What the Bible says about Homosexuality...

[Benjamin Burch]

Remember when gay and lesbian used to the designation of choice for those who professed alternative sexual orientations? I remember a conversation in the late 80's with a gay friend of mine who said he was bothered that bisexuals were claiming it as an orientation, when clearly it could not be. It wasn't long until they had been welcomed into the civil rights fold with gays and lesbians. Then came the transgendered. Now I hear that there is also a Q as well, making the grouping GLBTQ.

I'm not very old yet Ben, but already I have seen the progression from G to GLBTQ. Please don't tell me the possibility of adding a few more is a red herring.

I'm saying equating them is a red herring and I'm saying that they'd have an equal claim in the eyes of the Church is a red herring.

[Benjamin Burch]

My reference to bending the definition of sin was/is directed at Matthew Vines. Have you watched the video?

Yes, I have, and I agree with Ryan.

Matthew Vines is explicitly denying the transformative power of God. Again, have you watched the video?

No he isn't. He is denying the need of God to transform from homosexuality. Huge difference. I believe in God's transformative power, but I deny that God needs to transform people from crocheting. Matthew is arguing that monogamous homosexual marriage is no more sinful than crocheting. We may very much disagree with this, but we cannot say that he's denying God's transformative power.

He may in fact deny God's transformative power, I don't know, because he has not said anything about that in this video because it is outside the purview of what Matthew is arguing.

[Scott Sherwood]

I'm saying equating them is a red herring and I'm saying that they'd have an equal claim in the eyes of the Church is a red herring.

Are you saying that the GLBTQ community has it wrong? Why are BT and Q not equally entitled to claim orientation as G and L?

On what basis would you suggest that BTQ have less of a claim to legitimacy in the eyes of the church than G and L?

[Benjamin Burch]

Are you saying that the GLBTQ community has it wrong? Why are BT and Q not equally entitled to claim orientation as G and L?

On what basis would you suggest that BTQ have less of a claim to legitimacy in the eyes of the church than G and L?

If you'll look through, I've consistenly included the "t" - LGT. I'm also confortable with Q, as it has nothing to do with orientation. "B" is fine if it is an orientation, I simply don't know the science behind it. The difference is that being functionally "bi" monogamously is not possible.

To say that non-monogamous or interspecies relationships and monogamous ones are even close to the same conversation is simply not true, certainly not in the eyes of the Church.

[Greg Farra]

I got ought (theology's purview) vs is (science's purview). Did I get the gist?

Can define ought and is as you understand it? I'm not always the brightest bulb here!

[Scott Sherwood]

If you'll look through, I've consistenly included the "t" - LGT. I'm also confortable with Q, as it has nothing to do with orientation. "B" is fine if it is an orientation, I simply don't know the science behind it. The difference is that being functionally "bi" monogamously is not possible.

To say that non-monogamous or interspecies relationships and monogamous ones are even close to the same conversation is simply not true, certainly not in the eyes of the Church.

But if it is not ok for the church to deprive one group of the full expression of their professed orientation in spite of the consistent witness of Scripture and nearly two millennia of unanimity, why is it ok for the church to deprive others? Surely you wouldn't invoke Scripture or tradition on some and not others?

[Greg Farra]

200 plus posts-anyone ready to change their minds?

[Cam Pence]

200 plus posts-anyone ready to change their minds?

That would require me to admit I may be wrong wouldn't it?....in that case I would rather die

[Benjamin Burch]

But if it is not ok for the church to deprive one group of the full expression of their professed orientation in spite of the consistent witness of Scripture and nearly two millennia of unanimity, why is it ok for the church to deprive others? Surely you wouldn't invoke Scripture or tradition on some and not others?

Yes, in fact, I would. Our model for marriage is not (or at least should not be) a minimal number of passages which condemn something from a cultural perspective, nor that which the Scriptures affirm positively from a cultural perspective.

Instead, our model for marriage is Christ and his bride, the Church. A monogamous relationship in which the commitment stretches for all of eternity.

