Gay & Christian? It gets better movement

[Bob Hunter]

I am seeing where a number of independent Churches in the mold of Solomon's Porch (Doug Pagitt's Church) are embracing openly gay individuals in community.

I'll reserve my opinion on this until others weigh-in who may have more information and exposure to what is going on.

Here is the YouTube:

I would only make one request on this thread. NO FLAMING, BAITING, OR PERSONAL JABS! It's okay to disagree without jumping down each other's throats!

Anyway, discussing the issue here where we can voice strong opinions and remain friends is good practice for what lies ahead. I think the gay issue is right on our doorstep and it would be to our advantage to develop skills in dealing with it constructively.

[Tami Martin]

Again I might ask (again referring to the number of times this subject has come up in the past) how is embracing sinners of this sort different from embracing sinners of any other sort?

I know plenty of people who are overweight and out of shape and it's not a glandular problem. It's just plain gluttony and laziness. They continue to live in this sin but I embrace and love them (they do give better hugs). How is it different? Is one sort of sinner won over by the love - then turns from their sin in a loving response while another sort of sinner should be won by being ostracized and repents out of a some desire to be a part of the group that hates them?

I don't get it.

edited to add: I just watched the video. It hasn't changed my belief that we must love sinners as Jesus did. No matter what the sort of sin it is. It is the love of God that wins people. Not our rules. Not our holiness. Not our morality.

[Billy Cox]

I know plenty of people who are overweight and out of shape and it's not a glandular problem. It's just plain gluttony and laziness. They continue to live in this sin but I embrace and love them (they do give better hugs). How is it different? Is one sort of sinner won over by the love - then turns from their sin in a loving response while another sort of sinner should be won by being ostracized and repents out of a some desire to be a part of the group that hates them?

The difference is that we're not as repulsed by fat people as we are by the mere thought of having sex with someone of the same gender.

Another difference is that sexual identity is far more intertwined with their 'core person' than is their body mass index. How does one repent of an attraction to members of the same gender? Can someone truly 'decide' to be attracted to the opposite gender, or do they just form an elaborate strategy of fooling their mind? Does a gay man kiss a woman to keep up appearances, but have to fantasize that she is a man in order to pull off the charade?

Based on the experience and testimony of some gay friends, I tend to think of homosexuality as a 'Paul's thorn' sort of issue. God rarely/never 'takes away the thorn', but his grace is sufficient; his power is made perfect in weakness.

[Bob Hunter]

Again I might ask (again referring to the number of times this subject has come up in the past) how is embracing sinners of this sort different from embracing sinners of any other sort?

I know plenty of people who are overweight and out of shape and it's not a glandular problem. It's just plain gluttony and laziness. They continue to live in this sin but I embrace and love them (they do give better hugs). How is it different? Is one sort of sinner won over by the love - then turns from their sin in a loving response while another sort of sinner should be won by being ostracized and repents out of a some desire to be a part of the group that hates them?

I don't get it.

edited to add: I just watched the video. It hasn't changed my belief that we must love sinners as Jesus did. No matter what the sort of sin it is. It is the love of God that wins people. Not our rules. Not our holiness. Not our morality.

The comparison game is really hard for me Tami, maybe because I'm kinda slow. I posted this topic because the movement seems to be somewhat new and organized (if it can call itself a movement). The overweight issue is totally different, though it can equally repulsive-at least in my mind. My wife is a health care professional and works with people in rehab, it is amazing how many preventable conditions she treats. When she attempts to treat an obese patient who is just plain lazy, she's usually faced with a barrage of verbal insults. They just don't want to change, many will say, "it's too hard..." To which my wife replies, "Well, that's why I'm here, to make you do something hard." I think we do ourselves a great disservice when we dig our heals in and say "I don't want to change." But I truly believe that God can help us overcome that attitude if we are willing. I know I have some areas of my life that need to change, instead of pridefully shutting down I need to open up and see what the Lord has for me. "It's too hard," usually doesn't get me anywhere.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Just watched the video.

I think I have a problem with some of what was said. Yes God loves you right where you are, God loves no matter what, but this does not mean that you can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I know parents who love their children no matter what wrongs that they do, but for the child's own good have had to put them out and set boundaries with them such as you can only come over if you are not on drugs/alcohol, you can only call if you're not using unless you want a ride to de-tox, etc. The refusal to let them in while they are active in their addiction does not negate the love these parents have for their children.

But my biggest issue is with the bi-sexual woman. I think that bi-sexuality is a form of licentiousness, being taken over by the pleasures of the flesh. I have less of a problem with the issue of homosexuality. As I read the passages that seemingly prohibit homosexual activity I think I also see a list of things that could rightly be called licentious, lustful. I think I think that a homosexual couple who truly loves each other in a monogamous relationship may be okay with God. I think that the real trouble comes when they give themselves over to licentious behaviours. I think I think that licentiousness is anti-love, I believe that it hurts people.

Now on to the issue of homosexuals in church. Welcome them with open arms! Love them with the love of God! I began attending church as an atheist who persecuted the church and I even worked in ministry for months before I publicly accepted Christ. While I was there through the loving embrace of the people God got through to me. If I was not beyond redemption no one is! I do not think that I am opposed, in theory, to practicing homosexuals being in active ministry, maybe even some ministry leadership positions. I think that before I let the bi-sexual woman be in a leadership position I'd want her to come down on one side of the fence or the other and be in a monogamous relationship or celibate.

