your personal definition is one I could say is definitely sin. What I can say certainly is sin is child molestation, as is rape. Rape's clearly forbidden in Scripture, and is a clear violation of another person's privacy. Child Molestation is sinful because a child isn't truly capable of giving his or her consent (and I'm very grateful that our legislators have recognized this fact). We can also go a step further and say child porn, or fantasizing about children, are both wrong, because they are a decision to give in to lust, which is also clearly wrong.

So, is it the Pedophile's fault if he or she is attracted to young children? I don't think so. But since those young children cannot possibly return that attraction, or give consent for the pedophile to act on that attraction, for the pedophile to act on his or her attractions would certainly be wrong.

[Benjamin Burch]

Is the Bible clear on pedophilia? Some have argued the Bible is not clear on homosexuality so it may not be sin. If the COTN takes the same stance with pedophilia as they do with homosexuality than it's only the act that's sin.

The Bible is pretty clear on rape. That's what Pedophilic sex is. Therefore, yes, the Bible is pretty clear. I also think that Shea has answered the question of "attraction vs. action" quite well already on this one.

[Bob Hunter]

Ben,

yeah, I can't go into all the ways in which I think God blesses what he himself ordained from the beginning. I would hope we could just assume that and move on. I would love to talk about the blessibility factor in marriage, but for now lets stick to the topic at hand.

I think we are all at a point of agreement here that the position of the Church of the Nazarene is "Clear." While issues of human sexuality are vastly complex, I think the Bible gives us enough to be reasonably clear on the issue of homosexual activity. I agree with Shea at the point where there is a distinction between orientation and the act. I would never condemn anyone for having a same sex attraction. Perhaps there is some disagreement among us on the issue of monogamous homosexual relationships. I'm going to say this does not match the pattern of human sexuality I see in scripture. It just doesn't vibe with what I believe is God's will. I'll stand by that conviction if you guys don't mind.

I am grateful for the discussion here, it is helpful. I would only hope we could avoid any references or comparisons to the CNs, I don't think that helps the discussion along at all.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,

yeah, I can't go into all the ways in which I think God blesses what he himself ordained from the beginning. I would hope we could just assume that and move on. I would love to talk about the blessibility factor in marriage, but for now lets stick to the topic at hand.

I don't think we can say God ordained all heterosexual marriage from the beginning. I don't think God blesses all of them.



I think we are all at a point of agreement here that the position of the Church of the Nazarene is "Clear."

Yes, I think so.



I agree with Shea at the point where there is a distinction between orientation and the act. I would never condemn anyone for having a same sex attraction.


And this is where the Church needs to find ways of cultivating community in ways that encourage the expression of love outside of marriage. We praise marriage and make it a sacrament and then tell people they can't participate in it and yet don't offer them any other viable alternative. We just encourage them to be "celibate." To say "It's okay that you have that feeling, but just don't go do anything with it...." and then go home to our wife seems disingenuous at best.



Perhaps there is some disagreement among us on the issue of monogamous homosexual relationships. I'm going to say this does not match the pattern of human sexuality I see in scripture. It just doesn't vibe with what I believe is God's will. I'll stand by that conviction if you guys don't mind.

Once again. I don't know why there'd be any worry that I might "mind." I've already stated twice now that one can faithfully come to the conclusion you have.




I am grateful for the discussion here, it is helpful. I would only hope we could avoid any references or comparisons to the CNs, I don't think that helps the discussion along at all.

Again, I don't think anyone here made any serious reference or comparison to the CN's.

[Todd Erickson]

I totally disagree with this notion. Only marriage has been blessed by God Ben, while a same sex couple may experience attraction, love and loyalty, I think it pales in comparison to what a husband and wife share in terms of intimacy and beauty (Song of Songs is about a husband and wife). There is something about the God of the Bible I have come to know that delights in the union of a man and women, and it is blessed in a very special way. I don't think same sex unions experience that same blessing. Nor can they experience the bliss of bringing a child into this world.



I love how all of the comparisons here essentially are saying that I and my wife are gay.

[Todd Erickson]

Is the Bible clear on pedophilia? Some have argued the Bible is not clear on homosexuality so it may not be sin. If the COTN takes the same stance with pedophilia as they do with homosexuality than it's only the act that's sin.

All of the verses referring to homosexuality in the bible are in the context of prostitution or fornication. The bible has no stance on dedicated homosexual relationships.

The bible does have a clear stance on acting toward others in a way that is incompatible with agape, or that is grounded in selfishness. Pedophilia and rape are impossible from agape, homosexual relationships are not.

[James Johnson]

Heterosexual relationships are mentioned in a very clear way throughout the Bible in a positive way, in a way that is clearly approved of by God. A positive homosexual relationship is never mentioned, not one time! The only mention of homosexual sex is given as negative, and as sinful.

[Todd Erickson]

Heterosexual relationships are mentioned in a very clear way throughout the Bible in a positive way, in a way that is clearly approved of by God. A positive homosexual relationship is never mentioned, not one time! The only mention of homosexual sex is given as negative, and as sinful.

All of the mentions of slavery, and women as property, are also positive. I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Rich Schmidt]

Heterosexual relationships are mentioned in a very clear way throughout the Bible in a positive way, in a way that is clearly approved of by God. A positive homosexual relationship is never mentioned, not one time! The only mention of homosexual sex is given as negative, and as sinful.


All of the mentions of slavery, and women as property, are also positive. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Again, I'd love to recommend Webb's approach, described in his book, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. It is not quite true that "all" of the mentions of those things are positive. There are hints (and more than hints) in Scripture itself that slavery and the subjugation of women are not what God wants for us. The trajectory of Scripture is away from both. However, these same hints aren't present for homosexual behavior. At least, I haven't seen anyone point to any.

[Ryan Scott]

For me the real issue we don't face is how contextual scripture is for the time in which it was written. It would have been inconceivable for someone to think of two women or two men having the sort of relationship we see today as marriage. Heck, it would have been quite rare for a man and woman to have the sort of relationship we view today as a marriage. The notion of romantic love was hardly in existence as a reality for people. For the most part, even people engaging in homosexual acts during this time would not have been doing so as an attempt at love, but in a hedonistic manner.

We just don't have any direct scriptural address to the issues we face regarding homosexual marriage in our modern day. We're forced to interpret the whole of scripture and how we address such issues. Ultimately it comes down to a value judgment - whether or not a loving, committed homosexual relationship can model the type of relationship Christ has with the Church the way a heterosexual marriage does. The Church of the Nazarene has come down on one side of that question; other denominations have come down on the other. Like many other theological divides I think disagreement cannot be accompanied by disparagement here.

[Gary Creely]

I won't listen to Christian radio stations and I refuse to set foot in a Christian bookstore. I bristle at most examples of Christian pop culture

If you end up with a church someday there is a good chance you could have a church full of people who think Christian radio is the best thing since sliced bread. In fact in many churches the Christian radio station has a greater prophetic voice to the people than the pastor. It becomes a major challenge. One issue is that many Christian radio stations typically carry preaching from a reformed tradition, when folks are immersed in that all the time they begin to believe that way. They only hear us once a week, but they here those guys all week (and they are likely better preachers). Then you have the issue of "creation moments" with Ken Ham, who basically says you can't be a Christian if you don't read Genesis like he does. The list goes on and on.

I think the issue here is more the vehicles CCM arrives in, than CCM itself. Many of the CCM artists I have known are pretty cool folks, and some even make decent music.

I hold less distain towards Christian music and focus it more towards Christian radio and Christian pop culture. The music is artist working their craft, all be it though a crappy system.

[Bob Hunter]

Again, I'd love to recommend Webb's approach, described in his book, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. It is not quite true that "all" of the mentions of those things are positive. There are hints (and more than hints) in Scripture itself that slavery and the subjugation of women are not what God wants for us. The trajectory of Scripture is away from both. However, these same hints aren't present for homosexual behavior. At least, I haven't seen anyone point to any.

Great suggestion. I disagree on the hints of homosexual behavior. If we are looking for a specific prohibition, probably not going to find it. Be we don't have specific prohibitions for a lot of things that are deemed unhealthy and very likely inconsistent with holiness (smoking cigarettes for example). In order to get there on the homosexual issue I would appeal to the structure of the family, procreation, biblical metaphors, and the larger framework of scripture as a model for how we might interpret what God desires for human sexuality. With that I feel very confident in saying that celibate same sex relations are not a fit.

[Rich Schmidt]

Great suggestion. I disagree on the hints of homosexual behavior. If we are looking for a specific prohibition, probably not going to find it. Be we don't have specific prohibitions for a lot of things that are deemed unhealthy and very likely inconsistent with holiness (smoking cigarettes for example). In order to get there on the homosexual issue I would appeal to the structure of the family, procreation, biblical metaphors, and the larger framework of scripture as a model for how we might interpret what God desires for human sexuality. With that I feel very confident in saying that celibate same sex relations are not a fit.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that there aren't hints in Scripture that homosexual behavior is OK. There are clear prohibitions, but no hints of a trajectory away from those prohibitions. Just like there are Scriptures that clearly accept slavery and the subjugation of women... but (strong) hints of a trajectory away from that.

I see now, looking back at my post, that the way I said it was totally confusing. My apologies! I would edit it if I could, but apparently there's a time limit on editing posts....?

[Ray Lepkowicz]

"Jesus didn't condemn people with sexual lifestyles different from His own: He offered them love, forgiveness, freedom, and acceptance. We all need those, regardless of sexual lifestyle."
Dennis,
While I find it amazing that people would stay married without consumating their marriage, the Bible does not call that sin, so God bless them. However when lifestyles fall into sin, God help us to lovingly point wayward souls to the truth. The greatest illustration is the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11). Yes, Jesus did not condemn her but He did say "Go now and leave your life of sin" (John 8:11b).
"For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him" (John 3:17) We should not be in the condemning business but we should seek to do whatever God would have us do to save those who are lost. Love and accept the sinner not the sin.

[Bob Hunter]

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that there aren't hints in Scripture that homosexual behavior is OK. There are clear prohibitions, but no hints of a trajectory away from those prohibitions. Just like there are Scriptures that clearly accept slavery and the subjugation of women... but (strong) hints of a trajectory away from that.

I see now, looking back at my post, that the way I said it was totally confusing. My apologies! I would edit it if I could, but apparently there's a time limit on editing posts....?

Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I don't see any hints that it is okay unless someone takes a flying leap. I mean you could stretch it and say David & Jonathan, but I think it would be hard for that to be accepted given the fact David was clearly heterosexual.

[Todd Erickson]

Again, I'd love to recommend Webb's approach, described in his book, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. It is not quite true that "all" of the mentions of those things are positive. There are hints (and more than hints) in Scripture itself that slavery and the subjugation of women are not what God wants for us. The trajectory of Scripture is away from both. However, these same hints aren't present for homosexual behavior. At least, I haven't seen anyone point to any.

In order to get to that point, you have to look at the overall themes and direction of the bible, rather than specific verses. I uphold that reading of the bible. The argument against homosexuals (and interracial marriage, and slavery, etc.) does not.

[Paul DeBaufer]

"Jesus didn't condemn people with sexual lifestyles different from His own: He offered them love, forgiveness, freedom, and acceptance. We all need those, regardless of sexual lifestyle."
The greatest illustration is the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11). Yes, Jesus did not condemn her but He did say "Go now and leave your life of sin" (John 8:11b).


When this passage is viewed in light of John 4 the narrative of the Samaritan woman at the well and my own experience with sin then Christ, I get the feeling that Jesus is not commanding her, that the statement is not an imperative, but a declaration in that through Him we are FREE to go and sin no more. We no longer have to live in that bondage. I think that this fits with the type we find in the Exodus and the specific we find in the Gospel better than a legalistic interpretation of the imperative. I may well be wrong as I am not a student of Greek and can only study the passages in English and through varying commentaries. But at this moment this is what I see happening in the passage of the woman caught in adultery.

[George Wallace]

When this passage is viewed in light of John 4 the narrative of the Samaritan woman at the well and my own experience with sin then Christ, I get the feeling that Jesus is not commanding her, that the statement is not an imperative, but a declaration in that through Him we are FREE to go and sin no more. We no longer have to live in that bondage. I think that this fits with the type we find in the Exodus and the specific we find in the Gospel better than a legalistic interpretation of the imperative. I may well be wrong as I am not a student of Greek and can only study the passages in English and through varying commentaries. But at this moment this is what I see happening in the passage of the woman caught in adultery.

ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω: πορεύου, [καὶ] ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

Here "ἁμάρτανε" or sin, is in fact in the the imperative mood. Since this is in the second person, singular it is literally "You" (adulterous woman) "go and sin no more." Jesus is commanding her to not to sin.

I think the NASB has the best translation of this verse. Whenever the NASB has some clunky English, it is usually a decent rendering of the Greek.

"I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

Your sentiment is positive, but here in the Greek the only way it can be read is as an imperative.

Grace and Peace
George

[Shea Zellweger]

ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω: πορεύου, [καὶ] ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

Here "ἁμάρτανε" or sin, is in fact in the the imperative mood. Since this is in the second person, singular it is literally "You" (adulterous woman) "go and sin no more." Jesus is commanding her to not to sin.

I think the NASB has the best translation of this verse. Whenever the NASB has some clunky English, it is usually a decent rendering of the Greek.

"I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

Your sentiment is positive, but here in the Greek the only way it can be read is as an imperative.

Grace and Peace
George

Yes, but an imperative is not universally the same as a command. The imperative mood can serve as a command, entreaty, exhortation, or even a request or a plea. Given the context of the statement, and the logical impossibility contained within it, I would be inclined to view this particular imperative as an exhortation. I don't think Paul's exegesis is 100% accurate, but neither do I think Jesus put this woman in a position where one more sin would doom her. There is always grace. In this instance, I am reminded of Paul the Apostle saying "what then, shall we go on sinning that grace might abound? By no means!" There is grace for when we sin, but it's still better not to sin in the first place, and so it is heavily encouraged. I think Exhortation fits best here.

[Julie Reed]

Jennifer Knapp was interviewed by Larry King last night. Here is the transcript. I was able to see the last 20 minutes of it. Towards the end of the interview, the pastor was trying to defend why he believed homosexuality was a sin. He was accused of being judgemental etc... Ted Haggard sounded as if he was defending it and saying it was not a sin and was justifying it along with Jennifer Knap. I found it discouraging because I felt like the pastor who was saying it was considered a sin was ganged up on. Here is the transcript of that interview. You can decide.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/23/lkl.01.html

[Bob Hunter]

Jennifer Knapp was interviewed by Larry King last night. Here is the transcript. I was able to see the last 20 minutes of it. Towards the end of the interview, the pastor was trying to defend why he believed homosexuality was a sin. He was accused of being judgemental etc... Ted Haggard sounded as if he was defending it and saying it was not a sin and was justifying it along with Jennifer Knap. I found it discouraging because I felt like the pastor who was saying it was considered a sin was ganged up on. Here is the transcript of that interview. You can decide.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/23/lkl.01.html

Julie, I read the transcript last night and have thought it about some. I have had some contact with Ted Haggard through FB and have followed him for about a year (since he was last in the NW). Based on what I know of Ted he has repeatedly renounced homosexual activity. Anyway, the interview appeared to have three people present:

1) A Lesbian who professes Christ yet doesn't see a need to repent
2) A fundamentalist Pastor who believes the Lesbian should repent
3) A fallen Pastor caught in the middle

Jennifer came off defensive at times and slightly confused. Pastor Bob was very patient, calm and measured but probably focused a little too much on SIN. Ted Haggard made every attempt to reconcile the two and probably didn't succeed. I don't know if much good came out of it to be honest with you.

[Shea Zellweger]

Jennifer Knapp was interviewed by Larry King last night. Here is the transcript. I was able to see the last 20 minutes of it. Towards the end of the interview, the pastor was trying to defend why he believed homosexuality was a sin. He was accused of being judgemental etc... Ted Haggard sounded as if he was defending it and saying it was not a sin and was justifying it along with Jennifer Knap. I found it discouraging because I felt like the pastor who was saying it was considered a sin was ganged up on. Here is the transcript of that interview. You can decide.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/23/lkl.01.html

Well, I don't think we should be surprised that Larry or Jennifer would take Jennifer's side. I didn't read anything in Rev. Haggard's remarks that were him "ganging up." In fact, I don't see him taking a stance one way or the other- there are a lot of platitutdes, talk about how both sides make good points, and how it's not his place to judge.

I don't like Larry King's interview style. It's as though he gives each person approximately 15-30 seconds to make his or her point, and regardless of where they are in the response, he turns to the next person on the panel and asks them to respond. Every time someone started to give a real answer (be it Jennifer with her Greek words, Rev. Botsford with Acts 10, or what have you), he interrupted before the answer could be given. I recognized several points where one person or the other could have given an excellent defense of their position, but King was just too impatient and never let any of the thoughts develop.

[George Wallace]

Shea,
As a generalization of the imperative mood you are absolutely correct! Specifically, on this text, in this case, I do not believe that it is accurate to call Christ’s Words and exhortation.


The imperative mood can serve as a command, entreaty, exhortation, or even a request or a plea.

Respectfully Shea it is not a menu, you don’t get to say mmmmm….that sounds good I think I’ll have that one.

It does not at all matter what a text can say; what matters is what a text does say! Again, you are absolutely correct about context; context is king.

And in this context what we have here is the Second Person, Singular, Present, Active, Imperative. I don’t believe you can translate a Present Active Imperative as an Exhortation unless your definition of Exhortation is “Do it Now…Move!”

Encyclopedic Definition (http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Imperative-mood).
The imperative mood expresses commands, direct requests, prohibitions. In many circumstances, directly using the imperative mood seems blunt or even rude, so it is often used with care. Example: "Paul, read that book".


D. The Imperative Mood (http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gmood.html)
The imperative mood is the mood of intention. It is the mood furthest removed from certainty. Ontologically, as one of the potential or oblique moods, the imperative moves into the realm of volition (involving the imposition of one's will upon another) and possibility.

1. Command

The imperative is most commonly used for commands, outnumbering prohibitive imperatives about five to one. The basic force of the imperative of command involves somewhat different nuances with each tense. With the aorist, the force generally is to command the action as a whole, without focussing on duration, repetition, etc. In keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a summary command. With the present, the force generally is to command the action as an ongoing process. This is in keeping with the present's aspect, which portrays an internal perspective.
Mark 2:14 Follow me!
Mark 6:37 Give them [something] to eat.

2. Prohibition
The imperative is commonly used to forbid an action. It is simply a negative command me (or a cognate) is used before the imperative to turn the command into a prohibition.
Matt 6:3 Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

3. Request (Entreaty, Polite Command)
The imperative is often used to express a request. This is normally seen when the speaker is addressing a superior. . Imperatives (almost always in the aorist tense) directed toward God in prayers fit this category. The request can be a positive one or a negative one (please, do not ...); in such cases the particle me precedes the verb.
Matt 6:10-11 Let your kingdom come, let your will be done ... give us today our daily bread.
Luke 11:1 Lord, teach us [how] to pray

4. Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration)
The imperative is rarely used to connote permission or, better, toleration. . This usage does not normally imply that some deed is optional or approved. It often views that act as a fait accompli. In such instances, the mood could almost be called "an imperative of resignation."'
Matt 8:31-32 "If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine." And he said to them, "Go!"
1Cor 7:15 If the unbeliever departs, let him depart


I think the Subjunctive would be funky, it would be weird to express some sort of conditionality if used here but, it is the only Mood I found that even referenced Exhortation.

B. The Subjunctive Mood
1. Hortatory (Volitive) Subjunctive [let us]
The subjunctive is commonly used to exhort or command oneself and one's associates.

Given the context of the statement, and the logical impossibility contained within it, I would be inclined to view this particular imperative as an exhortation.

Shea, here I believe you are mixing Greek grammar with exegesis. The question of whether or not there is some sort of logical impossibility within the command is an exegetical question not a grammatical question. Grammatically, I believe it is solidly a command. As for the exegetical question of what is meant by this command, well there is probably room (a little) for discussion of what exactly He meant. I don’t think it was a logical impossibility I think it is a command just like a ton of other commands that fallen humans shouldn’t but do break. I am 100% with you there is always grace! Honestly, I’m not quite tracking as to how one would read doom into this.

I believe the only way to read it is command. Once read; while asking what does He mean, well then, I don’t think our two interpretations are to far apart at all.

Grace and Peace
George

[Ryan Scott]

It really seemed like Larry handpicked the pastor he was going to have on, so he could go at him hard. Obviously he could have chosen someone with a bit more articulate abilities. Then again, Larry likes to run his show and he's been in a bad mood lately with the divorce and all. Probably not the best night to be on Larry's bad side.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea,
As a generalization of the imperative mood you are absolutely correct! Specifically, on this text, in this case, I do not believe that it is accurate to call Christ’s Words and exhortation.



Respectfully Shea it is not a menu, you don’t get to say mmmmm….that sounds good I think I’ll have that one.

It does not at all matter what a text can say; what matters is what a text does say! Again, you are absolutely correct about context; context is king.

And in this context what we have here is the Second Person, Singular, Present, Active, Imperative. I don’t believe you can translate a Present Active Imperative as an Exhortation unless your definition of Exhortation is “Do it Now…Move!”

Encyclopedic Definition (http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Imperative-mood).
The imperative mood expresses commands, direct requests, prohibitions. In many circumstances, directly using the imperative mood seems blunt or even rude, so it is often used with care. Example: "Paul, read that book".


D. The Imperative Mood (http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gmood.html)
The imperative mood is the mood of intention. It is the mood furthest removed from certainty. Ontologically, as one of the potential or oblique moods, the imperative moves into the realm of volition (involving the imposition of one's will upon another) and possibility.

1. Command

The imperative is most commonly used for commands, outnumbering prohibitive imperatives about five to one. The basic force of the imperative of command involves somewhat different nuances with each tense. With the aorist, the force generally is to command the action as a whole, without focussing on duration, repetition, etc. In keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a summary command. With the present, the force generally is to command the action as an ongoing process. This is in keeping with the present's aspect, which portrays an internal perspective.
Mark 2:14 Follow me!
Mark 6:37 Give them [something] to eat.

2. Prohibition
The imperative is commonly used to forbid an action. It is simply a negative command me (or a cognate) is used before the imperative to turn the command into a prohibition.
Matt 6:3 Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

3. Request (Entreaty, Polite Command)
The imperative is often used to express a request. This is normally seen when the speaker is addressing a superior. . Imperatives (almost always in the aorist tense) directed toward God in prayers fit this category. The request can be a positive one or a negative one (please, do not ...); in such cases the particle me precedes the verb.
Matt 6:10-11 Let your kingdom come, let your will be done ... give us today our daily bread.
Luke 11:1 Lord, teach us [how] to pray

4. Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration)
The imperative is rarely used to connote permission or, better, toleration. . This usage does not normally imply that some deed is optional or approved. It often views that act as a fait accompli. In such instances, the mood could almost be called "an imperative of resignation."'
Matt 8:31-32 "If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine." And he said to them, "Go!"
1Cor 7:15 If the unbeliever departs, let him depart


I think the Subjunctive would be funky, it would be weird to express some sort of conditionality if used here but, it is the only Mood I found that even referenced Exhortation.

B. The Subjunctive Mood
1. Hortatory (Volitive) Subjunctive [let us]
The subjunctive is commonly used to exhort or command oneself and one's associates.


Shea, here I believe you are mixing Greek grammar with exegesis. The question of whether or not there is some sort of logical impossibility within the command is an exegetical question not a grammatical question. Grammatically, I believe it is solidly a command. As for the exegetical question of what is meant by this command, well there is probably room (a little) for discussion of what exactly He meant. I don’t think it was a logical impossibility I think it is a command just like a ton of other commands that fallen humans shouldn’t but do break. I am 100% with you there is always grace! Honestly, I’m not quite tracking as to how one would read doom into this.

I believe the only way to read it is command. Once read; while asking what does He mean, well then, I don’t think our two interpretations are to far apart at all.

Grace and Peace
George

Lemme see if I'm getting you here:
-We are agreed that there are multiple implications for the imperative
-We are agreed that, regardless of the implication for this particular imperative, it is nigh on impossible that the woman was capable of going and sinning no more (especially given that this was before the completion of the Atonement)

To the former, I think when there are multiple possible meanings, the next logical step is to move from pure grammar into exegesis. That's how we come about our translations. For example "just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." Somebody, or some group of somebodies, decided that the Greek pneuma ought be translated "spirit" instead of "breath" in that instance. I have my quarrels with that particular translation, but it remains that the translators made an exgetical call.