Now, if psychology comes along and tells us that multiple people really can love each other in the same way that two people can, the Church will have a lot to think about. Currently that doesn't seem to be anywhere on the horizon.

However, to act as though monogamy is the same conversation as polygamy of any sort simply is an attempt to obfuscate the issue - on both sides.

Also.... Can we please, please, please, stop acting like Scripture gives us a model of marriage, and that we're faithful to it when we praise monogamous heterosexual marriages and condemn homosexual ones? Please? It isn't true, not in the slightest since of the term "true." It's very far from the truth.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes, I have, and I agree with Ryan.

No problem Ben, I've explained where I was coming from call me a liar if you wish.

No he isn't. He is denying the need of God to transform from homosexuality. Huge difference. I believe in God's transformative power, but I deny that God needs to transform people from crocheting. Matthew is arguing that monogamous homosexual marriage is no more sinful than crocheting. We may very much disagree with this, but we cannot say that he's denying God's transformative power.

He may in fact deny God's transformative power, I don't know, because he has not said anything about that in this video because it is outside the purview of what Matthew is arguing.

Correct, he is most certainly arguing that monogamous homosexual marriage is no more sinful than crocheting. I'll admit that I stopped watching a little past the halfway point, couldn't take it past there. He introduced nothing new that was substantive, this is the standard fare pro gay argument. What he did add was an overselling at each step of the way, it was tragic and sad to watch, clearly he doesn't believe his own argument. Good grief, the guy actually said that sexual activity during the menstrual cycle isn't sinful! What kind of sick twisted nonsense is this? I can't even fathom degrading my wife in this manner, sick and disgusting, his issues go beyond orientation. But I digress.

My determination that he doesn't believe his own argument convinces me that he holds no hope nor trust in God's ability to transform him. Granted that is only my opinion, but I'm going to go with it. Let's also consider that he employed the standard boo hoo argument that no gay person would ever choose to be gay. Once you make that argument, then you open the possibility to God's power to transform, in as much as no one would choose to be gay. The argument necessarily turns on him, clearly he denies God's ability to transform him and thus must bend the definition of sin in order to gain acceptance in this life. Unfortunately God will not be mocked, this argument carries eternal consequences.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

It all sounds so good. I just can't buy it, though. This is way, way, way too easy to say for those of us who can fulfill the deepest longing we have without it being called "sin". This is far too easy for us to say. I can't buy it.

Not all of us can fulfill the deepest longing we have without it being called a sin.
What of this scenario?
A certain woman's deepest longing is to be intimate with a man and have a family. However, she has never found the right person and remains single all her life. She never has a husband and never has a family. She doesn't feel "called" to celibacy, as a nun or monk might be, but is now up in age. If she would have fulfilled her deepest longing, she would have sinned by having intimacy with someone she was not married to.

My point is this: just because someone has a deep longing for a certain type of intimacy, does not mean that God sanctions them giving into that longing.

[Jim Chabot]

200 plus posts-anyone ready to change their minds?

Yes actually I have. Marcus has caused me to rethink my thoughts on marriage and divorce. No doubt that divorce is not recognized by God, none at all. The remarried person is still married to their original spouse, a promise is a promise, no change ther. But I've always considered the second marriage to be illegitimate, and of no consequence, nothing more than state sponsored adultery. I need to rethink this, the second marriage is a marriage, born in adultery shouldn't have happened, yet a marriage nonetheless.

Hans has posted that the early church, while considering the second marriage to be sinful and adulterous, did not consider it to be an unpardonable sin. Of course this is correct, forgiveness must be available.

[Jim Chabot]

Not all of us can fulfill the deepest longing we have without it being called a sin.
What of this scenario?
A certain woman's deepest longing is to be intimate with a man and have a family. However, she has never found the right person and remains single all her life. She never has a husband and never has a family. She doesn't feel "called" to celibacy, as a nun or monk might be, but is now up in age. If she would have fulfilled her deepest longing, she would have sinned by having intimacy with someone she was not married to.

