Christianity v. fundamentalism

Andrew is a fascinating charactor. He does not like the fundies because of their "certainty" and "their desire to control other peoples lives". Yet he claims to belong to a religious denomination that exhibits both these features.
He is an active gay, hardly a popular role with any Christian group and anathema to most of them.He might as well claim vegetarianism and lunch at Macdonalds every day.
I read his online debate with Sam Harris where Andrew tried valiantly to square all these circles but failed miserably and I could'nt help feeling that deep down he knows that he cannot keep on reconciling his feelings with his stated beliefs in God/Religion.He is essentially a Humanist and I think that eventually he will discover that is the world view he is most comfortable with.

This is not a facetious question, but are you gay Will? I only ask because it is so relevant to many of the ethical questions that arise on this blog.
If you don't wish to answer this question, thats perfectly understanable and I will not ask it again.

Now, don't just make hints ND, just say what you really mean (-;

I agree Sullivan is fascinating. It's only on a superficial level that his beliefs seem to be contradictory; I identify with much of his out-of-the-pigeonhole thinking, and just because he doesn't fit neatly within a label doesn't mean he doesn't make sense (in fact it's an asset). Yes, markets are flawed, but they're the best system in theory and in practice and they should be as free as possible. On many of these things we concur. He's also a role model as far as taking the initiative in new media; I'm sure William would agree.

From the views he expresses, the description 'conservative Christian' doesen't seem to fit.

If he can reject the clear teaching of Scripture so lightly, in what sense is he a 'conservative Christian'?

Just because Sullivan is gay, some here think every article about him must be gay-themed. Typical steroryping. Sullivan is an important social commentator in politics, society and religion, and he deserves to be taken more seriously.

Nobledee, I too have wondered why W&T consistently posts on homosexual matters in comparison to any other one issue.

////////////////////////


Can we define "Christianity" and "fundamentalism" here?


Contemporary liberals consistently rail at beliefs which are nothing more than traditional orthodox Christianity, blasting them as "fundamentalist".

Christian fundamentalis is an American development from the start of the last century.

Some of its characteristics are that it rejects wholesale academic study and social action, for example. Typically it is also teetotal and KJV only, and with strong sympathies with theocracy and a withdrawal from the "secular" world.

But may branches of Christian faith have lots of "certainty" without holding to any of these values in this manner.

Dont self-indentifying "evangelical" or "conservative" Christians hold that "certainty" is a real part of their faiths too?

Are we really now so post-modern and so "tolerant" that is officially sinful to be "certain" about something?

Hogwash.

In reality, what you have here are savvy liberals trying to marginalise traditional and orthodox Christian views by smearing them as "fundamentalist".

Complete nonsense.

I have raised the point on W&T several times before, to no avail.

I think it is rather sloppy thinking, especially considering the care we are taking here with the use of the term "absolutely".

;-)

nobledeebee

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of your question at all.

OT

I know this could be a bit of a hornet's nest I'm opening, but what exactly is it you are certain about, and how can you be sure?

I'm sure not certain about me.

Well said Peter! The question is presumptuous and utterly irrelevant.

As to certainty: I think that in Christ we see the fullness of the relevance of God to man perfectly embodied, I know that I am completed and complete in Him.

Well, Mr Crawley, the bloodhounds are after you now.

They smell victory. The slightest indication you may give that you might be gay, and that includes not answering them, will be held against you. It will be proof to OT that this blog site is loaded.

Dont dare answer 'em one way or the other. It is irrelevant.

This thread is actually about Christianity versus fundamentalism, OT, but you're 'straight' in with the gay thing immediately.
Yet again.

I have to say, I think you go over the top with that, OT.

I don't see how this is a "homosexual" issue....Neither do I see a dominance of such issues on this blog.

Your repeated complaints that everything is about homosexuality do seem to compromise your integrity a little.

Guys, its totally irrelevant what anyones sexual identity/preference is. Romejellybean is spot on.

Hi folks, I seem to have opened a can of worms here which I did'nt mean to. I'd forgotten that there were people on the blog who have there own issues with other peoples sexuality. I don't have any, however, if a man like Andrew Sullivan claims to be a Roman Catholic, bearing in mind the churches clearly stated positions on human sexuality, then I think the fact that he is an active gay is very relevant. How could it not be? That is what prompted me to pop the question to William, nothing sinister, no hidden agendas, and I am quite satisfied if he does'nt want to answer it because outside of the religious issues involved it is totally his own business!

pastorphilip asks "In what sense is" Andrew Sullivan "a conservative Christian?"

He's Christian by virtue of what he believes about God and Jesus Christ. He's conservative by virtue of his political views - low taxation, etc. And he's gay by virtue of being attracted to people of the same gender. I'm not sure any of those are contradictory, are they?

hmmm.


quite an amazingly animalistic reaction there. I wonder why?


It is all the more amazing because.... if you read my post again you will see that I did not comment ***AT ALL*** on the question raised by Nobledee about the sexuality of an individual.



I did not think it appropriate for me to comment on.


I simply commented on the dispportionate number of stories on this blog that have seuxality theme.


I am not the only person to have raised THIS question before on this blog.


An noticeably, the substantive issues i raised were completely ignored. Hmmm


But perhaps a more revealing question to discuss is....


Why did I get condemned for a questioned asked by Nobledee....... and Nobledee alone???


Anyone care to answer that question?

;-)

OT

BTW RJB

calm down.

the proof that the W&T blog is loaded is the in the proportion of entries that relate to sexuality.

no drama.

no frothing at the mouth.

no probing personal questions ( I didnt ask any).

statistics.

OT

BTW PM

I do get the sense you are quite nervous about discussing your views on sexuality.

Maybe I am completely wrong, perhaps you can clarify?

OT

And, OT, I get the impression that you are quite determined to push me on the issue.

Now, what is it you need to know, and why do you need to know it?

PM...

are you determined to push me on what I am certain about?

seems strange coming from you, as you seem very certain about your faith, I mean that as a compliment.


I dont need to know anything - I was just asking if you were nervous about speaking your mind on the issue.

..sint it interesting that Nobledee is as far as you could get in his viewpoint compared to mine and yet objectively noticed the same thing about the sexuality bias on the W&T blog?


NDee - dont let them intimidate you, the stats dont lie you are quite right about the bias.


what you have here is a wave of politically correct thought policing attempting to bully you into silence.

how tolerant.

OT, Ye Great Conspirator.

This blog reflects the interests of a man. That man is interested in some topics more than others. One of those topics is ethics, and one kind of ethics is sexual ethics. There is no greater mystery than that. In other words, the reason sexuality is discussed frequently on this blog is that the author of this blog is quite interested in sexual ethics!

What about that prompts you to allege some greater conspiracy, and what greater conspiracy are you alleging anyway?

John Wright

You are a funny chap.

You have written more about BBC bias than any other blogger on this site.

And its all recorded on your own blog!!

:-D

The BBC is funded with my money and I am entitled to comment on any flaws I perceive in it.

As a matter of record, it appears that half the English speaking world (?) have a similar view to you about its bias BTW.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bbc+bias&meta=&aq=f&oq=

OT


OT

Oh my FSM Orthodox-tradition/pb,

Every time you try to hold up sources in support of your narrow view it is so lacking in credibility. Links from AiG, quote mining, making up quotes out thin all, claiming peer reviewed scientific literature to support your views when all you have is some wikipedia links. And now a Google search for two words is supposed to count?!

Oh I agree with you about the absurdity of describing the BBC as 'impartial'; it's left-wing, for sure.

