Nazarene Ally

[Benjamin Burch]

1 Corinthians 7:8 "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am." That is Paul speaking. Don't know where the idea comes from that he was married at some point in his past.

As Ryan and Jim have pointed out, the language in the passage you refer to easily lends the "remain I unmarried" to reading in reference to widowing.

[Michael Flowers]

As Ryan and Jim have pointed out, the language in the passage you refer to easily lends the "remain I unmarried" to reading in reference to widowing.

Is there a version of Scripture that has translated that as such? (serious question as I am curious)

I just don't think that we can or need to make assumptions about whether Paul was married or not at some point pre-Acts. Also, Scripture points out that Paul was advancing beyond "many Jews of his own age" which lends no real evidence as to his actual age or status within the order of being a Pharisee. When Stephen was stoned Paul stood at a distance with the coats rather than being up front throwing stones, which seems to me something that a minor Pharisee would have done. I will grant that just because Scripture makes no mention of Paul's family life, this does not mean that he did not have one, however, it is fairly clear that from the time before Saul became Paul he did not have a wife (if he ever had one).

[Jim Chabot]

Is there a version of Scripture that has translated that as such? (serious question as I am curious)

Somewhere in my gadding about the world wide interweb, I thought I saw some discussion relative to this, but as per usual I can't seem to find my way back there. I did find this in the NIV marginal notes though, relative to 1 Cor. 7:8 for there we find the statement "as I am."

I just don't think that we can or need to make assumptions about whether Paul was married or not at some point pre-Acts. Also, Scripture points out that Paul was advancing beyond "many Jews of his own age" which lends no real evidence as to his actual age or status within the order of being a Pharisee. When Stephen was stoned Paul stood at a distance with the coats rather than being up front throwing stones, which seems to me something that a minor Pharisee would have done. I will grant that just because Scripture makes no mention of Paul's family life, this does not mean that he did not have one, however, it is fairly clear that from the time before Saul became Paul he did not have a wife (if he ever had one).

I agree, while it's something of interest, there is no solid basis on which to stand. Although, I'm beginning to see where this helps as we read Paul's advice to married people, if true.

I will disagree with you as to the holding of the coats. The picture in my mind, is that of an overseer. The one holding the coats is the fellow in charge directing the work. I'm thinking that the leader would direct the work from a safe position rather than directly engage, similar to a military general or a mobster. The passage does say that "Paul was consenting to his death" and beyond that Paul is given credit as to "entering into every house, and haling men and women committed [them] to prison."

You are right, one thing is clear, Paul did not have a wife during his ministry. And quite possibly never had one.

[Benjamin Burch]

Is there a version of Scripture that has translated that as such? (serious question as I am curious)

Not that I know of. This is no surprise, though, as there are no translations that translate Pistis Crhistou as a subjective Genetive, nor a single translation that I know of which translates Galatians 3:12 correctly. So, I don't worry too much about translations.

[Todd Erickson]

What's interesting to me about our declaration that Paul wasn't married (since he's never around her, etc.) is that the founder of our particular branch of Christianity is based on a man, John Wesley, who only returned home to get his wife pregnant, and is generally agreed to have been an incredibly bad husband, having spent more time engaged with his church and congregation than with his family.

Considering Wesley's example, isn't it entirely possible that Paul operated in much of the same way, and perhaps even considered his wife a burden that he wished to be freed from, but who he knew that he could not be divorced from? Especially if she remained firmly Jewish in religious outlook, rather than Christian...

[Todd Erickson]

Oh I based my assumptions on his blog when he said he was going to quit being anonymous and start using his real name. Then he also said something about GA 2013.

When he responds to his emails in gmail, it shows his real name, or at least the name he's using in his google profile.

[Ian Gentles]

What's interesting to me about our declaration that Paul wasn't married (since he's never around her, etc.) is that the founder of our particular branch of Christianity is based on a man, John Wesley, who only returned home to get his wife pregnant, and is generally agreed to have been an incredibly bad husband, having spent more time engaged with his church and congregation than with his family.

Considering Wesley's example, isn't it entirely possible that Paul operated in much of the same way, and perhaps even considered his wife a burden that he wished to be freed from, but who he knew that he could not be divorced from? Especially if she remained firmly Jewish in religious outlook, rather than Christian...