My point is this: just because someone has a deep longing for a certain type of intimacy, does not mean that God sanctions them giving into that longing.

I can add to this Lorie. How about when you marry someone whom you come to loathe, how do you fulfill your deepest desire then. I can tell you from experience that you learn to realign your desires with the Spirit as He walks with you. And I can tell you from experience that sometimes this takes longer than young Matthew has been alive, but it can turn, your spouse once again becomes your deepest desire. Following the Lords command is the most self fulfilling thing that someone can do for themselves. I pray that young Matthew learns to trust him.

[Scott Sherwood]

Yes, in fact, I would. Our model for marriage is not (or at least should not be) a minimal number of passages which condemn something from a cultural perspective, nor that which the Scriptures affirm positively from a cultural perspective.

Instead, our model for marriage is Christ and his bride, the Church. A monogamous relationship in which the commitment stretches for all of eternity.

.

Not Christ and his groom?

Now, if psychology comes along and tells us that multiple people really can love each other in the same way that two people can, the Church will have a lot to think about. Currently that doesn't seem to be anywhere on the horizon.

Does psychology now tell us they can't?

I don't understand why you hold more stubbornly to monogamy than to male-female? If we dismiss the Bible's teachings but still look to it for models, wouldn't the three members of the Trinity also be a model of the most intimate relationship possible? You may say I'm just being facetious or that I'm throwing up red herrings, but please understand that the arguments you and others are making in this thread would have been said to be nowhere on the horizon just a few decades ago (and for a couple of millennia before that).

[Kevin Rector]

It all sounds so good. I just can't buy it, though. This is way, way, way too easy to say for those of us who can fulfill the deepest longing we have without it being called "sin". This is far too easy for us to say. I can't buy it.

My deepest longing isn't to be married to my wife, it isn't loving her, or being loved by her, it isn't having sex with her, it isn't intimacy with her, it isn't being the father to my children, nor son to my parents, it isn't having friends, or feeling fulfilled, it isn't anything else in this world.

The deepest longing I have is to be a child of God... nothing else can be my deepest longing or all will be lost.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

I can add to this Lorie. How about when you marry someone whom you come to loathe, how do you fulfill your deepest desire then. I can tell you from experience that you learn to realign your desires with the Spirit as He walks with you. And I can tell you from experience that sometimes this takes longer than young Matthew has been alive, but it can turn, your spouse once again becomes your deepest desire. Following the Lords command is the most self fulfilling thing that someone can do for themselves. I pray that young Matthew learns to trust him.

And you know what? The exciting news is that God will honor that faithfulness. He can transform what the world sees as a hopeless sad situation into a fulfilling life in Him. I agree with whoever posted that Matthew's view of the world gives no hope unless he gives in to this deep desire he has. He doesn't give God any credit for being able to give him an abundant life without sin.

[Benjamin Burch]

No problem Ben, I've explained where I was coming from call me a liar if you wish. While you do have a right to your opinion, in this case you don't know and I do. So you are wrong and I'm 100% sure of it. Carry on friendly, kind and congenial fellow that you are.

I'm sorry, Jim. I didn't see Ryan call you a liar, so I'm not seeing how I called you a liar by agreeing with him. I'm sorry you took it that way. I also don't see how this was a sophomoric post. I do see how I probably didn't communicate well, and I apologize for that.

Ryan stated that "no one" was denying God's transforming power. I agree... and I watched the video. For me, that "no one" includes Matthew. I didn't spell that out, so I'm very sorry it came across as meaning something very different. I should have communicated better.

Seriously Ben, your not doing much for your credibility with these sort of sophomoric comments.

This is quite the side conversation, but I'm sure my credibility has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that some agree with me and some don't. Dan's post in another thread shows this well, as do most of the "thanks" I receive on my posts. My occasional lack of tact and craft have little, if anything to do with it. Some like what I have to say, others don't and are bothered by it. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Correct, he is most certainly arguing that monogamous homosexual marriage is no more sinful than crocheting. I'll admit that I stopped watching a little past the halfway point, couldn't take it past there. He introduced nothing new that was substantive, this is the standard fare pro gay argument.