But a BBC blog is just a blog, after all. It reflects the opinions of its author and I know Will doesn't come under any pressure from anyone at the Beeb about what he should blog about. He just blogs about what he's interested in, and I do too.

(BTW there are a lot of articles on sexuality on my own blog - check out this category for examples. Some of them even relate to homosexuality, but it isn't because I'm gay!)

BTW, please do not direct any further comments to me about the sexuality of any individual;-

I have not, did not and will not be querying such information.

I was commenting on the apparent bias in this blog ref sexuality, which I understand is produced by a team and not an individual.

OT

OT

How do I answer this? To be honest it is this, my answer to you, which has and is causing me more of a dilemma than anything else I have written about.

First on certainty, I have no desire to push you on this at all, you raised the issue on this thread, and on the Religion 101 thread, saying 'certainty' is the new sin, referring us here, and then here you said, "Are we really now so post-modern and so "tolerant" that is officially sinful to be "certain" about something?" and making the point that 'fundamentalism' needs to be defined. In some ways I can agree with you, it certainly(!) seems to be the case that if something is to be dismissed as 'wrong' it is called 'fundamentalist'. It has become something of a catch all, a way of saying, "Whatever I am, I'm not that!'

I suppose what I could say is that in some way or another we're all 'fundamentalist' about something, of course it all depends on the way the word is being used.

You went on to suggest that there is a view that to be 'certain' is to be sinful, suggesting that, "self-identifying "evangelical" or "conservative" Christians hold that "certainty" is a real part of their faiths", and it was this latter point I was interested in, maybe I should have made that clearer, sorry. But on that point, it's not simply a matter of Christians being 'certain' and others 'tolerant', for the meaning of those words can be debated too.

For example am I certain about my faith, my ability to believe, no, we could discuss this, I do not consider this 'self-doubt' to be contradictory to biblical faith, indeed it could be that self-doubt is central to Christian faith. Am I certain of my repentance, no, my everyday attitudes alone would tell you or me that, we could discuss this. This is what I had in mind when I asked you about certainty in the context of Christianity. But no I have no wish to push you.

On the issue of me discussing sexuality though I'm just not sure why you've asked me, twice now. Last time, in the context of counseling I tried to explain that my reluctance to comment was related to my experience, or more precisely, my lack of experience of the counseling field. You appear however to have understood this as reluctance to discuss sexuality, no this is not the case.

Now you have asked me about it again on this thread, and I don't know why, all I said here was that I thought Nobledeebee asked an irrelevant question, I still think it's irrelevant. I mean, what has anyone's sexual identity got to do with any of us here, what, for that matter, has William's reasons for blogging about a particular topic got to do with any of us here, for example if he writes about something I'm not interested in I just ignore it, more to the point, most of my contributions are a response to other bloggers comments, not William's primarily.

OT my views on sexuality follow the traditional Christian family, husband, wife and hopefully kids, I've said this already, but I do not happen to think that anyone's sexual identity is a matter for me, it is their business and theirs alone. From my point of view Nobledeebee was out of line with his question, I said what I thought, and here's something else I think, even though I view sexuality in tradition Christian terms, I will not and do not allow another's sexuality orientation to affect how I treat them or speak of them. And frankly it seems to me that there are far too many Christians going out of their way to give the gay community a hard time. Just to be clear though I'm not accusing you of that.

OT

I've read this thread over and over and I'm exasperrated, but not in a hostile way.

I am in no doubt that you are a Pharisee, a modern day one. I can discount your arguments, but for some reason, I cant discount you.

It struck me during Holy Week that there was a good Pharisee. A genuinely good man who was frightened but went to Jesus in the middle of the night.

I also thought of the Pharisee at the Synagogue whose prayer was - Thank you God that I'm not greedy and grasping like that tax collector over there.

The tax collector simply bowed his head and said - Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.

What I admire about homosexual men is that, for the most part, I have found them to have the attitude of the tax collector.

There are some horrible ones though.

I think you are a Pharisee, but maybe the type that would go to Jesus in the middle of the night - not a horrible one.
You certainly get ten out of ten for misguided effort in my book.

RJB...

I was going to be sarcastic and say "thanks very much for identifying the pharisee"

But come on...

We're all pharisee...but we try our best.

I don't think categorising people has any real value did in in the time of christ.

Faults are universal

Of course, that should read..." don't think categorising people has any real value ....nor did it in the time of Christ"

What I mean is...that it's easy to find faults... quite simply.

And, as you know, it really is

Although I'm realising that I'm replying to this thread without properly realising what kind of discussion has gone on...to be honest, I didn't read the whole way down.

OT...I don't see this particualr issue as being in any way related to homosexuality as it has a thesitic implication.

I honestly don't think that this blogger in question (although I'm not sure how many of us read his blog) raised issues particularly sexual...

I'm all for debating sexuality in a rational, moral, and even in a theistic framework...

I just don't think there's much value in making it an issue where the people concerned are resistant to such an issue. Depeche mode said it...people are people...so why should it be

Bernard, whatever you were on last night - I'll have some of that!

Interesting post RJB - I find myself, as JC would say, strangely drawn to OT. In a strictly philadelphian sense of-course - in the interest of clarity, no erotic charge whatsoever.

RJB

Pharisees, mmmm.

As I understand it each of us are either irreligious and running from God, or religious and running from God, if I'm right, I'd be in the latter category, the fact that I happen to tag myself 'religious' makes not a button of difference.

Hi again guys

I am sort of coming to the conclusion that I am failing to communicate my primary message here so I am going to change tack.


Please let me play the role of a young committed Christian man with SSA who has been following SS and W&T....


[curtain opens]


"Peter, RJB, Portwyne...

I am interested in your advice. I am a 19 year-old man who has asked Christ to be my Lord and Saviour some years ago by the Holy Spirit.

I have increasingly strong SSA urges and I am not sure what to do.

When I read the New Testament passages on the matter the plain reading seems to say that this sort of action is forbidden to me. I believe the bible is the word of God.

On the other hand I hear many church leaders and theological experts on SS & W&T who seem to say that this is a mistaken and out of date interpretation of these passages. They seem to say that SSA is natural and that this is the way that God has made me, that I should embrace it and be happy as a person.

"The traditional reading of the New Testament seems to say that acting out SSA will disqualify me from the kingdom of heaven. And there are also many Christians who say that they have got rid of their SSA removed and have gone on to have families.

"What should I do to keep right with God and live a life that is holy, loving and pleasing to him? I am so confused and I feel there are crucial issues at stake here for me but I don't know who to trust or which is the right path.

"What advice can you give?"


Sincerely
Benny

OT

Most Saturdays in Belfast the youth leader walks passed the homeless on the street and gives them nothing. After a couple of lattes he purchases a copy of the latest, 'How to be a Cool and Groovy Disciple of Jesus' magazine. This magazine is published bi-weekly, it costs 4.95 a copy.

An elder's unmarried daughter bought condoms last week from the local chemist. Next week she is going on holiday with her boyfriend.

Mrs , a deacon's wife has tendency to gossip, she calls it the prayer list.

Mr , a 48 year old single man, who lifts the offering every week, spends most evenings reading 'top shelf' magazines.

A pastor of a medium sized congregation, say 350 people, is addicted to prescription drugs and it has led him to steal the odd 'blister strip' while completing his pastoral visits, indeed one particular church member tends to have slightly more regular visits than all the rest.

The co-ordinator of the 'Senior Fellowship' hasn't spoken to his wife in three weeks. Each evening when he comes home from work, he gives her the 'cold shoulder', eats his tea alone and refuses to help wash up.