[Dale Cozby]

"They just don't want to change, many will say, "it's too hard..." To which my wife replies, "Well, that's why I'm here, to make you do something hard." I think we(they) do ourselves a great disservice when we(they) dig our(their) heals in and say "I don't want to change."

So why should this apply to fat people but not to this topic?

If it is a sin(action/chosen lifestyle), sinful desire(mental response to environmental stimuli), or sin nature issue(a genetic inclination to do evil) that causes people to over eat, why can't this also apply to any other form of evil, sin, immoral desire?
My Thesis: I think too many well meaning Christians have bought into the lies being fed them by people with an agenda, or too lazy, or too hardened to change.

Blind people hate to have comparisons they cannot see but....

Jesus made the blind to see. He didn't tell them to accept their fate and learn to live with their blindness. So we all have hope...

"As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" "Yes, Lord," they replied. Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you"; and their sight was restored.

I believe all men/women can be changed by the power of God's Spirit.
There is no sin, no evil desire too great He cannot deliver us from its bondage.

But in the end....we have to want to leave Egypt and not go back.

[Benjamin Burch]

I really think the problem comes down to what we are and are not willing to accept. I also think our theological problems in Christianity and especialy Western Chrisianity run much deeper than even most serious theologians realize. I think that in many ways Fundamentalists are right. If we take seriously Evolution, we have to radically rethink a lot of things.

Luckily the Fundamentalists are deadly wrong on the other hand - the Bible actually invites us into this rethinking....

But, seriously, we have to deal with a couple of Facts:

- There was no "Fall" that somehow affected the world as regards the laws of physics and way things work..
- There is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality as it is a common practice throughout the animal kingdom and increases more in primates and more intelligent primates

So we cannot keep appealing to some "sin nature" or "the fall" when confronted with the genetic nature of a percentage of cases of homosexual orientation. Instead, if the truths laid out above belong to the one who is The Truth, then we seriously need to practice thinking a lot harder.

[Ryan Scott]

"They just don't want to change, many will say, "it's too hard..." To which my wife replies, "Well, that's why I'm here, to make you do something hard." I think we(they) do ourselves a great disservice when we(they) dig our(their) heals in and say "I don't want to change."

So why should this apply to fat people but not to this topic?

I think the whole point of the post was to say that it applies to every topic.

[Dale Cozby]

- There was no "Fall" that somehow affected the world as regards the laws of physics and way things work..
- There is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality as it is a common practice throughout the animal kingdom and increases more in primates and more intelligent primates

So we cannot keep appealing to some "sin nature" or "the fall" when confronted with the genetic nature of a percentage of cases of homosexual orientation. Instead, if the truths laid out above belong to the one who is The Truth, then we seriously need to practice thinking a lot harder.

from a Pelagian mind: If sin nature = animal instinct, and freewill = higher human reasoning
If animal instinct is not sinful and human reasoning is just man made morays and rules then we begin to take on a whole assortment of "rethinks"
If we dismiss animal instinct as nothing immoral, but "natural" then animals incest, sexual violence as a mean to procreate, could all be allocated to a certain percentage of cases in the genetic pool and excused right? Where is God in all this? Where is His word? His laws and commands to the human species that separates us from the animals? Do we end up saying..."Did God really say?"


But if this is so, then it means that it really is....never mind.

[Benjamin Burch]

from a Pelagian mind: If sin nature = animal instinct, and freewill = higher human reasoning
If animal instinct is not sinful and human reasoning is just man made morays and rules then we begin to take on a whole assortment of "rethinks"
If we dismiss animal instinct as nothing immoral, but "natural" then animals incest, sexual violence as a mean to procreate, could all be allocated to a certain percentage of cases in the genetic pool and excused right? Where is God in all this? Where is His word? His laws and commands to the human species that separates us from the animals? Do we end up saying..."Did God really say?"


But if this is so, then it means that it really is....never mind.

Well, God's "laws and commands to the human species that separates us from the animals" have to do with imaging the Divine - Love.

It gets back to the question of whether there is really any way to argue that the homosexual relationship - when committed and monogamous is somehow "unloving."

[Rich Schmidt]

I am seeing where a number of independent Churches in the mold of Solomon's Porch (Doug Pagitt's Church) are embracing openly gay individuals in community.

I'll reserve my opinion on this until others weigh-in who may have more information and exposure to what is going on.

Here is the YouTube:

I would only make one request on this thread. NO FLAMING, BAITING, OR PERSONAL JABS! It's okay to disagree without jumping down each other's throats!

Anyway, discussing the issue here where we can voice strong opinions and remain friends is good practice for what lies ahead. I think the gay issue is right on our doorstep and it would be to our advantage to develop skills in dealing with it constructively.

I just watched the video. It sounds like an interesting "movement" (if it is one), especially as the point seems to be encouraging LGBT teenagers to have hope that "it gets better" than the bullying and depression and junk they're going through right now. Sad that such bullying takes place. Good that some Christians are trying to encourage them and give them hope.

As for what it means to embrace and love LGBT folks in our churches... that's a much bigger topic...

Edited to add: Here's the link to the YouTube page for the It Gets Better Project: http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject

[Bob Hunter]

I
- There was no "Fall" that somehow affected the world as regards the laws of physics and way things work..
- There is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality as it is a common practice throughout the animal kingdom and increases more in primates and more intelligent primates

So we cannot keep appealing to some "sin nature" or "the fall" when confronted with the genetic nature of a percentage of cases of homosexual orientation. Instead, if the truths laid out above belong to the one who is The Truth, then we seriously need to practice thinking a lot harder.