Agreed. Thus, why I disagree with most of the video, which I hope to flesh out here soon.

What he did add was an overselling at each step of the way, it was tragic and sad to watch, clearly he doesn't believe his own argument. Good grief, the guy actually said that sexual activity during the menstrual cycle isn't sinful! What kind of sick twisted nonsense is this? I can't even fathom degrading my wife in this manner, sick and disgusting, his issues go beyond orientation. But I digress.

This is extremely perplexing.... the Church hasn't said that sex on a menstrual cycle is sinful for a long time that I know of (could be wrong). I also know and have known women who wouldn't consider this degrading at all, but instead claim to have a higher sex drive while on their menstrual cycle. In fact, the Scriptural mandate to not practice sex during this time has nothing to do with the woman, her feelings, or anything of the sort. It has to do with (1) the Hebrew's view of "blood" which is consistent throughout the OT and (2) a patriarchal culture's problem with those yucky girl problems.

The restriction itself is degrading to women. Also, the idea that a restriction can be made for a woman despite her feelings on the matter is the height of degradation.

My determination that he doesn't believe his own argument convinces me that he holds no hope nor trust in God's ability to transform him. Granted that is only my opinion, but I'm going to go with it. Let's also consider that he employed the standard boo hoo argument that no gay person would ever choose to be gay. Once you make that argument, then you open the possibility to God's power to transform, in as much as no one would choose to be gay. The argument necessarily turns on him, clearly he denies God's ability to transform him and thus must bend the definition of sin in order to gain acceptance in this life. Unfortunately God will not be mocked, this argument carries eternal consequences.

You might be correct. However, I would suggest you're psychoanalyzing the argument too much and reading too much into it. Your reading into might be correct, but it is certainly not stated in any way by Matthew.

[Benjamin Burch]

My deepest longing isn't to be married to my wife, it isn't loving her, or being loved by her, it isn't having sex with her, it isn't intimacy with her, it isn't being the father to my children, nor son to my parents, it isn't having friends, or feeling fulfilled, it isn't anything else in this world.

The deepest longing I have is to be a child of God... nothing else can be my deepest longing or all will be lost.

We've rarely spoken that way in American Christianity. I agree with you 100%. However, I would counter that Matthew agrees 100% with this. From there, what do we do with our #2 deepest desire?

You're really just pushing the question off, not addressing it on its terms.

[Andy Mistak]

My deepest longing isn't to be married to my wife, it isn't loving her, or being loved by her, it isn't having sex with her, it isn't intimacy with her, it isn't being the father to my children, nor son to my parents, it isn't having friends, or feeling fulfilled, it isn't anything else in this world.

The deepest longing I have is to be a child of God... nothing else can be my deepest longing or all will be lost.

I think it's a LOT easier to say that when you have a marriage, intimacy, family, friends, and fulfillment in life. I think it's the right attitude, but if you didn't have those things, or even the hope of having them, it would be much harder.

[Benjamin Burch]

Not Christ and his groom?

Culturally that would have made no sense. Of course it doesn't say that. However, that "bride" isn't actually female. Thus... it is far more ambiguous than we wish it were.

Does psychology now tell us they can't?

One doesn't prove a negative. They prove an affirmative.

I don't understand why you hold more stubbornly to monogamy than to male-female? If we dismiss the Bible's teachings but still look to it for models, wouldn't the three members of the Trinity also be a model of the most intimate relationship possible?

(1) Neither Scripture, nor tradition, nor reason, nor experience point to the Trinity as a spousal intimacy.
(2) Because monogamy is that which Christ has demonstrated for us... Christ never demonstrates for us male-female.

You may say I'm just being facetious or that I'm throwing up red herrings, but please understand that the arguments you and others are making in this thread would have been said to be nowhere on the horizon just a few decades ago (and for a couple of millennia before that).