Miss , sings in the praise band, she's pretty, she has an MA and she sings well, actually, she sings like an angel, but she's a nasty vindictive cow, everybody knows she is, but they smile anyway.

This Sunday they will all be offering one another a 'welcome' greeting in the pew, be taking communion, loving Jesus and dedicating themselves to the life and witness of the church.

Your thoughts.

Thanks Peter

You have obviously taken some trouble with your response but I am not sure of your point.

I would have been orderly to give some sort of directish answer, IMHO.

It would appear that you are suggesting that Benny and every other member of the congregation you mention is flawed and we should not single anyone out for "criticism".

If this is the case or it is similar, you are, again, totally missing my point.

My point is that the BBC's stated aim with our hard earned taxes is to "inform educate and entertain".

I am not in any way inviting anyone to offer any harsh judgement or criticism of Benny.

My point is that there is an obligation on SS & W&T to accurately "inform and educate" people on the causes of SSA and the effectiveness of methods which many people feel have helped them.

People in Benny's shoes deserve to be fully informed and not fed a lop sided view on such matters, I suggest.

I do not believe in "condemning" people corporately or individually because I believe the gospel is about both impressing the universal need of and universal offer of redemption.


If you feel unable to make a clear sound on this matter, I fully understand and respect this.

But I would ask if you are really comfortable to be seen to be arguing against those who do.


I suggest that SS nor W&T take a consistent editoral line in arguing that any of the other sins you list are not sins at all.


OT

OT

I answered your question the way I did precisely because I do not wish to single any one member of the church out from another and also because I thought you were getting at how we in the church might go about communicating with one another. 'Benny' in your scenario is quite clearly an evangelical christian, I responded within those terms. From my point of view it was a direct and necessary answer, and one which you appear to have pretty much understood.

It is now clear to me though that your concern is with the content of this web site, Sunday Sequence and the aims of the BBC. Well, OT, I guess that this is where you and I might have a different take on the subject. So how do I begin to explain this?

To begin with, and I had a similar conversation before Christmas with another contributer who is an atheist, I really don't think the BBC can win. Some think there's too much religion and that it should be a secular broadcaster for a secular state, others seem to think that there should be specifically religious/Christian broadcasting. As I said, if I come across something which doesn't interest me I ignore it, if I disagree sufficiently I complain, but to be honest there's not really much point in that.

Second and this is a more general point, but it is the basis of my view. I do not expect the State to take into account the views of the Church. I don't think the UK is a 'Christian' nation, in fact I don't much like the idea of a 'Christian Nation' at all; actually my view is that there is only one 'Christian Nation', and it is the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural 'nation' we call the church. Why would I expect the BBC to reflect this? In fact, when it comes to education and the BBC, surely the best the BBC can do is to reflect varying opinions. We live in a very diverse religious and non-religious UK and it is this very set of circumstances which has many arguing for a secular Britain.

The job of the church then is to reflect the Kingdom of Heaven (Kingdom of God, RJB!), to communicate in word and deed the gospel, not to hold the BBC to account, not to regret the loss of some kind of 'Christian' heritage, not to protest against those who are not Christians, not to write 'Christian laws' into the statute book, but, to paraphrase the apostle Peter, to live such good lives among non-believers that they take notice.

I don't think there is any obligation on the part of Sunday Sequence, W&T or the BBC to do the job of the church. We can of course put our own point of view, as you and I do, here, but if we don't like what they do, then we don't have to listen, we don't have to watch, we don't have to pay the license fee switching off our TV sets instead to go and do something less boring instead.

Unfortunately,here in the US, a lot of people get their "church" from TV or radio. And, even more unfortunately, many of those try and bilk people out of their money. The BBC at least is free, if you pay the license fee.

My own hypotheses on why so many threads have been dedicated to homosexuality

1) Iris Robinson wouldn't shut up about it. Then journalists wouldn't shut up about Iris.

2) It's a big issue in the Anglican communion. And I think that Will and members of his team have an innate and immutable attraction to Anglicanism.

I think that there may be psycho-biological explanations for this attraction to the Anglican Communion. Or perhaps nurture is more important than nature.
Some of us may find it odd that others find highly intellectual sermons delivered in a monotone voice attractive. But the impulse for bells and smells cannot be controlled.

There is some evidence that Anglican tendencies can be reversed with electro-convulsive therapy. Or by reading a book by Rowan Williams.

GV

I don't know what the fuss is about. It seems strange to hear fundamentalist christians ranting that the media overdo their coverage of sex when those same fundamentalist are the ones who are obsessed with it. If religion programme talk about homosexuality maybe it's because churches are fighting about that all the time! It's a classic case of shooting the messenger if you blame things on the media. I wish my church had better things to talk about that would draw the media's interest but we lack a martin Luther king who leads a church into battle against injustice.

OT

I am interested in your advice. I am a 19 year-old man who has asked Christ to be my Lord and Saviour some years ago by the Holy Spirit.

I have increasingly strong urges to judge others and I'm not sure what to do. When I read the NT passages on the matter, the plain reading of the passages seems to say that this sort of behaviour is forbidden to me. I believe the Bible is the word of God.

I hear many church leaders and theological experts on SS and W&T who seem to be trying to say to me that I should not be focussing on the perceived faults of others and instead concentrate solely on leading a good life myself and leaving others to the wealth of God's tender mercy.

The traditional reading of the NT seems to say (over and over and over again) dont judge and you wont be judged and you will become a child of the light and you will enter the kingdom of God.

What should I do? Should I keep snatching at texts here and there and applying them to other people's lives, or should I take the whole thrust of Christs teaching and apply it to me?
Benny.

- Well, Benny, its not really your place to be judging anyone especially regarding their sexuality. Try not to do it. Would you also please leave homosexuals alone or at least celebrate their qualities now and again. Their contribution to the arts, for example, literature, society, justice, freedom etc.. If you dont, the chances are that the very thing you condemn in others might one day visit your own door. And then when it is your son or daughter (or grandson or grandaughter) who comes out as gay, you might begin to see how damaging and hurtful comments from righteous religious zealots can really be.


Benny went away very sad because no matter how many times people gently tried to dissuade him from judging others, he couldnt help it. He had asked Christ to be his Lord and Saviour and therefore had, subconsciously given himself permission to judge others, probably blissfully unaware that he was even doing it.

RJB - once again you've hit the nail on the head :-)

So Benny, and any actual readers out there who happen to be in a similar position, there you have it.


It would appear that we have reached the consensus that we are going to completely blank your existence out of our minds.

You are not entitled to expect "information and education" from the BBC about treatment which may actually help you with the SSA you reject in any balanced discussion on the matter. We know you might be in the very depths of despair, but we know best, we are going to give you one side of the story freely and ridicule and slander the other side which reflects traditional Christianity.

Anyone who responds to an honest request from you to help you escape from SSA is a judgemental fundamentalist. Even if they are professionals in their field aka Spitzer, Yarhouse and Jones, Masters and Johnston.

You have no right to form your own sexual identity; if you have SSA you are gay. Pipe down and accept it.

This is not a forum for free inquiry and discussion.

Furthermore you have no right to determine your own direction in any counselling that you might request on this matter, contrary to the NI Association for Mental Health and the WHO statement on unwanted SSA.

To discuss and objectivley identify sin in our society today is from henceforth "judgementalism".

We are to completely forget the actual context in which Christ used this phrase "judge not lest ye be judged".

The greek here actually means do not engage in destructive criticism.

But offering freedom of information to those people who desperately seek it to deal with a life dominating problem is henceforth to be classifed as destructive criticism.