This was the view I have always prefered.

[Michael Flowers]

I will disagree with you as to the holding of the coats. The picture in my mind, is that of an overseer. The one holding the coats is the fellow in charge directing the work. I'm thinking that the leader would direct the work from a safe position rather than directly engage, similar to a military general or a mobster. The passage does say that "Paul was consenting to his death" and beyond that Paul is given credit as to "entering into every house, and haling men and women committed [them] to prison."

Yes, but Saul had to get permission to do the hauling to prison. The coats are probably anyone's guess for the most part. Ultimately these issues have no impact upon my own faith. I still know that God transformed Saul into a servant ready to do His will. I desire that God would do the same for all of us.

Thanks for the civil dialogue (even if we don't exactly agree).

[Jim Chabot]

What's interesting to me about our declaration that Paul wasn't married (since he's never around her, etc.) is that the founder of our particular branch of Christianity is based on a man, John Wesley, who only returned home to get his wife pregnant, and is generally agreed to have been an incredibly bad husband, having spent more time engaged with his church and congregation than with his family.

Considering Wesley's example, isn't it entirely possible that Paul operated in much of the same way, and perhaps even considered his wife a burden that he wished to be freed from, but who he knew that he could not be divorced from? Especially if she remained firmly Jewish in religious outlook, rather than Christian...

Wow! To speak of Wesley and Paul in the same breath seems almost like blasphemy. Just because Wesley was an absolute and total jerk, is no reason to think that Paul might be so inclined. While I can surely appreciate Wesley's writing and theology, he was most assuredly unqualified for ministry. When I think on how he treated his wife, I find myself wondering why no one ever too him out to the woodshed.

Paul rightly observed that Marriage and family comes before ministry, Wesley would have done well to heed Paul's advice and actually treat his wife with the love and honor that God commands. But to sully Paul's good name with a comparison to Wesley is just plain wrong. Paul was personally chosen by Christ who knows the heart, Wesley was just a punk by comparison.

Sorry for the rant, I tend to get real exercised about Wesley's treatment of his wife.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes, but Saul had to get permission to do the hauling to prison. The coats are probably anyone's guess for the most part. Ultimately these issues have no impact upon my own faith. I still know that God transformed Saul into a servant ready to do His will. I desire that God would do the same for all of us.

Thanks for the civil dialogue (even if we don't exactly agree).

Well it appears that we do agree on what actually matters. Whether Paul was the boss or the lackey makes no difference to me regarding the caper concerning carrying coats. And whether he was a bachelor or widower causes me no real regard either.

[Billy Cox]

Well it appears that we do agree on what actually matters. Whether Paul was the boss or the lackey makes no difference to me regarding the caper concerning carrying coats. And whether he was a bachelor or widower causes me no real regard either.

What if Paul was a divorcee? Or do we have a term to describe those who abandon their spouse?

[Michael Flowers]

What if Paul was a divorcee? Or do we have a term to describe those who abandon their spouse?

Then I think that might cause some issues with some of his writings.

[Bob Hunter]

The Nazarene Ally group will be pleased with Brian McLaren's latest blog entry: http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blo...bout-your.html

As usual, McLaren's rhetoric can make unenlightened folk feel a bit foolish and slow on the uptake. Nonetheless, he is right in regards to how the evangelical position has evolved, but I think he underestimates the amount of thought given to the subject. Many thoughtful Christians have wrestled with the issue and come to a different conclusion than McLaren. I certainly do not think it is Biblically improbable or unloving to reject the homosexual lifestyle. I think our opposition has to be responsible and loving, at least I'm committed to that end.

[Hans Deventer]

What if Paul was a divorcee? Or do we have a term to describe those who abandon their spouse?

Like Peter? It seems Jesus called his disciples to leave everything behind, including parents, spouse, job, you name it.

[Marsha Lynn]

I can remember the joke from my childhood (which shows I have an incredibly lonnnng memory) that said proof that Paul was married was found in the text that said, "and when the uproar had ceased, we let her drive".

Of course this was often told along with the one about tennis being in the Bible because Moses 'served' in Pharaoh"s (sp?) court". (Yeah, you had to be there)

And the Honda in Acts 2 (when they were all together in one Accord)?