The same is true in this passage. We have an imperative spoken by Jesus. In a purely grammatical sense, he could be commanding, exhorting, granting permission, pleading, or forbidding. Given the sentence structure, we can easily eliminate pleadning. Commanding and forbidding are, in this instance, two sides of the same coin- commanding her not to sin, forbidding her from sinning, same thing- so we can group those two together and just call it Commanding. From there, it really is about exegesis in taking the next steps. What did Jesus mean when he was addressing this woman? He (who, incidentally, was without sin) had just granted the woman a pardon, at least from the sin in question. Given that her sin had already been commanded against, I think it would be an unnecessary redundancy for Jesus to restate the command. Rather, I would say he is exhorting her to follow the law which she already has. She may recognize that he has some measure of authority, but there's nothing in the text which suggests she acknowledges him as a person of such great authority that he can command her how to live her life, and at no point in this narrative does he make such claims about himself. So, without having established a position of authority from which to give such a command, it would come out as an exhortation to her whether he means it that way or not, and since Jesus had a pretty good track record of knowing what people were thinking, I doubt he would mean the sentence one way in speaking to the woman, knowing full well that's not the way she would take it.

[Dale Cozby]

2) We've mentioned several times that homosexuality itself is NOT a sin, and what's in question here is homosexual activity.
Define sinless homosexuality for me Shea.
If it means to perform same-sex acts it is a sin.
If it means to burn with a lust in your heart then it is a sin just like it is for a heterosexual.
If it means to desire sexual intimacy/relationship with another of the same sex which is the same as to desire any forbidden/prohibited sexual relationship, from the unmarried virgin, a child, a married woman, etc...it is a sin.

What part of homosexuality isn't a sin? Being tempted but over coming those desires with a clear mind and taking no action or even further thought of it in that direction? Then why call it homosexuality at all if it is just a recurring passing tempting thought?

If I sat around and daydreamed, fomented, lusted, burned, or desired an adulterous(or homosexual) relationship, would I be guiltless of the sin of adultery(or homosexuality) even if I never persued a real adulterous(homosexual) relationship?
If I looked at porn daily would I be free of sexual sinfulness, since it isn't rape, or adultery? Would it not be considered wrong/sinful(fornication) to do so unrepentantly, even if no one was hurt and it was consensual?



4) As a clergymember of the Church of the Nazarene, I do not use that capacity to make statements contrary to the official church position on any issue with which I have a personal disagreement.When I was ordained I was asked that if I ever became out of harmony with the doctrines and polity of the church would I be willing to give up those credentials. Not if I ever preached contrary to our doctrine, just our of harmony in my heart was the way I understood it. Seems they still ask that don't they?
I would find it very difficult to be a transparent and open person, if I had to keep my personal doctrines separate from my public doctrines.

I suppose in the end there are many people who believe in Jesus yet cannot or will not surrender some sin in their life, to the detriment of themselves and the church as a whole. We are not their judge, but when it comes to who we can work with in full fellowship, we won't be able to do it with everyone who says to Jesus "Lord, Lord."

[Shea Zellweger]

Define sinless homosexuality for me Shea.
If it means to perform same-sex acts it is a sin.
If it means to burn with a lust in your heart then it is a sin just like it is for a heterosexual.
If it means to desire sexual intimacy/relationship with another of the same sex which is the same as to desire any forbidden/prohibited sexual relationship, from the unmarried virgin, a child, a married woman, etc...it is a sin.

What part of homosexuality isn't a sin? Being tempted but over coming those desires with a clear mind and taking no action or even further thought of it in that direction? Then why call it homosexuality at all if it is just a recurring passing tempting thought?

If I sat around and daydreamed, fomented, lusted, burned, or desired an adulterous(or homosexual) relationship, would I be guiltless of the sin of adultery(or homosexuality) even if I never persued a real adulterous(homosexual) relationship?
If I looked at porn daily would I be free of sexual sinfulness, since it isn't rape, or adultery? Would it not be considered wrong/sinful(fornication) to do so unrepentantly, even if no one was hurt and it was consensual?

The homosexual orientation, which leads someone to be physically attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex, is not sinful. We can debate all day as to whether homosexual activity within the confines of marriage is sinful, and I'll continue to be noncommittal, because I think both sides make valid points, but even if we absolutely agreed that all homosexual activity is sinful, that does not make the attraction also sinful. Tell me, when you were a single man, not dating anyone, were you only a heterosexual on the days you had lust in your heart? That seems like a pretty negative view of sexuality.


When I was ordained I was asked that if I ever became out of harmony with the doctrines and polity of the church would I be willing to give up those credentials. Not if I ever preached contrary to our doctrine, just our of harmony in my heart was the way I understood it. Seems they still ask that don't they?
I would find it very difficult to be a transparent and open person, if I had to keep my personal doctrines separate from my public doctrines.


Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong pastors, but I have yet to meet one who can say in all honesty that he or she agrees with absolutely everything in the Manual In fact, I recall some very spirited debate from elders in good standing at General Assembly seeking changes to several of our Articles of Faith, some of them in very drastic fashion. None of these men and women surrendered their credentials because they found themselves in disagreement prior to General Assembly, and I doubt any of them went home and surrendered their credentials when their petitions were denied. Are there things in the Manual I would like to see changed? Sure. As I said, I don't know anyone who doesn't have a personal opinion here or there. Does that put me out of harmony with the doctrines and polity of the church? No, it does not. I believe the polity of our church is such that when it comes to things we would like to see changed in the Manual, we live and act according to what that Manual says until such time as those things are changed, if that time ever arises.

[Dale Cozby]

The homosexual orientation, which leads someone to be physically attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex, is not sinful. Then I hope you would offer the same grace to ALL who desire forbidden sexual attractions, including pedophiles, and the lengthy list of other philias both legal and illegal. Since all you are saying is "orientation" or inclination to prefer one forbidden sexual relationship over another is not sinful in itself, all of these must likewise be acceptable sexual orientations.



We can debate all day as to whether homosexual activity within the confines of marriage is sinful, In my opinion there is no debate on the topic, since the relationship is forbidden, like a lot of other ones in scripture. Just because it is legal in our post-modern society doesn't make it stop being a wrongful relationship from a scriptural standpoint, unless of course, one contextualizes all scripture until they be worthless or to have lost its salt.


even if we absolutely agreed that all homosexual activity is sinful, that does not make the attraction also sinful. If so, then old men attracted to young teen girls would not be wrong either. Of course, its hard to call it an attraction without a desire for action, just my humble opinion.


Tell me, when you were a single man, not dating anyone, were you only a heterosexual on the days you had lust in your heart? When I was young and single...well. The thought of sex cross my mind every day, so I wouldn't know. Fortunately, I became a Christian about the same time I hit puberty so my faith and desire for a right relationship out weighed my lustful desires...on every day. So I waited for marriage to fulfill my desires....but for me the possibility for the right sexual relationship was always present within that orientation, even if in my heart the timing was off.:smilies1722:


That seems like a pretty negative view of sexuality. Negative or narrow? I think it might be narrow...like the road less traveled, but the one Jesus calls us to walk with Him nonetheless.
Sexual immorality is a large and wide road and many travel upon it. But the only historical and contextual and traditional and scriptural model given us by the NT, seems to indicate a narrow yet faithful model to follow. And doesn't involve faithfully marrying my Labrador Retriever, my child, my same sex friend, or a whole host of other forbidden relationships.

[Brian Postlewait]

I really want no part of this conversation. I knew Jennifer so the conversation feels a little removed from the real life experience to justify a full blown battle about homosexuality. This is heavily traveled ground and the polemics on are really not going to convince either side. But I was intrigued enough by the interview is Larry's interview to comment on this.

The pastor in response to Larry's question about shell fish referenced the story of Peter and the descending sheet. The argument was something like, "of course I eat shellfish, because God clearly changed that law." a la, Peter and the descending sheet.

But this should only confuse matters for the careful reader, because of course Peter was not anxious to go to Cornelius, nor where the Jewish Christians excited to receive them into the fellowship. Once he was there he was surprised that indeed the Spirit was present with this Roman Soldier and his family, so they were baptized.

So we can talk nature vs. nurture, or grammatical interpretation, or anecdotal story after anecdotal story, but at the end of the day perhaps the test as to whether Jennifer Knapp is or isn't a Christian, is or isn't in fellowship with God and/or the Church has more to do with God than it does with the box our God is in. Perhaps it is as she said, the duty of her local community and her pastor(s) to determine whether or not the Spirit is present in her life as she seeks to follow Jesus.

BTW: If indeed she did confide in this pastor years ago, and indeed if this pastor has been praying for her all these years, then he betrayed deeply the confidence I believe we ought to keep as spiritual friends and pastors.

[Todd Erickson]

Then I hope you would offer the same grace to ALL who desire forbidden sexual attractions, including pedophiles, and the lengthy list of other philias both legal and illegal. Since all you are saying is "orientation" or inclination to prefer one forbidden sexual relationship over another is not sinful in itself, all of these must likewise be acceptable sexual orientations.


This is sort of like saying that if it's okay to be angry some times, then surely murder and genocide, as well as torture, are okay as well.

Or because you might need to speed sometimes, performing a hit-and-run, or a gang-style shooting, or running over somebody's grandmother on the crosswalk are okay.

Or since, I don't know, walking to the park is fine, surely killing somebody's dog by snatching the leash out of their hand and swinging it around your head until it chokes to death, and then tackling the screaming pet owner and bashing their head against the sidewalk until their brains are exposed to the sunlight are just the same. Because it's all the same thing. Right?

There are so many logical fallacies being entered into, never mind points being widely ignored, that it's simply madness.

[George Wallace]

When John the Baptist said Repent! Was it an exhortation or a command?

When an Evangelist finishes his sermon with Repent and Believe! Is it an exhortation or a command?

Hey, tie goes to the runner. You can have the meaning as exhortation if you choose, to me here the difference isn't great enough to to draw any sand lines.

Shea,
I don't believe any of this is a hill to die on....Well, with one possible exception

We have an imperative spoken by Jesus. In a purely grammatical sense, he could be commanding, exhorting, granting permission, pleading, or forbidding. Given the sentence structure, we can easily eliminate....

NO! (There is the exception:) ) It is not a process of elimination, at least not here. It is not a smorgasbord from which you can choose. The choices with respect to mood mean:

The imperative can mean X in certain constructions...

The imperative can mean Y in certain constructions...

The imperative can mean Z in certain constructions...

The only time you can play process of elimination is when the grammatical construction is ambiguous. You know I am sure, that this happens often. But NOT here.

Read my lips; NO NEW TAXES oops flashback, read my lips; SECOND SINGULAR PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. In this particular construction, grammatically, syntactically (I also believe contextually but that's exegesis not linguistics) the only accurate conclusion is command. If John had used and aorist or a different construction altogether then maybe... But here in this construction, grammatically it is a command. And without some serious context to prove otherwise it can only be a command; grammatically.

Now exegetically... hey I don't view it 'zactlly like you but like I said no hill to die on, no line in the sand.

That was my point in my response to Paul. He viewed it as some type of freedom proclamation. Again not like I see it but... He then went on to say he thought that it was not an imperative, no, it is in fact an imperative; imperative is the exact form, construction. I'll give ya my exegesis later I should a been in bed a long time ago.

Maybe one day, Lord willing, you, me and Paul can sit around have some Starbucks and a good Cigar and discuss exactly what Christ meant in his command to the adulterous woman. That'd be nice!

(Sorry about the Cigar thing, as a Naz I know you can't. There's another reason I am glad I am a Reformed Presbyterian) :smilies0275:

[Todd Erickson]

When John the Baptist said Repent! Was it an exhortation or a command?

When an Evangelist finishes his sermon with Repent and Believe! Is it an exhortation or a command?



John the Baptist was talking to Jews who had all memorized at least the first 5 books of the bible and who had been in the Synagogue their entire life...they knew precisely what they were being called to repent from/to, in precisely the same way that previous prophets had called them to do.

When the Evangelist calls on people to repent, he's going to take his money, walk out the door, and it's not his problem how he's destroyed their lives and yet refuses to take any responsibility for it...he's got more money to go collect elsewhere.

Hrm. There was a point in there somewhere, I take it?

[Shea Zellweger]

Then I hope you would offer the same grace to ALL who desire forbidden sexual attractions, including pedophiles, and the lengthy list of other philias both legal and illegal. Since all you are saying is "orientation" or inclination to prefer one forbidden sexual relationship over another is not sinful in itself, all of these must likewise be acceptable sexual orientations.



I would, and if you take a look back through this thread, you'll see where I specifically addressed Pedophilia. The gay men I know can't just decide "I'm going to pursue women." Nor can they flip some magical switch and suddenly find women attractive and men unappealing. If a Pedophile, or a Zoophile, or whatever other kind of phile genuinely has no attraction outside of that philia, then so be it. I will love that person, I will pray for that person, and I will do what I can to not be a stumbling block for that person. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure letting a confessed pedophile babysit my son would be putting up a stumbling block for that person, so not leaving that person alone with my son would not just be for my son's benefit, but for the pedophile's as well.

On a different note, I find it odd given your impassioned statements to me about being in harmony with the doctrines and polity of our denomination that you refuse to accept this view of sexual orientation which has been put forth not only by me, but also by our Board of General Superintendents.

[Shea Zellweger]

You can have the meaning as exhortation if you choose, to me here the difference isn't great enough to to draw any sand lines.

Shea,
I don't believe any of this is a hill to die on

Agreed.



NO! (There is the exception:) ) It is not a process of elimination, at least not here. It is not a smorgasbord from which you can choose. The choices with respect to mood mean:

The imperative can mean X in certain constructions...

The imperative can mean Y in certain constructions...

The imperative can mean Z in certain constructions...

The only time you can play process of elimination is when the grammatical construction is ambiguous. You know I am sure, that this happens often. But NOT here.

Read my lips; NO NEW TAXES oops flashback, read my lips; SECOND SINGULAR PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. In this particular construction, grammatically, syntactically (I also believe contextually but that's exegesis not linguistics) the only accurate conclusion is command. If John had used and aorist or a different construction altogether then maybe... But here in this construction, grammatically it is a command. And without some serious context to prove otherwise it can only be a command; grammatically.


Disagreed :)

[George Wallace]

Been drawing a bit deep from the well of cynicism lately Todd?

1 Read the rest of the post! Those were simple linguistic examples, not social commentary.

2. Try these if you don't like those.

When you were about 12 or so and you caught your Dad doing something he taught you not to do, like talking with your mouth full, or putting your elbows on the dinning table and pointed it out to him and he said "Go Play in traffic!"

He really didn't mean go play in traffic.

And if you were to have a weak moment in you Sanctification and told someone to "Go to H - E - Double Hockey Sticks!"

You don't really expect them to go? Unless you mean Michigan (http://www.hell2u.com/).

My point was simple the linguistic form or grammatical construction of each of the above is COMMAND. Now matter how you interpret the meaning.

Is that clearer?

[Shea Zellweger]

Been drawing a bit deep from the well of cynicism lately Todd?

1 Read the rest of the post! Those were simple linguistic examples, not social commentary.

2. Try these if you don't like those.

When you were about 12 or so and you caught your Dad doing something he taught you not to do, like talking with your mouth full, or putting your elbows on the dinning table and pointed it out to him and he said "Go Play in traffic!"

He really didn't mean go play in traffic.

And if you were to have a weak moment in you Sanctification and told someone to "Go to H - E - Double Hockey Sticks!"

You don't really expect them to go? Unless you mean Michigan (http://www.hell2u.com/).

My point was simple the linguistic form or grammatical construction of each of the above is COMMAND. Now matter how you interpret the meaning.

Is that clearer?

Ah, so Jesus was giving a command but he didn't really mean for the woman to do it. So Jesus is a liar, is he?

...I hope you know that was said in jest.

[George Wallace]

Agreed.



Disagreed :)

Okay Impasse. Here is a challenge. Let's ask Dennis? He won't eat it; Dennis hates everything...oops that was Mikey and another flashback. No seriously, let's ask him. I don't think Dennis would let me walk his dog or mow his grass even if I did it for free and had a police escort. He likes me about as much as an emrod in the nether regions, but he is certainly a man of integrity.

Ask him if John 8:11b "[καὶ] ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε" can grammatically and only grammatically be understood/translated as anything other than a command. I'm not talking about what Christ meant here at all; no interpretive whatsoever! Let us just ask about the grammar.

Looser has to post: Shea/George rules George/Shea drools in the fun forum. Deal?

You ought to sense my confidence if I am willing to let Dennis adjudicate, given our history. Wait Naznet crashed we have no history :) Ain't life grand!

[George Wallace]

Ah, so Jesus was giving a command but he didn't really mean for the woman to do it. So Jesus is a liar, is he?

...I hope you know that was said in jest.

Naw, He was just sorta trying to encourage her. :smilies0262:

[Shea Zellweger]

Okay Impasse. Here is a challenge. Let's ask Dennis? He won't eat it; Dennis hates everything...oops that was Mikey and another flashback. No seriously, let's ask him. I don't think Dennis would let me walk his dog or mow his grass even if I did it for free and had a police escort. He likes me about as much as an emrod in the nether regions, but he is certainly a man of integrity.

Ask him if John 8:11b "[καὶ] ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε" can grammatically and only grammatically be understood/translated as anything other than a command. I'm not talking about what Christ meant here at all; no interpretive whatsoever! Let us just ask about the grammar.

Looser has to post: Shea/George rules George/Shea drools in the fun forum. Deal?

You ought to sense my confidence if I am willing to let Dennis adjudicate, given our history. Wait Naznet crashed we have no history :) Ain't life grand!

That depends. Do we have to go by what your linked article says? What it terms a "polite command," Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperative) seems to think is an exhortation. M-W goes on to define "Exhort" as " to incite by argument or advice : urge strongly." I'd say there are plenty of clear instances where the SECOND SINGULAR PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE was a strong urging. So as long as he doesn't have to use your definitions to prove your definitions wrong, I'm game :)

[George Wallace]

That depends. Do we have to go by what your linked article says? What it terms a "polite command," Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperative) seems to think is an exhortation. M-W goes on to define "Exhort" as " to incite by argument or advice : urge strongly." I'd say there are plenty of clear instances where the SECOND SINGULAR PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE was a strong urging. So as long as he doesn't have to use your definitions to prove your definitions wrong, I'm game :)

Finally we agree. :0 That's what my whole Evangelist / John the Baptist thing was supposed to being out! Exhortation = TOE-MAY-TOE Command = Toe - MAHT-TOE. Was Christ polite when he commanded her? I am sure he was, she wasn't a money changer or Pharisee :)

But a command is a command no matter how you slice it.

[Hans Deventer]

Finally we agree. :0 That's what my whole Evangelist / John the Baptist thing was supposed to being out! Exhortation = TOE-MAY-TOE Command = Toe - MAHT-TOE. Was Christ polite when he commanded her? I am sure he was, she wasn't a money changer or Pharisee :)

But a command is a command no matter how you slice it.

May I try a slice? The Lord didn't speak in Greek.

[Paul DeBaufer]

May I try a slice? The Lord didn't speak in Greek.

He may have spoke a little, after all He was raised by a carpenter who probably did some trade and wasn't Koine Greek the language of trade? But I think it reasonable to assume this interaction was originally in Aramaic.

[Jim Chabot]

May I try a slice? The Lord didn't speak in Greek.

Could you expand on that a bit? I'm not familiar enough with this to disagree, but I curious then as to why he was not understood when he spoke in Aramaic on the cross. The text indicates that he spoke in another language than Aramaic the rest of the time he was on the cross. Which language was that?

[Hans Deventer]

Could you expand on that a bit? I'm not familiar enough with this to disagree, but I curious then as to why he was not understood when he spoke in Aramaic on the cross. The text indicates that he spoke in another language than Aramaic the rest of the time he was on the cross. Which language was that?

The Jewish people in those days spoke Aramaic most of the time. In the gospels, it is often explained or translated because the non-Jewish audience of the gospels would not speak Aramaic, they spoke Greek.

In dealing with this woman, it seems extremely unlikely that He spoke Greek, so all we have in the gospel is the Greek translation of what He actually said. To delve into that into the extreme is overdoing it, especially since translations rarely if ever convey the exact meaning of a word in another language.

[Dale Cozby]

This is sort of like saying that if it's okay to be angry some times, then surely murder and genocide, as well as torture, are okay as well.

Or because you might need to speed sometimes, performing a hit-and-run, or a gang-style shooting, or running over somebody's grandmother on the crosswalk are okay.

Or since, I don't know, walking to the park is fine, surely killing somebody's dog by snatching the leash out of their hand and swinging it around your head until it chokes to death, and then tackling the screaming pet owner and bashing their head against the sidewalk until their brains are exposed to the sunlight are just the same. Because it's all the same thing. Right?

There are so many logical fallacies being entered into, never mind points being widely ignored, that it's simply madness.
No Todd, I will try to explain so you can understand the hypocrisy of your position.

Using your example of violent acts it would be comparing : It is OK to murder when it can be justified(but who gets to say when that is), but not OK any other time you just get angry.
Using an example of stealing: It is OK to shop lift from Wal-mart, but not OK to steal your personal belongings.

If homosexuality (in action) is a sin, and so is all the sexually forbidden relationships we can think of, then we should offer grace to all equally not just one sub-class of sexual immorality and none to the others.

What is actually being debated is where the line of "forbidden" should be placed. So it is like we are debating declaring shop lifting an OK form of stealing, or "justifiable" homicide as OK.
The problem is that people can not see any longer the harm homosexuality does to the soul of the individuals involved or to society as a whole, yet we can see how shoplifting from Wallyworld costs us money when we shop there ourselves so we stand against it.

We offer grace, mercy and love for so many things, while still holding them to be wrong. This is no exception.
The irony of all this is how adamantly those wanting to embrace homosexuality as sinless and normal, will at the same time, declare other expressions of sexuality evil and unforgivable. Rather than being full of grace, they are still as fundamental as ever, they are just moving the line over as to what is good and what is evil.

[Dale Cozby]

I will love that person, I will pray for that person, and I will do what I can to not be a stumbling block for that person. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure letting a confessed pedophile babysit my son would be putting up a stumbling block for that person, so not leaving that person alone with my son would not just be for my son's benefit, but for the pedophile's as well. Well said. As I would not put an alcoholic in a bar to minister to others, or a drug addict in a pharmacy. In most setting these people do not have to be monitor every second and treated like crazed maniacs, but that is what the church often wishes to do.


On a different note, I find it odd given your impassioned statements to me about being in harmony with the doctrines and polity of our denomination that you refuse to accept this view of sexual orientation which has been put forth not only by me, but also by our Board of General Superintendents.When it is put forth at the GA and the wording changed in the Manual to where I cannot agree with our position, I will leave. I promise. What the BGS says is not Ex Cathedra yet.
I just find it hard to believe that it will come to that, but hey, who would have thought certain denominations would have openly gay Bishops? We are just trailing behind them...slowly. this thread proves that.

[Shea Zellweger]

No Todd, I will try to explain so you can understand the hypocrisy of your position.

Using your example of violent acts it would be comparing : It is OK to murder when it can be justified(but who gets to say when that is), but not OK any other time you just get angry.
Using an example of stealing: It is OK to shop lift from Wal-mart, but not OK to steal your personal belongings.

If homosexuality (in action) is a sin, and so is all the sexually forbidden relationships we can think of, then we should offer grace to all equally not just one sub-class of sexual immorality and none to the others.

What is actually being debated is where the line of "forbidden" should be placed. So it is like we are debating declaring shop lifting an OK form of stealing, or "justifiable" homicide as OK.
The problem is that people can not see any longer the harm homosexuality does to the soul of the individuals involved or to society as a whole, yet we can see how shoplifting from Wallyworld costs us money when we shop there ourselves so we stand against it.

We offer grace, mercy and love for so many things, while still holding them to be wrong. This is no exception.
The irony of all this is how adamantly those wanting to embrace homosexuality as sinless and normal, will at the same time, declare other expressions of sexuality evil and unforgivable. Rather than being full of grace, they are still as fundamental as ever, they are just moving the line over as to what is good and what is evil.