Furthermore, people like Archibishop John Sentamu, Rev Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, John Stott and Lyndon Bowring (CARE), Pastor Niemoller are/were all fundamentalist theocrats who should know better than to opppose the privatisation of faith in Britain today, some of them having actually got involved in creating (gasp!) legislation.

The same goes for those rabid fundamentalist Christians who had the audacity to introduce free schooling and hospitals in Britain before anyone else. And that King Alfred was a total nutter too for basing our legal system on the bible. Honestly!


They were/are all far too certain about their faith if you ask me.

;-)

Lastly, we should all snip those irksome parts of our bibles out that spout nonsense like "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered"

And also that silly passage where Jesus insists on his disciples being "salt and light"

(now taking my tongue out of my cheek!)

;-)

OT

Ok, my hall of fame of prominent Christians should be concluded with the phrase should not have limited their actions to only Britian today as some are dead or were from outside Britain....

sorreee!


Another couple of passages I vote to remove from bibles;-

Ephesians 5
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.




I also voe that we cut these words from the Apostle Peter out of the New Testament. I mean, did nobody ever tell him the bible was all about toleranc and love?


1 Peter 3

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.


12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds[b] carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.[c]
Deceptions of False Teachers

18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped[d] from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”
///////////////////////////////


As for me, at this time I have to say that the Gospel of grace, love and redemption to all who accept it cannot be seperated from passages like this in the NT.


I dont believe I have ever offered any honest and sincere seeker anything other than the compassion and grace of Christ.


But I cannot in good conscience make it a matter of Christian principle to sit back and by default endorse and support the words of false teachers when they meet my ears.


All those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.


OT

I can think of loads of people who "call on the name of the Lord" and who might not be as "saved" as they think they are. No names mentioned.

OT

First this is long, but it includes some quotes from your post 43 for reference.

I'm sorry I offended you so much, that certainly was not my intention.

Let me try and pick up a few points which my help us both understand one another better.

(1) As will probably be clear from other threads I have a high view of the bible, as I have a high view of the church.

(2) Now let's consider 'Benny'.

You say

"It would appear that we have reached the consensus that we are going to completely blank your existence out of our minds."

No, not close, Benny's hope is in Jesus not the BBC.

"You are not entitled to expect 'information and education' from the BBC about treatment which may actually help you with the SSA you reject in any balanced discussion on the matter."

Correct, however, as a Christian, Benny can expect to find help in and from the church. I'm certainly not building my faith on anything the BBC says.

"We know you might be in the very depths of despair, but we know best, we are going to give you one side of the story freely and ridicule and slander the other side which reflects traditional Christianity."

Well it depends who the we is, as I said, I don't look to the BBC when I am in despair, I look to Jesus. And, I ridiculed no one.

"Anyone who responds to an honest request from you to help you escape from SSA is a judgmental fundamentalist."

I did not say that.

"Even if they are professionals in their field aka Spitzer, Yarhouse and Jones, Masters and Johnston."

I have made no mention of the counseling on offer and explained why, lots of times.

"To discuss and objectively identify sin in our society today is from henceforth 'judgmentalism' ".

Didn't say that either, but what I will say is that I find it sad that we Christians overlook the hypocrisy in the pew and in our own lives. According to my bible, it's not just the sexually immoral who will be outside the Kingdom. On that basis OT, I make no presumptions about my own salvation.

"some of them having actually got involved in creating (gasp!) legislation."

As I said OT, I didn't expect you to agree with my view of Christians in politics, most people don't, but I will say this, The Apostle Paul did not seek a place on the Roman Senate. To do so would have compromised him, instead Paul communicated the truth of an enduring Kingdom. Strangers and Aliens OT, Strangers and Aliens. Anyway why do you think Paul irritated Caesar so much?

"The same goes for those rabid fundamentalist Christians who had the audacity to introduce free schooling and hospitals in Britain before anyone else. And that King Alfred was a total nutter too for basing our legal system on the bible. Honestly!"

I fear you miss my point. To Christianize a society with Biblical Laws is not to pray, 'Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven', Jesus alone is the King, and first and foremost he reigns in the hearts (characters) of his people, I no longer confuse the two kingdoms. Building schools and hospitals was good but it didn't make Britain a 'Christian nation'. The concept of 'Christian nations' is idolatry.

"And also that silly passage where Jesus insists on his disciples being 'salt and light' "

It is my contention that we can best be salt and light when we are not encumbered with the laws of state. It is not 'God and Ulster' or any other nation, make your choice.

And post 44, I don't see that it has anything to do with any of my comments. If you are concerned that it does see point (1) above.

OT if you really want discuss this further then you are going to have to think through what you believe about the necessary process of change in the life of the ordinary faithful believer in the pew and how each of us are called to work out our salvation, for we are all sinners and it is the same gospel which we all need to hear, believers or not.

And, after all that I wasn't responding to the fictional 'Benny' I was responding to you and asking you to think through the issues more widely.

Peter

OT - now that I'm back I intend replying to Benny very soon.

Graham - I can see you're spoiling for a fight!!

Portwyne

PK has taken all the fun out of fighting.

No, this was just a bit of fun at Will's expense (my *bet* is that if he finds Anglicanism attractive). Not a serious critique of your Church.

But you'll remember I don't "get" Anglicanism, even the Evangelical variety. I can find attractive qualities in Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. The Anglican communion - agnostics and fundamentalists under one roof - confuses the life out of me.

It seems to be a way of life more than a set of doctrines to part of the communion, a set of doctrines rather than a way of life to another, and both to a different set. All in one organisational structure.

GV

Pete

Appreciate the conciliatory tone bro, I sense you have heard me in part.

If you have followed me at all on this topic you would find me repeatedly volunteering my own total sinfulness (including my sexuality) as a measure of the mercy we all need.

Neither do I presume my salvation for this very reason, just like you, as I have repeated numerous times on this blog. I dont think there is any self righteousness in me on this discussion, it is most certainly not my motivation. I am absolutely begging all my righteousness from Christ.
All mine is as filthy rags.

I dont understand why you seem to take my concerns as an attack on one community instead of a defence of another ie those who reject SSA and desperately want help. I'm puzzled??!! I have tried to be very clear about this.

It is quite clear to me that the GLB community at large have no interest in such services as Benny is interested in, why force the issue with them? I wouldnt. (For real people who are actually like Benny google;- Andy Comiskey, James Parker, Peter Ould, Mike Davidson from NI).

Are we really saying it is fine for them to hear this discussion in the church, but NOT on a blog like this?

Much of the last post you critiqued was picked up from other posters so dont take it all personally.

I dont for a second come from the "for God and Ulster" school of thought (LOL!!!) and I never bemoan loss of Christian heritage or nation.

My point, which I think you got, ref Sentamu, Luther King, Wilberforce, Bowring etc is that I agree that our focus is God and neighbours, not a theocracy. No contest.

In fact, I dont think I have ever really spoken much about legislation as an aim on any matter, it doesnt occupy my thoughts much, so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up.

I believe spiritual reality forms culture which forms legislation, in that order.

What I am really talking about is social engagement and the privatisation of faith. I dont honestly believe you conflate the privatisation of faith debate with theocracy or an abandonment of the great commission. If so it is suggestive of a straw man argument IMHO.

To my mind legislation generally reflects the spiritual condition of a nation it doesnt create it. But again, none of the posts I have written above are urging a campaign for any legislation. Can we be clear on this?

There is a vast difference between social engagement/ meaningful incarnational living and a campaign for theocracy, which I wouldnt want. But are we really saying that Wilberforce and Luther King were acting against the gospel by campaigning against slavery? Or were they actually living it out incarnationally???