Oh, the jokes we lost when we gave up the good old KJV! But we still have that one guy with no father -- oh, yes, it was Joshua (son of Nun).

[John Kennedy]

And the Honda in Acts 2 (when they were all in one place in one Accord)?

Oh, the jokes we lost when we gave up the good old KJV! But we still have that one guy with no father -- oh, yes, it was Joshua (son of Nun).

Well, the joke preceded the Honda.

Marsha, you are truly evil!

[Ian Gentles]

And the Honda in Acts 2 (when they were all together in one Accord)?

Oh, the jokes we lost when we gave up the good old KJV! But we still have that one guy with no father -- oh, yes, it was Joshua (son of Nun).

British joke....In London they have a beer named "Courage" a brewery. So folks say Paul drank, cause when he got to the "three taverns", "He took courage."

[Greg Crofford]

I've appreciated the discussion on this thread, particularly those who noted that we are an international church. That will play a large factor in how this plays out, as Africa is staunchly traditionalist.

The UMC has had this dance before, and Africa has kept them orthodox on this issue, to the frustration of some but the delight of others in that denomination. Tim Tennent, President of Asbury Seminary, also weighed in on this recently. Though Tim is UMC, his essay is (I believe) a pretty accurate reflection of where the vast majority of the constituency of the CoTN stands on this issue.

As for Nazarene Ally: This individual, who also goes by the pseudonym "Neal Zachary," posted a response to one of my weblog posts on women in ministry. You can read what he said and how I responded.

For what it's worth,

Greg

[Ryan Scott]

Many thoughtful Christians have wrestled with the issue and come to a different conclusion than McLaren. I certainly do not think it is Biblically improbable or unloving to reject the homosexual lifestyle. I think our opposition has to be responsible and loving, at least I'm committed to that end.

I think great care also has to be given to avoid vilifying or condemning thoughtful Christians who have addressed scripture and come to different conclusion.

[Rich Schmidt]

I've appreciated the discussion on this thread, particularly those who noted that we are an international church. That will play a large factor in how this plays out, as Africa is staunchly traditionalist.

The UMC has had this dance before, and Africa has kept them orthodox on this issue, to the frustration of some but the delight of others in that denomination. Tim Tennent, President of Asbury Seminary, also weighed in on this recently. Though Tim is UMC, his essay is (I believe) a pretty accurate reflection of where the vast majority of the constituency of the CoTN stands on this issue.

As for Nazarene Ally: This individual, who also goes by the pseudonym "Neal Zachary," posted a response to one of my weblog posts on women in ministry. You can read what he said and how I responded.

For what it's worth,

Greg

Thanks for both links & the resources found there! I was going to say more.... but I think I'll hold onto it for a bit.

[Hans Deventer]

As for Nazarene Ally: This individual, who also goes by the pseudonym "Neal Zachary," posted a response to one of my weblog posts on women in ministry. You can read what he said and how I responded.

For what it's worth,

Greg

Greg, I don't think you've really addressed his question yet. The CotN has traditionally defended the right of women to be appointed to all offices in the church. The rationale for that is mostly based on the basic principle of the gospel, we understand we have to overrule some other texts. I agree with that approach.

But the question then becomes, why don't we do that regarding this specific topic? That's a good question and I think it warrants a pretty thorough answer, not so much explaining why homosexual praxis is sin, as explaining why we refuse to let for instance the command to love overrule the texts that point in another direction, as in the case of the role of women in the church. So the question is more in the area of hermeneutics, as I understand it.

[Greg Crofford]

Hello Hans -

If you read the link from the Messianic Rabbi, that's really his point about understanding the historical setting of the proof-texts used against women in ministry. When you understand the context, the confusion is cleared up, and it's really not teaching what (at first) it seems to be teaching. In short, there was no universal prohibition intended when Paul advises that disruptive women in a specific congregation "keep silence" in the church.

On the other hand, as I've attempted to argue in my response to Nazarene Ally, Scripture does lay down universal principles in the area of humans sexuality that are not time or culture bound. In fact, the command to love includes modeling adherence to those guidelines as a practical demonstration of our love of God and neighbor.

Gotta run!