Ben,

Could there be other possibilities that explain the problem of homosexual orientation (I know some will say the orientation itself is not a problem)? I know Greg Boyd argues that Satan and other malevolent forces can and do affect natural processes. And I don't think you would question the fact that creation has been cursed in the wake of the fall. According to the N.T. every aspect of creation is in need of redemption including both heterosexuals and homosexuals. At least that is my understanding.

I think you are wrong when you say the law of physics and the way things work are unaffected by the fall. I would need someone to give me a very clear explanation where I'm amiss in my thinking. So please educate me!

[Benjamin Burch]

I think you are wrong when you say the law of physics and the way things work are unaffected by the fall. I would need someone to give me a very clear explanation where I'm amiss in my thinking. So please educate me!

According to Phsyics and Biology, the world has been operating the same way since it's inception, and the universe the same way since the Big Bang. The laws of physics and evolution are by nature what created the world (in a material sense). If this is true, it's traced all the way back to the Big Bang with no change or observable change. Yet we tend to throw one in there at some point Theologically but the science just won't allow for it.

This is actually where I concur with the Fundamentalist that a lot of core assumptions have to change in light of Biological and Phsyical discover.

[Andy Mistak]

I know Greg Boyd argues that Satan and other malevolent forces can and do affect natural processes.

I don't know Greg Boyd very well, but I'd say that this particular perspective isn't resonant with monotheism.

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't know Greg Boyd very well, but I'd say that this particular perspective isn't resonant with monotheism.

While this is completely a different conversation and I have already discussed with Bob my problems with "satanic" language...

I disagree with this particular point. To say that their are forces of agency at work which are powerful in their influential power does not compromise God's sole and exclusive claim to Deity. After all... humans and other biological and sociological agents affect the world.

[Andy Mistak]

I thank God for churches like this, and I pray someday soon there will be churches in every community that truly love everyone for who they are, and who show everyone with their whole lives that , as one of the women in the video said, they "were made whole and perfect the moment they were born".
I don't know if "it gets better" is a christian movement/organization or not, but the phrase seems like an awesome distillation of the Gospel to me.

[Andy Mistak]

While this is completely a different conversation and I have already discussed with Bob my problems with "satanic" language...

I disagree with this particular point. To say that their are forces of agency at work which are powerful in their influential power does not compromise God's sole and exclusive claim to Deity. After all... humans and other biological and sociological agents affect the world.

I'm probably taking this idea further than anyone intends, but it still makes me a bit uncomfortable.

[Rich Schmidt]

I thank God for churches like this, and I pray someday soon there will be churches in every community that truly love everyone for who they are, and who show everyone with their whole lives that , as one of the women in the video said, they "were made whole and perfect the moment they were born".
I don't know if "it gets better" is a christian movement/organization or not, but the phrase seems like an awesome distillation of the Gospel to me.

The "It Gets Better" Project was not started by Christians. Follow the link I provided above, and it'll lead you to the Dan Savage article that kicked it off.

As for the statement you quoted from the video... It's a nice statement, but it doesn't mesh well with what the Bible says about us. (It also doesn't fit with a Wesleyan theological perspective. "Total depravity" is the shorthand phrase for the concept I'm referring to. And, yes: Wesleyans believe in it, too, not just Calvinists. We just also believe that God's grace doesn't leave anyone in that state.)

[Dale Cozby]

Well, God's "laws and commands to the human species that separates us from the animals" have to do with imaging the Divine - Love.

It gets back to the question of whether there is really any way to argue that the homosexual relationship - when committed and monogamous is somehow "unloving."

Yes, A proper understanding of what love is, is rather mandatory for a proper understanding of what all those laws and commands and covenants are all about.

I always kind of wince when people tell me what the Divine Love is all about....I don't think anyone has God that figured out. But He did give us more than a clue.

I suppose anyone can argue that their monogamous and committed relationship is "loving". Doesn't mean i have to agree though.

BTW Why is monogamy essential to love? Cannot God love all and it still be perfect love? Why not us too?

[Bob Hunter]

I don't know Greg Boyd very well, but I'd say that this particular perspective isn't resonant with monotheism.

Andy,

I don't see where it is inconsistent with monotheism. You sure about that? There are corrupting forces at work in the world in addition to human rebellion. God is at work in the world overcoming both. How do you explain natural evil? Do we attribute that to the fall? I don't know that I want to make humans solely responsible for natural evil. Perhaps malevolent forces were at work before the fall. Again, I confess my reliance on Boyd, his explanation is far more eloquent than mine. I just don't see where this challenges monotheism. But maybe you can help me with that.

[Andy Mistak]

Andy,

I don't see where it is inconsistent with monotheism. You sure about that? There are corrupting forces at work in the world in addition to human rebellion. God is at work in the world overcoming both. How do you explain natural evil? Do we attribute that to the fall? I don't know that I want to make humans solely responsible for natural evil. Perhaps malevolent forces were at work before the fall. Again, I confess my reliance on Boyd, his explanation is far more eloquent than mine. I just don't see where this challenges monotheism. But maybe you can help me with that.