Nor was female ordination.

We have to deal with the deeply cultural nature of all of this.... and we're back to what Eric has said. We're inconsistent in a way that seems all too convenient. Female ordination was a cultural issue, but homosexuality transcends all that cultural stuff....

We may not say it explicitly, but it is so much a part of everything being said.

[Kevin Rector]

You're really just pushing the question off, not addressing it on its terms.

I don't think that I am, ff we have fleshed out longing #1, then the answer to what we do with our other longings is that we subsume them to our first longing.

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't think that I am, ff we have fleshed out longing #1, then the answer to what we do with our other longings is that we subsume them to our first longing.

Which... is again pushing the question off. As I said, it's way too easy to say "the deepest longing besides God that we experience as human beings needs to be subsumed under our faithfulness to God" when that means we don't actually have to do much changing to our #2. Way too easy. In fact, I'd argue we make that statement retrospectively... as Andy has suggested.

We only truly make that claim with ease once we've experienced it.

As I've said, I have no problem with people suggesting homosexual activity is sinful and that they should be celibate. I know gays who believe this. No problem. I have problems with us creating rationale for it that is far too easy for heterosexuals with wonderful spouses and kids (which I've heard enough to know is true of your's ) to spout.

[Todd Erickson]

Doug was mentioning that this isn't about how we accept gays before they come to church, it's what we do with them and require of them once they are in church.

This brings up one of my favorite topics that nobody will deal with: singles.

Singles in the church, in my general experience, are second class citizens. They are people waiting to get married, unless they're widows. We give them their own programs, their own classes, and we regulate them to those groups.

We do not, in general, invite them into our homes. We have difficulty relating to them because they aren't married, and don't have kids. Unless they're leading the singles ministry (and in many traditional churches, only a married couple could lead such a thing) they really have no hope of ministry, aside from maybe that of a sunday school teacher.

So celibate gays are this, plus they will never have any hope of relationship. We are calling them to a life of isolation, probably with little contact with other church members outside of sunday morning and maybe small group.

Alcoholics and gossips can at least go home to somebody. Gays, we'd probably prefer live and die alone, correct?

So we are asking them to never really live or love in this life, and to have the acceptable trade-off be not going to hell, but they actually get to live hell in this life too.

Thoughts?

[Benjamin Burch]

Doug was mentioning that this isn't about how we accept gays before they come to church, it's what we do with them and require of them once they are in church.

This brings up one of my favorite topics that nobody will deal with: singles.

Singles in the church, in my general experience, are second class citizens. They are people waiting to get married, unless they're widows. We give them their own programs, their own classes, and we regulate them to those groups.

We do not, in general, invite them into our homes. We have difficulty relating to them because they aren't married, and don't have kids. Unless they're leading the singles ministry (and in many traditional churches, only a married couple could lead such a thing) they really have no hope of ministry, aside from maybe that of a sunday school teacher.

So celibate gays are this, plus they will never have any hope of relationship. We are calling them to a life of isolation, probably with little contact with other church members outside of sunday morning and maybe small group.

Alcoholics and gossips can at least go home to somebody. Gays, we'd probably prefer live and die alone, correct?

So we are asking them to never really live or love in this life, and to have the acceptable trade-off be not going to hell, but they actually get to live hell in this life too.

Thoughts?

My thought is that this is a wonderful, wonderful topic which belongs in its own thread.

[Andy Mistak]

Thoughts?

God forgive us.

[Kevin Rector]

We have to deal with the deeply cultural nature of all of this.... and we're back to what Eric has said. We're inconsistent in a way that seems all too convenient. Female ordination was a cultural issue, but homosexuality transcends all that cultural stuff....

Ben, several issues have been brought up in this thread as contrasts to homosexuality to highlight how our hermeneutic isn't consistent. I don't think that this is entirely accurate, I'll just look at a few brought up in the thread:

1. Female authority in the church - While there are passages in scripture that speak to women being "silent" and the like there are alternate passages like Galatians 3:28, that give a counter perspective. In addition there are references to women of authority and leadership in the earliest church. Further Paul does not at any point use language that describes women in leadership or teaching positions as sinful.