Forgive me if I'm off-base here, but since your entry into this conversation was directed squarely at me, would you mind terribly showing me where I have "adamantly [wanted] to embrace homosexuality as sinless and normal, while at the same time, declar[ing] other expressions of sexuality evil and unforgivable?" Or better yet, could you show me where anyone in this thread (other than maybe Todd in a fit of sarcasm) has done so? several times now I've specifically addressed pedophilia, which is pretty much the "crown jewel" of sexual sins, because we all know that the best way to convince someone something is wrong is to show them how it can be harmful to children. On at least one occasion, Ben Burch gave a pretty strong endorsement of one of my posts about pedophilia. Is it possible that you've brought some preconceptions to a conversation where they don't apply?

[Shea Zellweger]

Negative or narrow? I think it might be narrow...like the road less traveled, but the one Jesus calls us to walk with Him nonetheless.
Sexual immorality is a large and wide road and many travel upon it. But the only historical and contextual and traditional and scriptural model given us by the NT, seems to indicate a narrow yet faithful model to follow. And doesn't involve faithfully marrying my Labrador Retriever, my child, my same sex friend, or a whole host of other forbidden relationships.

No, I'm pretty sure I mean negative. Your position is that same sex attraction is inherently sinful, even at the stage of attraction. The only way for this position to be tenable is for you to believe physical attraction necessitates lust, which basically turns all of us, heterosexual and homosexual alike, into lust-filled beings who are sinning "in thought, word, or deed" on a daily basis. That is a negative view of sexuality, as it makes all sexual creatures (which includes nearly all humans) out to be totally depraved based simply on their sexual attractions. I tend to think God us a huge fan of sex. In fact, the command he gave Noah and his family, "be fruitful and multiply," basically boils down to "have lots and lots of sex." Sexual attraction is a gift from God. It's even present in our bodies to the point that sexual release is a biophysical need, and a healthy sex life does wonders for the vitality of the individual. I'm not even talking about lewdness or inappropriate sexual relationships here. My entire statement was


even if we absolutely agreed that all homosexual activity is sinful, that does not make the attraction also sinful. Tell me, when you were a single man, not dating anyone, were you only a heterosexual on the days you had lust in your heart? That seems like a pretty negative view of sexuality.


Lust and sexuality do not have to go hand in hand. As a married man with a loving wife, this might be easy for me to say, but even when I was single there were plenty of days when I was not lusting after this or that person, and at that time I was no less heterosexual than any other time. My attraction to the female body is a part of my makeup, and to suggest that attraction, or any sexual attraction, is inherently sinful regardless of how the individual responds to that attraction is a negative view of sexuality. It's the equivalent of saying that an alcoholic who is living a sober life is still sinning all the time because given that first drink, he or she might fall off the wagon. I'm sorry Dale, but I cannot go there with you. It sounds an awful lot like some of the ultra-calvinist teachings I learned as a child, and I became a Wesleyan for some pretty good reasons, not the least of which was my belief that our sins are not our natural tendencies, but how we choose to deal with those tendencies.

[Todd Erickson]

Been drawing a bit deep from the well of cynicism lately Todd?

1 Read the rest of the post! Those were simple linguistic examples, not social commentary.

2. Try these if you don't like those.

When you were about 12 or so and you caught your Dad doing something he taught you not to do, like talking with your mouth full, or putting your elbows on the dinning table and pointed it out to him and he said "Go Play in traffic!"

He really didn't mean go play in traffic.

And if you were to have a weak moment in you Sanctification and told someone to "Go to H - E - Double Hockey Sticks!"

You don't really expect them to go? Unless you mean Michigan (http://www.hell2u.com/).

My point was simple the linguistic form or grammatical construction of each of the above is COMMAND. Now matter how you interpret the meaning.

Is that clearer?

My father would never have done that, and I have never done that. While I engage in sarcasm with some people, I generally do not engage in telling people to do incorrect things, whether or not I feel that way.

Cyncism has been my constant companion since I was about 11.

[Benjamin Burch]

The problem is that people can not see any longer the harm homosexuality does to the soul of the individuals involved or to society as a whole,

Well, seeing as how I'm one of those people who doesn't see how it does harm to the society as a whole, would you mind enlightening me?




We offer grace, mercy and love for so many things, while still holding them to be wrong. This is no exception.
The irony of all this is how adamantly those wanting to embrace homosexuality as sinless and normal, will at the same time, declare other expressions of sexuality evil and unforgivable. Rather than being full of grace, they are still as fundamental as ever, they are just moving the line over as to what is good and what is evil.

Wel it's not really and arbitrary line if you consider that monogomous, committed, same-sex marriage is different than:

(1) Polygymy
(2) Pedophilia
(3) Zoophilia

and different than almost any other strange sexual philia you can come up with... I'd say it, at the very least, is not an "arbitrary" moving of the line by those who do so.

[Dale Cozby]

Rather than address each person, sorry Shea, I will address all at once.

If your thesis is: ANY sexual attraction that could lead to a monogamous committed marriage is acceptable.

Then:
The Arbitrary line" we draw in our society is anything we decide is an acceptable sexual attraction.
Is it OK for a 50 year old man to be attracted to an 25 yr old woman? 18 yr old woman? What if she is 17? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? Where does this attraction cross the line into an unhealthy and wrong attraction? what if it is a 15 yr year old attracted to a 60 yr old man? Do we say she doesn't know her own sexuality yet? What if she wanted a same-sex relation with another 16 yr old? Acceptable?

So we add the qualifiers, can't be too young or mentally incapacitated, or exploited in some way, or too close of a kin, or etc....to decide when it is an acceptable monogamous sexual attraction designed to develop into a permanent relationship. Who gets to decide what is out and what is inside acceptable?

I don't know about you guys, but I think the scripture is fairly understandable on this one, and clear enough to not be ambiguous. I know many here think scripture is ambiguous or unclear, and that is your right to think so, as mine is to think the other.

The funny thing is, most of us deal with things we think are out of the boundaries all the time and never say a word.
Couples living together outside of marriage that come to church regularly, "no-tell" gays(yet we know anyway) working in ministry along side us, women willingly exploited by boyfriends for sex but given a place to live and maybe some "free" baby sitting for their child that they can't afford to pay child care for, young people of the opposite sex taking vacations together as man and wife, the list goes on....

Most of us don't preach about it, or even speak up, lest we offend or be declared judgmental, so we have come up with our own "don't ask don't tell policy". We quietly go about our religious business believing things unacceptable to preach in this society. Like the belief that sex is for after marriage to consummate the relationship, and monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only pleasing form of sexual expression to God. We have become like Lot,"a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men, for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard."
Even in this thread I am attacked for this belief from my fellow Brothers because it seems too intolerant. If you only knew the things I deal with, and how I deal with them. In this place I may sound very harsh to you, but here on the theology board it is a discussion among the religious elites and isn't very real world to me. I speak to you in different terms than other people, you are the people who lead others and need to be challenged in your beliefs, and to challenge me in mine. Iron sharpening iron as it were.

[Bob Hunter]

Fellas,

Okay, at this point, I think I've read this entire thread, I may not always agree with how things are stated, but I feel compelled to say a few things. There has been quite a bit of back and forth on this matter and I personally don't plan to go forward much more on this, though I want to leave on a very positive note that I think we can all agree on.

I think our theology presents a wonderful opportunity for people who struggle with homosexuality, pedophilia,adultery, lust, etc. As we actually believe that God can cleanse us from deep within. We believe that sin can be radically dealt with. I personally believe that sanctification in this lifetime is entirely possible. Especially for people living in sexual bondage. John Wesley taught that a deep inward cleansing from sin is possible, and I for one believe that people today can receive it as a work of grace. There is hope for the man or women struggling with same sex attraction, that while they may still have sexual thoughts and emotional vulnerabilities their hearts can be cleansed from the passion to act on it. There is truly a freedom from sin that is achievable when we allow the Holy Spirit of God to cleanse us and empower us. Amen?

So I hope our theology translates into actual ministry to people who are living in sexual bondage. I can only pray you'll join me in being resolved to do just that.

[Shea Zellweger]

Rather than address each person, sorry Shea, I will address all at once.

If your thesis is: ANY sexual attraction that could lead to a monogamous committed marriage is acceptable.

Then:
The Arbitrary line" we draw in our society is anything we decide is an acceptable sexual attraction.
Is it OK for a 50 year old man to be attracted to an 25 yr old woman? 18 yr old woman? What if she is 17? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? Where does this attraction cross the line into an unhealthy and wrong attraction? what if it is a 15 yr year old attracted to a 60 yr old man? Do we say she doesn't know her own sexuality yet? What if she wanted a same-sex relation with another 16 yr old? Acceptable?

Again, I don't think the attraction has anything to do with it. When I was 16, I found women from the age of around 14 all the way up to the 40s and 50s (that I know of) attractive. 5 years later, I personally feel as though for one, my attraction has very much zeroed in on my wife, and for another that my perspective has grown as I've aged. The idea of a 14 year old girl being physically appealing to me doesn't make sense in my head. But that's me. There are plenty of people whose attractions do not progress in that manner, and so be it. The problem is not with their being attracted to these younger individuals. It would, however, be a problem if they acted on that attraction, for several reasons. The primary reason being that most minors are incapable of giving consent, because they're just not that developed yet. This is the same reason we don't let children drink, smoke, or vote, because they really do not know what they want yet. The second reason acting on the attraction would be wrong is because it's illegal. The only other substitutionary action- active fantasizing- is also wrong because that's giving into lust, and it really doesn't matter who you lust after, lust is still wrong.

I'm not going to go through every single example you wish to toss out there, but I sincerely doubt you will find some instance where I'm suddenly going to recoil and say that someone cannot have a given attraction. However, it appears to me that you're still not separating attraction from action. To bring this discussion down to a much more fundamental level, let's take the example of the mixed berry cobbler that was sitting in my kitchen last night. My wife told me it was out of bounds, because we were taking it to the church lunch this afternoon. Now, I really wanted a piece of that cobbler, because it is delicious! Did my wanting that cobbler mean that I had already violated my wife's ruling? I don't think so. I didn't go in the kitchen and make a reasonable facsimile of the cobbler, then pretend I was eating it. I didn't close my eyes and imagine how good it would taste. I just acknowledged the desire, and then moved on with my life. It's not a very difficult thing to do to acknowledge your personal desires and then not act on them, it's called self-control, and it's a part of the fruit of the Spirit.




So we add the qualifiers, can't be too young or mentally incapacitated, or exploited in some way, or too close of a kin, or etc....to decide when it is an acceptable monogamous sexual attraction designed to develop into a permanent relationship. Who gets to decide what is out and what is inside acceptable?


Funny you should make that list, Dale. Young girls were frequently married off until the last few centuries- chances are the mother of our Savior was less than 18, and her husband was in his 40s or 50s. There are plenty of biblical stories of people going and looking for spouses among their close relatives. Monogamy wasn't really an issue either, in fact there were certain circumstances under which polygamy was biblically required. So where do these supposedly "biblical" standards come from? They're dictated by society. We've- correctly- determined that minors cannot give consent. We've- correctly- recognized the genetic dangers that come from seeking a spouse within your own bloodline. I think we were even right about the psychological factors which lead to polygamy being a less than ideal situation. I'd even be willing to say that God led us to these conclusions, but by no means are they defensible as "biblical" positions. So, as long as we're talking about marriage "the way God intended" I think it's high time we recognize that most of our rules about what "God intended" are not found in the pages of Scripture but in the dictum of society.



Most of us don't preach about it, or even speak up, lest we offend or be declared judgmental, so we have come up with our own "don't ask don't tell policy". We quietly go about our religious business believing things unacceptable to preach in this society. Like the belief that sex is for after marriage to consummate the relationship,

Is it? The marriage ceremony is a pretty new thing. I would say sex is concurrent with marriage, based on the several times the Bible says "and he took her home as his wife." Believe it or not, I have told the few cohabiting or sexually active couples who came under my pastoral leaderhsip that they'd best get married or move out and start being abstinent.

and monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only pleasing form of sexual expression to God.

Again, I'd point to my above comments on monogamy. I'm all for monogamy, but it is by no means a scriptural mandate.


We have become like Lot,"a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men, for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard."
Even in this thread I am attacked for this belief from my fellow Brothers because it seems too intolerant.

Dale, my "attack" toward you had absolutely nothing to do with tolerance. It was your claim that physical attraction is somehow the equivalent to sin.

[Dale Cozby]

as long as we're talking about marriage "the way God intended" I think it's high time we recognize that most of our rules about what "God intended" are not found in the pages of Scripture but in the dictum of society. I am not sure if I said that quote you quoted, I think this is the closest thing I said: "scripture is fairly understandable on this one, and clear enough to not be ambiguous" The "one" in question is same-sex relations. Not all the other things thrown out here in this thread. The lifestyle that God intended for us, is fairly open to interpretation, yet I think we can clearly deduce the ones not beneficial for us, or at least, less beneficial for us.


Believe it or not, I have told the few cohabiting or sexually active couples who came under my pastoral leaderhsip that they'd best get married or move out and start being abstinent. How did that turn out? I have found I have to have huge, nay massive clout(they know how much I love them) and respect(how I have helped them in the past) to even suggest such a thing is best for them without it blowing up in my face. Even as a young pastor, I had people choose to leave rather than" be told what to do" by me, because I had not built up that level of clout and respect. Today, I keep my mouth shut, unless asked. I preach about God's love and His mercy and forgiveness when you screw up your life. I will point them to search God's scriptures for themselves and if they still don't know what is best for them and if they want to know what to do and ask me, then I tell them my opinion...but they asked for it. That seems to work better in the long run, even if it means I have to help pick up the pieces years later with them.


However, it appears to me that you're still not separating attraction from action. Exactly. If I am given to violent thoughts, instead of sexual ones does it make them acceptable thoughts? If I harm my enemies(not that I have any) in my mind, is this a healthy attraction to a forbidden(sinful) action?
If scripture tells me to avoid (Insert action), then why is it acceptable to continue thinking about it? Can God NOT free me of those thoughts that lead to forbidden actions? Must one always live with those thoughts/desires that are forbidden to us? I say no. It may be a long process of growth, but over time those unhealthy desires are removed with God's help and my trust in Him to do so.
St. James wrote: "each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

Having desire is acceptable. Having a desire for closeness, intimacy, etc is normal, yet it can be twisted and perverted and fulfilled in unhealthy ways. I think scripture shows us lots of bad examples and very few good ones. from this we can get a picture of the most excellent way and avoid the wrong ones, or less beneficial ones.
Being tempted to think such thoughts is acceptable, but not beneficial, more of a distraction from the good we could be doing.
Letting those temptations and desires drag us away isn't acceptable. We get dragged away, and planned actions once conceived, birth into a sin, and when it is full grown....it kills us, spiritually. This applies no matter what we are attracted to, the sexual, violent, greedy, or selfish, etc...

Hope this explains my position better.

[Benjamin Burch]

I am not sure if I said that quote you quoted, I think this is the closest thing I said: "scripture is fairly understandable on this one, and clear enough to not be ambiguous" The "one" in question is same-sex relations. Not all the other things thrown out here in this thread. The lifestyle that God intended for us, is fairly open to interpretation, yet I think we can clearly deduce the ones not beneficial for us, or at least, less beneficial for us.

How did that turn out? I have found I have to have huge, nay massive clout(they know how much I love them) and respect(how I have helped them in the past) to even suggest such a thing is best for them without it blowing up in my face. Even as a young pastor, I had people choose to leave rather than" be told what to do" by me, because I had not built up that level of clout and respect. Today, I keep my mouth shut, unless asked. I preach about God's love and His mercy and forgiveness when you screw up your life. I will point them to search God's scriptures for themselves and if they still don't know what is best for them and if they want to know what to do and ask me, then I tell them my opinion...but they asked for it. That seems to work better in the long run, even if it means I have to help pick up the pieces years later with them.

Exactly. If I am given to violent thoughts, instead of sexual ones does it make them acceptable thoughts? If I harm my enemies(not that I have any) in my mind, is this a healthy attraction to a forbidden(sinful) action?
If scripture tells me to avoid (Insert action), then why is it acceptable to continue thinking about it? Can God NOT free me of those thoughts that lead to forbidden actions? Must one always live with those thoughts/desires that are forbidden to us? I say no. It may be a long process of growth, but over time those unhealthy desires are removed with God's help and my trust in Him to do so.
St. James wrote: "each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

Having desire is acceptable. Having a desire for closeness, intimacy, etc is normal, yet it can be twisted and perverted and fulfilled in unhealthy ways. I think scripture shows us lots of bad examples and very few good ones. from this we can get a picture of the most excellent way and avoid the wrong ones, or less beneficial ones.
Being tempted to think such thoughts is acceptable, but not beneficial, more of a distraction from the good we could be doing.
Letting those temptations and desires drag us away isn't acceptable. We get dragged away, and planned actions once conceived, birth into a sin, and when it is full grown....it kills us, spiritually. This applies no matter what we are attracted to, the sexual, violent, greedy, or selfish, etc...

Hope this explains my position better.

It feels like you're working off of an assumption that this is a simple choice, chosen by the individual. You related sexual attraction to violent thoughts. Those two can't be compared because one is a biological response while the other is not. Attraction is something that happens naturally. Also, there's plenty of research that says this is a genetic orientation. How can we call that orientation sinful? Also, I still struggle with the entire "God can free them of that." While I'm 100% supportive of that line of thought, we have to deal with the credibility gap. What about all the times that God doesn't? What of those? What then?

I just feel like you're posts are way too simplistic and are detached from reality. It's all a theological/philosophical world in which to contemplate right and wrong. I don't think there could be a more misguided way to approach this issue.

[Shea Zellweger]

Exactly. If I am given to violent thoughts, instead of sexual ones does it make them acceptable thoughts? If I harm my enemies(not that I have any) in my mind, is this a healthy attraction to a forbidden(sinful) action?
If scripture tells me to avoid (Insert action), then why is it acceptable to continue thinking about it? Can God NOT free me of those thoughts that lead to forbidden actions? Must one always live with those thoughts/desires that are forbidden to us? I say no. It may be a long process of growth, but over time those unhealthy desires are removed with God's help and my trust in Him to do so.
St. James wrote: "each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

Having desire is acceptable. Having a desire for closeness, intimacy, etc is normal, yet it can be twisted and perverted and fulfilled in unhealthy ways. I think scripture shows us lots of bad examples and very few good ones. from this we can get a picture of the most excellent way and avoid the wrong ones, or less beneficial ones.
Being tempted to think such thoughts is acceptable, but not beneficial, more of a distraction from the good we could be doing.
Letting those temptations and desires drag us away isn't acceptable. We get dragged away, and planned actions once conceived, birth into a sin, and when it is full grown....it kills us, spiritually. This applies no matter what we are attracted to, the sexual, violent, greedy, or selfish, etc...

Hope this explains my position better.

But Dale, the way you continue to describe it, it's as though when someone is attracted to someone else, they have already "let those temptations and desires dragu [them] away." That precisely has been my issue of contention with you all the way through this conversation. You can take anything, positive or negative, and just because it's attractive does not make it wrong. A million dollars in the abstract attractive, but if you fixate, fantasize, and seek after that million dollars, you're guilty of greed. Alcohol is attractive to the alcoholic, that's just the way it is. I have met some people who claim to be freed from their alcoholism, but most continue to refer to themselves as "recovering," as in their not done yet. I commend their sobriety, I don't tell them that by virtue of being a sober, recovering alcoholic, they're still an alcoholic and therefore living in sin. Attraction is never the problem. As Bill Graham so famously said "we cannot stop the birds from flying overhead, but we can stop them from making nests in our hair." Genetic or not, choice or not, sin or not, a simple attraction to something is not enough to render someone guilty of sin. Jesus didn't say "if you look at a woman and find her attractive, you're guilty of adultery," he said "if you look at a woman with lust in your heart." Those two things are vastly different, and I think you know that.

[James Johnson]

Wow Shea you're up to 341 (+ ?) posts, did you quit your day job? lol

[Shea Zellweger]

Wow Shea you're up to 341 (+ ?) posts, did you quit your day job? lol

As a matter of fact...
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?31-Moving-On. Today was my second-to-last Sunday in Millry.

I'm also wrapping up my semester at NNU, so my "homework time" has been split between NN, golf, and my lovely family. Goes to show just how much time I spent on homework :D

[Jim Chabot]

As a matter of fact...
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?31-Moving-On. Today was my second-to-last Sunday in Millry.

I'm also wrapping up my semester at NNU, so my "homework time" has been split between NN, golf, and my lovely family. Goes to show just how much time I spent on homework :D

Just think, you can preach on anything you desire next week! Although I can't imagine that you would be less than gracious.

[Shea Zellweger]

Just think, you can preach on anything you desire next week! Although I can't imagine that you would be less than gracious.

In two weeks, actually. Next week there is a guest speaker coming. I can't really "preach on anything I desire" my final Sunday, because it's Mother's Day :).

[Dale Cozby]

You related sexual attraction to violent thoughts. Those two can't be compared because one is a biological response while the other is not.I respectfully disagree with your assumption.
Fight or flight is a most basic instinct of the animal world. Sex is the other basic instinct being discussed. Both are very much biological, and emotional. Both are built in and also developed over early childhood and adolescence. Having grown up on the streets of the inner city around gangs in a Hispanic neighborhood and being the only white kid around, I can tell you, you quickly develop your fight or flight instinct. After running away and feeling ashamed and cowardly and the frustration, humiliation, and anger associated with it, violence begins to look very attractive. Laying awake at night in bed, reliving the days adrenaline filled moment over and over, thinking how it could have gone differently. Building up a desire and then a hatred and blood lust to get even. Yes, there is a biological response to it. Adrenaline feels good. Adrenaline channeled into getting even even or winning the first fight even better. I began to take lots of chances as a kid. Got in lots of fights. Adrenaline is most definitely a biological response, both learned and forced upon us.
If you operate on the assumption that homosexuality is a natural and biological affinity that begins at birth and/or is developed as a child and teen, then you should agree that fight or flight is likewise something we are born with and developed. Violence then is born in us as much as sexual attraction. But most of us are taught from the beginning to resist it. We are rebuked when we let it off the leash. We are forced by society to restrain our basic instinct for vengeance and personal gratification from this violent and impulsive instinct.


Genetic or not, choice or not, sin or not, a simple attraction to something is not enough to render someone guilty of sin. Agreed. But some unhealthy attractions are better if we did not have them nor developed them nor accept them as part of the Christian life. We should not accept we must live by our sinful nature. What you are describing is basic human drives for love and value, but since we are fallen in nature we pervert that whcih is good from the beginning. I wish I could say that I had never lusted, or envied or hated in my heart, but the fact is I have. With God's grace and mercy and my desire for them to change and not just accept them as normal most of those attractions have been changed. But to live with the continued desire for vengeance and/or violence, or unhealthy sexual relationships is not our fate. God has cleansed me of those desires for the rush of adrenaline of the fight and pride of being victorious over my foe. God channels our energies into healthy pursuits and not perverted ones when we let him.

"The mind of sinful man {mind set on the flesh}is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind {the mind set on the flesh}is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you."


" I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God."

[Hans Deventer]

I think our theology presents a wonderful opportunity for people who struggle with homosexuality, pedophilia,adultery, lust, etc. As we actually believe that God can cleanse us from deep within. We believe that sin can be radically dealt with. I personally believe that sanctification in this lifetime is entirely possible. Especially for people living in sexual bondage. John Wesley taught that a deep inward cleansing from sin is possible, and I for one believe that people today can receive it as a work of grace. There is hope for the man or women struggling with same sex attraction, that while they may still have sexual thoughts and emotional vulnerabilities their hearts can be cleansed from the passion to act on it. There is truly a freedom from sin that is achievable when we allow the Holy Spirit of God to cleanse us and empower us. Amen?

"If you are willing, you can make me clean." (Mark 1:40). Well, the leper was cleaned. But not all lepers have been cleaned since, even if they prayed. So I guess Jesus wasn't willing since.

Like you, I believe sanctification is possible. But I utterly reject the idea that it is a person's fault if (s)he isn't cleansed. It's more complicated than that.

My wife and I pray for healing daily. Jesus appears not to be willing, and we are no exceptions. So we should be very cautious not to turn a theology of grace into the worst of legalism, throwing people in sheer despair.

We have no guarantees but the love of Christ.