Like I said to Ben, I'm probably extrapolating and taking the idea further than you or Boyd intend, but when I think about "natural processes", my mind goes to concepts like creation and God's Plan. You're probably just on a different page than me regarding that specific term.

Also, I don't know how I feel about the idea of "natural evil". When things are in their "natural" state, I tend to think we are in right relationship with God and each other, as we are intended to be. In my mind all evil is unnatural.

[Tami Martin]

The difference is that we're not as repulsed by fat people as we are by the mere thought of having sex with someone of the same gender.

I've been reading through the rest of this thread and, as usual, am learning a lot. I agree that there are nuances around continuing to live in sin when you know it to be sin by arguing that it's not really sin that are really hard to get around. But my attention was caught by your comment here, Billy. I'm going to guess you are not a fat person because I can assure you. People today ARE indeed repulsed by fat and fat people. There are some interesting statistics and studies and anecdotal evidence to be found that describe just how differently you get treated when you're fat vs. thin.

[Andy Mistak]

As for the statement you quoted from the video... It's a nice statement, but it doesn't mesh well with what the Bible says about us. (It also doesn't fit with a Wesleyan theological perspective. "Total depravity" is the shorthand phrase for the concept I'm referring to. And, yes: Wesleyans believe in it, too, not just Calvinists. We just also believe that God's grace doesn't leave anyone in that state.)

I disagree. In my mind, the statement has to do with uniqueness, not depravity.

I'm reminded of the disabled folks that I live and work with. Many would say that because they are mentally retarded or have severe mental illnesses, they are somehow "less than" or not what God intended them to be. The message of Christ to them is that they are exactly who God intended them to be, no matter how much their lives resemble everyone else's. They have been tremendous teachers to me.

Likewise, we cannot insist that people whose sexuality is different than yours and mine are lying to themselves or acting out of their "sin nature" when they express their God-given sexuality. Homosexuality is not voluntary, and we can't talk our way around that. LGBT folks know that God made them that way. Now they need to hear from the Church that when God made them, He didn't make a mistake.

[Shea Zellweger]

Andy,

I don't see where it is inconsistent with monotheism. You sure about that? There are corrupting forces at work in the world in addition to human rebellion. God is at work in the world overcoming both. How do you explain natural evil? Do we attribute that to the fall? I don't know that I want to make humans solely responsible for natural evil. Perhaps malevolent forces were at work before the fall. Again, I confess my reliance on Boyd, his explanation is far more eloquent than mine. I just don't see where this challenges monotheism. But maybe you can help me with that.

Oooh! Can we break from the gays and talk about the Devil for a while? That's a conversation I'd LOVE to have.
I think it's interesting that you are discussing a fall when you have said previously that you do not take Genesis 1-3 literally. Are you positing that there was a time when humanity lived in perfection with God? The Jews don't see a fall in the Gen 3 narrative, and I think they've got a point. Why can't it be an illustration that humans, if left to their own devices, will seek that which is most attractive to themselves? And even if you insist upon a "fall," there is nothing in Genesis 3 to suggest that the Devil was involved whatsoever. In fact, most literature surrounding "the Devil," (all of it outside of the canon of Scripture) tends to point to a time after "the fall" in which fallen angels got involved with himans- closer to Genesis 6.

Another interesting thing you said was "I don't know that I want to make humans solely responsible for natural evil." This sort of supports what some more liberal theologians have been saying for a while now- that we humans have personified evil in the form of a Devil as a grand theological coping mechanism.

Now, I assume by "natural evil," you mean those things which are perceived as evil but are not enacted by humans (earthquakes, floods, etc...). Ben would be correct in his pointing out that the laws of physics have been the laws of physics since the Big Bang, and it is those laws which explain rather easily how these sorts of natural disasters occur. However, if you're seeking a theological scapegoat, why resort to concepts which are not found in the Scriptures anywhere other than a carefully filtered reading of Revelation? Several books- Amos, Isaiah, and others- say pretty clearly that nothing happens without God causing or permitting it. If you need a cause, the Bible would offer far more evidence of God's responsibility than it would of "the Devil."

There are so many options out there, not the least of which would be the narrative offered in Genesis 1, in which God shapes an orderly world (land, light, life) on a planet of chaos ("the Deep," darkness, death- isn't alliteration fun?), but the chaos remains present- God seperated the order from the chaos, but did not destroy the chaos completely. The deep is still there- hurricans and tsunamis originate from it, it helps to move the earth's plates around causing earthquakes and eruptions, and the lives of many have been lost upon it. The world has not yet been perfected, and neither has humanity. Why would we make things even harder on ourselves by relying on the existence of a devil? I'm not going to say the devil doesn't exist, but I'm not particularly comfortable with a theology that needs evil in order to work.

[Roland Hearn]

Some thoughts - I'm not sure at all that a rejection of the concept of the "fall" is necessary for an evolutionary explanation of creation. The lostness of humanity is difficult to explain without a species imlicating rejection of grace. I don't need to know the details of how that comes about to see the reality of it in the world around me. Love compels me to act in grace and acceptance of all -that doesn't imply a need to rationalise away sin. The biblical dismisal of the homosexual life style is as much a cultural response as the rejection of sexualy oriented worship. That implies for us neither a blanket rejection nor acceptance of homesexual practice. Love must seek first to ensure a person realises acceptance. Secondly love must provide a context of safe healing. Thirdly love must allow a person the freedom to come to grips with their place in the kingdom of God. We gain as little by failing to bring healing to a human life as we do by bringing condemnation to that same life.