Ironically, one of John Stott;s main criticisms of fundamentalism was that it blinkered many in the church to their responsibilities to engage practically with the world. He was quite right, within parameters of course.

In fact you might be surprised to hear that he has given me much of the foundations of my understanding of the issue of sexuality in a book on social issues and how Christians should see them. Hardly a self righteous theocratic fundamentalist, our Rev John Stott.

Perhaps Rev Stott needs to think through the ......necessary process of change in the life of the ordinary faithful believer in the pew and how each of us are called to work out our salvation, for we are all sinners and it is the same gospel which we all need to hear, believers or not....?

I work out mine with fear and trembling.... still!


However, when I mention the names of people above I really dont think you are going to tell me that these people were acting against the Spirit in their work. Remember John the Baptist telling Herodias that he should not have his brother's wife?

Are we REALLY saying that the church is only to evangelize and is not to have ANY sort of prophetic voice in society???


I would urge one word of caution; might Christian teachers' view on this matter change if it becomes a sacking offence for them to refuse to teach the modern liberal viewpoint on sexuality as a mandatory part of a lesson?

Might such teachers then become a little more interested in what political and legal support some parachurch orgs might be able to offer them. As David Pawson says, the lack of persecution in the UK is biblically abnormal and he expects real persecution will begin through laws on sexuality and gender discrimination (already begun).

Perhaps it is a bit like the idea of encouraging widows to be whole in the Lord, which you did not like much.

Perhaps persecuted teachers can be whole in the Lord too, but in the mean time they might suddenly find that they also like those passage that urges brother and sister to stand with them as though they themselves were suffering state persecution/jail.

;-)

We are all plastic in so many ways, I know.

See real example from the UK;-
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090212/teacher-scolds-girl-5-for-talking-about-jesus/

I respect that this is a debate you did not wish to enter fyi and perhaps it was wrong of me to drag you into it.

But I also have to ask you if there are such specific mandates in scripture to debate the subjects you do choose to debate here as there are directions not to debate the ones you dont.

sincerely
OT



PS RJB - it is my understanding that the greek for saved actually means "being saved" so please dont assume that I am presuming my own salvation.

OT

You pick a terrific example from Scripture in John the Baptist and King Herod's fight, to show why you give yourself permission to "correct"/condemn homosexuals.

John the Baptist. He has a title, a job, something which defines him. (Was also a prophet and apparently didnt have very good dress sense or a fussy palate.)

King Herod. Title.... Job.... defines him. (Along with being politician and enjoyed exotic dancers.)

The baptist criticizes the king for his affair. (He was actually criticizing him for far, far more than that.)

On these threads you have taken not one person, but thousands, defined them by their sexuality - not their titles or occupations or anything else - and condemned them. That is one reason I believe you are misguided.


Secondly, I'm convinced you indeed have a very acute awareness of your sinfulness (I would even add a very damaging awareness of it), with the exception of one major flaw -

The arrogance of assuming that you are called or indeed entitled to tell anyone how they should lead their private lives.

Your self description, if I can define you negatively for a moment, is poignant-

"my total sinfulness", "All mine is filthy rags", I work out my salvation with fear and trembling."

If that's what you think of yourself, what chance have the rest of us got with you?

OT

A shorter response!

On the point of state and social engagement I think we understand each other better.

Regarding attacks on communities.

Irrespective of what I think, the point might be that the gay community read Christian disagreement with their sexual identities as an attack. Here is where Christians need to be very careful. We simply cannot, and we do do this, we do it all the time, ignore our own sins while at the same time engaging in very public debates about other people, people who do not share our views. This is critical, again and again the church is seen as petty and judgmental because it ignores the honking great tree trunk in it's own eye while it nit-picks over the specks of dust in other lives. We cannot ignore this. If the church gets called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then we need to take those comments seriously.

In terms of Christian public servants, I heard David Pawson raise that issue 20 years ago. It was worth hearing BTW :-) And, I read the receptionist story at the time. I would hope that persecuted 'anybodys' would find solace, and practical help, in the church, but of course the church would have to figure out what being the church is before that could happen!

On the widows thing, I'm not sure what I was supposed to have 'not liked much', could you explain?

As for debating mandates in the bible, of course there aren't any, why would there be, I choose the debates I wish to be involved in, don't we all? We can't all debate everything.

OT - your post # 34.

I promised you a reply to Benny - it has been a difficult response to write and, in the course of composition, I have modified my views as to whether or not a person of immutable evangelical conviction with SSA might not, considering the demerits of the other options, seek help to redirect that attraction. I am sure there is still much with you will disagree and I am far from sure about my own opinions in the latter part of the post, but thank you (I think!) for engendering the exercise.

-----------

Benny

I am very glad you decided to talk to someone - it is a very positive thing for you to have done. Society has changed a lot in the past few years and it is good that that change has enabled you to be open: for generations Christians with homosexual feelings have borne their burden in secret with many experiencing horrendous isolation and often overwhelming feelings of guilt and despair.

It would appear from your letter that you have grown up in a conservative evangelical fellowship with a high regard for a traditional understanding of Scripture. I myself feel that view of Scripture (and of God) is deeply flawed. I know a God of Love in whom you will find complete acceptance of yourself and every natural aspect of your being; you can be complete in Him - I would encourage you to seek Him.

I accept, however, your right to your understanding of Scripture - if you want to discuss the implications of my views for your situation I will be happy to do so - but for now let's stick with yours.

From your viewpoint then I think you are correct - the plain teaching of Scripture is certainly that homosexual practice is forbidden and that surrendering to lust for a person of the same gender is sinful. I recognise that we are all sinful but I understand that you don't want to be told that you're just in a particular variety of a common boat, you want to understand how to deal with the challenges and dilemmas your particular situation presents to you.

You do not need me to tell how difficult you must find things - physical urges left unmet come to dominate the consciousness and can pervade both waking life and dream-scape. I can understand why you might be attracted to a therapy which offers release from these constant internal conflicts. You are aware that there are practitioners who offer treatments aimed at redirecting your feelings of sexual attraction, focusing them on persons of the opposite gender; I believe it may be possible, in some cases, for such a redirection to take place. I would earnestly beg you, however, to think very, very carefully indeed before you embark on such a course.

My concerns are not just that the outcome is uncertain, the permanance not guaranteed, the nature and the full effects of the processes not well understood; they are not just that you are risking the happiness and self-esteem of another in an attempt to satisfy yourself and your own needs; pre-eminently I am concerned because such treatments cannot work in terms of delivering true happiness and fulfilment. They cannot work because they fly in the face of humanity's universal prime emotional need.

Every human being, unless in some sense psychopathic, has this core need: to be known for what they are, to be accepted for what they are, and, ultimately, to be loved for what they are. If we try to supress our self-identity our unconscious minds war against the betrayal and deception. In many and varied ways we each and every one of us proclaim the truth of our being against, if necessary, the sense of our words and actions.

The only authority I respect is that of the poet and artist, let me digress for a moment and ask you to listen to these words of Hopkins - it is a profound psychological insight expressed in a poem of the greatest beauty:

"Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves - goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying What I do is me: for that I came".

Benny, you cannot deny what is at your core and escape damage, you cannot change your essence and be happy. I plead with you - ask yourself if your understanding of God might not be wrong!

If you cannot contemplate revising the basis of your faith, and I accept that that is itself an emotionally dangerous undertaking, then you will need a great deal of support, love, care and affection from your fellow Christians for, as I think you must already realise, the path you are to tread will not be an easy one. The power and force of biological urges cannot be underestimated - many gay evangelicals, if they are unable to sublimate or redirect their desires, find themselves leading lives of either guilt or compromise, either self-loathing or the slow erosion of any meaningful Christian life.