2. Slavery - There are certainly passages that describe slavery as an acceptable way of life. These of course must be balanced against passages that directly subvert slavery (The entire book of Philemon for instance).

3. Finally, homosexuality has no passages to "balance" the prohibitions against. There is zero in the scripture to indicate that the prohibitive scriptures should be moderated or mitigated. Finally, the homosexual acts are clearly listed as those things that are unacceptable and that are done by wrongdoers that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

It is not hermeneutic inconsistency, because homosexual acts are not treated by scripture the way these other issues are treated.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't understand why you hold more stubbornly to monogamy than to male-female? If we dismiss the Bible's teachings but still look to it for models, wouldn't the three members of the Trinity also be a model of the most intimate relationship possible? You may say I'm just being facetious or that I'm throwing up red herrings, but please understand that the arguments you and others are making in this thread would have been said to be nowhere on the horizon just a few decades ago (and for a couple of millennia before that).

Interesting that you would open up this kettle of fish. Personally I don't see anything in scripture that speaks against polygamy. Don't get me wrong, I have no interest in that area, not to mention that scripture is clear that the first wife must approve the second. Monogamy isn't valid, sure we prize it in our culture, but the standard is fidelity. ANd of course the standard requires that our helper be suitable in the eyes of God. Suitable as defined by Adam and Eve, as opposed to Adam and Steve.

Back last summer, I spent a few hours with Jorge Barros discussing the difficulties encountered while trying to formulate an international manual. One issue is polygamy. He told me a story of a remote village where the gospel had taken root. The tribal leader was wonderfully converted and couldn't get enough information to match his enthusiasm. His difficulty was that he had seven wives. One day he arrived proudly at the church telling folks that he had obeyed the Lord and divorced six of his wives! Astonished, I said to Jorge, "I hope that someone told him that this wasn't the will of God?" Jorge returned my question with a blank stare, to which I added in the OT laws concerning polygamy and that there was nothing in the NT to disallow it except for ordination and pastoral service. Again a blank stare, and a pair of eyes telling me that there would be no dialog. Tough subject, I understand that, yet no prohibition is found. Here we have strong and clear language regarding homosexual actions.

Sometimes I wonder if sometimes we discuss more about what scripture should say, than we actually just acknowledge what it does say. Some things are pretty clear, this is one of them.

[Scott Sherwood]

One doesn't prove a negative. They prove an affirmative.

The DSM is a very thick argument to the contrary. It does not exist to describe what is healthy but to identify what is not.

Nor was female ordination.

Perhaps not ordination, but there are plenty of instances of female spiritual leadership in Scripture which our forerunners (see Phoebe Palmer's "Promise of the Father.") saw themselves as reclaiming. Of course you are familiar with that argument and more. Perhaps your mention of female ordination was just a red herring.

[Kevin Rector]

I think it's a LOT easier to say that when you have a marriage, intimacy, family, friends, and fulfillment in life. I think it's the right attitude, but if you didn't have those things, or even the hope of having them, it would be much harder.

In fact, I'd argue we make that statement retrospectively... as Andy has suggested.

We only truly make that claim with ease once we've experienced it.

You are both correct. It is vastly easier to speak of surrendering our hopes, dreams, lives, and all else to God once we've done it. For the record, God gave me no peace or fulfillment in my life until I surrendered all to God.

I don't intend with my statements to belittle the struggle that so many go through, but all of us must surrender everything to God - my struggle was very different than those who deal with sexual identity issues, but it was no less a struggle (and I would have to work hard to not be offended if it were intimated otherwise).