[George Wallace]

I thank God for churches like this, and I pray someday soon there will be churches in every community that truly love everyone for who they are, and who show everyone with their whole lives that , as one of the women in the video said, they "were made whole and perfect the moment they were born".
I don't know if "it gets better" is a christian movement/organization or not, but the phrase seems like an awesome distillation of the Gospel to me.

IMO based upon this statement, neither you nor the women in the video have a clue what the Gospel is. Sorry, you born whole and perfect? Huh? What? Then why do you need a Savior? That statement is not the Gospel, it is not even Theology. It's bad fortune cookie statement! Why don't you turn it over and look for your lucky numbers?

George

[Rich Schmidt]

I thank God for churches like this, and I pray someday soon there will be churches in every community that truly love everyone for who they are, and who show everyone with their whole lives that , as one of the women in the video said, they "were made whole and perfect the moment they were born".
I don't know if "it gets better" is a christian movement/organization or not, but the phrase seems like an awesome distillation of the Gospel to me.

(emphasis added by me)

Andy, you said this statement "seems like an awesome distillation of the Gospel to me." The Gospel is about God reconciling the world to himself in Jesus Christ. It's pretty much the opposite of the statement from the video. We are most certainly NOT "whole and perfect" from birth. We are born into sin, enemies of God, each one of us, and we desperately need the grace of God found in Jesus Christ. The Gospel takes as its starting point that things are not right, but now, in Jesus, "The time has come! The kingdom of God is near! Repent and believe the good news!" It's certainly true that God loves each and every one of us from before we were born. But that's very, very different from saying we were "whole and perfect" from birth.

I disagree. In my mind, the statement has to do with uniqueness, not depravity.

I'm reminded of the disabled folks that I live and work with. Many would say that because they are mentally retarded or have severe mental illnesses, they are somehow "less than" or not what God intended them to be. The message of Christ to them is that they are exactly who God intended them to be, no matter how much their lives resemble everyone else's. They have been tremendous teachers to me.

Likewise, we cannot insist that people whose sexuality is different than yours and mine are lying to themselves or acting out of their "sin nature" when they express their God-given sexuality. Homosexuality is not voluntary, and we can't talk our way around that. LGBT folks know that God made them that way. Now they need to hear from the Church that when God made them, He didn't make a mistake.

Hmmm... I don't disagree with the "Homosexuality is not voluntary" part of that. But I disagree that everyone who is born is "made that way" by God. Did God give me brown eyes? Did he make me right-handed? Did he give me my propensity toward angry outbursts... or is he the one who is transforming my character so that I no longer express anger in that way?

Does God give some people genetic birth defects? Or are these defects the result of the world being broken, down to the level of our genes... evidence that creation itself is groaning as Scripture describes? (I hope you can tell that I tend toward the second explanation.)

If a mother smokes crack while pregnant, leading to severe physiological problems for her child, we don't say that child is born "whole and perfect" or that God intended this for the child. No, we point the finger at the mother and at the crack she smoked. (We have a family in our church who were foster parents for a crack baby for a while. It was heartbreaking.) In other cases, if we don't know where to point the finger, should we then point it at God and think that we are seeing his perfect plan played out?

We have a man in our church who was born with some kind of defect in his left ankle and/or foot that required amputation when he was very young. His whole life he has worn a series of prostheses and dealt with nerve damage, pain, further amputations, and other complications. He looks forward to being whole one day when he sees his Savior face to face. Isn't that part of his future hope as a Christian? Or should he just accept that this is "exactly who God intended him to be" and that he will only have one foot with which to walk on those streets of gold?

None of this has anything to do with God's love for LGBT people, for me with my propensity toward anger, or for people with physical or mental disabilities. But it is definitely two different perspectives on how we come into the world and how that relates to God's intentions for us. I would never say about a person that "when God made them, He made a mistake"... because I don't believe God micromanages the making of individual human beings in that way. I believe that the world we are living in is broken, and that God is making it whole again.

[Andy Mistak]

Andy, you said this statement "seems like an awesome distillation of the Gospel to me." The Gospel is about God reconciling the world to himself in Jesus Christ. It's pretty much the opposite of the statement from the video. We are most certainly NOT "whole and perfect" from birth. We are born into sin, enemies of God, each one of us, and we desperately need the grace of God found in Jesus Christ. The Gospel takes as its starting point that things are not right, but now, in Jesus, "The time has come! The kingdom of God is near! Repent and believe the good news!" It's certainly true that God loves each and every one of us from before we were born. But that's very, very different from saying we were "whole and perfect" from birth.

Sorry for the confusion. The statement I was referring to as a distillation of the Gospel was "It gets better", not the statement about being "whole and perfect".

[Bob Hunter]

Now, I assume by "natural evil," you mean those things which are perceived as evil but are not enacted by humans (earthquakes, floods, etc...).

yes, you assumed correctly, I will quote Greg Boyd here, "I find it curious how little attention is given in contemporary explanations for "natural" evil to Satan and other malevolent powers. These cosmic agents play a central role in the story line of the the Bible, especially the N.T. and are depicted as directly or indirectly behind most of the evil in the world." Greg Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict

That we humans have personified evil in the form of a Devil as a grand theological coping mechanism.