See also http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?56-Jennifer-Knapp-Interview-with-CT-%28It-s-about-her-being-gay%29&p=2254&viewfull=1#post2254

[Bob Hunter]

"If you are willing, you can make me clean." (Mark 1:40). Well, the leper was cleaned. But not all lepers have been cleaned since, even if they prayed. So I guess Jesus wasn't willing since.

Like you, I believe sanctification is possible. But I utterly reject the idea that it is a person's fault if (s)he isn't cleansed. It's more complicated than that.

My wife and I pray for healing daily. Jesus appears not to be willing, and we are no exceptions. So we should be very cautious not to turn a theology of grace into the worst of legalism, throwing people in sheer despair.

We have no guarantees but the love of Christ.

Against earlier stated intentions I am going to respond to this, because it was addressed directly to me.

Let me say that my statement about sanctification is consistent with our theology and remains my conviction. I can't understand why or how you read a legalistic message into it. Hans I have always felt that it is best to proclaim the entire scope of God's sanctifying work. Why shouldn't we? Obviously, we cannot control what God may do in peoples lives. But I have found that is is better to ask God for some big things, than ask God for nothing. The Church of the Nazarene (as you know) has a storied history of believing God for some outrageous things. I'm glad to be a part of that heritage. We believe in the power of transformed lives. It is entirely possible! And we can and should talk about ALL that God can do for us. That said, I would encourage you to not lose heart. Keep praying for God's healing, why not? And I would encourage everyone who reads this to believe in faith that God can do amazing things when we put our trust in him. I will stand firm in my belief that even the most vile of sinners can be cleansed by God.

In fact, I prayed with a man tis morning at Church who was completely broken and smelled of cigarette smoke. He came forward at the close of our service. Myself and a couple others prayed over him as he cried out in faith for God's touch. I sensed a childlike faith and a humble heart. I believe God is going to do miracles in his life. Very often God does his best work when we hold out for the impossible. I don't profess to understand it, I just know God is at his best in these situations.

[Paul DeBaufer]

"If you are willing, you can make me clean." (Mark 1:40). Well, the leper was cleaned. But not all lepers have been cleaned since, even if they prayed. So I guess Jesus wasn't willing since.

Like you, I believe sanctification is possible. But I utterly reject the idea that it is a person's fault if (s)he isn't cleansed. It's more complicated than that.

My wife and I pray for healing daily. Jesus appears not to be willing, and we are no exceptions. So we should be very cautious not to turn a theology of grace into the worst of legalism, throwing people in sheer despair.

We have no guarantees but the love of Christ.

See also http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?56-Jennifer-Knapp-Interview-with-CT-%28It-s-about-her-being-gay%29&p=2254&viewfull=1#post2254

God fully delivered me from addictions and perversions. So, speaking from my personal experience God still cleanses and heals.

[Hans Deventer]

God fully delivered me from addictions and perversions. So, speaking from my personal experience God still cleanses and heals.

Paul, do notice that I never denied that. But I reject the notion that it's always the person's fault if (s)he isn't cleansed/healed/delivered.

[Hans Deventer]

Let me say that my statement about sanctification is consistent with our theology and remains my conviction. I can't understand why or how you read a legalistic message into it.

Because it is placed in the context of homosexuality and hence implies that all who pray earnestly will be freed from those feelings (inclinations towards sin), while the truth is that many a Christian with these feelings begs of God to be delivered but isn't.


Hans I have always felt that it is best to proclaim the entire scope of God's sanctifying work. Why shouldn't we? Obviously, we cannot control what God may do in peoples lives. But I have found that is is better to ask God for some big things, than ask God for nothing. The Church of the Nazarene (as you know) has a storied history of believing God for some outrageous things. I'm glad to be a part of that heritage. We believe in the power of transformed lives. It is entirely possible!

Yes, I know and I agree. It is possible. God CAN heal.


And we can and should talk about ALL that God can do for us. That said, I would encourage you to not lose heart. Keep praying for God's healing, why not? And I would encourage everyone who reads this to believe in faith that God can do amazing things when we put our trust in him. I will stand firm in my belief that even the most vile of sinners can be cleansed by God.

Yes, CAN.


In fact, I prayed with a man tis morning at Church who was completely broken and smelled of cigarette smoke. He came forward at the close of our service. Myself and a couple others prayed over him as he cried out in faith for God's touch. I sensed a childlike faith and a humble heart. I believe God is going to do miracles in his life. Very often God does his best work when we hold out for the impossible. I don't profess to understand it, I just know God is at his best in these situations.

Bob, I agree with all of that but I am saying that as we hold out for what God can do and rightly incorporate that into our theology, likewise should we incorporate the situation that He chose NOT to deliver, heal, cleanse. Otherwise our very theology of grace turns into legalism and the very opposite of grace.

[Jim Chabot]

"If you are willing, you can make me clean." (Mark 1:40). Well, the leper was cleaned. But not all lepers have been cleaned since, even if they prayed. So I guess Jesus wasn't willing since.

Like you, I believe sanctification is possible. But I utterly reject the idea that it is a person's fault if (s)he isn't cleansed. It's more complicated than that.

My wife and I pray for healing daily. Jesus appears not to be willing, and we are no exceptions. So we should be very cautious not to turn a theology of grace into the worst of legalism, throwing people in sheer despair.

We have no guarantees but the love of Christ.

See also http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?56-Jennifer-Knapp-Interview-with-CT-%28It-s-about-her-being-gay%29&p=2254&viewfull=1#post2254

I agree with everything that you have said here with one notable exception. We "throw them out" because we are instructed to do so, we are instructed by Paul and we are instructed by Christ himself, it is the right thing to do. We do this because we love them, and we trust that God loves them as well, we trust his instruction as the best course of action. We do this because we have faith! You are correct in that the love of Christ is our only guarantee, this instruction to "throw them out" is a manifestation of his love.

I would humbly direct you to your signature line.

[Randy Wise]

The text indicates that he spoke in another language than Aramaic the rest of the time he was on the cross. Which language was that?

My thoughts:
When the Lord had to be in intense pain He cried out in Aramaic. That suggests to me Aramaic came easier to Him. Maybe the writer of that Gospel spelled out that language for the audience, that is for the many in the world outside of israel who didn't know Aramaic. I am not sure why Jesus who went to the lost sheep of Israel would use another language to that audience (Israel)

R

[Bob Hunter]

Hans,

Yeah, you are obviously reading things into my statement which means I didn't expressed them eloquently and clearly enough. I never intended to imply that the inclination one has for the same sex could be removed. It may be removed in some cases, but that is God's prerogative not mine. In fact, I stated that the emotional vulnerability may remain. I would also add that I am not going to shrink back from healing prayers because I fear that God may in fact NOT heal. That would be selling myself short and the people I minister to. I am going to hold out for what God CAN do and not dwell on what he may not do. Rev. Earl Lee once said, "God is bigger than what's a matter" And while that statement may sound like a spiritual colloquialism, it has a ring of truth. As many of you known Lee was known for preaching the victorious life without reservation. And I think we would be well advised to do the same, we may be surprised at what God does and how ones living sexual bondage receive it. I guess my point is simply this: Preach the full scope of salvation without reservation and trust God with results.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree with everything that you have said here with one notable exception. We "throw them out" because we are instructed to do so, we are instructed by Paul and we are instructed by Christ himself, it is the right thing to do. We do this because we love them, and we trust that God loves them as well, we trust his instruction as the best course of action. We do this because we have faith! You are correct in that the love of Christ is our only guarantee, this instruction to "throw them out" is a manifestation of his love.

I would humbly direct you to your signature line.

Jim, I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say. I wasn't talking about throwing people out, I was talking about a theology that leaves no room for "no" as an answer and hence leaves people out in the cold who aren't healed.

[Randy Wise]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/interviews/2010/jenniferknapp-apr10.html


I am not sure what purpose this thread gives unless we are discussing the counsel we would give to someone who is gay. In that regard my counsel will never change. I have read everything there is to read on such acts in scripture and its all condemning. I believe such "continued acts" would lead one to spiritual death. (judgment against them "after" the death of the body) In this life the Lord, (to me), has made it clear of His unlimited patient as Paul wrote about when God was patient with him.

A sincere sign of salvation, (to me), is in one who shows a spirit of repentance such as Zacchaeus below in regard to his wrong doings.

8But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."


Scripture suggests to me that Jesus does have the power to free anyone from the power of sin, but if one is lead to believe from others that its ok why would they seek freedom from their enslavement?

Randy

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, do notice that I never denied that. But I reject the notion that it's always the person's fault if (s)he isn't cleansed/healed/delivered.

I apologize if I suggested that you denied healing. Working in recovery I repeatedly saw people who seemed to authentically desire healing and cleansing but did not receive it. Of course in recovery there is the myth that once an addict always an addict, that there is no healing that is so pervasive that maybe like the people of Nazareth their lack of faith (even if unconscious) prevents God from deliverance form this particular condition. I just don't know Why some are delivered and some aren't, but it is not mine to know (as much as I would really like to know.)


Jim, I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say. I wasn't talking about throwing people out, I was talking about a theology that leaves no room for "no" as an answer and hence leaves people out in the cold who aren't healed.

I believe God answers all prayers and sometimes that answer is,"No." And you are right, people should not be led to believe God leaves them out on the cold IF they receive a no, in answer to prayer. I learned this very early on.

[Todd Erickson]

Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz) has an interesting thread currently where he talks about the idea that people's personality types directly influence how they perceive God, and the type of denomination or relgious leaning they'll take.

People who are deliberate and controlling by nature tend to lean toward Calvinism, or at least lean very strongly toward ways of seeing God that are extremely black and white, with the accompanying lines in the sand and limits necessary. For them, Grace is always going to be a difficult thing, because they personally have no space in life for a free lunch way of thinking.

As well, there are reverse personality types that shy away from black and white approaches, who have trouble nailing down anything as "the Truth" precisely becuase the more that they study, the more their perception of the truth seems to change.

I have to wonder if much of what plays out in threads such as this isn't precisely the breaking points between various personality types, and how they perceive reality, and thus how truth "must" function.

[Hans Deventer]

I am going to hold out for what God CAN do and not dwell on what he may not do. is simply this: Preach the full scope of salvation without reservation and trust God with results.

I'm sorry, but that is a luxury I cannot afford. Unfortunately, I have to deal with not getting an answer at all. My theology MUST include a silent heaven, or it has no meaning.

[James Johnson]

God fully delivered me from addictions and perversions. So, speaking from my personal experience God still cleanses and heals.

I like Paul have felt the healing hand of God, and I know for a fact that God Can and will be bigger than your desires when earnestly called upon. It's also my opinion that it all comes down to relationship!

[Mike McVey]

I like Paul have felt the healing hand of God, and I know for a fact that God Can and will be bigger than your desires when earnestly called upon. It's also my opinion that it all comes down to relationship!

So if God does not it is because we are either not earnest or not in good enough relationship with Him?

[James Johnson]

It is not God who decides if you take the next drink. It is not God who decides if you sleep with that person again. It is not God who decides if you use drugs again etc etc. And It's relationship with God that will keep you from doing it. imo

[Mike McVey]

It is not God who decides if you take the next drink. It is not God who decides if you sleep with that person again. It is not God who decides if you use drugs again etc etc. And It's relationship with God that will keep you from doing it. imo

I do not disagree with this statement, but coupled with your previous statement
I like Paul have felt the healing hand of God, and I know for a fact that God Can and will be bigger than your desires when earnestly called upon. It's also my opinion that it all comes down to relationship! you are basically taking God out of the equation. Yet you say that God is in the equation. God can and will be bigger than my desires as long as my desires are pure? But if my desires are alcohol, sex, or drugs, then God is not longer there?

Your first statement puts everything on God saying that God 'will' as long as we are earnest enough and in good enough relationship. Your second statement suggests that it is our responsibility to be clean before we come to God. I do not believe that to be your intent, but if the onus is always on us, we will always fail. Our faith does not come before God's grace.

[James Johnson]

I do not disagree with this statement, but coupled with your previous statement you are basically taking God out of the equation. Yet you say that God is in the equation. God can and will be bigger than my desires as long as my desires are pure? But if my desires are alcohol, sex, or drugs, then God is not longer there?

Your first statement puts everything on God saying that God 'will' as long as we are earnest enough and in good enough relationship. Your second statement suggests that it is our responsibility to be clean before we come to God. I do not believe that to be your intent, but if the onus is always on us, we will always fail. Our faith does not come before God's grace.

I believe when asked, God forgives you of your sin. And then it's your choice whether or not you sin again. Relationship is what I believe is your only hope in not returning to the sin God forgave you for. In my case I asked that he be bigger than my desires, I was desperate and I asked in that type of manor. God removed my desire for alcohol and tobacco that very second. And through a hour by hour day by day relationship with him, I have stayed away from those desires. I know that the desire may not be removed like that from everyone but that does not change the fact that relationship can keep you from giving in to those desires.

One reason that I don't tell many people in the church what God has done for me, is that many people want to deny what God did for me or quicking point out that God doesn't do that for everyone, like there is something wrong with me ever saying it. I always feel that makes God so much smaller than he is! All I know is what I asked, and what he did. And I give him ALL the Glory, Praise his Name!

[Mike McVey]

I believe when asked, God forgives you of your sin. And then it's your choice whether or not you sin again. Relationship is what I believe is your only hope in not returning to the sin God forgave you for. In my case I asked that he be bigger than my desires, I was desperate and I asked in that type of manor. God removed my desire for alcohol and tobacco that very second. And through a hour by hour day by day relationship with him, I have stayed away from those desires. I know that the desire may not be removed like that from everyone but that does not change the fact that relationship can keep you from giving in to those desires.

I really do not mean to be riding you, but your statements are contradictory. God removed your desire yet you are staying away from the desires that were supposedly removed. Why would you need to stay away from desires you no longer had?

On another note, is it possible that the only way you would be able to follow God's calling on your life if your desire for alcohol and tobacco to be removed whereas others do not need their desires removed to follow God's calling on their life? Maybe those desires operate as a thorn of some sort?

[James Johnson]

God removed my desires he forgave me for my sins, but He did not make me perfect. I still have free will, It is my decision if I return to sin and the old life style. It's through relationship that I stay close to God and avoid returning to the past desires. It's staying close to God daily (James 4:8).

[Shea Zellweger]

God removed my desires he forgave me for my sins, but He did not make me perfect. I still have free will, It is my decision if I return to sin and the old life style. It's through relationship that I stay close to God and avoid returning to the past desires. It's staying close to God daily (James 4:8).

Jim,
I think the point Mike is trying to make here (and forgive me Mike, if I'm off base) is that if God truly removed your desires for alcohol, why would you decide to return to your old life style? If you don't desire something, then it shouldn't be something you have to avoid, because it simply doesn't interest you any more. I believe God delivered you from that life. Smokers and drinkers who try to give up cold turkey usually don't make it, so the fact that you have tells me that God assisted you, or even did it for you completely, but if it's something you have to actively choose to avoid, then there is still some amount of desire there, isn't there?

[James Johnson]

I don't have to actively choose to avoid it. But I'm afraid if I ever let my relationship fail, than perhaps the desires could appear again. Maybe that's not true, I do not want nor do I intend to find out. I think my healing and lack of desire goes hand in hand with my trusting in God and my continued relationship with him.

I know what I know, and I'm sorry that I can't explain it better than that.

[Mike McVey]

God removed my desires he forgave me for my sins, but He did not make me perfect. I still have free will, It is my decision if I return to sin and the old life style. It's through relationship that I stay close to God and avoid returning to the past desires. It's staying close to God daily (James 4:8).

I guess I don't consider desires a sin to be forgiven. Either way, if the desires were removed, why would you return to that sin? I can understand if God's grace nullified the sin to where you could respond in faith but still struggled with the desire to sin and the desire to be faithful. I don't undertand how God could remove the desires and still struggle with them. Your last two sentences only make sense if the desires were never removed. When a family member of mine quit smoking and drinking of ten years, he has never had the desire for either over the past 30+ years. One major reason is that he was never addicted in the first place. He had no orientation to alcohol or tobacco. He does not have to avoid alcohol or tobacco.

He would never say that God removed his desires for alcohol or tobacco, because he never desired them. He just did them in the way that several us don't change the channel on the tv whenever we aren't really watching. He would be the first to admit that his drinking and smoking were sinful.

I think the majority of those who identify as homosexual do not fall in the category that they are homosexual just because they didn't want to change the channel. If we are honest, there a few that probably do. We can argue whether or not there is such thing as homosexual orientation, though the CotN's statement seems to say that there are some who are oriented to homosexual orientation (or homosexuality). Some of this orientation desire that God rescue them from this orientation and free them to live what they perceive to be a 'normal Christian life'. But for whatever reason, God has not removed their orientation. In this context, I completely agree that it is through relationship with God and those in the church community that we avoid returning to actions that we believe follow those desires. It is then that staying close to God and those in the church community daily.

[Mike McVey]

I don't have to actively choose to avoid it. But I'm afraid if I ever let my relationship fail, than perhaps the desires could appear again. Maybe that's not true, I do not want nor do I intend to find out. I think my healing and lack of desire goes hand in hand with my trusting in God and my continued relationship with him.

I know what I know, and I'm sorry that I can't explain it better than that.

I am glad that you do not have to consciously choose to avoid it. I, like you, do not want you to find out if the desires could appear again. At the same time, we have to move past ourselves and see that others rarely are made the same as us with the precise circumstances and heredity that we have.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't have to actively choose to avoid it. But I'm afraid if I ever let my relationship fail, than perhaps the desires could appear again. Maybe that's not true, I do not want nor do I intend to find out. I think my healing and lack of desire goes hand in hand with my trusting in God and my continued relationship with him.

James, I like that image. I think you are right. It is within the relationship that the cleansing takes place. My problem is, what if that doesn't happen? But I'm very grateful that it has worked so well for you.

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't have to actively choose to avoid it. But I'm afraid if I ever let my relationship fail, than perhaps the desires could appear again. Maybe that's not true, I do not want nor do I intend to find out. I think my healing and lack of desire goes hand in hand with my trusting in God and my continued relationship with him.

I know what I know, and I'm sorry that I can't explain it better than that.

Actually, I think that makes perfect sense.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm sorry, but that is a luxury I cannot afford. Unfortunately, I have to deal with not getting an answer at all. My theology MUST include a silent heaven, or it has no meaning.

We're not communicating Hans. I did not intend to send that message. "No" most certainly fits with my theology and is not inconsistent with what I have suggested. I am a sufferer of chronic pelvic pain syndrome, I know about not being healed and how it can disappoint. But it does my heart good to pray for others and their healing. When Job prayed for his friends he was healed. If I die with CPPS, I will have done so believing God for something great. I'd rather ask God for some big things in my life and occasionally be disappointed, than ask him for nothing and get it every time.

I feel like any attempt to be positive and hopeful on this thread results in being picked apart. My concern in reading this thread is that it appears we are magnifying the problem and differences in opinion over the problem. And to be honest it is probably not a good expenditure of time for us to shread each other to smitherines repeatedly. I think everyones position has been clearly stated. It is not hard in a forum like this to determine who stands where. So lets come together and magnify God instead of the problems. God knows everything that is wrong with our human sexuality and how to fix it. I hope you can join me in at least affirming that foundational truth.

[Todd Erickson]

Despite years of praying and pleading, God has not taking away my lonliness, or my depression, or my frustration or fear. They're still very much here.

So either A. God has needs from me that require me being in that place, or B., by your reckoning, there is some lack of relationship between me and God, because if that relationship was fine, I would not have these issues. Job was a joke.

Hrm. Yeah, I needed more guilt.

[James Johnson]

Despite years of praying and pleading, God has not taking away my lonliness, or my depression, or my frustration or fear. They're still very much here.

So either A. God has needs from me that require me being in that place, or B., by your reckoning, there is some lack of relationship between me and God, because if that relationship was fine, I would not have these issues. Job was a joke.

Hrm. Yeah, I needed more guilt.

I don't even know how to respond to this. I'll say I'm sorry for your struggles and I hope God will see you through them. If this was meant as a personal attack on me, then I'll simply say, I don't understand the need for that and perhaps if you'll re-read my statement it'll be more clear that I was speaking for me and the need for, and the importance behind my relationship with God. And again I'm sorry for your struggles and I will remember you in prayer.

[Todd Erickson]

I don't even know how to respond to this. I'll say I'm sorry for your struggles and I hope God will see you through them. If this was meant as a personal attack on me, then I'll simply say, I don't understand the need for that and perhaps if you'll re-read my statement it'll be more clear that I was speaking for me and the need for, and the reasoning behind my relationship with God.

What you and others seem to be saying is that things which we struggle with or which afflict us are a matter of depending on God to take them away, and if they aren't being taken away, then our relationship with God must not be strong enough. And yes, I have been told before that being depressed and lonely is sin, and that it means I'm rejecting God. Always good to hear (no, not from you).

I suspect that in much the same way that I struggle constantly with lonliness and depression, folks who are homosexual struggle with their attraction to people of the same gender. That attraction never goes away. They feel no attraction to people of the opposite gender, and the language of the church alienates them because it says that even their feelings are wrong. As a result, they feel depressed and lonely (er) and many of them commit suicide as a result.

What is the church offering these people, other than an order to change who they are in order to be acceptable to the church? What compassion or encouragement or community are they being offered?

I have been part of the church my entire life, and have felt alienated and ostracized for most of that time. I can only imagine how somebody who is gay would feel...they would know that there are people in the church who find them innately disgusting, who openly compare them to rapists and pedophiles and zoophiles, who expect the worst and least responsible of behaviour from them. They likely live their lives in fear when they're among church folk, as they have no idea when soembody might decide that the Lord is telling them to take some violent action against them.

What, we give them the Gospel message, shove them out the door for God to deal with, and wash our hands because we've done our job? Where is the Gospel for this? How is there any life here, any blessing?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Despite years of praying and pleading, God has not taking away my lonliness, or my depression, or my frustration or fear. They're still very much here.

So either A. God has needs from me that require me being in that place, or B., by your reckoning, there is some lack of relationship between me and God, because if that relationship was fine, I would not have these issues. Job was a joke.

Hrm. Yeah, I needed more guilt.

I am sorry for all that time you have been spending in the wilderness. I believe that wilderness experiences can bring us closer to God and that God will use our situation for His purpose, if we allow it. I am praying for you and your situation.


I don't have to actively choose to avoid it. But I'm afraid if I ever let my relationship fail, than perhaps the desires could appear again. Maybe that's not true, I do not want nor do I intend to find out. I think my healing and lack of desire goes hand in hand with my trusting in God and my continued relationship with him.

I know what I know, and I'm sorry that I can't explain it better than that.

I am not speaking for James here, but for myself for I too think that IF I were to ever walk away from my relationship with God I could very easily fall back into my old life. While I, in relationship with Him, have no longer have those old desires, in fact just thinking about that stuff I find repulsive. But my depravities were choices I made while I was an enemy of God. My choice to be with Him I find so much more as AUTHENTIC life than the "high life" I once lived. But both the new and who I became as the old were the result of choices I made--not all non-believers become perverted, drug addled criminals, hence my reference to choice.

But as a man living in relationship with God I still suffer and struggle. Jesus promises us a hard time, He makes no promise that all our problems will magically disappear when we choose to follow Him. The Father even sent Jesus into the wilderness. We are told we will be tested in the crucible are we not? (1 Peter 1:7)

So, I think that there is a difference between our situations. My choices are dependent upon whether or not I am in relationship with God. When I wasn't I made very bad choices. Now that I am in relationship with God I no longer desire to make those choices, IF I leave that relationship I could very well go back to being that "old man". Yet I still have struggles and issues-even issues that are the consequences of choices I had made the decision to follow Christ.

[Mike McVey]

What you and others seem to be saying is that things which we struggle with or which afflict us are a matter of depending on God to take them away, and if they aren't being taken away, then our relationship with God must not be strong enough. And yes, I have been told before that being depressed and lonely is sin, and that it means I'm rejecting God. Always good to hear (no, not from you).

I suspect that in much the same way that I struggle constantly with lonliness and depression, folks who are homosexual struggle with their attraction to people of the same gender. That attraction never goes away. They feel no attraction to people of the opposite gender, and the language of the church alienates them because it says that even their feelings are wrong. As a result, they feel depressed and lonely (er) and many of them commit suicide as a result.

What is the church offering these people, other than an order to change who they are in order to be acceptable to the church? What compassion or encouragement or community are they being offered?