You may have every intention of leading a celibate life but that is not an easy commitment. You may fail and need to experience forgiveness - I would venture to to suggest that, while they may be foreign to your tradition, you might find you path easier if supported in a structured way by a confessor and spiritual director as well as in the informal network of a number of open accepting and supportive Christian friends.

Perhaps, however, if you are completely open, and can find a woman who, knowing the whole situation, is willing to love you, a woman who is willing to accept an imperfect relationship, perhaps it might be worth attempting redirection therapy. True happiness is rare, perfect relationships are rare, maybe there is the prospect of at least as much happiness for you in this course as in the other options still available to you. In this situation Benny please be honest with yourself and those you love, do not attempt to decive yourself and you are less likely to deceive others. The torturous casuistry as to what does and does not constitute sex with which the unattached man excuses his lapses can all too easily, in any relationship, become a torturous casuistry as to what does or does not constitute betrayal.

I really hope you will come back to me and say "Tell me more about your vision of God, tell me more about what it means for me as a gay man to experience acceptance, validation and love in Him, tell me more about how I can be happy and fulfilled being me and being true to myself". If you cannot let me counsel you only this, whatever your path do not try to walk it alone.

Por

Peter

I am not disagreeing with the gay community about their identity. I fully respect their rights to self identify.

Your argument that I need to be careful in discussing their identity is therefore wholly misplaced.

You are still in denial about even acknowledging the existence of a community of people who reject their SSA.

These people do not identify themselves as gay or members of that community.

My core points are;-

* People who are distressed by their SSA should have the right to full information from both sides of the debate, ie whether or not people can actually change.

* People who are distressed by their SSA have the right to any reasonable mental health support they request. WHO and N.I.A.M.H fully endorse this.


Are you saying that now that I have gone into some detail about my own sinfulness that I am entitled to take part in such a discussion? I dont think you are at all. You really mean the opposite, I think. You really dont think anyone should raise these points in any discussion on this blog, it appears.

I have done this numerous times in such discussion previously on this blog ie explained my own falleness. I am quite open about it. it never matters a jot to my critics.

This debate always progresses as follows; I raise factual points/questions when W&T raises the subject of SSA; then my character is repeatedly attacked in every way possible. Generally nobody even attempts to address my objective questions or points. The end. This time is no different!!

;-)

Was David Pawson right or wrong? Please dont try and dismiss a serious point for people currently at risk of losing their jobs/livlihoods with a smile.


You raise the issues of being harsh judgemental and hypocritical once again.

I have demonstrated I am not being a hypocrite, or destructively critical (judgemental) and that I am emphasising hope and redemption for distressed people, not condemning people who are not interested.

I dont see therefore how these points pertain.

I will stand corrected but what I really think you mean is that I should not be discussing the issue of how SSA can be overcome AT ALL on this blog regardless of how I do it and how open I am about my own complete fallenness.

Only you could explain why.

I notice you have not affirmed a single word I have said but your actions have dovetailed completely with those who attack my integrity and understanding.


You have not raised a single word that any of them have questioned or even disargeed with even though you agree with my position.

Was I really guilty of the accusation of idolatry of nationalism, after all that? Was my understanding of Christian growth really flawed?

Was I really self-righteous??

Pete, perhaps it might be helpful if you began to understand that people who have left SSA behind and spoken openly about it in love and humility are frequently targetted with very nasty attacks. There is no such thing as n "unoffensive" way to discuss these matters.

////////////

Portwyne

Out of time for today, but thank you for the time you have taken.

My one point today is that the only authority you respect is of the artist and the poet. You then go on to say you think changing SSA is highly unlikely etc.

I dont think I can really debate someone who will not objectivley look at hard evidence which contrasts with their viewpoint;-

ie the lives and testimony of Andy Comiskey, Peter Ould, Mike Davidson, James Parker and research by Masters and Johnston, Yarhouse and Jones, Prof Spitzer.

sincerely

OT

PS I saw an out gay man at a social event in recent days. He was out on a limb and ignored by all around him. He was actually there as an openly gay man. Everyone knew this. I sat and ate with him and chatted about his life and life etc for ages. He was a real gent. We never discussed any of the issues above. I saw him as an outcast, through Christ's eyes and showed him unconditional love. I hope we will meet again. I could tell you other examples. I dont think it would really make any difference.

--------------
Truth without grace is brutality. Grace without truth is lies.

OT (sorry but it's long again, I have lots of explaining to do please stick with it, and can you keep reminding yourself that as you read I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU!)

First up, I really don't know how to respond to statements like,

"Are you saying that now that I have gone into some detail about my own sinfulness that I am entitled to take part in such a discussion? I don't think you are at all. You really mean the opposite, I think. You really don't think anyone should raise these points in any discussion on this blog, it appears."

Where have I ever denied you the 'right' to participate in these discussions, never. Nor am I asking you to prove how sinful you are, we are misreading each other. All I have done is to say that I do not expect that a secular state, or an organisation like the BBC is going to put an evangelical christian case, and that if the church is going to speak of the the process of transformation in individual lives then it is wider, much wider than the gay issue. Simple statement, if someone like Benny doesn't see or hear, and in our churches we don't see or hear, others speaking of their own transformation, then if I were Benny I'd walk away. OT my point here is that we tolerate all sorts of sins, but the 'Bennys' of this world get it in the neck in the sense that they are the focus of public debate. I don't hear or see the church doing much anything to promote change in individual lives. There isn't for example a public debate about the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and I got it in the neck from PMS members for daring to suggest that maybe churches shouldn't be banks. We have lots of cliches, but when it really comes to being the community of God's people with all that that entails we don't get round to it much, we seem to prefer our meetings and programmes, maybe because we can hide behind them (remember, I am speaking generally). I have no problem with you raising the issues, but please accept my replies as being those which are important to me, I'm telling it as I see it, I am not denying you. OT, please! for goodness sake!

Second I have never, not ever, attacked your character, I have asked others to stop attacking you, I have stated quite straight forwardly that I am not against you, I speak generally of the evangelical church in NI as I see, there is nothing personal in this. But the sad truth is that the Evangelical church in NI often points fingers, and it usually points at sex issues. Sad. True. Unavoidable. Sorry.

Now your core points:

(1) "People who are distressed by their SSA should have the right to full information from both sides of the debate, i.e. whether or not people can actually change."

OK, but who are they going to get the information from? Your original point was that the BBC should supply it, my point again is that I do not expect them to do it. That is all I said. If you know 'Benny', tell him, if I meet 'Benny' I'll talk to him. If 'Benny' is part of a different church they should tell him, but my guess is that there are lots of 'Bennys' in lots of churches who won't say nothing cos the first response will be condemnation, again I speak generally.

?(2) "People who are distressed by their SSA have the right to any reasonable mental health support they request. WHO and N.I.A.M.H fully endorse this."

I have never denied a right to mental health support, what I said was that I personally won't comment on the specifics of mental health support because my previous limited experience of volunteer counseling training taught me my limits. I am not in a position to comment on the kind of support available because I don't know enough about it.

On David Pawson. Why did you think I dismissed your point, I smiled, it was a smile, it was not sarcasm. I have agreed with nearly everything I have ever heard David say. His preaching has taught me more about the bible than almost anyone else. I have heard hours of his work. Furthermore, I am a public servant, I am a teacher, I am one of the ones who could, if anti christian legislation came into being, loose their jobs. I am fully aware of the implications, I do not 'grin' at them. I have raised the issue in my own church lots of times.