I'm going with Ephesians 6 on this one, call it cop out if you wish, but I personally see great value in what some might call spiritual warfare. The many faces of evil need to be confronted wherever we find them. Dr. Chuck Gailey, professor of Missiology, would often remind Seminarians that one trip to central Africa would make us believers in the devil's ontological existence. I'm not looking for a cop out, or a way to abdicate personal responsibility, I just want to join God in his battle to overthrow evil.

but I'm not particularly comfortable with a theology that needs evil in order to work.

I'm not either, how and where did you get that from what I said? I would just remind us all what Jesus said about Satan being the highest ruling agent of the world (John 12:31, 14:30). I think I'm just trying to acknowledge what Jesus did, Satan exists, but he will be overcome by one who is greater.

[Shea Zellweger]

yes, you assumed correctly, I will quote Greg Boyd here, "I find it curious how little attention is given in contemporary explanations for "natural" evil to Satan and other malevolent powers. These cosmic agents play a central role in the story line of the the Bible, especially the N.T. and are depicted as directly or indirectly behind most of the evil in the world." Greg Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict

But "these cosmic agents" do not play a central role in the story line of the Bible. They are entirely absent from the Old Testament. They play a central role in the Gospels and in Revelation only to the extent that the Evangelists and the Revelator focused primarily on the great actions of Jesus' life, not the mundane.

I'm going with Ephesians 6 on this one, call it cop out if you wish, but I personally see great value in what some might call spiritual warfare. The many faces of evil need to be confronted wherever we find them. Dr. Chuck Gailey, professor of Missiology, would often remind Seminarians that one trip to central Africa would make us believers in the devil's ontological existence. I'm not looking for a cop out, or a way to abdicate personal responsibility, I just want to join God in his battle to overthrow evil.

The Full Armor of God is a great metaphor. The word "devil" in Ephesians is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Satan," (see Septuagint) which in its simplest form means "adversary." It is not a clear reference to a Prince of Darkness.

I'm not either, how and where did you get that from what I said?

Quoting Greg Boyd, above, you said "I find it curious how little attention is given in contemporary explanations for "natural" evil to Satan and other malevolent powers. These cosmic agents play a central role in the story line of the the Bible, especially the N.T. and are depicted as directly or indirectly behind most of the evil in the world." If the Devil becomes your explanation for "natural evil," then the Devil also becomes a necessary part of your theology.

I would just remind us all what Jesus said about Satan being the highest ruling agent of the world (John 12:31, 14:30). I think I'm just trying to acknowledge what Jesus did, Satan exists, but he will be overcome by one who is greater.

Bot of the passages you gave make reference to "the prince of this world." John 14:30 says " will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me..." What makes you so sure this is about the Devil, and not about Rome? At this point in the narrative, the temptation had already occurred, but the crucifixion was looming ahead. I'm guessing that it's a reference to a human empire.

[Bob Hunter]

If the Devil becomes your explanation for "natural evil," then the Devil also becomes a necessary part of your theology.

Are you saying I wouldn't have a tenable theology without the devil? I can assure you our theology begins with God, of course, all theologies do. But it would seem to me, that an explanation of evil is necessary in order to working theological system. Bear in mind.. all theological systems break down or have weaknesses when it comes to explaining the amount of evil in the world. In other words, there will always be holes to poke, and not that we shouldn't poke them, I just think it is important to recognize that we have them.

Not sure I can answer to some of the other concerns you raised without some time to dig in (which might not be a bad idea). I'm trying to keep up here!

[Rich Schmidt]

Oooh! Can we break from the gays and talk about the Devil for a while? That's a conversation I'd LOVE to have.

At this point, it's looking like maybe we should have started a new thread for this conversation...

I'm not going to say the devil doesn't exist, but I'm not particularly comfortable with a theology that needs evil in order to work.

I'm not sure anyone here is presenting "a theology that needs evil in order to work" or in which "the devil is a necessary part." But any Christian theology must take into account both (a) the biblical witness and (b) the reality of the world we live in. The biblical witness clearly presents us with Satan/the devil/unclean spirits/etc. And the world we live in clearly presents us with the reality of sin and evil and chaos. Any Christian theology that ignores either of these would be insufficient.

So is evil/the devil "needed" in one's theology? I don't know... but I do know that our theology must include them!

[John Brickley]

Likewise, we cannot insist that people whose sexuality is different than yours and mine are lying to themselves or acting out of their "sin nature" when they express their God-given sexuality. Homosexuality is not voluntary, and we can't talk our way around that. LGBT folks know that God made them that way. Now they need to hear from the Church that when God made them, He didn't make a mistake.

IMO based upon this statement, neither you nor the women in the video have a clue what the Gospel is. Sorry, you born whole and perfect? Huh? What? Then why do you need a Savior? That statement is not the Gospel, it is not even Theology. It's bad fortune cookie statement! Why don't you turn it over and look for your lucky numbers?

George

George,

I find it ironic that you are so critical of Andy's statement, because while I don't think he intended it in this way, this kind of micro managing view of God is far more at home in your theological system than it is in ours. So I really don't know what is the basis of your critique because just on the basis of what he said it is completely consistent with Calvinist theology.

Blessings,

John

[Shea Zellweger]

Are you saying I wouldn't have a tenable theology without the devil? I can assure you our theology begins with God, of course, all theologies do. But it would seem to me, that an explanation of evil is necessary in order to working theological system. Bear in mind.. all theological systems break down or have weaknesses when it comes to explaining the amount of evil in the world. In other words, there will always be holes to poke, and not that we shouldn't poke them, I just think it is important to recognize that we have them.