I have been part of the church my entire life, and have felt alienated and ostracized for most of that time. I can only imagine how somebody who is gay would feel...they would know that there are people in the church who find them innately disgusting, who openly compare them to rapists and pedophiles and zoophiles, who expect the worst and least responsible of behaviour from them. They likely live their lives in fear when they're among church folk, as they have no idea when soembody might decide that the Lord is telling them to take some violent action against them.

What, we give them the Gospel message, shove them out the door for God to deal with, and wash our hands because we've done our job? Where is the Gospel for this? How is there any life here, any blessing?

Thank you for putting into words, my thoughts and my experiences. Glad I'm not alone in my loneliness. :)

[Paul DeBaufer]

What you and others seem to be saying is that things which we struggle with or which afflict us are a matter of depending on God to take them away, and if they aren't being taken away, then our relationship with God must not be strong enough. And yes, I have been told before that being depressed and lonely is sin, and that it means I'm rejecting God. Always good to hear (no, not from you).

I suspect that in much the same way that I struggle constantly with lonliness and depression, folks who are homosexual struggle with their attraction to people of the same gender. That attraction never goes away. They feel no attraction to people of the opposite gender, and the language of the church alienates them because it says that even their feelings are wrong. As a result, they feel depressed and lonely (er) and many of them commit suicide as a result.

What is the church offering these people, other than an order to change who they are in order to be acceptable to the church? What compassion or encouragement or community are they being offered?

I have been part of the church my entire life, and have felt alienated and ostracized for most of that time. I can only imagine how somebody who is gay would feel...they would know that there are people in the church who find them innately disgusting, who openly compare them to rapists and pedophiles and zoophiles, who expect the worst and least responsible of behaviour from them. They likely live their lives in fear when they're among church folk, as they have no idea when soembody might decide that the Lord is telling them to take some violent action against them.

What, we give them the Gospel message, shove them out the door for God to deal with, and wash our hands because we've done our job? Where is the Gospel for this? How is there any life here, any blessing?

I have very dear friends and congregants who suffer from mental illness. They are devout believers and live in relationship with Christ. Yet still they suffer. Thankfully there are medications available to help them. I, too, struggle with depression and am on medication.

I don't know what I am saying here. I guess I just want you to know that you are not alone and that I fully agree that the church needs to embrace people who have needs, suffer, are not like us and not blame people of faith of not having enough faith or blaming their suffering on them. To do smacks of works salvation (imho). God loves all! Loves those who are far from Him, yet we Christians choose to exclude them. We can be quite the Pharisees.

[James Johnson]

I am sorry for all that time you have been spending in the wilderness. I believe that wilderness experiences can bring us closer to God and that God will use our situation for His purpose, if we allow it. I am praying for you and your situation.



I am not speaking for James here, but for myself for I too think that IF I were to ever walk away from my relationship with God I could very easily fall back into my old life. While I, in relationship with Him, have no longer have those old desires, in fact just thinking about that stuff I find repulsive. But my depravities were choices I made while I was an enemy of God. My choice to be with Him I find so much more as AUTHENTIC life than the "high life" I once lived. But both the new and who I became as the old were the result of choices I made--not all non-believers become perverted, drug addled criminals, hence my reference to choice.

But as a man living in relationship with God I still suffer and struggle. Jesus promises us a hard time, He makes no promise that all our problems will magically disappear when we choose to follow Him. The Father even sent Jesus into the wilderness. We are told we will be tested in the crucible are we not? (1 Peter 1:7)

So, I think that there is a difference between our situations. My choices are dependent upon whether or not I am in relationship with God. When I wasn't I made very bad choices. Now that I am in relationship with God I no longer desire to make those choices, IF I leave that relationship I could very well go back to being that "old man". Yet I still have struggles and issues-even issues that are the consequences of choices I had made the decision to follow Christ.

Thanks brother, you said it much better than I was able too. God bless you Paul!

[Dale Cozby]

I know people that like to be outcasts. They like the persona of the kid that is kicked around, discarded but still makes it, all alone. I see it as a coping mechanism.
In prison these men are called loners. They don't do very well in the confines of prison life and often end up in solitary.
Others draw strength feeling lonely and depressed. Over the course of their life, they have gotten more attention from people when they are negative and make themselves pitiable. Often because they had to do so as a child to get a parents attention and feel they have value.
For whatever reason a person suffers from an emotional and behavioral psychosis, the reality of life is there is a most excellent way. A way that sets us free, and empowers us to love and be loved and belong. As we trust God mountains move, miracles happen and lives are forever changed. There is hope for all of us.

[Mike McVey]

Just watched the new episode of House tonight and was disappointed as it seems to be more and more about sex, but that's a different issue.

One of the characters wants to sleep around with other women and tries to mask it by staying faithful to his wife. Another character says that the first is just following his genetic predisposition.

This is when certain aspects of these sexual issues start to concern me. I believe in celibacy and abstinence for those who are not married in the one man, one wife kind of arrangement. Whether someone is genetically predisposed or oriented to anything, I am concerned that we let in a flood when there could have been a few drips. First world countries currently operate very permissively. We hold back judgment on any action because there might be an underlying cause that explains it. I am definitely guilty of this. Ben Roethlisberger and Jennifer Knapp both are in the spotlight because of their 'genetic predisposition'. Few have approved of what Big Ben has done but feel he can be 'fixed' through counseling and other rigorous accountability. Sports columnists make it sound like Ben just needs to stay home and everything will work out. There have been no shortage of jokes (the same could probably be said of others like Tiger Woods) in how dumb someone must be to do the things Ben has done. Why is Knapp different? Or is she different?

When I first posted the article, I felt for her struggles over the past fifteen years or so. Then the more information I see, the more I get the sense that she is sticking up a middle finger to non-accepting Christians. That is my perception. I question things that are not my place to question but it still concerns me because her first album is still one of my favorites and I feel a connection to her of sorts.

I personally want to believe that if indeed people are genetically predisposed to anything that by grace and a community of accountability it can be overcome. Whether that be sexual or not. I have felt the pressures of the church trying to maintain control because of actions they considered sinful that I did not. At the same time, is there not a certain responsibility that we give up or sacrifice part of ourselves to become the body of Christ together? If the answer is between me and Jesus, I need nothing to do with it. I need it to be between Jesus, my church, and me. I do not expect an alcoholic to give up alcohol solely because they accepted Christ in their life. I think it only happens when there is a community of accountability coupled with that deliverance. I do not expect those with sexual genetic predisposition to give up the actions that follow those predispositions without the combination of Christ and church in their life.

When I first started the thread, I did not have the thoughts that I have now, though I wasn't very far from them. I see several people accept Christ without the church having anything to do with them. I see a lot of people who have an accountability group but no Christ in their life. I have rarely seen the church come around people and love them to Christ and struggle with them whatever sin they struggle with. Generally, I feel like I have to either side with the church or the people and I usually choose the people. At least then there is a little bit of church that is formed in it. I think sometimes the reason why things do not appear 'clear' to me in the Bible is that I rarely see love to individuals from the church. It is hard to listen to people condemn sin when they don't practice local love. This is not a stab to anyone on this forum. It is easier to trust God when giving money to missionaries then loving our literal neighbor... or at least that is what I have seen.

I come off very critical of the church and I understand that. The truth is I have not experienced a lot of grace from the local congregations that I have been apart. But the one or two that have, they did it in abundance. They are the ones who penetrated my skepticisms and criticisms and give me hope that the Church is worth being apart. It is the reason that I am still in the Church and why I will always be. Because of a few people who did not know any better than to love me and my friends. My scars from those that did not are still there. I still feel the sting when the weather acts up. But I believe that there is hope because of one family in particular. Then that other family. Then the family after that. And after that and so on and so on. My critiques come now because I have been told often from the churches I participate that no one who goes to church ever feel like I did. I have helped people see that I am NOT unique in those situations.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks isn't enough Mike, thanks for sharing your heart.

[Todd Erickson]

I know people that like to be outcasts. They like the persona of the kid that is kicked around, discarded but still makes it, all alone. I see it as a coping mechanism.
In prison these men are called loners. They don't do very well in the confines of prison life and often end up in solitary.
Others draw strength feeling lonely and depressed. Over the course of their life, they have gotten more attention from people when they are negative and make themselves pitiable. Often because they had to do so as a child to get a parents attention and feel they have value.
For whatever reason a person suffers from an emotional and behavioral psychosis, the reality of life is there is a most excellent way. A way that sets us free, and empowers us to love and be loved and belong. As we trust God mountains move, miracles happen and lives are forever changed. There is hope for all of us.

Wow, this is offensive.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Just watched the new episode of House tonight and was disappointed as it seems to be more and more about sex, but that's a different issue.

One of the characters wants to sleep around with other women and tries to mask it by staying faithful to his wife. Another character says that the first is just following his genetic predisposition.

This is when certain aspects of these sexual issues start to concern me. I believe in celibacy and abstinence for those who are not married in the one man, one wife kind of arrangement. Whether someone is genetically predisposed or oriented to anything, I am concerned that we let in a flood when there could have been a few drips. First world countries currently operate very permissively. We hold back judgment on any action because there might be an underlying cause that explains it. I am definitely guilty of this. Ben Roethlisberger and Jennifer Knapp both are in the spotlight because of their 'genetic predisposition'. Few have approved of what Big Ben has done but feel he can be 'fixed' through counseling and other rigorous accountability. Sports columnists make it sound like Ben just needs to stay home and everything will work out. There have been no shortage of jokes (the same could probably be said of others like Tiger Woods) in how dumb someone must be to do the things Ben has done. Why is Knapp different? Or is she different?

When I first posted the article, I felt for her struggles over the past fifteen years or so. Then the more information I see, the more I get the sense that she is sticking up a middle finger to non-accepting Christians. That is my perception. I question things that are not my place to question but it still concerns me because her first album is still one of my favorites and I feel a connection to her of sorts.

I personally want to believe that if indeed people are genetically predisposed to anything that by grace and a community of accountability it can be overcome. Whether that be sexual or not. I have felt the pressures of the church trying to maintain control because of actions they considered sinful that I did not. At the same time, is there not a certain responsibility that we give up or sacrifice part of ourselves to become the body of Christ together? If the answer is between me and Jesus, I need nothing to do with it. I need it to be between Jesus, my church, and me. I do not expect an alcoholic to give up alcohol solely because they accepted Christ in their life. I think it only happens when there is a community of accountability coupled with that deliverance. I do not expect those with sexual genetic predisposition to give up the actions that follow those predispositions without the combination of Christ and church in their life.

When I first started the thread, I did not have the thoughts that I have now, though I wasn't very far from them. I see several people accept Christ without the church having anything to do with them. I see a lot of people who have an accountability group but no Christ in their life. I have rarely seen the church come around people and love them to Christ and struggle with them whatever sin they struggle with. Generally, I feel like I have to either side with the church or the people and I usually choose the people. At least then there is a little bit of church that is formed in it. I think sometimes the reason why things do not appear 'clear' to me in the Bible is that I rarely see love to individuals from the church. It is hard to listen to people condemn sin when they don't practice local love. This is not a stab to anyone on this forum. It is easier to trust God when giving money to missionaries then loving our literal neighbor... or at least that is what I have seen.

I come off very critical of the church and I understand that. The truth is I have not experienced a lot of grace from the local congregations that I have been apart. But the one or two that have, they did it in abundance. They are the ones who penetrated my skepticisms and criticisms and give me hope that the Church is worth being apart. It is the reason that I am still in the Church and why I will always be. Because of a few people who did not know any better than to love me and my friends. My scars from those that did not are still there. I still feel the sting when the weather acts up. But I believe that there is hope because of one family in particular. Then that other family. Then the family after that. And after that and so on and so on. My critiques come now because I have been told often from the churches I participate that no one who goes to church ever feel like I did. I have helped people see that I am NOT unique in those situations.

Mike, Thank you thank you thank you. This is well written and on the point.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I know people that like to be outcasts. They like the persona of the kid that is kicked around, discarded but still makes it, all alone. I see it as a coping mechanism.
In prison these men are called loners. They don't do very well in the confines of prison life and often end up in solitary.
Others draw strength feeling lonely and depressed. Over the course of their life, they have gotten more attention from people when they are negative and make themselves pitiable. Often because they had to do so as a child to get a parents attention and feel they have value.
For whatever reason a person suffers from an emotional and behavioral psychosis, the reality of life is there is a most excellent way. A way that sets us free, and empowers us to love and be loved and belong. As we trust God mountains move, miracles happen and lives are forever changed. There is hope for all of us.

I wonder, Dale, and no offense intended here, but have you ever been in prison? Have you suffered from depression or mental illness? I have. 13 years in prison which would be like 41 +
years of working in one. I suffer from PTSD and acute depression. Most of my life I was shut out for being different. While an enemy of God, I kind of prided myself in that-well that was the public persona, the mask I wore. But it is painful to grow up being shunned. It is painful not to have friends. It s painful to suffer crushing saddness. There is NO strength in it. The ones who find real strength in being outcast are pretenders to that, people who have rejected others and not been rejected by them. No Dale loneliness is very painful. It is painful to be different. Loneliness, rejection, being cast out, suffering from depression or mental illness are not the basis for strength. Well, not in my personal experience. Nor have I ever witnessed these as a source of strength in prisoners or mental health patients. Maybe I forgot to mention that as an adolescent I spent over a year in psychiatric hospitals ad have lived with the seriously mentally ill.

So maybe, just maybe the people you know are wearing a public mask or are pretenders covering up some other hurt.

[Hans Deventer]

We're not communicating Hans. I did not intend to send that message. "No" most certainly fits with my theology and is not inconsistent with what I have suggested. I am a sufferer of chronic pelvic pain syndrome, I know about not being healed and how it can disappoint. But it does my heart good to pray for others and their healing. When Job prayed for his friends he was healed. If I die with CPPS, I will have done so believing God for something great. I'd rather ask God for some big things in my life and occasionally be disappointed, than ask him for nothing and get it every time.

I feel like any attempt to be positive and hopeful on this thread results in being picked apart.

Well, that is easily explained. Because this thread is within the context of homosexuality and the problem with the optimism of grace is that it usually doesn't address the situations where people don't fit the expected pattern.

This said NOTHING about how you deal with your personal situation. I can only applaud your attitude, and in fact, can very much relate to it. We too keep praying, and in fact, last Sunday my wife was anointed with oil (again). We have to maintain hope. What is faith without hope? So I really think we're pretty much on the same page here.


My concern in reading this thread is that it appears we are magnifying the problem and differences in opinion over the problem.

Is that even possible? It's a huge issue in today's church, and in politics.


And to be honest it is probably not a good expenditure of time for us to shread each other to smitherines repeatedly. I think everyones position has been clearly stated. It is not hard in a forum like this to determine who stands where. So lets come together and magnify God instead of the problems. God knows everything that is wrong with our human sexuality and how to fix it. I hope you can join me in at least affirming that foundational truth.

Sure. And can you join me in affirming the experiential truth that He quite often doesn't fix it?

It's not so hard to deal with people who are "fixed". The problem is with those who aren't.

[Hans Deventer]

I felt this part of the "Pastoral Perspectives (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Perspectives_Homosexuality.pdf)" from the Board of General Superintendents was worth quoting here.



Provide a Grace Community of Hospitality and Formation.
The homosexual needs the community of grace available through your church. It is within this grace com-
munity that the homosexual participates in the grace of hospitality and character formation. One of our
greatest failures as the church is to think that a person can live a celibate life as a homosexual without
the benefit of Christian community. We are created for human intimacy. We need human touch, conversation,
inclusion, belonging, and care. To counsel a person in the office or at the altar is not the end of
their struggle. It is a battle waged in the trenches of daily life. The homosexual has real needs. They
are asking, “Who do I talk to? Eat with? Play with? Share holidays with? Celebrate birthdays with? Who
hugs me? Listens to me when I am sad? Calls me? Thinks to include me? Where do I live?”

If the homosexual community offers a better welcome than the people of God, a struggling person
will seek help from that community. If we, as the church, immediately condemn our homosexual
brothers and sisters without taking the time to get to know them and to share God’s love with them, we
may turn them off from the church and from God for good. Homosexuals need the church, and they matter
to us because they matter to God. If the church wants to get serious about helping
the homosexual seeking to be a Christlike disciple, we must think in terms of consistent, rich hospitality.

Christian singles will purchase large houses and become havens of belonging and character formation
for men and women living in God-honoring community. Families will permanently open their homes
to a new member of the family. Churches will develop support groups and provide mature mentors.
The reoriented or celibate single homosexual will be invited to full participation in the life and ministry of
the church, leading ministries, serving on boards, and singing in choirs. We cannot expect a person to “go
deal with this and come back when you have it settled.” One of our best means of grace is
the hospitality and character formation in the fellowship of the church. God grant our church
grace to be such a community.

[Todd Erickson]

I have picked up some of the following threads through the Church (even within the CotN):

A. When God gets ahold of you, and you get right with God, you'll become an extrovert, and conversation with others will come easily.
B. When God gets ahold of you, and you get right with God, you'll give up on intellectualism and knowledge and just live in what the bible clearly says.
C. When God gets ahold of you, and you get right with God, you'll always be happy.
D. When God gets ahold of you, and you get right with God, the answers will be clear.

So far, life has been precisely the opposite of this. My greatest happiness, my greatest peace, is generally when there are no other Christians around, when there are no expectations on me, when I can learn as I want to, share as I want to, be as I am.

David struggled with depression and doublemindedness his entire time as King, yet we hold him up as a great example to our kids and in our churches. But we don't want people to be like him, except where he was victorious. I think it's fairly evident that C. S. Lewis suffered with a lot of the same things.

My depression, I know, functions at least partially out of my personality type, which is constantly bent toward analysis. If I can't find something positive to do with that inborn talent, it will turn inward on me, and instead focus on all that is wrong in my life. So I spend a lot of time trying not to think, or to think about other things.

Scientists have well documented that people who are not involved, who feel like they are not understood, will feel completely alone even when surrounded by other people who are part of their social group, and generally fall into depression and other such mental issues. These people don't understand why they don't connect, they just don't. And because they're like they are, most people are not going to come into their lives to try to figure out how to help them...they're just going to assume that either God will, or the person will decide they don't fit and leave. Problem solved.

It takes incredible amounts of energy and willpower for me to attempt conversations with people who I don't know, or who I don't have anything in common with. It can be actively painful for me to be in large groups (such as churches), and I tend to spend a lot of time engaged in prayer or meditation to deal with being in those places. All of the medications that I've tried just make me numb and make it very difficult to think or create...and are generally expensive.

I think that those who find community and conversation easy, and for whom life is generally pretty good, assume that others will eventually be at the same point in Christ, even though the bible seems to indicate that this isn't the truth, and that we should have no expectation of "no more tears" until glory.

Most of church is not about me, or anything I'm interested in. Most folks at church want to operate on a level which is so far below my learning that it's difficult to have conversations with them without offending or boring them...as my former pastor likes to say "most people just want to be told what to think and to do, so that they can get back to doing what they'd rather be doing."

For depressives, intellectuals, homosexuals, creatives, and a whole raft of other people, church is simply not a welcoming place where God can be encountered. It's a place where the extroverts and socialites and the people getting healed and having a good time go to all see that they're all doing okay. And when we eventually burn out and leave, the rest of 'em can turn to each other and say, knowingly, "yup, he wasn't one of us".

[Karen Troxler]

Todd,
I don't know you but want to thank you for taking the time to express yourself so well and making yourself vulnerable. I can relate to what you are saying, and many times have felt similar. Many years ago a friend of mine who was going through a difficult time in her life said this, "the church is the only place where they shoot their wounded." Sad, but far too often it is true. We need to do a better job at loving as Jesus loved us.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say. I wasn't talking about throwing people out, I was talking about a theology that leaves no room for "no" as an answer and hence leaves people out in the cold who aren't healed.

Thanks for the clarification Hans. I went back and re-read your post in that light. Yes I emphatically agree with you, I have been there many times myself, not in the same situation, yet in situation when long periods of prayer to the point of fasting at times yielded what appeared to me as no answer, nothing emptiness. These period have had me to the point of questioning the very existence of God, although I am thankful that his hand always kept me from the edge. Many times I could align myself with Paul as he cried "Oh wretched man that I am!"

i have a relative who is a University professor, he firmly embraces this theology where "no" is never the answer, to the point where his doctoral thesis was on this very subject. him and I have gone around and around on this for almost thirty years now.

And BTW. I really like your current avatar pic, I believe that it accurately portrays the man I see posting here! I hope George changes his back soon.

[Mike McVey]

And BTW. I really like your current avatar pic, I believe that it accurately portrays the man I see posting here! I hope George changes his back soon.

What about mine? Does my pic accurately portray me?

[Dale Cozby]

I wonder, Dale, and no offense intended here, but have you ever been in prison? Have you suffered from depression or mental illness? Are you of the opinion that one has to suffer from the disease/illness to be able to treat it or understand it? Or is it because my post seems to be more clinical and less compassionate?


It is painful not to have friends. It s painful to suffer crushing saddness. There is NO strength in it. The ones who find real strength in being outcast are pretenders to that, people who have rejected others and not been rejected by them. ... It is painful to be different. Loneliness, rejection, being cast out, suffering from depression or mental illness are not the basis for strength. Well, not in my personal experience. Nor have I ever witnessed these as a source of strength in prisoners or mental health patients. Maybe I forgot to mention that as an adolescent I spent over a year in psychiatric hospitals ad have lived with the seriously mentally ill. Like I said, I think you missed it....These are coping mechanisms. Reread my post and here as well: http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/coping.htm


So maybe, just maybe the people you know are wearing a public mask or are pretenders covering up some other hurt.Again see coping mechanism.

We all find strength to face another day somewhere. Some of us use negative coping mechanisms. By doing so, we find temporary relief from the daily pain. Yet in the end we are no better off than before. I testify personally that when I put my faith in Christ, He began the process of changing me. Some changes were dramatic, quick and/ or instantaneous. Other changes took years. Some changes are still taking place. It is part of the journey of walking in faith. As our belief replaces our disbelief, and trust replaces our fears and hope replaces our despair, God moves in mighty ways to make us over into people after His own image. I suppose in some ways we are all hard heads and stiff necked people, at least when it comes to the areas we struggle with. An area that is easy for me to give up or was never tempted with, may be hard for you, and vice-versa.
So we are told to encourage one another(to keep trusting and changing) spurring one another(spurring can be painful) to good deeds and loving each other to cover over a multitude of sins.
The worst thing any of us can do is give up and wallow in our self-pity and misery, but often that is the case, until we are broken enough to let out trust defeat our fear, our belief defeat our unbelief and our hope overcome our despair.

Life will never be"happily ever after", but when we go with God in faith, it sure will be better than going it alone.

[Todd Erickson]

As it states in that link, "Remember that coping actions are usually symptoms of deeper problems and addressing them directly can be ineffective or even counter-productive. The best approach is to discover the deeper cause and address this, which will hopefully then result in the coping mechanism disappearing."

Being introverted, or subjective, or depressive, are not coping mechanisms. They may drive coping mechanisms, but they will not be changed by not engaging in coping mechanisms.

Sometimes, people can be very aware of why they're in the situation they're in, but are completely unequipped to deal with that situation, and all of the answers that they're given for how to deal essentially amount to 'stop doing that', i.e., "clean out the house, but we're not going to equip you to actually keep out the unclean spirit and his friend when they come back, that's your lookout."

Nothing on that link, or in your post, deals with the church not aiding people in overcoming what afflicts them. Instead, it seems to state squarely that people who don't have enough faith in God are just wallowing in their weakness, and get what they deserve.

[Ryan Scott]

I think perhaps sometimes we see everything through our own experiences and it makes it difficult to see a similar situation turn out differently for someone else. Especially in difficult issues like those we've been speaking about, trust in each other seems to be paramount for our ability to get along with each other.

There are people in this world absolutely in bondage to alcohol, the internet, drugs, sex, violence, food, pornography, television and many other things. Not all of them are necessarily addicts. Not all the addicts will necessarily have a miraculous healing from addiction. Some will never touch a drop of alcohol again; for others it will be a lifelong struggle. For still others they may develop some sense of discipline or control and continue in some of these activities. What's important is that we nurture genuine desire for God and growth in the Spirit, that we continue to be a supportive community for those people willing to engage.