I am glad that in retrospect I can say that God has given me more than I ever thought possible once I decided I would live for him rather than for my desires.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben several issues have been brought up in this thread as contrasts to homosexuality to highlight how our hermeneutic isn't consistent. I don't think that this is entirely accurate, I'll just look at a few brought up in the thread:

1. Female authority in the church - While there are passages in scripture that speak to women being "silent" and the like there are alternate passages like Galatians 3:28, that give a counter perspective. In addition there are references to women of authority and leadership in the earliest church. Further Paul does not at any point use language that describes women in leadership or teaching positions as sinful.

2. Slavery - There are certainly passages that describe slavery as an acceptable way of life. These of course must be balanced against passages that directly subvert slavery (The entire book of Philemon for instance).

3. Finally, homosexuality has no passages to "balance" the prohibitions against. There is zero in the scripture to indicate that the prohibitive scriptures should be moderated or mitigated. Finally, the homosexual acts are clearly listed as those things that are unacceptable and that are done by wrongdoers that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

It is not hermeneutic inconsistency, because homosexual acts are not treated by scripture the way these other issues are treated.

:sigh: Which furthers my point that it is cultural within a patriarchal culture.

Which of these 3 issues is the last one to finally make a dent socially? Homosexuality.
Which areas has it struggled the most to make a dent socially? Machismo-Patriarchal systems such as sports.

[Benjamin Burch]

You are both correct. It is vastly easier to speak of surrendering our hopes, dreams, lives, and all else to God once we've done it. For the record, God gave me no peace or fulfillment in my life until I surrendered all to God.

I don't intend with my statements to belittle the struggle that so many go through, but all of us must surrender everything to God - my struggle was very different than those who deal with sexual identity issues, but it was no less a struggle (and I would have to work hard to not be offended if it were intimated otherwise).

I am glad that in retrospect I can say that God has given me more than I ever thought possible once I decided I would live for him rather than for my desires.

You read that wrong. It is easier to suggest that after we've surrendered to God and not had to actually surrender marriage that we can say "you gotta surrender everything else." Of course it's easy to say when you didn't actually have to surrender that specific thing.

[Benjamin Burch]

The DSM is a very thick argument to the contrary. It does not exist to describe what is healthy but to identify what is not.


Perhaps not ordination, but there are plenty of instances of female spiritual leadership in Scripture which our forerunners (see Phoebe Palmer's "Promise of the Father.") saw themselves as reclaiming. Of course you are familiar with that argument and more. Perhaps your mention of female ordination was just a red herring.

Nope, it was serious. You seem to be suggesting that Palmer and others aren't taking liberties with the text. I would suggest - as would the large majority of Christendom - that they were in fact taking liberties with Scripture and interpretation.

This, to me, seems to be the real heart of the issue. It seems that there are some who want desperately to believe they're being 100% faithful to the Scriptures without taking liberties in these cultural issues. Others are far more comfortable saying they have, are, and will continue to take such liberties.

I admit there is more space to take those liberties and a little bit more helpful passages in Scripture with the other issues. I still fail to see how this does not further prove the deeply cultural nature of all of this in the Scriptures.

My church, the Episcopal Church, has a woman as our primate - the highest bishop. This is in direct contradiction to the command in 1 Timothy 2:12. I am incredibly proud of this.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm sorry, Jim. I didn't see Ryan call you a liar, so I'm not seeing how I called you a liar by agreeing with him. I'm sorry you took it that way. I also don't see how this was a sophomoric post. I do see how I probably didn't communicate well, and I apologize for that.

Ryan stated that "no one" was denying God's transforming power. I agree... and I watched the video. For me, that "no one" includes Matthew. I didn't spell that out, so I'm very sorry it came across as meaning something very different. I should have communicated better.

Ryan didn't call me a liar, he had some concerns and I explained them. To simply say that you agree with Ryan after I had clarified is indeed to disregard my communication and call me a liar. The way you explain it here makes sense, so yes you could have communicated this better. Thanks for the further info.