Hypocrites.

I did not call you a hypocrite. I am speaking generally. I said, "If the church gets called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then we need to take those comments seriously." We do get called those things, I've got called those things on this blog. I did not say 'you, OT'.

Again I did not say you shouldn't discuss SSA, I said I didn't expect the BBC to do it.

You say,

"I notice you have not affirmed a single word I have said but your actions have dovetailed completely with those who attack my integrity and understanding."

OT I was debating a point with you, I was not attacking you, I hope you understand this now. I cannot be any clearer. And I was not responding to their arguments because I was responding to you because I thought we might be familiar with similar church traditions and could have a conversation.

OT you have written post 53 as if everything I have said was an attack on you, I am sorry you think that. Please do not take things so personally.

One more thing, I have known about the work of Andy Comiskey for about 20 years now, I know someone who travelled to the Sates years ago to be part of a similar programme, I am not against them, but here is a real problem I have, Portwyne in his advice said, "whatever your path do not try to walk it alone." (again, let me qualify this, I am not accusing you) but OT I see an awful lot of people with all sorts of problems in our churches walking very lonely paths because the church likes to discuss issues but it doesn't much like committing itself to people. That is the response I have been trying to make and we in the church need to put our own house in order, and this, in my view, is more important than any public debate including any and all of the words I have typed here.

Peter

I got a very similar lengthy response from OT in which he said that I had accused him of this, that and the next thing. (Including me accusing him of being gay for which, admittedly, he later apologised.) I never accused him of anything. I wondered then, why he took personally comments which were not aimed at him.

He has done exactly the same with you. I have read your previous posts closely and you do not infact say the things he accuses you of.

What does this say to you?

OT

You still dont get it. Were you 'discussing' gay issues when you continually quote scripture passages, the few there are, regarding homosexual sex? And, since you call yourself a Christian, what does Christ say about homosexuals? Not adulterers, homosexuals? Not people who inhabited Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuals?

Nothing that warrants the amount of time you spend on the subject thats for sure.

(And by the way, you do not simply comment on homosexuality when Wills does a piece about it. You go for it every time it is mentioned, even as an aside to the main piece.)

Lastly, did it ever strike you that the out-gay man might have been being kind to you, not the other way around? (And please, if you are a member of a church where a gay man is shunned so publicly, either, leave that church and shake the dust from your feet, or, do what you do on here, publicly condemn those people who behave in such an anti-Christian manner.)

I think its the point Peter is also trying to make about so many church people.

OT - your post # 53.

Your response and its tone, while not what I was hoping, was not entirely unexpected. I do not think you read my post carefully - I venture to suggest that you should.

RJB,

I think you need to understand that the teaching of the Bible, (and also of Jesus Himself,) on sexual matters is that it endorses marriage. Anything outside of that - including homsexuality - is forbidden.

Contemporary research confirms that one man with one woman for life is indeed the best way to go.

Hi PP.

How was your day? Did you watch the football tonight? What is the weather like where you are?

No point in asking you or debating with you about anything else. lol.

Oh, for the record, Jesus didnt forbid anything.

And many cultures have found that polygamy suited their circumstances better than monogamy and..... your final statement in post 57, what utter nonsense. Which contemporary research? The world of nature would suggest quite the opposite.

Tell the truth, that last statement just sounded authorative so you just chucked it in. In fact, it would probably take you years to actually back that up.

I'll change my mind, I will debate with you, especially on family.

Jesus didnt emphasise the role of family, infact he split families up. He took fathers and husbands away from their families. He envisaged a human family where people of all walks of life became brothers and sisters. (Who is my mother, my brother and my sister? Those who hear the word of god and put it into practice.)

And what is that word? To condemn without end from our ivory pulpits people who commit perceived sexual transgressions ?

No, to love, forgive (70x7), never to judge and never to condemn. To treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

Forgiveness is a prerequisite of following Christ. He is the judge and he doesnt need you (or OT) to fill in for him. He's not on a day off. He requires you to lead the best life you can in the circumstances you find yourself, and others in the circumstances they find themselves. (The parable of the talents.)

Did you ever consider what Jesus was writing in the sand when the Pharisees wanted to murder the woman they "caught" in adultery?

Personally, I think he was writing a list of the sins of the Pharisees. Thats why none of them dared throw the first stone.

You have absolutely no right - according to Christ - to set yourself up in judgement over anyone. You do have the right to lead by example, a very different matter altogether.

RJB

Philip certainly isn't on an ivory pulpit. And he has an exemplary testimony to my knowledge (never having met him).


I've been meaning to reply to you on the topic of sexuality. But a preliminary may be in order.

(i) Suppose "Benny" was in love with a female partner, Sue Bridehead. His soul mate, if you will. They've no children, but they're trying, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll be unsuccessful. Sue is looking forward to having children.
Now Benny becomes a Christian; Sue is a free-thinker, and can't see the morality or rationality of Benny's faith. But she loves and respects him nevertheless.
Then Benny reads the Bible on marriage, and becomes convinced that the *human authors* of the Biblical documents believed that sex should be reserved for marriage.
But Sue is a free-thinker who rejects marriage as a heterosexist, patriarchal institution. She holds this for rational reasons, in good conscience. She desperately wants to continue her relationship with Benny. But she wants children, and in any case she is not prepared to give up sexual relations, which she believes are an important part of her identity.
If Benny is not willing to continue having sex with Sue, their relationship will have to end. They feel fulfilled in their relationship, and there is an abundance of care, trust and affection.

Now, to be a faithful Christian, what should Benny do? Sacrifice the relationship? Or has he misread scripture? Or has he misunderstood the authority of Scripture?
GV

That's not offered as a critique. I'm trying to sound out why you disagree with the Orthodox Christian position on homosexuality.
It's the last two questions that are important. Assume Benny believes that he must leave Sue to be faithfully Christian. If you answer that he's wrong it could be because (a) He has misread Scripture or (b) He has misunderstood the authority of the Bible. Or both.
If you think he is correct to leave Sue, then I can only assume that the Orthodox rejection of Homosexual relations is for reasons equivalent to (a).

GV

Actually I think it was LSV that I said I'd reply to. But the point still stands.

As for OTs proclivities

I think gay rights are such a sensitive issue as two groups feel under threat. Homosexuals believe that their rights are threatened by traditional religious communities. Traditional religious communities feel that their right to believe is under threat; not from homosexuals so much as a liberal secular elite. So everyone feels like a victim; so everyone can get a bit irate.

(Me included. My first post on this blog was an unwarranted attack on the big WC for being condescending. He sounded as if he *might* be *suggesting* that my beliefs *might* be wrong, or in need of adjusting.)

Now for a while after that (and some apologising on my part) we couldn't get off the topic on this blog. I think that was down to Lambeth and Iris Robinson. It could seem as if the BBC was pushing a secular, liberal agenda. And Fundamentlism is a reaction against secularisation.
So it could *seem* as if BBC Northern Ireland had a production team that was promoting the view that traditional sexual ethics should disappear. And that would threaten all *traditional* Christian ethical reasoning. So it is fear of aggressive secularisation that motivates OT to my mind, not fear of homosexuals.
For the record, I think Will's programme and posts do lean towards a more liberal viewpoint. But that's not the same as promoting one. I doubt we can entirely hide our convictions, and I doubt that we should. I think BBC NI is as fair as it can be. Given the shambles of the media in general, that's far from condemnation by faint praise.

Pretty much the opposite in fact.

GV

Graham

Appreciate your comments but in fact I am not at all motivated by fear (of a secular society).