I know men who testify to a miraculous cure from homosexuality. I know others who have made a conscious choice to be celibate or otherwise not engage in homosexual behavior. I know still others who have found peace in a monogamous homosexual marriage. All of these men are committed Christians, desiring more of God and more of the Spirit in their lives. As a fellow Christian, I have to trust that they are sincere and I have reason to trust due to the sincerity I see in their lives. Will their perspectives and beliefs change over time? Perhaps. One would hope that a Christian's understanding would always continue to evolve and develop.

Homosexuality is a very tough issue and a hot topic in today's society. It's a bit more emotionally charged. Let me use another example from my life. I know a man who has an issue with food. He's very large and willingly admits a struggle. He's done dieting and surgery to become smaller, although he's still a big man. From my perspective, he's been using some of these treatments as a crutch to avoid directly tackling his problem with food. I've not told him that, nor will I. Having a supporting group of family and friends has helped him to progress this far - he's always shown a remarkable ability to hear God's voice and a gracious willingness to obey. As God continues to work in his life, I trust that he will listen. What's most important to me, more than any of the other actions in his life is his participation in the body of Christ.

I have faith that if we welcome people into our congregations and show them God's love and grace, they will be drawn to Christ. As that relationship develops they will understand the areas in their life God wishes them to work on.

[Dale Cozby]

Nothing on that link, or in your post, deals with the church not aiding people in overcoming what afflicts them. Instead, it seems to state squarely that people who don't have enough faith in God are just wallowing in their weakness, and get what they deserve.
Here are my thesis/propositions:
1. The church can't fix everything for people.
2. The church shouldn't be blamed for it's lack of omnipotence.
3. The church members are all fallen humans and should receive grace and give grace.
4. The church proclaims and should proclaim the power of God to perform miracles in peoples lives.
5. The church is on a journey as a group, as the individuals within are on a personal journey of faith.
6. The church is always learning and changing, and the individuals members should be willing to change as well.
7. Some people's expectations of the church will always exceed the church's performance.
8. The Church's expectations of some individuals will always exceed their performance.
9. Both the church and the individuals need to offer grace when performance does not meet expectations.
10. Love covers a multitude of sins.

Concerning your proposition that I state: "people who don't have enough faith in God are just wallowing in their weakness, and get what they deserve" is incorrect.
I believe this is what you feel the church does. I agree that sometimes this is the case as it appears to be your personal experience. But I do not think the church(myself included in that group) is deserving of a blanket condemnation for suggesting that some people need to move from despair to hope, from unbelief to belief from fear to trust, from selfishness to obedience.

I think back to times in my childhood when asked to perform some task that was hard. Often we are asked to do something difficult we cry out, "It's too hard!" or "That is impossible!" only later to find out as we grow and mature that we can do it, especially when we have help.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Are you of the opinion that one has to suffer from the disease/illness to be able to treat it or understand it? Or is it because my post seems to be more clinical and less compassionate?

Like I said, I think you missed it....These are coping mechanisms. Reread my post and here as well: http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/coping.htm

Again see coping mechanism.

We all find strength to face another day somewhere. Some of us use negative coping mechanisms. By doing so, we find temporary relief from the daily pain. Yet in the end we are no better off than before. I testify personally that when I put my faith in Christ, He began the process of changing me. Some changes were dramatic, quick and/ or instantaneous. Other changes took years. Some changes are still taking place. It is part of the journey of walking in faith. As our belief replaces our disbelief, and trust replaces our fears and hope replaces our despair, God moves in mighty ways to make us over into people after His own image. I suppose in some ways we are all hard heads and stiff necked people, at least when it comes to the areas we struggle with. An area that is easy for me to give up or was never tempted with, may be hard for you, and vice-versa.
So we are told to encourage one another(to keep trusting and changing) spurring one another(spurring can be painful) to good deeds and loving each other to cover over a multitude of sins.
The worst thing any of us can do is give up and wallow in our self-pity and misery, but often that is the case, until we are broken enough to let out trust defeat our fear, our belief defeat our unbelief and our hope overcome our despair.

Life will never be"happily ever after", but when we go with God in faith, it sure will be better than going it alone.

Yes Dale,I am of the opinion that you do not understand these things. Your post is far from clinical. It reminds me of fundamentalist theology. Just turn to God and all will be well. That is the same as saying if you have cancer all you have to do is turn to God and all will be well, your health will be restored, or am I reading this wrong:

"For whatever reason a person suffers from an emotional and behavioral psychosis, the reality of life is there is a most excellent way. A way that sets us free, and empowers us to love and be loved and belong. As we trust God mountains move, miracles happen and lives are forever changed."[

I am of the view that unless you have suffered you can only go so far in understanding the effects of that suffering on the person. Our empathy can only go so far.

Yes, I am very familiar with coping mechanisms-ego defense mechanisms (I have met with therapists beginning as a young child, I have a degree in psychology as well as biology, and am currently in therapy to deal with root causes of the PTSD, because as Todd says in his post 360

"'Remember that coping actions are usually symptoms of deeper problems and addressing them directly can be ineffective or even counter-productive. The best approach is to discover the deeper cause and address this, which will hopefully then result in the coping mechanism disappearing.'

Being introverted, or subjective, or depressive, are not coping mechanisms. They may drive coping mechanisms, but they will not be changed by not engaging in coping mechanisms."



You see when we face trauma,or what our mid-brain thinks is trauma the limbic system kinda of gets set. Later in life when we are faced with a situation the mid-brain feels is similar in some way to the original we tend to react as that child did who experienced the original trauma. This can lead to PTSD through repeated or long lasting trauma. Dealing with the reaction does not good. What needs to be done is to retrain the limbic system and teach it a more mature response. While the church has a role to play in reinforcing this retraining and understanding that there is an underlying cause this is something that need to be done in a therapeutic situation.

Just like the BoGS statement Hans posted about helping homosexuals in the church and being a supportive community for them, we need to be the same for people sufferiing depression, anxiety, adoidance disorder (extreme shyness), mental illness, etc. We are good at being supportive of people with cancer why are we not of people with mental health issues. Cancer and many mental health issues are biologically based-so my analogy above IS valid.

I know people with mental/behavoral issues can be hard to love hard to accept, but we are called to do just that. Part of love is learning to understand. Simply saying that if we would just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and follow Christ and all will be well is as unloving and superficial as it is offensive to those who suffer.

I am sorry if I offend you.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Life will never be"happily ever after", but when we go with God in faith, it sure will be better than going it alone.

I couldn't agree more. While I still have problems and issues (PTSD and depression and pretty extreme shyness) issues I have always had but no longer self-medicate (thank God He took that away from me), while I have spent much of my Christian life in the wilderness my life IS so much better than it was before (I fully understand Paul when he says he count his past all garbage compared to Life with Christ, AMEN). I had lots of money, live large. Now I have just engough to get by. I feel the issues more deeply now that I am off drugs and booze, but I actually have REAL life now, yet still I suffer.

[Todd Erickson]

Here are my thesis/propositions:
1. The church can't fix everything for people.
2. The church shouldn't be blamed for it's lack of omnipotence.
3. The church members are all fallen humans and should receive grace and give grace.
4. The church proclaims and should proclaim the power of God to perform miracles in peoples lives.
5. The church is on a journey as a group, as the individuals within are on a personal journey of faith.
6. The church is always learning and changing, and the individuals members should be willing to change as well.
7. Some people's expectations of the church will always exceed the church's performance.
8. The Church's expectations of some individuals will always exceed their performance.
9. Both the church and the individuals need to offer grace when performance does not meet expectations.
10. Love covers a multitude of sins.

Concerning your proposition that I state: "people who don't have enough faith in God are just wallowing in their weakness, and get what they deserve" is incorrect.
I believe this is what you feel the church does. I agree that sometimes this is the case as it appears to be your personal experience. But I do not think the church(myself included in that group) is deserving of a blanket condemnation for suggesting that some people need to move from despair to hope, from unbelief to belief from fear to trust, from selfishness to obedience.

I think back to times in my childhood when asked to perform some task that was hard. Often we are asked to do something difficult we cry out, "It's too hard!" or "That is impossible!" only later to find out as we grow and mature that we can do it, especially when we have help.

So, does this mean that you are saying that:

A. the church is in no way responsible for looking out for the welfare or the improvement of it's members;
B. the church can in no way guarnatee what the individual response or experience will be with it's members;
C. the church's standards may change at any time, and it cannot be held responsible for changes in service or experience as a result of that;
and D. Anybody who is not personally changing is only having this issue because they refused to do what they were told to do?

EULA issues aside, this seems to assume that everybody is going to encounter circumstances where A. the church is interested in intentional community and B. is pursuing active and meaningful change. My experience is that neither of those is necessarily true in most circumstances. Your mileage may vary.

[Dale Cozby]

EULA issues aside, this seems to assume that everybody is going to encounter circumstances where A. the church is interested in intentional community and B. is pursuing active and meaningful change. My experience is that neither of those is necessarily true in most circumstances. Your mileage may vary.Ok for some fun....

* Individual results WILL vary.
This CHURCH contains information which is for information only. It does not constitute medical or mental health advice and makes no warranties as to the fitness of such information for any particular purpose. Users should consult their doctor or mental health professional about any information presented here to determine its suitability.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall THE CHURCH or its suppliers, partners or members be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of personal or business profits, business or personal interruption, loss of use, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use THE HOLY SPIRIT or the provision of or failure to provide Support Services, even if THE CHURCH has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In any case, THE CHURCH's entire liability under any provision of this agreement shall be limited to the amount actually paid by you to THE CHURCH for THE HOLY SPIRIT. ;)

[Todd Erickson]

Ok for some fun....



Would you say, in your opinion, that the only actual job of the church is to spread the Gospel and uphold holiness?

[Dale Cozby]

Would you say, in your opinion, that the only actual job of the church is to spread the Gospel and uphold holiness? No I wouldn't.
I think the church is to uphold the two great commandments the best it can. To love God and to love neighbor as self. Beyond that we are to strive to love each other as Jesus loved His disciples.

Jesus said, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
AND "If you love me, you will obey what I command"
AND "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
AND "You are my friends if you do what I command."
AND "This is my command: Love each other."

So we love the best we can, and we learn to love better each day, as we surrender who we are for who we can become by trusting Christ and being obedient the best we can to His command, beyond that, there is grace.

If we spend our time loving God, each other and neighbor, the world will know who we belong to and the gospel will be spread.

Probably not the answer you were expecting or hoping for, but there it is.

[Todd Erickson]

What do you mean by loving each other, outside of quoting verses? What does that actually look like?

[Dale Cozby]

What do you mean by loving each other, outside of quoting verses? What does that actually look like? If you do not know what that love actually looks like I feel sorry for you.
Perhaps you and I have different experiences and as a result we have very different views of Christian charity, grace and love.

Maybe you would care to share your views of what it is suppose to look like to you.

One question to you: Do you think it may be hard to love one person as you should without someone else feeling they are not being loved by you properly? Hence why I say the church will never meet up to some people's expectations of it. Even if we do the best we can in our humanness, it will not be good enough by some peoples standards, and they do not give grace but expect it in great abundance.

[Paul DeBaufer]

What do you mean by loving each other, outside of quoting verses? What does that actually look like?

Personally I like Tom Oord's definition Love is to act intentionally in response to God and others to promote overall well being. As Tom searched the scriptures love is used in may ways in many contexts with a meta-meaning different in each. However, he also noticed that there was an underlying thread of meaning that linked all of the uses. After much study and prayer Tom proposed the above definition.

In any given moment God loves us with His perfect love.We then either respond in kind or not, in the very next moment God gives us His love. Because He loves us first we have the full capability to love as He does, to give God's love to another. But even when we don't God will then give us His love. But it is incumbent upon us to pass the love along and not try to hoard it for ourselves. Hence Jesus commandments-He equips us to live them out, IF we can get ourselves out of the way.

[Todd Erickson]

If you do not know what that love actually looks like I feel sorry for you.
Perhaps you and I have different experiences and as a result we have very different views of Christian charity, grace and love.

Maybe you would care to share your views of what it is suppose to look like to you.

One question to you: Do you think it may be hard to love one person as you should without someone else feeling they are not being loved by you properly? Hence why I say the church will never meet up to some people's expectations of it. Even if we do the best we can in our humanness, it will not be good enough by some peoples standards, and they do not give grace but expect it in great abundance.

I know that people talk a lot about love, but that the way they behave toward each other looks basically like people act anywhere else. So I don't really know what it's supposed to look like...it really seems to be more of an idea than anything.

[Kami Tuenning]

Here are a few glimpses of love, some past and present:

When my husband cleans feces from my bed and body at 2:00 am when I undergo chemo and am too weak and "foggy" to help myself.

When my two year old grandson climbs up onto the bed with me and kisses my bald head and sits "quietly".

When the old frail women in the pew helps a stranger manuever the prayer book during Mass and follow the liturgy with the warmth of an old friend even though we are complete strangers.

When I vote for my brother-in-law as he competes for the title of Mr. Gay America in Olso, even though I don't understand his gender-orientation.

When my poor, urban first grader gives me a pancake in a zip-loc bag for teacher appreciation day.

Love is certainly more than a grand idea, it isn't even hard to find....you just have to have your eyes open and walk among people....

I am a little out of practice here; this is in response to post # 372

[Todd Erickson]

Here are a few glimpses of love, some past and present:

When my husband cleans feces from my bed and body at 2:00 am when I undergo chemo and am too weak and "foggy" to help myself.

When my two year old grandson climbs up onto the bed with me and kisses my bald head and sits "quietly".

When the old frail women in the pew helps a stranger manuever the prayer book during Mass and follow the liturgy with the warmth of an old friend even though we are complete strangers.

When I vote for my brother-in-law as he competes for the title of Mr. Gay America in Olso, even though I don't understand his gender-orientation.

When my poor, urban first grader gives me a pancake in a zip-loc bag for teacher appreciation day.

Love is certainly more than a grand idea, it isn't even hard to find....you just have to have your eyes open and walk among people....

I am a little out of practice here; this is in response to post # 372

These are actually how I perceive Love. But I generally can't go to church to find them, I have to look elsewhere. Most often among people who aren't Christians.

I've been in plenty of churches where the people there are welcoming, and friendly. But they won't come looking for you when you're not there, they aren't in a hurry to offer you a hug or comfort, they're not going to keep asking "no, really, how are you" when you give a pat answer and probably aren't nearly as good as your answer would normally indicate.

I've known a couple of people in the last 10 years who do those things at church. They are usually incredibly busy people. Heh.

[Jim Chabot]

Welcome back Tami, good to see you posting again! What you have presented is indeed love.

[Jim Chabot]

These are actually how I perceive Love. But I generally can't go to church to find them, I have to look elsewhere. Most often among people who aren't Christians.

I've been in plenty of churches where the people there are welcoming, and friendly. But they won't come looking for you when you're not there, they aren't in a hurry to offer you a hug or comfort, they're not going to keep asking "no, really, how are you" when you give a pat answer and probably aren't nearly as good as your answer would normally indicate.

I've known a couple of people in the last 10 years who do those things at church. They are usually incredibly busy people. Heh.

Todd, I am praying for you that someday you will find a loving church. I have been where you describe many painful years, I could have written what you have just posted many times. I can tell you that all churches are not alike, there are loving, caring congregations out there, I pray that you find one. Or, just a thought, maybe God's plan is for you to make a difference somewhere, maybe you are the catalyst for change. Just a thought.

Your post reminds me of how much I have to be thankful for at my church.

[Dale Cozby]

I've been in plenty of churches where the people there are welcoming, and friendly. But they won't come looking for you when you're not there, they aren't in a hurry to offer you a hug or comfort, they're not going to keep asking "no, really, how are you" when you give a pat answer and probably aren't nearly as good as your answer would normally indicate.
.
Wow, I know where you are. I know there are also too many well intentioned people who never look past the pat answer, never gaze into your eyes to see the hurt there. Never look for you when you are not in sight.

But not all Christians are like that. I have been afraid to call one young man before because I didn't want to come off as too pushy, so instead of making "deliberate" contact with him, I knew his route at work and would go to a particular store that he would be servicing along his route on a certain day during a certain window of time. Amazingly, we would meet there and talk as he stocked his stuff on the shelves. On more than one occasion that contact led to him opening up and we talked for almost two hours standing in a store. I think it was a turning point for him, and over the next couple of years his life has changed quite a bit. Today he is in the church serving with me in ministry. I have never said anything about our "incidental" contacts at that store. Yet he said something a few weeks ago about them, and how he knew what I was doing when I kept showing up on the same day at the same time to "shop". Somehow though he knew it was because I loved him, and not because he was some project for me.

Todd I am praying for you to find a church with people loving enough to reach out the hand of love, true fellowship. It won't be labeled as such, but you will know it when you see. Sometimes all people can do is the unseen, to pray, so that is what I will do brother.

[Houston Thomas]

Really nothing to add to what has been quite a multi-faceted conversation other than the single best examination of this issue that I have read has been a chapter in Richard Hays' book "The Moral Vision of the New Testament."

In fact, his chapter on Homosexuality can be read (except for 4 missing pages) on Google Books here: LINK. (http://books.google.com/books?id=FUJEQMjdkvYC&lpg=PP1&dq=richard%20hays&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Even with 4 pages missing it is well worth the read.

[Rich Schmidt]

Really nothing to add to what has been quite a multi-faceted conversation other than the single best examination of this issue that I have read has been a chapter in Richard Hays' book "The Moral Vision of the New Testament."

In fact, his chapter on Homosexuality can be read (except for 4 missing pages) on Google Books here: LINK. (http://books.google.com/books?id=FUJEQMjdkvYC&lpg=PP1&dq=richard%20hays&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Even with 4 pages missing it is well worth the read.

Thank you so much for that link. That's an excellent, clear, and gracious treatment of the subject.

I'm pretty sure we own that book thanks to one of my wife's college classes at ONU years ago. I'm going to have to find it now.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Todd, I am praying for you that someday you will find a loving church. I have been where you describe many painful years, I could have written what you have just posted many times. I can tell you that all churches are not alike, there are loving, caring congregations out there, I pray that you find one. Or, just a thought, maybe God's plan is for you to make a difference somewhere, maybe you are the catalyst for change. Just a thought.

Your post reminds me of how much I have to be thankful for at my church.

This past New Years Eve I went with one of our worship team, who perform as a band, to a church in an old mausoleum on a cemetery who was having a service and dinner. This was the friendliest warmest congregation. I have since become friends with their worship pastor (we've done some gigs together) people from that church still ask as to my wife and I. So, YES truly loving-as a verb-churches exist. They may be far and few between, but they are out there and I feel more will develop as we work on getting commercialism and individualism out.

[Marsha Lynn]

Again I'm a bit biased because of anecdotal evidence, but CCM always put me off as a bit too manufactured and fake, then hearing stories from people deeply involved in songwriting, recording, and producing who say that most of the people they met in the industry could care less about the Church or the gospel - it really only justifies my preconceived notions.

I've yet to find evidence to change my views - and believe me I'd love to do so.

Ryan, your comments here have stayed with me. We don't have a local "K-Love" (is that right?) station, but I happened across one while on the road recently. I realized then that it's not always the spoken words on Christian radio that drive me back to my PDA; often it's the music. I guess I hadn't really thought about it, although sometimes there would be a question in the back of my mind as to why I was giving up a fresh "playlist" for a meager Gb of selections. The answer is that what is the core of my personal collection is the exception for the radio. Maybe that's because my collection is somewhat dated, but there's also an element of having a little more meat to the lyrics than is generally broadcast.

So, off the top 25 CCLI hits, are there new artists I'm missing who are hanging around the fringes saying important things through music? Is there the equivalent of a "reader's advisory" service here? My current favorites are Jars of Clay, Derek Webb, Chris Rice, Nicole Mullen, PC&D. Where do I go from here? (Please don't say "Casting Crowns")

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, your comments here have stayed with me. We don't have a local "K-Love" (is that right?) station, but I happened across one while on the road recently. I realized then that it's not always the spoken words on Christian radio that drive me back to my PDA; often it's the music. I guess I hadn't really thought about it, although sometimes there would be a question in the back of my mind as to why I was giving up a fresh "playlist" for a meager Gb of selections. The answer is that what is the core of my personal collection is the exception for the radio. Maybe that's because my collection is somewhat dated, but there's also an element of having a little more meat to the lyrics than is generally broadcast.

So, off the top 25 CCLI hits, are there new artists I'm missing who are hanging around the fringes saying important things through music? Is there the equivalent of a "reader's advisory" service here? My current favorites are Jars of Clay, Derek Webb, Chris Rice, Nicole Mullen, PC&D. Where do I go from here? (Please don't say "Casting Crowns")

My experience has generally been that songs which are really valuable rarely get radio play. Usually its an exception to hear "good" music (as defined by the lengthy conversation above) on the radio (Christian or otherwise). I've really appreciated the internet as a means of finding good music. Pandora.com can introduce you to lots of new groups that sounds like ones you already like - it's more hit and miss lyric wise, but it's a good development.

And of course, there's always Justin Mcroberts - my favorite recording artist who also happens to be a Christian.

[Todd Erickson]

Sufjan Stevens?

[Bob Hunter]

Interestingly, Derek Webb and Jennifer Knapp went out on tour together. As you may know, Derek Webb (formerly Caedman's Call) stirred a lot of controversy with song lyrics that caused his record label to drop him. After reading the lyrics I actually agreed with the label, the lyrics unnecessarily used some four letter words. But that is neither here nor there. Like many of you, I don't like the run of the mill Christian music scene. Right now one of my favorite bands is RED. Not your typical Christian Rock band and I like it that way. I always liked the indy scene with Justin McRoberts, Pedro the Lion, Five Iron Frenzy, etc. The indy bands were always a little more honest and musically innovative. Interestingly, I've listened to some of Knapp's new material and I don't think it is that great. It is painfully obvious that she has had 7 years off. Moreover, her and Derek Webb played a really small venue here in Portland and from the looks of the crowd size it was far from a sell out. My guess is that they are eating Taco Bell and sleeping on the tour bus.

[Dave Mann]

Homosexuality?

Haven't we discussed this already?
:smilies0295:

Haven't the Generals settled this already? As in, once and for all?

[Benjamin Burch]

Sufjan Stevens?

For the life of me I cannot get into him. I don't see how he's become so incredibly popular. To each his own, i guess! :smile:

[Benjamin Burch]

Interestingly, Derek Webb and Jennifer Knapp went out on tour together. As you may know, Derek Webb (formerly Caedman's Call) stirred a lot of controversy with song lyrics that caused his record label to drop him. After reading the lyrics I actually agreed with the label, the lyrics unnecessarily used some four letter words. But that is neither here nor there. Like many of you, I don't like the run of the mill Christian music scene. Right now one of my favorite bands is RED. Not your typical Christian Rock band and I like it that way. I always liked the indy scene with Justin McRoberts, Pedro the Lion, Five Iron Frenzy, etc. The indy bands were always a little more honest and musically innovative. Interestingly, I've listened to some of Knapp's new material and I don't think it is that great. It is painfully obvious that she has had 7 years off. Moreover, her and Derek Webb played a really small venue here in Portland and from the looks of the crowd size it was far from a sell out. My guess is that they are eating Taco Bell and sleeping on the tour bus.



I have no problem with Webb's record label dropping him, they can do what they want with their money and promote who they want to. That's fine. However, I think Webb has been pushing these buttons for a long time now. I also am not sure I agree with the descriptor "unnecessary." I think sometimes it's completely necessary to do or say things in certain ways from the fringe in order to get the attention of those in the mainstream. From what I hear Webb is taking his use of language a little further and naming his organization the same thing. The domain is already registered, the website is under construction. You're probably right that this is neither here nor there. I was just struck by it being called "unnecessary."


Edited to add: Campolo has a rather well-known quote in which he uses the same exact idiom to say the same exact thing. Except, he goes a little farther and tells the crowd that most of them were more upset that he'd used that word than they were that 30,000 children had died that night of starvation and malnutrition. I'm not saying this is true of you, but I'm saying that in my opinion, the typical reaction over this only proves the necessity of certain voices to speak a certain way. I imagine it's hardly as offensive or profane to us as Ezekiel 23 was in the pophet's day and age.