This is quite the side conversation, but I'm sure my credibility has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that some agree with me and some don't. Dan's post in another thread shows this well, as do most of the "thanks" I receive on my posts. My occasional lack of tact and craft have little, if anything to do with it. Some like what I have to say, others don't and are bothered by it. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Your right it is a side conversation and it's one that I'm ready to throw in the towel on. Too tired to add to it, I should have kept quiet, which is why I deleted this after thinking about it.

This is extremely perplexing.... the Church hasn't said that sex on a menstrual cycle is sinful for a long time that I know of (could be wrong). I also know and have known women who wouldn't consider this degrading at all, but instead claim to have a higher sex drive while on their menstrual cycle. In fact, the Scriptural mandate to not practice sex during this time has nothing to do with the woman, her feelings, or anything of the sort. It has to do with (1) the Hebrew's view of "blood" which is consistent throughout the OT and (2) a patriarchal culture's problem with those yucky girl problems.

The restriction itself is degrading to women. Also, the idea that a restriction can be made for a woman despite her feelings on the matter is the height of degradation.

Way too much information. What it all this nonsense about whether the church says it's ok or not. If this is indeed true, then the "church" has got rocks in it's head. Good grief Ben, have some decency here.

You might be correct. However, I would suggest you're psychoanalyzing the argument too much and reading too much into it. Your reading into might be correct, but it is certainly not stated in any way by Matthew.

Yes I'm reading something into it, I realize that. Way too much? No, just a little. Matthew doesn't have to state this, in fact he can't. His choice of argument at the start kind of walls him in.

[Jim Chabot]

And you know what? The exciting news is that God will honor that faithfulness. He can transform what the world sees as a hopeless sad situation into a fulfilling life in Him. I agree with whoever posted that Matthew's view of the world gives no hope unless he gives in to this deep desire he has. He doesn't give God any credit for being able to give him an abundant life without sin.

Exactly right Lorie! And He has!

[Jim Chabot]

We've rarely spoken that way in American Christianity. I agree with you 100%. However, I would counter that Matthew agrees 100% with this. From there, what do we do with our #2 deepest desire?

You're really just pushing the question off, not addressing it on its terms.

Kevin isn't pushing anything off, haven't you seen the tee shirts.

Desire #1 Love the Lord your God with all of your heart.

Desire #2 See above.

That is the way it works, desire #2 comes from desire #1. We trust and we are provided for. As I have said to Lorie, sometimes the answer takes longer than Matthew has been alive, but it comes, He is faithful. Just ask Lazarus, I believe that the Lord was four days late on that one.

[Jim Chabot]

I think it's a LOT easier to say that when you have a marriage, intimacy, family, friends, and fulfillment in life. I think it's the right attitude, but if you didn't have those things, or even the hope of having them, it would be much harder.

Is it easier to say when you have loathed the marriage you are in for twenty years or better. Wishing you were dead at times. Is it easier then? We say it just the same. Matthews hope is misplaced, his view is tragic and he can come to no good end so long as he clings to it.

[Ryan Pugh]

Desire #1 Love the Lord your God with all of your heart.

Desire #2 See above.

And again...

I agree with you 100%. However, I would counter that Matthew agrees 100% with this.

[Jim Chabot]

And again...

No Ryan you have not correctly attributed the quotes. Ben's reference was to #1 alone, perhaps he might agree, you have put words into his mouth that he has not yet spoken.

[Ryan Pugh]

No Ryan you have not correctly attributed the quotes. Ben's reference was to #1 alone, perhaps he might agree, you have put words into his mouth that he has not yet spoken.

I think Ben would agree that for Matthew and others, their desire #2 and beyond is filtered through desire #1. That's what I thought he was expressing.

[Benjamin Burch]

Is it easier to say when you have loathed the marriage you are in for twenty years or better. Wishing you were dead at times. Is it easier then? We say it just the same.

Maybe some do. Most don't, however. Those who loathe a marriage for 20 years just get divorced. 50 years ago your point might have rung true. You and I agree that, unfortunately, it no longer does.

Matthews hope is misplaced, his view is tragic and he can come to no good end so long as he clings to it.

We'll have him in The ECUSA.