[Hans Deventer]

If you read the link from the Messianic Rabbi, that's really his point about understanding the historical setting of the proof-texts used against women in ministry. When you understand the context, the confusion is cleared up, and it's really not teaching what (at first) it seems to be teaching. In short, there was no universal prohibition intended when Paul advises that disruptive women in a specific congregation "keep silence" in the church.

Greg, there's no need to convince me regarding the role of women , but perhaps you can agree that the major part of Christianity reads these texts differently. And they too argue that the Scriptures lay down universal principles (I disagree, but the fact remains). So that's where we find ourselves.

One of the toughest decisions in interpreting the Scriptures is deciding what is time or culture bound, and what is not. If we make mistakes there, the results can be terrible (in both directions). But I'll check out the link.

[Peggy Gray]

One of the toughest decisions in interpreting the Scriptures is deciding what is time or culture bound, and what is not. If we make mistakes there, the results can be terrible (in both directions)

I've probably asked a thousand times during my 40 years in the faith, "How do you know which things are for 'that time' and which things are for 'all time'?" I've yet to hear an answer that truly satisfied my heart.

Feel free to start a thread explaining this.

[Hans Deventer]

I've probably asked a thousand times during my 40 years in the faith, "How do you know which things are for 'that time' and which things are for 'all time'?" I've yet to hear an answer that truly satisfied my heart.

Feel free to start a thread explaining this.

I can't, Peggy. I just know some things are clearly time bound and others are not. I will not fall for the lure to declare everything timeless, or everything time bound. We just have to get our hands dirty and make decisions. Hopefully in the line of the One who told us: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago....... But I tell you ........"

I guess at the end of the day the important thing is to get together as Christians and make a decision and live accordingly. Which means we have churches supporting the right of women to preach, and those who don't. Etc etc etc. And if you can't live with a decision, join those who see it differently as well rather than fight a war over it. Of one thing I am sure, THAT is not what Jesus wants us to do. So the example of the Episcopal Church and the split is a good one. Sad, but very preferable to killing off one another.

[Todd Erickson]

I was talking to "Neal" yesterday, and he was troubled by the idea that the only people really responding to him are people who disagree with him...the folks who agree with him tend to stay silent, because they don't want trouble, or to be publically identified as supporting him and asked to leave the church. Though he's certainly getting enough response from folks who have already left the church.

[Marsha Lynn]

On the other hand, as I've attempted to argue in my response to Nazarene Ally, Scripture does lay down universal principles in the area of humans sexuality that are not time or culture bound. In fact, the command to love includes modeling adherence to those guidelines as a practical demonstration of our love of God and neighbor.

I think the universal principle is to "avoid sexual immorality," however, Scripture doesn't spend a lot of time defining what that is. Having multiple wives doesn't seem to fit the definition, although adultery is clearly prohibited. No prohibition of homosexuality includes a definition of the term. Was there any concept in Hebrew or Greek society of a loving, long-term, committed, same-sex union?

Even if we believe that same-sex attraction is a form of brokenness, we still have to deal with the reality that many have spent a lifetime trying to find their way out of that brokenness without success. The Bible has absolutely nothing to say about such struggles. What do we give up when we tell them that every form of sexual expression is wrong for them and refuse to recognize the value of commitment to a long-term monogamous relationship?

It's interesting that in another thread we are discussing "degrees of sin." One can easily gather from studying our society that abortion and homosexuality are seen as the worst of sins. And we don't at all distinguish between the "swinging" homosexual lifestyle that includes obvious sexual immorality and a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship. When we equate the two, we lose all opportunity to guide those dealing with SSA into a life of love for God and others apart from denying their sexuality.

Marsha

[Bob Hunter]

I think great care also has to be given to avoid vilifying or condemning thoughtful Christians who have addressed scripture and come to different conclusion.

The vilifying acts are not necessary, I agree. But some will self victimize no matter how thoughtful and gentle your words. If disagreement is equated with condemnation, then we're in trouble.