[Todd Erickson]

Webb seems to be stepping into Bazan's shoes now that Bazan is dedicatedly agnostic.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Here's another piece of evidence which shows that homosexual tendencies may not necessarily be by choice:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708071619.htm

Quote from the article:


The mammalian fucose mutarotase enzyme is known to be involved in incorporating the sugar fucose into protein. Female mice that lack the fucose mutarotase (FucM) gene refuse to let males mount them, and will attempt copulation with other female mice.As usual, many issues in life are not necessarily cut-and-dry.

[Dale Cozby]

Here's another piece of evidence which shows that homosexual tendencies may not necessarily be by choice:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708071619.htm

Quote from the article:

As usual, many issues in life are not necessarily cut-and-dry. So your saying science will eventually cure homosexuality with a chemical or hormone treatment! Great then this problem can be cured by science. It is just a chemical imbalance that causes this abberation in nature. Like treating depression or the thyroid, it can be fixed. Maybe it is in their diet? There are many ways to look at this issue, isn't there?

[Jon Twitchell]

So your saying science will eventually cure homosexuality with a chemical or hormone treatment! Great then this problem can be cured by science. It is just a chemical imbalance that causes this abberation in nature. Like treating depression or the thyroid, it can be fixed. Maybe it is in their diet? There are many ways to look at this issue, isn't there?

Actually, I don't think he said any of that.

[James Diggs]

Would you say, in your opinion, that the only actual job of the church is to spread the Gospel and uphold holiness?


No I wouldn't.
I think the church is to uphold the two great commandments the best it can. To love God and to love neighbor as self. Beyond that we are to strive to love each other as Jesus loved His disciples.....

Funny- I thought what you described is both holiness and the gospel.:smilies0717:

[Daniel Hamlin]

So your saying science will eventually cure homosexuality with a chemical or hormone treatment! Great then this problem can be cured by science. It is just a chemical imbalance that causes this abberation in nature. Like treating depression or the thyroid, it can be fixed. Maybe it is in their diet? There are many ways to look at this issue, isn't there?

No, I'm simply saying that homosexual tendencies may be caused by physiological problems.

[Sarah Smith]

Many behaviors we deem sinful and hold folks accountable for have a verifiable physiological cause: we don't accept abuse when a person is in a bipolar mania. We don't accept theft and violence from those plagued with fragile x. We don't let those born with fas, who physically cannot learn from cause and effect, go through the world speeding, driving drunk, being violent, or however that manifests without holding them accountable.

Again, yes, people may be born with homosexual tendancies. SO?? We are ALL born with sin tendancies. So why should there be a "free pass" for folks acting out any sin tendancy?

[Andy Mistak]

You know, I've lived my entire life in the American Evangelical culture, so I've heard a lot of talk about homosexuality and the sinfulness of homosexuality, but I've never heard a satisfactory explaination of how homosexuality hurts anyone. And it's difficult for me to imagine that God wants us to discriminate against and defame anyone for something that doesn't hurt anyone.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Many behaviors we deem sinful and hold folks accountable for have a verifiable physiological cause: we don't accept abuse when a person is in a bipolar mania. We don't accept theft and violence from those plagued with fragile x. We don't let those born with fas, who physically cannot learn from cause and effect, go through the world speeding, driving drunk, being violent, or however that manifests without holding them accountable.

Again, yes, people may be born with homosexual tendancies. SO?? We are ALL born with sin tendancies. So why should there be a "free pass" for folks acting out any sin tendancy?

I must say that I view these as false analogies. There is a huge difference between abuse and consensual homosexual behavior. We are right in holding people accountable and enforcing laws that prohibit others from being victimized--as with all of the examples you listed. But most homosexual behavior does NOT involve victimization of others.

A better analogy would have been trisomy 21, I think, here we have people of what mainstream society deems as a diminished capacity/developmental disability. We like to say God does not make mistakes--what were we then to think of these people? (I am not sure that God made a mistake in trisomy 21, just as I'm not sure that "sufferers" are truly diminished) And cannot we think of homosexuals with the same type of reasoning? I knew a neuroanatomist who showed that the brains of homosexual men, in those sexual dimorphic regions, looked more like the brains of women than heterosexual men. His work has been confirmed by a Scandinavian or Dutch team. So, maybe, with the scientific evidence we re-think homosexuality and see that the biblical references seem to be in lists of other sexual things that demonstrate licentiousness. Also, we do need to consider cultural influences in inspiration-the human side of inspiration.

[Todd Erickson]

Scorn. Divisiveness. Pride.

The bible gives far more time to these as unacceptable in God's eyes, as destructive to what it is to be human.

But not only do we allow them a home in our church, but we freely parade them and give them succor in the name of persecuting homosexuality.

There is a bias here, and it is not toward what God views as human.

[Dale Cozby]

Funny- I thought what you described is both holiness and the gospel.:smilies0717:

Yes, but Todd had already described what he meant by those terms, so using his concept of those terms I have to disagree with his proposition.

[Dale Cozby]

Scorn. Divisiveness. Pride.

The bible gives far more time to these as unacceptable in God's eyes, as destructive to what it is to be human.

But not only do we allow them a home in our church, but we freely parade them and give them succor in the name of persecuting homosexuality.

There is a bias here, and it is not toward what God views as human.I think there is another option besides parading scorn, pride and divisiveness OR parading sexual immorality, debauchery and lust and giving them succor in the name of tolerance.

How about we hold to the good and flee from the evil on all fronts?
We don't have to embrace, encourage and give succor to any sin while at the same time loving those enslaved to those sins, whatever they may be.

If you have become convinced some things are not sins any longer for whatever reason, Rather than becoming one who is "divisive" just find a church that embraces that attitude or activity you feel is acceptable and rejects the attitudes and actions you feel are unacceptable. There are plenty of churches that will fit the bill, just shop to you find the one the fits your theology and beliefs, without attacking anyone else. Set the example in charity for those who are scornful, rather than let them turn you into someone equally scornful.

[James Diggs]

Believing that sin is anything that robs our humanity, to me the question is does homosexuality rob those participating in it, or others around them of their humanity?

I don't think this question has been explored very thoroughly, but let's just assume for a moment that we can all agree that such behavior does rob the humanity of its participants. The question then becomes for us as a people who are committed to living a Way the lives into God's reconciliation, and redemption of humanity for the world what do we do now?

We must find ways to live that restores people of their human dignity. Unfortunately, I believe our "Christian" response as a whole has not only gravelly fallen short of this but has made matters worse.

I believe the more we "fight" against homosexuality (or what we perceive to be their "agenda") the more we end up loosing our own soul,and diminishing our own humanity, as we respond by fighting against our homosexual neighbors. We need to instead find ways to live the Sermon of the Mount in our reaction and interaction with people whom this issue impacts.

Turning the other cheek, surrendering all your clothes when being sued for just your coat, going two miles when forced one, are creative ways to confront things that attempts to rob our humanity or the humanity of others in a way that not only does not allow our humanity to be taken from us (because people can not take what we freely give) but secondly also provides an opportunity to restore the humanity of the other.

The question is how can we apply like principles as we navigate loving homosexuals?

I wish we had applied the sermon of the mount by being the loudest advocates for finding a cure to aids rather than rubbing their noses in it by initially calling it at best a "gay disease" and at worst "punishment from God".

I wish we were the loudest advocates for protecting homosexuals from hate crimes instead of of organizing opposition accusing them of an agenda where we think that such pursuits were nothing but a first step of seeking some special status.

I think there is much more we could do, but my point is that we need to treat them with so much human dignity, and fight to restore it when others try to rob them of it, that all they are left with is our relentless love and the question of whether or not their own behavior robs them or others of their humanity.

I believe this is the goal of Jesus' teaching on the Mount as it allows God to work to redeem others through us when we have enough faith to walk in it.

Unfortunately, I believe the reality is that our sins (either by what we have done or allowed to be done against homosexuals) has dehumanized homosexuals at least as much as we claim their own behavior has. This has got to stop and we need to seek the Way of Jesus instead.

[Andy Mistak]

James, I applaud the spirit behind your statement, but I wonder if it goes far enough. I think the conversation has to be about the sinfulness (or non-sinfulness) of homosexuality. I know you weren't advocating for this, but we can't just assume that homosexuality robs homosexuals of their humanity. If this is our position, the burden of proof is on us: How, exactly, does homosexuality rob anyone of their humanity or harm anyone in any way? The world (and increasing numbers of us in every part of the Church) is losing patience with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" position. Speaking only for myself, I don't think any church can truly be the Church without accepting gays and lesbians fully into the community of faith.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The world (and increasing numbers of us in every part of the Church) is losing patience with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" position. Speaking only for myself, I don't think any church can truly be the Church without accepting gays and lesbians fully into the community of faith.

I never had patience for the first statement, because in most cases it turns into persecute the sinner, or turn a blind eye to their persecution.

In the second sentence, add me, you can speak for me when you make this statement.

[James Diggs]

James, I applaud the spirit behind your statement, but I wonder if it goes far enough. I think the conversation has to be about the sinfulness (or non-sinfulness) of homosexuality. I know you weren't advocating for this, but we can't just assume that homosexuality robs homosexuals of their humanity. If this is our position, the burden of proof is on us: How, exactly, does homosexuality rob anyone of their humanity or harm anyone in any way?

Thanks Andy, However, I was advocating for the best starting point for conversation moving forward. You are absolutely right that the burden of proof does rest in the question of whether homosexuality robs people of their humanity. What I was hoping to accomplish though is not to decide this answer once and for all, but rather talk about the Way we need to proceed regardless as we seek to restore the humanity in the other by what WE do, not by what we think they should do.


The world (and increasing numbers of us in every part of the Church) is losing patience with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" position.

I have lost patience with this too. What I am suggesting has nothing to do with such poor attempts to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

The loving the sinner yet hating the sin mentality still wants to battle homosexuality thinking they can somehow compartmentalize out people who view themselves AS homosexuals. We may very neatly separate the behavior of it all from the people in our minds, but for them it is a matter of identity. Because of this we can say we "love the sinner" all we want but any frontal assault on homosexuality will no doubt destroy "the sinner" in the process. What we need to apply is the foolishness of the cross; again this is what WE need to do- not them.

I am suggesting that we love the person and treat them with the human dignity of being a person no matter what; even fight for it, and stand with them when others try to rob them of it, even at our own expense. I think this is what Jesus taught us to do on the sermon of the mount.

Sadly though, in many ways we have a giant log in our own eye when it comes to this issue as we talk about "sinfullness" yet so greatly sin against others in our fight against it. We ourselves have greatly made the issue of homosexuality dehumanizing in our fight against it and the way we have actually opposed others who fight for treating homosexuals with human dignity. This would not happen if we would just live out the sermon of the Mount.

But because we have not, we should realize that because of our own sin, and log in our own eye, we really can't see clearly enough to even know if their is a speck we can help our neighbor remove from theirs. I say this in response again to your point about the "burden of proof."

The question of sin is always about what robs us (and God as we are made in his image) of our humanity. Maybe we need to start really living like our humanity and the humanity of others really matters. If we don't we will be poking out a lot of eyes, blinding people rather than healing and bringing light, in a misguided mission to rid the world of specks.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thanks Andy, However, I was advocating for the best starting point for conversation moving forward. You are absolutely right that the burden of proof does rest in the question of whether homosexuality robs people of their humanity. What I was hoping to accomplish though is not to decide this answer once and for all, but rather talk about the Way we need to proceed regardless as we seek to restore the humanity in the other by what WE do, not by what we think they should do.



I have lost patience with this too. What I am suggesting has nothing to do with such poor attempts to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

The loving the sinner yet hating the sin mentality still wants to battle homosexuality thinking they can somehow compartmentalize out people who view themselves AS homosexuals. We may very neatly separate the behavior of it all from the people in our minds, but for them it is a matter of identity. Because of this we can say we "love the sinner" all we want but any frontal assault on homosexuality will no doubt destroy "the sinner" in the process. What we need to apply is the foolishness of the cross; again this is what WE need to do- not them.

I am suggesting that we love the person and treat them with the human dignity of being a person no matter what; even fight for it, and stand with them when others try to rob them of it, even at our own expense. I think this is what Jesus taught us to do on the sermon of the mount.

Sadly though, in many ways we have a giant log in our own eye when it comes to this issue as we talk about "sinfullness" yet so greatly sin against others in our fight against it. We ourselves have greatly made the issue of homosexuality dehumanizing in our fight against it and the way we have actually opposed others who fight for treating homosexuals with human dignity. This would not happen if we would just live out the sermon of the Mount.

But because we have not, we should realize that because of our own sin, and log in our own eye, we really can't see clearly enough to even know if their is a speck we can help our neighbor remove from theirs. I say this in response again to your point about the "burden of proof."

The question of sin is always about what robs us (and God as we are made in his image) of our humanity. Maybe we need to start really living like our humanity and the humanity of others really matters. If we don't we will be poking out a lot of eyes, blinding people rather than healing and bringing light, in a misguided mission to rid the world of specks.

Thank you.

Thank you for this whole post.

Thank you especially for the highlighted portion.

Thank you, again.





Oh... yea.. did I say thank you?

[Todd Erickson]

parading sexual immorality, debauchery and lust and giving them succor in the name of tolerance.



The problem I have with this statement is that I KNOW gay couples who are the very picture of committed, devoted, moral marriage, whose behaviour you could not in any way describe as immoral, debauched, or "lustful", unless you refused to look at how they were living, and only described them in terms of being two men or women together. Which is where this falls apart for me.

If you cannot stereotype Christians, then you also cannot stereotype committed homosexuals who have never been married to anybody else and who are living monogamously.

The verses from the OT about Homosexuals are, contextually, about things that married men are doing instead of staying commited to their wives. Look at the list! Don't have sex with prostitutes. Don't have sex with your daughters. Don't have sex with your mother in law, or mother. Don't have sex with other men. But the attitude is not "because everybody everywhere regards these things as wrong". It's because the Jews are a small people who need to populate the earth in response to God's blessing, so, to quote Monty Python, "no semen can be wasted". Which anal sex with a man definitely would do. Or anal sex with a woman. Or masturbation. There's a ton of midrash writing on how masturbation is a sin precisely because it denies the opportunity of that semen to impregnate a woman.

Context.

There were also temple practices in the time of the Jews that specifically involved homosexual behaviour between men. This is also the case in verses from Romans, where Greek temples had a sort of total debauchery that we see totally avoided, never mind women not shaving their heads so that they wouldn't look like priestesses of Diana. And certainly, raping younger boys as a cultural practice is a bad thing.

What we aren't seeing here are verses about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships.

A Centurion comes to Jesus and asking him to heal his slave lover (it's precisely the word used there.) Jesus just heals the slave, and at a distance. He doesn't tell the Centurion to end his relationship with the slave. He doesn't tell the man that he is trapped in a debaucherous, lustful existence. He just commends him for his faith.

Maybe the issue is less how offended we are, and more how we are living out the love of God in a truly human way here in the Kingdom.

[James Diggs]

I think there is another option besides parading scorn, pride and divisiveness OR parading sexual immorality, debauchery and lust and giving them succor in the name of tolerance.

How about we hold to the good and flee from the evil on all fronts?


The problem I have with this statement is that I KNOW gay couples who are the very picture of committed, devoted, moral marriage, whose behaviour you could not in any way describe as immoral, debauched, or "lustful", unless you refused to look at how they were living, and only described them in terms of being two men or women together. Which is where this falls apart for me.

This should fall apart for all of us no matter if we come to believe homosexuality is sinful (dehumanizing) or not- yet we sadly preach holiness in the reverse all the time. We say sex is holy when between a man and a woman as if this alone makes such a relationship holy. We offer very little in the way of further commentary, in fact the church for years has supported oppressive (dehumanizing) relationships of men over women in the name of religion and holiness.

This is why I think if homosexuality is sinful, it is perhaps only a small symptom of a much larger problem as our culture has largely stripped sexuality from our humanity as we look at the subject as if compartmentalized "right" or "wrong" acts rather than an expression of a way to live unity within our shared humanity within the tension and reality of diversity among us.

If we are to make an argument for holiness found in the love between a man and a woman as far as marriage goes, perhaps we should not do it from a place of claiming homosexuality is too broad and not exclusive enough, but rather because it is not diverse enough. Not that marriage should not be exclusively between two people as it reflects a commitment, but a man loving a woman as himself (and vice-versa) by nature expands our definition of our own humanity. It is a place from which we learn to submit to one another in love from different places and different perspectives. In this it calls us into a dance of love that reflects God himself; especially a God viewed as a Trinity.

Now this leaves us in a very interesting position in relationship to homosexuality as we attempt to live out this kind of love and holiness beyond just our marriages and take such a spirit of love and mutual submission into the world as a way of living into the body of Christ.

As I have already argued, I think we need to deal with the more serious issue of helping people love and honor the humanity of the other and so perhaps we should thankful of every movement toward that regardless of sexual orientation. Perhaps as Todd points out, we should not treat homosexual relationships as somehow worse than dysfunctional and and dehumanizing heterosexual ones.

I realize this position might not be popular or comfortable in either direction, even for homosexuals if we hold onto the idea that holiness is reflected in the committed love between a man and a woman. Yet, if we believe it is holy for the reasons I gave above (unity in diversity) then perhaps "tolerances" for diversity shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing but rather it should become a step toward the search for solidarity within our diversity. Not that we believe in some completely subjective and directionless holiness and morality, but rather because we have a very clear sense of its direction. Therefore navigating how we are to respect and honor the God created humanity in the other by design will take plenty of grace all the way around.

I say all this to encourage us to focus on loving one another in ways that lifts up the humanity of the other (regardless of what they may or may not do); for in doing this we uphold our own humanity as well. After all, the belief that "the two will become one flesh" very much is an extension of "loving our neighbors as ourselves."

Relating this to Todd's point above about the way we treat each other regardless of sexual orientation, we need to master better how we should lover our neighbors before we will know how best to extend such ideas into other areas. For this is the foundational issue that is really in serious jeopardy for all of us. It is time to stop using homosexuality as the scapegoat for the sad shape of our morality that fails to love our neighbor as ourselves as if the problem exists in some "sexual sin" out there rather than the way we look at sexuality as an extension of our humanity right here.

Back to the last part of Dale's quote above- I think this may be the only way can begin to live into the movement you encourage to "hold to the good and flee from the evil on all fronts".

[Sarah Smith]

I'm a pretty fair resource librarian and have not found one place where the exact greek term for the centurion's servant is slave-lover. Not one.

Can someone give definitve proof that this is what the word meant and always meant?

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm a pretty fair resource librarian and have not found one place where the exact greek term for the centurion's servant is slave-lover. Not one.

Can someone give definitve proof that this is what the word meant and always meant?

The word is παις, usually meaning servant or boy (or servant boy), and it comes from παίω, meaning "to strike, or smite." My understanding is that this is a slave boy, and is more likely to be the master's whipping post than his lover...

[Paul DeBaufer]

We may very neatly separate the behavior of it all from the people in our minds, but for them it is a matter of identity.

In the early '80s I was a psychology major, but ended up in biology precisely because I was increasingly asked to separate the behavior from the organism in psychology. I could not do it then, I cannot do it now. Those that can, I believe, are denying some aspect of the whole person. And especially in the discussion of homosexuality. You are right this IS a part of the person's identity and any attack on the behavior necessarily becomes an attack on the person, from their perspective and we MUST consider how they take it, IF we are to be truly loving.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The problem I have with this statement is that I KNOW gay couples who are the very picture of committed, devoted, moral marriage, whose behaviour you could not in any way describe as immoral, debauched, or "lustful", unless you refused to look at how they were living, and only described them in terms of being two men or women together. Which is where this falls apart for me.

1 John 4 talks about loving one another, that we love because God loves us. Like love is a gift from God, He gives us love for one another. If a homosexual couple truly love one another is not that love from God also?

[Sarah Smith]

Again, how is homosexuallity any different from other inbred or based on the physiological sins?

If a pedophile genuinely loves a young boy, would we call that love a gift from God and excuse his molesting the child?

I'm not trying to be harsh, but to really understand how it is all that hard to "get" the scriptures that seem so very plain about this issue. (NT ones.)

Sort of sounds like all the excuses I can make for eating more calories than I need. I can give you physiological issues related to body type and age. I can point to all the pro eating scriptures. But truth is, the Bible addresses gluttony. I need to not excuse it, but deal with it. The temptation may or not go away if I do, but God will give me the ability to not commit that sin.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Again, how is homosexuallity any different from other inbred or based on the physiological sins?

If a pedophile genuinely loves a young boy, would we call that love a gift from God and excuse his molesting the child?

I'm not trying to be harsh, but to really understand how it is all that hard to "get" the scriptures that seem so very plain about this issue. (NT ones.)

Sort of sounds like all the excuses I can make for eating more calories than I need. I can give you physiological issues related to body type and age. I can point to all the pro eating scriptures. But truth is, the Bible addresses gluttony. I need to not excuse it, but deal with it. The temptation may or not go away if I do, but God will give me the ability to not commit that sin.

Linda, I am going to go out on a limb here and state that a pedophile cannot love a young boy. Love does NOT exploit or victimize. What you did was confuse the pedophile's lust for love, as do many pedophiles. Lust and love are not the same thing nor do they have the same base. One is selfish desire the other action for the benefit of others. Just like gluttony is NOT based on love, it, again, is a lust of sorts. No love is defined in the Bible as doing good for, it is not selfish, nor can love victimize or exploit or control--any thing that does these things is NOT love.

[Shea Zellweger]

Linda, I am going to go out on a limb here and state that a pedophile cannot love a young boy. Love does NOT exploit or victimize. What you did was confuse the pedophile's lust for love, as do many pedophiles. Lust and love are not the same thing nor do they have the same base. One is selfish desire the other action for the benefit of others. Just like gluttony is NOT based on love, it, again, is a lust of sorts. No love is defined in the Bible as doing good for, it is not selfish, nor can love victimize or exploit or control--any thing that does these things is NOT love.

Of course, the logical response here would be that homosexuals have confused their love and lust, rendering your distinction moot. However, there's also the matter of a pedophile being incapable of garnering consent from his/her victim. I suppose a rapist could love his/her victim, but the act of rape is still a non-consentual act.

[Hans Deventer]

Of course, the logical response here would be that homosexuals have confused their love and lust, rendering your distinction moot. However, there's also the matter of a pedophile being incapable of garnering consent from his/her victim. I suppose a rapist could love his/her victim, but the act of rape is still a non-consentual act.

I guess Tom Oord would say, we'd have to define love here before we can discuss this properly.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Of course, the logical response here would be that homosexuals have confused their love and lust, rendering your distinction moot. However, there's also the matter of a pedophile being incapable of garnering consent from his/her victim. I suppose a rapist could love his/her victim, but the act of rape is still a non-consentual act.

The act of rape, for me and my understanding of love, cannot arise out of love and during the act of love the rapist cannot love the victim, while he/she may before and after. Then rape becomes an act of selfishly exploiting/victimizing another which love cannot do, IMHO.

I suppose as I write these responses I do have Tom Oord's definition in mind. Love is to act intentionally in sympathetic response to god and others to promote overall well being (the Nature of Love).

[Andy Mistak]

Again, how is homosexuallity any different from other inbred or based on the physiological sins?

If a pedophile genuinely loves a young boy, would we call that love a gift from God and excuse his molesting the child?

I'm not trying to be harsh, but to really understand how it is all that hard to "get" the scriptures that seem so very plain about this issue. (NT ones.)

Sort of sounds like all the excuses I can make for eating more calories than I need. I can give you physiological issues related to body type and age. I can point to all the pro eating scriptures. But truth is, the Bible addresses gluttony. I need to not excuse it, but deal with it. The temptation may or not go away if I do, but God will give me the ability to not commit that sin.


Linda, you still have not shown how a homosexual relationship hurts anyone. We know that pedophilia hurts the victim, but a homosexual relationship of mutuality doesn't hurt anyone.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm not trying to be harsh, but to really understand how it is all that hard to "get" the scriptures that seem so very plain about this issue. (NT ones.)

I think it's a matter of seeing a tension between a very few specific verses and the entire tone, tenor, and message of the rest of the Scriptures/Gospel.

It's not that some feel that those verses aren't "clear" and don't "get" them. It's a matter of these people feeling that these few verses seem very (a) culturally conditioned and (b) out of sync with the rest of the Gospel and Scriptures - especially the revelation and message found in Jesus, the Christ.

[Todd Erickson]

If a pedophile genuinely loves a young boy, would we call that love a gift from God and excuse his molesting the child?