Not sure I can answer to some of the other concerns you raised without some time to dig in (which might not be a bad idea). I'm trying to keep up here!

I think the point I'm making (and perhaps I'm not phrasing it well) is that if you attribute "natural evil" to the Devil, then the Devil becomes a necessary part of your theological framework. God takes credit in the Hebrew Bible for several natural disasters. Jesus in one of the gospels (I think it was in the lectionary last fall...) asserts that some natural disasters are nobody's fault- that they just happen (he gives the example of a tower that collapsed and killed people). I'm not saying it's not possible that some natural disasters are caused by some sort of evil force, but that if we begin to use natural disasters as evidence of a Devil, then the Devil becomes a vital part of theology.

I'm not sure anyone here is presenting "a theology that needs evil in order to work" or in which "the devil is a necessary part." But any Christian theology must take into account both (a) the biblical witness and (b) the reality of the world we live in. The biblical witness clearly presents us with Satan/the devil/unclean spirits/etc. And the world we live in clearly presents us with the reality of sin and evil and chaos. Any Christian theology that ignores either of these would be insufficient.

So is evil/the devil "needed" in one's theology? I don't know... but I do know that our theology must include them!

I disagree with your premise. You've grouped "Satan/the devil" in with "unclean spirits/etc." I'm not disputing the idea of supernatural evil, but rather that there is some clear evidence for a single Prince of Darkness/Lord of the underworld type character, generally called "Satan" or "the Devil." The Hebrew Bible never presents such a character. there are a handful of instances where "satan" (hassatan) is used. None of them are used as a proper noun, 5 of them refer to humans, and of the 4 referring to supernatural forces, each of those satans are working for- or with the permission of- God. The satan which stood in front of Balaam's ass was clearly doing God's bidding, and the satan presented in Job is numbered among the heavenly court. In the New Testament, the personification of evil begins to manifest, but even there it's far from clear that this is "the Devil." Jesus is tempted by the diabolos, which is the Greek translation of Satan. Since it was hassatan's job to test and oppose the faithful, and since Jesus was led into the wilderness by the spirit, it's entirely possible that this devil was also doing the work of God.
The remainder of instances in the New Testament are equally unclear- are they referring to a heavenly accuser, a general adversary, or a demonic presence? Is the author of Revelation actually talking about a Devil, or is he using symbols to represent the Roman empire and emperor? When Paul uses terms like "the prince of the power of the air," is he referencing one lord of all demonkind, or just mentioning a demonic entity? To say that the biblical witness supports a "Devil," requires a very specific hermeneutic.

As for sin, evil, and chaos- I'm with you 100% there. All of those are clearly evident in Scripture and in the world. It's when we start personifying evil and giving that personified evil the kind of power which is reserved for God alone that I begin to get uneasy.

[John Brickley]

I'm not sure anyone here is presenting "a theology that needs evil in order to work" or in which "the devil is a necessary part." But any Christian theology must take into account both (a) the biblical witness and (b) the reality of the world we live in. The biblical witness clearly presents us with Satan/the devil/unclean spirits/etc. And the world we live in clearly presents us with the reality of sin and evil and chaos. Any Christian theology that ignores either of these would be insufficient.

So is evil/the devil "needed" in one's theology? I don't know... but I do know that our theology must include them!

Shea,

I have to agree completely with Rich here. Any theology that does not take seriously the reality of evil, and not just in an abstract sense but recognizing that it does in fact exist as a force in creation (however you want to name that) is not only completely insufficient, but a fantasy. Evil is so real and so present that without articulating how it is being addressed (even though our articulation will always be less than fully satisfactory) by God, our theology would be useless.

Central to the message of the Early Church Fathers was the triumphal declaration that Christ has defeated the great enemies of mankind; sin, death, and the devil. Written and proclaimed to those who in their daily lives where feeling the full force of those great enemies through persecution, such a declaration gave great hope. Whilst undoubtedly we would phrase things differently than the Fathers, is there not still a need for the great hope in their message? And to ignore the reality of evil would seem to miss the very issue about which a very many people in this world need hope. The one thing that I took from the video (which I am still quite torn about) is the hopefulness of the title: It gets better! That is what the Fathers were trying to say to those facing persecution, and it is still a message that we need today.

Blessings,

John

[Rich Schmidt]

I disagree with your premise. You've grouped "Satan/the devil" in with "unclean spirits/etc."

...

To say that the biblical witness supports a "Devil," requires a very specific hermeneutic.

Well, I'm in very good company, then. Because the church has traditionally grouped them together (and we might as well include "the serpent" in Genesis, while we're at it)... from the earliest times, as far as we can tell.

I'm not saying we shouldn't question this part of our tradition, looking closely at the biblical witness... but we should be careful while doing so.

It's when we start personifying evil and giving that personified evil the kind of power which is reserved for God alone that I begin to get uneasy.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the devil / "personified evil" has the kind of power that is reserved for God alone. No one is suggesting dualism. We're all trinitarian monotheists here.

And I'd really love if some moderator or host could spin this off into its own thread, maybe in the theology forum. It has very little to do with the original topic.

[Shea Zellweger]

Well, I'm in very good company, then. Because the church has traditionally grouped them together (and we might as well include "the serpent" in Genesis, while we're at it)... from the earliest times, as far as we can tell.