Also, we have to be mindful that as long as pro-creation is necessary for human survival, there will always be a sense in which male/female relations are the standard for all human relations. I could get into the argument for natural design, but that just makes me the bad guy because the pro-gay folks cry foul and claim they are being marginalized. But that is not something I apologize for. They have to take that issue up with God who created male and female one for another. And since we believe the scriptures are inspired, that is going to make for some very interesting discussions. We cannot escape the fact that Heteronormalcy is celebrated in scripture and Homosexuality is loudly condemned in all of scripture. And where scripture is silent on the issue, there are some really creative imaginations. It seems like principles of interpretation are being created on a daily basis to support the pro-gay agenda. I recently, heard someone argue for a hermeneutic of hospitality to support gay acceptance in the Church. That was a new one for me.

[Todd Erickson]

If your group says "no, we disagree, what you are is a terrible sin and you are going to hell" it's difficult to see how that isn't condemnation. Better to simply be honest that your group condemns that group, and live with it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Hello Hans -

If you read the link from the Messianic Rabbi, that's really his point about understanding the historical setting of the proof-texts used against women in ministry. When you understand the context, the confusion is cleared up, and it's really not teaching what (at first) it seems to be teaching. In short, there was no universal prohibition intended when Paul advises that disruptive women in a specific congregation "keep silence" in the church.

On the other hand, as I've attempted to argue in my response to Nazarene Ally, Scripture does lay down universal principles in the area of humans sexuality that are not time or culture bound. In fact, the command to love includes modeling adherence to those guidelines as a practical demonstration of our love of God and neighbor.

Gotta run!

Are you sure? Sure that for the one was non-universal but for the other it wasn't? There is a body of scholarship that would disagree.

[Kevin Rector]

If your group says "no, we disagree, what you are is a terrible sin and you are going to hell" it's difficult to see how that isn't condemnation. Better to simply be honest that your group condemns that group, and live with it.

Yeah, but that's not what our group says (at least officially). The COTN clearly says in the pastoral letter from the BOGS that the person is not a sin and the attraction is not a sin. That is clearly not condemnation of the person, never the less, some will view it that way. There are some (maybe even many) who take positions beyond what the church takes, that do have condemning spirits and that is wrong and God will deal with them as God sees fit.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yeah, but that's not what our group says (at least officially). The COTN clearly says in the pastoral letter from the BOGS that the person is not a sin and the attraction is not a sin. That is clearly not condemnation of the person, never the less, some will view it that way. There are some (maybe even many) who take positions beyond what the church takes, that do have condemning spirits and that is wrong and God will deal with them as God sees fit.

This is true, but it doesn't seem that the ideas expressed in the pastoral letter are reaching the people in the pews. There are those here that would say that they are all on board with the BOGS statement but when push comes to shove really aren't and do condemn the orientation.

[Kevin Rector]

This is true, but it doesn't seem that the ideas expressed in the pastoral letter are reaching the people in the pews. There are those here that would say that they are all on board with the BOGS statement but when push comes to shove really aren't and do condemn the orientation.

Well, I can't speak for all the churches in our denomination, but I know that I have said in very clear and unambiguous language from the pulpit of my church that same sex attraction is a temptation it is not a sin.

Edited to Add: Every group has official positions and then the positions held by it's members that are contrary to the groups stated positions. There's little to be done about that as those sorts of changes often take generations to take root in the rank and file.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Well, I can't speak for all the churches in our denomination, but I know that I have said in very clear and unambiguous language from the pulpit of my church that same sex attraction is a temptation it is not a sin.

Edited to Add: Every group has official positions and then the positions held by it's members that are contrary to the groups stated positions. There's little to be done about that as those sorts of changes often take generations to take root in the rank and file.

You are right, Kevin, it will take time and pastors such as yourself who do communicate the BOGS statement to their congregations and don't shy away from the hard conversations. There may well always be groups within the larger group who will not get on board. The UMC has been struggling with this for over 30 years now and we aren't there yet.

[Todd Erickson]

Kevin, what identity does the homosexual who wishes to remain within the Church of the nazarene need to take on within the current statement? what do they need to hide under this statement? What Support should they be able to look for or ask for? Are they better off just leaving the church, on the whole, no matter what the doctrinal statement says?

[Greg Crofford]

Perhaps we would agree, Marsha, that the Scripture does not spend a "lot" of time defining sexual immorality. However, it does spend sufficient time. I prefer to spend my effort, however, addressing not what is the "forbidden fruit" (which in the Garden of Eden was, after all, just one tree). It's better, is it not, to focus on what God has permitted? The joys of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage make up those other "trees."