What you seem to be demanding here is that in any homosexual relationship, only one of the members can actually love the other, and the other is a victim. Can you validate this assumption? Can you validate every homosexual relationship as inherently exploitive?

I'm not talking about swinger parties, I'm talking about commited, devoted, monogamous homosexual couples (I know of several) who are only devoted to each other. Can you prove that these couples are inherently exploitive and devoid of actual love?

[Ryan Plott]

I don't necessarily think that heterosexual vs. homosexual would be the place to start in discerning the Christian ethic of sexuality, but rather answer that question along the way as we determine if humankind's highest glory can be found in orgasm, which to me is what the central truth claim of Christianity is in regards to sexuality, not which gender you should prefer. Let me try to explain.

I generally see (on-topic) conversation in this thread about homosexuality discussing two questions.

Is there good grounds on which to condemn the homosexual action biblically?

Is there good grounds on which to legitimize the homosexual action biblically?

Both very good questions, since this would be the heart of the debate for the bible-reading community. If Scripture is inerrant in matters regarding salvation then this is an important discussion because sin is what we are saved from. We must know what is sin. To answer that we must use the resources of Scripture. If Christian theology is done apart from Scripture, then there is no point to even have the book around.

For the one side, to me it seems that deconstructing the support for those who would say yes to the first question is not necessarily constructing support for the position of those who would answer yes to the second question. In debate it would certainly be a vital part of the discussion, but as the bible-reading community we are looking for Scriptural evidence, not skilled rhetoric, to decide the matter. As far as I have seen, there really is no biblical text one could cite that would legitimize the homosexual action. You can cite cultural differences and conditioning of the text, noticing those details is respectable and legitimate exegesis. However, there is no alternative within the text that legitimizes the homosexual action. None. If one wishes to make that claim, they need to recognize they stand outside of Scripture and live with that tension. If we're going to remain consistent with Scripture we would be forced to admit, that after dismissing these texts as "cultural conditioning", we have no alternative to stand on biblically in regards to the homosexual vs. heterosexual question. This debate is not like the one that surrounds the topic of women in ministry where we have texts that seem to present different viewpoints. Ethically, if one finds sufficient evidence to dismiss the the sole legitimacy of heterosexuality one would be forced to be careful in talking on this issue since there is nothing to juxtapose the denial of the legitimacy of only heterosexual acts in the Christian context against in Scripture. It is hard to build a truth claim out of silence. Celibacy would be the only alternative choice in regards to a biblically justifiable sexuality.

For the other side, we really do need to be careful as we approach this topic. Sexuality is much more complex and multi-faceted than simply telling someone to "Stop it!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE) and thereby relieve any kind of tension. (Watch the video, it pretty accurately conveys the majority of the church's actions toward homosexuals. They don't laugh at the end either. Framed in the context of the homosexual discussion, the audience should be crying and the therapist chasing after the client as fast as he can) It's unfair to those in this situation and really betrays a lack of Christian love and caring for the individual, and a lack of perspective of one's own struggles to live up to God's standard of perfect love. This is a very big part of who they define themselves as. I had the opportunity to have a conversation with Sy Rogers (http://www.syrogers.com/biography/) once after he presented his testimony at ONU. It took years and years in his journey with Christ for him to find an identity as a heterosexual. If you sincerely love the sinner, you should give them time and space to find out where God will take them. Jesus did not abandon sinners, he lived life with them. There is no excuse for isolating the homosexual community. We all know we are sinners when we confront God's holiness, it seems that we should be a bit more understanding if some people's journey's are different than others. Continually hammering the point of the superiority of heterosexuality betrays a sense of self-righteousness for oneself that has not been earned. Our modus operandi should be to walk softly, and carry a big heart.

These are my thoughts and reflections after reading through this thread. I already know that I'm not the smartest person on Naznet and since I've only been on this site for about three months or so I don't really know that many people yet or have established a reputation for myself as someone who knows all the answers. For those reasons, I won't get offended if someone disagrees. LMK what you think.

[Rich Schmidt]

A Centurion comes to Jesus and asking him to heal his slave lover (it's precisely the word used there.) Jesus just heals the slave, and at a distance. He doesn't tell the Centurion to end his relationship with the slave. He doesn't tell the man that he is trapped in a debaucherous, lustful existence. He just commends him for his faith.


I'm a pretty fair resource librarian and have not found one place where the exact greek term for the centurion's servant is slave-lover. Not one.

Can someone give definitve proof that this is what the word meant and always meant?


The word is παις, usually meaning servant or boy (or servant boy), and it comes from παίω, meaning "to strike, or smite." My understanding is that this is a slave boy, and is more likely to be the master's whipping post than his lover...

It looks to me (thanks to biblestudytools.com and their easily-accessible Strong's numbers system) that in both Matthew 8 and Luke 7, both pais ("servant") and doulos ("slave") are used. Each of these words is used multiple times in Scripture in ways that would make it impossible for either to be understood exclusively as "slave-lover." I don't know how these words are used outside of Scripture, so perhaps they are sometimes used in that sense. But as far as I know there's no reason to assume that this is the intended meaning in either of these passages.

I just thought I'd expand Shea's answer a bit and point to a helpful resource at the same time. :)

[Rich Schmidt]

James, I applaud the spirit behind your statement, but I wonder if it goes far enough. I think the conversation has to be about the sinfulness (or non-sinfulness) of homosexuality. I know you weren't advocating for this, but we can't just assume that homosexuality robs homosexuals of their humanity. If this is our position, the burden of proof is on us: How, exactly, does homosexuality rob anyone of their humanity or harm anyone in any way? The world (and increasing numbers of us in every part of the Church) is losing patience with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" position. Speaking only for myself, I don't think any church can truly be the Church without accepting gays and lesbians fully into the community of faith.

I'm curious... and I wonder if this might help keep the conversation moving forward: Would you argue similarly for those who practice some form of serial sexual monogamy apart from marriage? Would you ask how, exactly, consenting adults who engage in committed (though perhaps not life-long) sexual relationships harm anyone or diminish anyone's humanity simply because they do not marry (and perhaps divorce)? Would you argue that the church should cease viewing their actions as sinful as well? Can the church truly be the Church without accepting these folks fully into the community of faith?

I hope it's clear that I don't view these as rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely interested in your response (or those of others who agree with what Andy stated).

[Todd Erickson]

I'm curious... and I wonder if this might help keep the conversation moving forward: Would you argue similarly for those who practice some form of serial sexual monogamy apart from marriage? Would you ask how, exactly, consenting adults who engage in committed (though perhaps not life-long) sexual relationships harm anyone or diminish anyone's humanity simply because they do not marry (and perhaps divorce)? Would you argue that the church should cease viewing their actions as sinful as well? Can the church truly be the Church without accepting these folks fully into the community of faith?



Since marriage in a church by a priest was something that only the upper class did for most of the last 2k years, this question is actually cultural rather than biblical.

Among the peasant class, you built a house and moved in together, and you were essentially done.

[Andy Mistak]

I'm curious... and I wonder if this might help keep the conversation moving forward: Would you argue similarly for those who practice some form of serial sexual monogamy apart from marriage? Would you ask how, exactly, consenting adults who engage in committed (though perhaps not life-long) sexual relationships harm anyone or diminish anyone's humanity simply because they do not marry (and perhaps divorce)? Would you argue that the church should cease viewing their actions as sinful as well? Can the church truly be the Church without accepting these folks fully into the community of faith?

I hope it's clear that I don't view these as rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely interested in your response (or those of others who agree with what Andy stated).

I have a few thoughts on this.

First, when we're talking about "serial monogamy" we're definitely exclusively talking about behavior. Talking about homosexuality is talking about identity. I think it is certainly appropriate for the Church (or any local congregation) to oppose promiscuity and sexual license, but in light of science that suggests that homosexuals have as much control over their orientation as they do over the color of their eyes, we need to have a more hopeful message for them than an expectation of lifelong celibacy.

Secondly, I'd like to substitute my own definition of sin for James's; Sin is that which breaks down relationships. With that in mind, I would say that almost any act within a relationship can either build or break down relationship. So the thing to do is to work out within our relationships and within our communities the contexts in which sexual activity, as a physical expression of love, builds relationship, and where it breaks down relationship.

Thirdly, I'd say that those engaged in sexual relationships outside of marriage - whether premarital or extramarital - are, to a large degree, already fully accepted into fellowship. For example, many Christians and churches that would never accept a gay man working with teenagers will gladly "look the other way" if an unmarried adult who is sexually active with his girlfriend works with teens.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Thirdly, I'd say that those engaged in sexual relationships outside of marriage - whether premarital or extramarital - are, to a large degree, already fully accepted into fellowship. For example, many Christians and churches that would never accept a gay man working with teenagers will gladly "look the other way" if an unmarried adult who is sexually active with his girlfriend works with teens.

Very much disagree with the above statement. I believe churches that don't accept a gay man working with teens would NEVER look the other way if an unmarried adult who is sexually active with his girlfriend works with teens. The issue may be more of knowing that the teen leader is sexually active with his girlfriend. Once known, I believe Nazarene churches at least would not stand for that.

[Jim Chabot]

Very much disagree with the above statement. I believe churches that don't accept a gay man working with teens would NEVER look the other way if an unmarried adult who is sexually active with his girlfriend works with teens. The issue may be more of knowing that the teen leader is sexually active with his girlfriend. Once known, I believe Nazarene churches at least would not stand for that.

I'll add our church to your point Lorie, we would not stand for that sort of thing here. A few months back we did have a situation where a couple attended our church for a while, they were unmarried and they were living together. We accepted them as we would accept anyone, they had not professed to be believers. Once it was made clear that they did profess and that they were looking for our acceptance, we let them know that we loved them, we accepted them, however we made it clear that we considered their behavior to be sinful. We did not drive them out, I continued to show them that we loved them, but they did leave.

I had thought on this thread Sunday morning as our Pastors message was on Galatians 5, where Paul states that certain sin was "obvious" and yes he put's sexual immorality on the top of the list. For many years we have been a holiness people, for many years we have preached on sanctification and also on entire sanctification. Paul speaks of an entire sanctification only once, and he does so in the context of sexual sin.

If the CotN, cannot take a stand against sexual sin, how on earth can we continue to even think about calling ourselves a holiness church? I realize that some will say that holiness first and foremost is about love, and I would agree. However makes a clear claim in Galatians 5 that the practitioners of these "obvious" sins will not inherit the kingdom. We do not show love in any fashion when we give comfort and acceptance to those who are bound for hell, we must help them inherit the kingdom if we are to claim to love them. I can't help but notice that the impetus for Paul to write to the Galatian Church was to proclaim freedom and liberty, grace and faith, while doing so he is clear to also point out that sin will have it's consequences.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm curious... and I wonder if this might help keep the conversation moving forward: Would you argue similarly for those who practice some form of serial sexual monogamy apart from marriage? Would you ask how, exactly, consenting adults who engage in committed (though perhaps not life-long) sexual relationships harm anyone or diminish anyone's humanity simply because they do not marry (and perhaps divorce)? Would you argue that the church should cease viewing their actions as sinful as well? Can the church truly be the Church without accepting these folks fully into the community of faith?

I hope it's clear that I don't view these as rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely interested in your response (or those of others who agree with what Andy stated).

Hmmmm, interesting question. I think that serial monogamy is an issue. I also think that it has the potential for hurting the others. If I am serially monogamous then I am leaving behind people when I move on who may well have been committed.

But I have to ask, what IF a homosexual couple is not serially monogamous and are in a committed monogamous relationship just like a well married hetero couple, how are we to look at them?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Very much disagree with the above statement. I believe churches that don't accept a gay man working with teens would NEVER look the other way if an unmarried adult who is sexually active with his girlfriend works with teens. The issue may be more of knowing that the teen leader is sexually active with his girlfriend. Once known, I believe Nazarene churches at least would not stand for that.

I have to agree with Lorie, I know several people in committed relationships without the "benefit" of state recognition who have been shunned by their churches. One such couple was told that they were no longer welcome at their church.

[James Diggs]

Very much disagree with the above statement. I believe churches that don't accept a gay man working with teens would NEVER look the other way if an unmarried adult who is sexually active with his girlfriend works with teens. The issue may be more of knowing that the teen leader is sexually active with his girlfriend. Once known, I believe Nazarene churches at least would not stand for that.

Yea, the example pushed beyond my boundaries too and I would not knowingly let the example take place in my community either.

I think the point though that there are degrees of acceptance for sexually active unmarried couples in less than ideal circumstance (new to faith, engaged, common law type situations) to be involved in church where this isn’t the case in most churches for homosexuals. The key for me would be the direction things are going.

[James Diggs]

First, when we're talking about "serial monogamy" we're definitely exclusively talking about behavior. Talking about homosexuality is talking about identity. I think it is certainly appropriate for the Church (or any local congregation) to oppose promiscuity and sexual license, but in light of science that suggests that homosexuals have as much control over their orientation as they do over the color of their eyes,

I agree about identity, and I am open to the idea that biology may play a role in orientation. I think arguments though over nature verses nurture as a cause are inconclusive and often such either/or explanations are oversimplifications in both directions and deny the more likely scenario that both factors can play a significant role.

Still, even with natural, biological, and genetic factors, showing inborn propensity does not necessarily make a case for such being good, healthy, or best.



…we need to have a more hopeful message for them than an expectation of lifelong celibacy.

I agree that celibacy is the far too easy answer for us to give, yet I would not want to rule it out just because we have largely failed to provide any better foundational hope. Like you said the issue is about identity, but celibacy is more about a commitment to a behavior. Our good news we preach should deal with identity and then we can sort out behavior from there.

I don’t have all the answers for this (hardly any), but I still think we start by treating people with human dignity and work to restore it whenever we see people trying to rob others of it. Our shared humanity created in God’s image is the best starting point for identity I can think of.



…Secondly, I'd like to substitute my own definition of sin for James's; Sin is that which breaks down relationships. With that in mind, I would say that almost any act within a relationship can either build or break down relationship. So the thing to do is to work out within our relationships and within our communities the contexts in which sexual activity, as a physical expression of love, builds relationship, and where it breaks down relationship.

I think this definition very much compliments mine; both of them together probably make for a pretty good definition.

[James Diggs]

But I have to ask, what IF a homosexual couple is not serially monogamous and are in a committed monogamous relationship just like a well married hetero couple, how are we to look at them?

Good question. This is why I stated that I thought the holiness (uniqueness) of marriage between a man and a woman isn't in it's exclusiveness (or perhaps not JUST in its elusiveness) but in the unity within the diversity which exists between men and women. So in this sense an objection to homosexual marriage as holy isn't based in an argument that says it isn't exclusive, because you can have committed exclusive homosexual relationships, but rather because the relationship doesn't represent (at least not as well or obviously) unity in diversity.

This creates a very interesting dilemma though as the spirit of this seeks to celebrate unity in diversity (not just in marriage but in community), because it is difficult to reject unity in diversity based on the fact that something is not diverse enough. Still, from a theological place I am reluctant to surrender the position that marriage between a man and a woman is uniquely holy not just because of elusiveness, but also because of the unity in diversity it represents.

Another problem though is that for centuries we have the diversity "right", but the unity has been second rate often as one member in the "union" oppresses or diminishes the other. This really diminishes the "union" of it all to begin with. (divorces are granted because of the hardness of hearts and to call something what it really is when real unity does not exist)

This leads me back to my dilemma, as I try to embrace in others all aspects of what makes marriage holy. If some have the diversity down (being a man and a woman) but struggle with, yet are working toward, unity, how can I accept them as being in process and trying to go in the right direction and reject others who may have the unity down better than many, but are doing this in less diverse relationships to start with?

Accepting people in process may be easier for us to swallow from the starting point of diversity we are familiar with between a man and a woman. Again, I think we expand our own humanity when we learn to see ourselves (unity) in the face of one different (male with female) than ourselves. At the same time, is there also a way to embrace in anyway those in process who are seeking to find and expand their own sense of humanity through committed relationships even when they may be homosexual and there isn't the kind of diversity found between men and women?

Like I said, I think this issue puts us in a very unique place as we ultimately want to model unity in love not just in marriage but as the Body of Christ and the communities we participate in. I think when we act solely as if the issue is about "exclusiveness" then we undermine the very holiness we want to protect. We need to find ways to live that honors what marriage teaches us about life and God even in relationships that go beyond the issue of marriage and expand into larger community.

We all, regardless of being married or not, are called to find our own humanness by the way we treat and honor it in others. (Love thy neighbor as thy self.) This is why HOW we talk about these issues with our homosexual neighbors needs to reflect the dance of seeking Godly unity in diversity. (we need to listen and hear as much as we so the talking in discussions that will take grace all the way around.) I often think that the way we as Christians "defend marriage" in our country undermines what it all represents. Honoring marriage as a Christian community needs to include how we live out what it represents in all aspects of life.

These are just some more of my wrestling with these issues.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm curious... and I wonder if this might help keep the conversation moving forward: Would you argue similarly for those who practice some form of serial sexual monogamy apart from marriage? Would you ask how, exactly, consenting adults who engage in committed (though perhaps not life-long) sexual relationships harm anyone or diminish anyone's humanity simply because they do not marry (and perhaps divorce)? Would you argue that the church should cease viewing their actions as sinful as well? Can the church truly be the Church without accepting these folks fully into the community of faith?

I hope it's clear that I don't view these as rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely interested in your response (or those of others who agree with what Andy stated).


I think that we've been shown the example of a committed, sexual, "marriage" relationship. It is that of Christ to the Church. Anything less is simply not marriage, and very much falling short of what we're called to.

Thus, one could argue that a committed, monogamous, homosexual marriage conforms to this standard.

I had a conversation with Hank after his post. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the image and language of Covenant between Christ and church as husband and wife must be our standard when discussing the issue.

However, I think that there are those who could argue that in our growing understanding of gender, sexuality, and identity, the culturally conditioned language of "husband and wife" in the first century (New Testament) could be accurately broadened to include same-sex relationships.

[Rich Schmidt]

I think that we've been shown the example of a committed, sexual, "marriage" relationship. It is that of Christ to the Church. Anything less is simply not marriage, and very much falling short of what we're called to.

Two quick thoughts:

1. In what way is the relationship of Christ to the Church "sexual"?

2. I think the overall intent of Scripture's use of the bride-and-groom analogy for Christ's relationship to the church is to illuminate the latter, not the former. If we go the other direction (trying to make our marriages look like Christ's relationship to the Church), I think we bump into problems.

[Benjamin Burch]

Two quick thoughts:

1. In what way is the relationship of Christ to the Church "sexual"?

2. I think the overall intent of Scripture's use of the bride-and-groom analogy for Christ's relationship to the church is to illuminate the latter, not the former. If we go the other direction (trying to make our marriages look like Christ's relationship to the Church), I think we bump into problems.

I agree with what you're saying here. I should try to amend what I said.

1) Christ's relationship to the Church is not sexual, the same way that all marriages are not sexual. However, we affirm that sexual relationships are designed for this union. I was trying to incorporate that thought, and did a poor job.

2) I think the commitment analogy applies. Christ is not in covenant with the Church until Chirst finds a better "bride." Christ is not in it until he no longer has the energy, etc. Christ is not in it temporarily. Instead, Christ's commitment to the church is in the form of an enduring covenant. This is the expectation of the "marriage" commitment which underlies the use of the analogy. Thus, i think this addresses your question regarding: " consenting adults who engage in committed (though perhaps not life-long) sexual relationships"

Thanks for your thoughts. It always helps to ask others to clarify. It is something I appreciate about your postings. You're very consistent in this regard!

[Ryan Plott]

t looks to me (thanks to biblestudytools.com and their easily-accessible Strong's numbers system)...I just thought I'd expand Shea's answer a bit and point to a helpful resource at the same time. :)

I was not aware that resource existed Rich. As someone who does not know ancient Greek I find this to be a very helpful post and thought it worth mentioning to you. Thanks.

[James Diggs]

Two quick thoughts:

1. In what way is the relationship of Christ to the Church "sexual"?

2. I think the overall intent of Scripture's use of the bride-and-groom analogy for Christ's relationship to the church is to illuminate the latter, not the former. If we go the other direction (trying to make our marriages look like Christ's relationship to the Church), I think we bump into problems.

This is a great point and I agree in the broadest sense of it. However I think there is some call in the NT to be imitators of Christ on some level in the way Christ has modeled love in relation to us (his bride), not just in our marriages (but this is specifically mentioned as an example), but all our relationships within the body (and even outside the body as ministers of reconciliation) in our mutual submission to one another. I am thinking of Ephesians 4 and 5; and in 5 the imagery of Christ and the church is specifically used as an example of what we are to try and be imitators of in marriage. (I am not making an argument for anything less than mutual submission to each other).

Also, an additional thought as I look at Ephesians again, I do find it interesting that Paul does warn against sexual immorality in this same context of urging us to have the humility of Christ (who though being the highest became the lowest) so we would submit to one another, and love one another, the way Christ does. In this way Paul speaks of sexual immorality along the same lines as a "greedy person"; which I think in this context discourages expressing our sexuality in selfish ways.

This seems to provide some insight to how sexuality reflects (or should reflect) the relationship of Christ to the Church; in the spirit of humility and mutual submission in ways that honors one another.

I am not sure where I am going with this- just thinking out loud.

But, it is when we allow our sexuality to get ripped away or compartmentalized from our humanity that it becomes something it shouldn't. This is why I have argued all along that the the most important thing we can do to restore sexual brokenness in our culture (I am talking about as heterosexuals-not just singling out homosexuals) is in the broadest most comprehensive sense help restore and reconcile people to their humanity which also includes identifying with one another in our shared humanity.

The more we isolate sexuality as "the problem" and just try to discipline it away the more compartmentalized it gets and our sexuality gets further removed from our human condition in our minds. This just leaves us all sexually repressed rather than reconciled.

Again, we have a big log in our own eye we need to take seriously before we are able to better deal with specks that may or may not be in the eyes of others.

[John F Martin]

If the CotN, cannot take a stand against sexual sin, how on earth can we continue to even think about calling ourselves a holiness church?

Jim, I agree with your overall assessment and yet in order for the church to hope for any kind of perceived relevancy on this topic -- or on any topic re: a sexual ethic -- she must be willing to extremely carefully decide what it means to "take a stand". In the midst of taking a stand (which for purposes of identifying church leaders, etc. is essential) it is, unfortunately, all too easy and common for the church to leave the strong and accurate impression that it's view is condescending, unaccepting, and condemning. THAT is the way the gay community views the church's general response from the past two decades or more. It is time we all step away from language that divides, so we can begin to assess the real issues and know the persons involved.

I am mid-way through Andrew Marin's Love Is An Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community
ISBN-10: 0830836268. It is a very thought-provoking, humbling message to the church. The "orientation" as meant here is the church's ideal orientation toward persons involved. It is worth reading. In fact, I would love to see a NazNet book discussion on it! Let me know if you want to join, and we may launch a new thread.

[Dale Cozby]

Linda, I am going to go out on a limb here and state that a pedophile cannot love a young boy. Love does NOT exploit or victimize. What you did was confuse the pedophile's lust for love, as do many pedophiles. Lust and love are not the same thing nor do they have the same base. One is selfish desire the other action for the benefit of others. Just like gluttony is NOT based on love, it, again, is a lust of sorts. No love is defined in the Bible as doing good for, it is not selfish, nor can love victimize or exploit or control--any thing that does these things is NOT love.Therefore by your own definition homosexual "love" is not love, and in fact much of hetero love isn't either.
Is doing good for someone to benefit yourself love? If you get acceptance, affection, pleasure, satisfaction, a sense of worth, etc then it is not love? I think in all love there is a pseudo-altruism. even in doing to others for their good we receive things we desire in return.

It reminds me of the song lyrics, "My friends feel it's their appointed duty
They keep trying to tell me all you want to do is use me
But my answer yeah to all that use me stuff
Is I wanna spread the news that if it feels this good getting used
Oh you just keep on using me until you use me up
Until you use me up.
Talking about you using me but it all depends on what you do
It ain't too bad the way you're using me
Cause I sure am using you to do the things you do
Ah ha to do the things you do "

[Paul DeBaufer]

Therefore by your own definition homosexual "love" is not love,

Huh? Where do you get that?

[Todd Erickson]

Sometimes the only way to practice healthy sexuality in a marriage is to not have sex at all, and learn not to mind it. Catholic Priests do it all of the time...