Actually, according to Elaine Pagels' "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," most of early Christian tradition used Genesis 3 as support for a certain sexual ethic. The serpent was generally ignored (although one sect believed it was the pre-incarnate Christ, trying to bring knowledge and eternal life to humanity... they were, as I'm sure you can imagine, renounced as heretics).

I'm not saying we shouldn't question this part of our tradition, looking closely at the biblical witness... but we should be careful while doing so.

Carefulness is why I'm not saying "there is no devil," but rather that the Biblical witness for it is weak at best. If we wish to delve into tradition, there is more than copious evidence that people at all times post-exhile have had a pretty robust theology of the Devil.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the devil / "personified evil" has the kind of power that is reserved for God alone. No one is suggesting dualism. We're all trinitarian monotheists here.

This sidetrack started with Bob mentioning "natural evils,"- ie, floods and earthquakes. IMHO, the power to control such things is God's alone, and I would argue that the disciples had a similar stance. "What kind of man is this, that even the wind and the waves obey him?" If we are going to start crediting the Devil for such things, I think we have indeed imbued it with powers and abilities which are foreign to the Scriptures.

And I'd really love if some moderator or host could spin this off into its own thread, maybe in the theology forum. It has very little to do with the original topic.

yeah... they're probably all off retreating though. I have no magic powers in this forum.

[Billy Cox]

I've been reading through the rest of this thread and, as usual, am learning a lot. I agree that there are nuances around continuing to live in sin when you know it to be sin by arguing that it's not really sin that are really hard to get around. But my attention was caught by your comment here, Billy. I'm going to guess you are not a fat person because I can assure you. People today ARE indeed repulsed by fat and fat people. There are some interesting statistics and studies and anecdotal evidence to be found that describe just how differently you get treated when you're fat vs. thin.

I'm not saying that fat people are exempt from discrimination, but all other things being equal, a fat high school teacher is far more employable than one who is openly gay.

[Bob Hunter]

Shea,

The one thing that I took from the video (which I am still quite torn about) is the hopefulness of the title: It gets better! That is what the Fathers were trying to say to those facing persecution, and it is still a message that we need today.

Blessings,

John

John,

Quite torn-really sums up how I feel. I have compassion towards people struggling with homosexuality and acceptance. Talk show host Ellen Degeneres issued a statement yesterday expressing her outrage over recent deaths that resulted from bullying, there have been 4 such deaths. This is shameful, I regret it happens at all. Apparently, this is impetus for the "It gets better" movement started by Dan Savage in the wake of these tragedies.

On the other hand, I find myself wanting to offer redemption to the gay and lesbian population with the intent that Christ would help them overcome their desire to engage in the lifestyle. I would take the same approach with a man hooked on porn, I would offer him healing and restoration in hopes the addiction would be broken. The same approach with a rage-aholic, chronic gambler, alcoholic, etc. (more comparisons...ugh!).

Anyway, the messages I hear coming from the video are as follows: We were made this way, God accepts us, change is not necessary, we read the bible differently, people are beginning to see it out way, The Church embraces us, it is getting better.

[Rich Schmidt]

Anyway, the messages I hear coming from the video are as follows: We were made this way, God accepts us, change is not necessary, we read the bible differently, people are beginning to see it out way, The Church embraces us, it is getting better.

That's certainly the perspective I picked up from the video you linked to, Bob.

I'd encourage everyone to go to the youtube page for the project -- http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject -- and watch some of the videos. The highlighted video right now is from cast members of the 2nd national tour of the musical Wicked, sharing their experiences and what life is like now. The basic idea is: "We made it. You can make it. It gets better."

I'd also encourage everyone to read the Dan Savage article that started it all -- http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/S...ve?oid=4940874 -- and see what his intention was for it. He's basically trying to communicate with isolated LGBT teens in rural and suburban areas who don't have any kind of support and are killing themselves in increasing numbers.

I'll quote part of it here, but you really need to go read the whole thing. (The article starts with a couple of unrelated issues, so scroll down to the third letter.)

Nine out of 10 gay teenagers experience bullying and harassment at school, and gay teens are four times likelier to attempt suicide. Many LGBT kids who do kill themselves live in rural areas, exurbs, and suburban areas, places with no gay organizations or services for queer kids.

... I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better.

... Why are we waiting for permission to talk to these kids? We have the ability to talk directly to them right now. We don't have to wait for permission to let them know that it gets better. We can reach these kids.

... I've launched a channel on YouTube—www *.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject—to host these videos. My normally camera-shy husband and I already posted one. We both went to Christian schools and we were both bullied—he had it a lot worse than I did—and we are living proof that it gets better. We don't dwell too much on the past. Instead, we talk mostly about all the meaningful things in our lives now—our families, our friends (gay and straight), the places we've gone and things we've experienced—that we would've missed out on if we'd killed ourselves then.

"You gotta give 'em hope," Harvey Milk said.

Today we have the power to give these kids hope. We have the tools to reach out to them and tell our stories and let them know that it does get better.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad there are some Christians joining in to try to give these kids hope. I wish the church were already known as a place of hope, support, and healing for these kids. It's sad to hear that Dan and his husband were bullied in the "Christian" schools they attended. No matter what your belief about the appropriateness of homosexual behavior in God's eyes, I think we can all agree that we as the church could do much, much better.