The argument of a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship doesn't carry a lot of water, in my mind, simply because it doesn't fit the prescription of what God lays down for sexual expression. (Non-sexual, same-sex friendships, on the other hand, are lauded in Scripture -- see David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi). If God had intended to sanction same-sex sexuality as equal with heterosexual marriage, surely he would have blessed it overtly, making it clear that these relationships do not fall under the general condemnation of same-sex sexual activity given elsewhere in Scripture.

[Bob Hunter]

I would just make a general observation with regard to those who struggle with same sex attraction and want to remain in the Church. They are like the rest of us who struggle with passions, desires and behaviors that are potentially a liability. For example, I was a part of leading a men's anger group at my former Church. We had several men in attendance that came with a history of flying into a tyrate over the smallest of issues and straining relationships at work, at home and Church. There are also men and women who struggle with impulse control and materialism. And then there are some who struggle with substance abuse and addictions. I don't know as any of the guys I worked with in anger recovery felt completely healed and set free at the end of the class. In fact, we did not want them to declare themselves healed. We wanted them to realize it was a life long battle and overcoming it was a never ending process.

I'm not trying to categorize sins here. I simply trying to say, people have issues! We all live with a certain amount of tension and contradiction in our lives (Romans 7). I see no reason why a person who struggles with same sex attraction can't find a place to belong in the Church of the Nazarene. We simply ask them to refrain from the lifestyle if they want to be members and serve. If they don't see the value of doing that then they are certainly welcome to go elsewhere.

[Rich Schmidt]

Kevin, what identity does the homosexual who wishes to remain within the Church of the nazarene need to take on within the current statement? what do they need to hide under this statement? What Support should they be able to look for or ask for? Are they better off just leaving the church, on the whole, no matter what the doctrinal statement says?

I would say essentially what Bob said:

They are like the rest of us who struggle with passions, desires and behaviors that are potentially a liability. ... [examples of people with anger issues, materialism issues, etc.] ...

I'm not trying to categorize sins here. I simply trying to say, people have issues! We all live with a certain amount of tension and contradiction in our lives (Romans 7). I see no reason why a person who struggles with same sex attraction can't find a place to belong in the Church of the Nazarene. We simply ask them to refrain from the lifestyle if they want to be members and serve.

I don't think they need to hide anything at all. Just like the rest of us, they should be honest about their struggles... which requires all of us to be gracious, kind, gentle, patient, encouraging, etc. I'll need them to be gracious with me & supportive of me, just like they'll need me to be gracious & supportive. Their identity is the same as the rest of us: a child of God, loved by God, living in a broken world in hope of God's ultimate restoration of all things.

[Ryan Scott]

And where scripture is silent on the issue, there are some really creative imaginations. It seems like principles of interpretation are being created on a daily basis to support the pro-gay agenda.

See, this is an example where we need to be careful. I fully agree with you that there are those out there who begin with a conclusion and look for ways to justify it - not just on issues of sexuality, but all over the board. At the same time, there are serious scholars who have done the theological, exegetical, interpretive, and prayerful work necessary to reach proper conclusions - and have concluded differently.

I've said before, in my own attempts to take seriously the issue, it boils down to one questions for me: Can same-sex marriages reflect God's love and faithfulness in the same way heterosexual marriages can?

I genuinely have no leaning one way or the other. I can see equal reasoning for a responsible answer of either "yes" or "no." I am grateful that I am accountable to a larger community and that I don't have to make such decisions on my own.

I can respect those in each camp who believe their answer to the question is the correct one; I just can't handle either side denigrating the other because of this difference.

It's too easy for us to write off sincere Christ-seekers as either fundamentalist homophobes or pro-gay propagandists. Both of those groups exist in large numbers - but we can't allow them to dictate our responses.

[Todd Erickson]

I keep coming back to this. People will say "being gay in the church is like being an alcoholic" or "being somebody who deals with rage..." or whatever.

But all of those people, unless they've been sentenced to life in prison or something, get a chance to fall in love and get married.

Being gay is like having that thing, and also never getting to act on love, never getting to get married, always having to live alone. So what do we tell the gay person about that? That's what leads me to ask, should gay people just quit the church, period, since their whole attraction is getting written off as a horomonal issue?