I would say I get angry when I see desperate people being misled on this matter and I also have compassion for people who wish to overcome SSA. I fully respect the wishes of GLB who don't choose this path.



Peter M and RJB

My head is spinning now that you tell me that you have never attacked me in any way. It must all have been a bad dream. ;-)

All that talk of judgemental, self righteous, hypocrites who arrogantly presume their salvation and make an idol out of Christian heritage and have a flawed understanding of spritual growth of Christians... that was obviously a seperate discussion here on the same thread!

I could have saved myself so much time by just skipping over it.

;-)


RJB - Interesting how you turn my support for the formal representative of a GLB organisation into an attack on me. 10 out of 10.



Peter

Every point of objection you have raised to me you have later found we have agreed on. Yet still you challenge me.

You dont have to take a public position on this subject, but at the minute you are choosing one and it is to persistently undermine the reality of the gospel in helping desperate people overcome SSA, if that is the path they choose.

It is the one thing you cannot bring yourself to affirm.

OT

OT

Here are some questions. We need to get this sorted, once and for all.

Do you accept that there is a difference between the following sentences.

"If church gets called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then we need to take those comments seriously."

Which I did say, and

If you are called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then you need to take those comments seriously.

Which I did not say.

"Here is where Christians need to be very careful. We simply cannot, and we do do this, we do it all the time, ignore our own sins while at the same time engaging in very public debates about other people, people who do not share our views."

Which I did say, and

Here is where you need to be very careful. You simply cannot, and you do do this, you do it all the time, ignore your own sins while at the same time engaging in very public debates about other people, people who do not share your views.

Which I did not say.

"I'm sorry I offended you so much, that certainly was not my intention."

Which I did say, and

I'm not at all sorry I offended you, because that was my intention.

Which I did not say.

"...what I will say is that I find it sad that we Christians overlook the hypocrisy in the pew and in our own lives. According to my bible, it's not just the sexually immoral who will be outside the Kingdom. On that basis OT, I make no presumptions about my own salvation."

Which I did say, and

...what I will say is that I find it sad that you overlook the hypocrisy in the pew and in your own life. According to my bible, it's not just the sexually immoral who will be outside the Kingdom. On that basis OT, I make no presumptions about your salvation.

Which I did not say.


With this in mind can I ask again, do you accept that,

"I have never, not ever, attacked your character, I have asked others to stop attacking you, I have stated quite straight forwardly that I am not against you, (that) I speak generally of the evangelical church in NI as I see, there is nothing personal in this."

Do yo accept that a statement like

"As I said OT, I didn't expect you to agree with my view of Christians in politics, but I will say this, The Apostle Paul did not seek a place on the Roman Senate. To do so would have compromised him, instead Paul communicated the truth of an enduring Kingdom. Strangers and Aliens OT, Strangers and Aliens."

Is an argument not a personal attack? And that it was a response to your comments on King Alfred?

as is

"I fear you miss my point. To Christianize a society with Biblical Laws is not to pray, 'Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven', Jesus alone is the King, and first and foremost he reigns in the hearts (characters) of his people, I no longer confuse the two kingdoms.'

I am drawing a deliberate distinction that I think the church in NI should think through. It relates directly to those Christians in our society who think they can write 'christian' laws.


OT, you said "All that talk of judgemental, self righteous, hypocrites who arrogantly presume their salvation and make an idol out of Christian heritage and have a flawed understanding of spritual growth of Christians... that was obviously a seperate discussion here on the same thread!"

And my response: No it wasn't a separate discussion, but neither was it an attack on you. It was a response to the context in which 'Benny' will find himself. 'Benny' will find himself having to deal with Christians who are some of those things and who will not seek to understand him, who will not listen to him and I was trying to say, that in that context, in the context of a church where homosexuals become an easy finger pointing target, then the whole situation becomes more complex.

OT do you or do you not accept that you were not attacked by me?

You say, "Every point of objection you have raised to me you have later found we have agreed on. Yet still you challenge me."

First I am challenging a point of view, not you, second I am doing that partly to test my attitudes in the situation. I need to test my intentions my hypocrisy and so on, I include me in the sentences I write about the church, third I challenged some of your points of view because I just disagree with e.g. I see no need for the BBC to take your view on the subject. You know why I take this view.

I also put the points I did because I think the evangelical church needs to think through it's attitudes to homosexuals more clearly. Again I don't mean counselling organisations like the ones you mentioned, I mean the general everyday person in the pew.

You say I am, "persistently undermine (ing) the reality of the gospel in helping desperate people overcome SSA"

OT you're going to have to explain this one to me, especially when I said, "Benny's hope is in Jesus..." If Jesus isn't the gospel I don't know what is. Also reread this statement please, "Jesus alone is the King, and first and foremost he reigns in the hearts (characters) of his people"

And anyway as I have repeatedly said I am deliberately not commenting on the 'success' or otherwise of the counselling process.

At this stage I really don't see what else I can say except that I would ask you to stop reading what I say in a personal manner and that you read it holistically as a package in which all the statements fit together.

Regards

Peter

OT

I have thought of something else to say!

While saying that I realise that there are christians within the broad evangelical church who, by their own admission, struggle with SSA and who may as a result struggle with self loathing (which is a dreadful thing) and that these people need support, do you understand that I am also saying that the endless public debate regarding the matter, the isolating of these Christians and the finger pointing which does take place, while the church at large speaks little of it's own need of transformation is at best unfair and may actually do harm?

You also said to Graham, "I would say I get angry when I see desperate people being misled on this matter and I also have compassion for people who wish to overcome SSA."

In this context would it be reasonable to ask if you have owned or felt their desperation, their rejection? Have you sought to understand what it is like to walk in their shoes, to empathise, rather than simply sympathise or show compassion? And if you have, could you explain what you think this feels like?

Peter, much as I love OT, and much as I am fond of your good self, I must tell you that you are probably wasting your time to try and get OT to pay attention to the nuances of what you're saying. OT sees only the broad strokes, not the finer points. I've been chatting to him for 6 years on here now, and have largely abandoned this kind of conversation! That said, I wish you well. Maybe you can go beyond where I ran out of steam. :-)

OT
PeterM doesn't do personal attacks.

As for "fear" of secularism - I suppose "fear" is a poor term. I don't think you sit up nights hugging your knees and waiting for the AntiChrist's secret police to knock on the door!

But when your beliefs are continually (and supericially) critiqued by an elite it's easy to feel under siege. This issue does go to freedom of speech and thought - are we allowed to believe and express the belief that certain sexual practices are wrong? Even if some individuals find those beliefs offensive and threatening? Even if the same individuals can articulate *good reasons* for finding our beliefs offensive and threatening?
I've never detected a personal problem with *homosexual individuals* in your posts on this topic. I get the impression that it is the casual dismissal of traditional Christian Ethics that irks you. And I think you believe that the Sexual Revolution casued far more harm than good, so of course your beliefs are not incompatible with compassion. To a large degree I share these concerns.
My point was simply that traditional Christians can feel threatened by this debate as much as anyone else.
Take someone who has strong homosexual tendencies, but has decided to live a celibate lifestyle for religious reasons. That's an extraordinary sacrifice in a culture that puts a huge premium on sexual experience. Now if that person is continually told that their sacrifice is irrational they'll be offended. If they are told that sexual pleasure is a primary means of sexual fulfillment, and that we have a duty to seek feelings of personal fulfillment, they'll feel that their lifestyle choice is threatened. Then tell them that their beliefs are offensive and oppressive, and should not be expressed in public.

I've said before that the only way out of this mess is for society to accept that there will be a plurality of worldviews, and that no one worldview should actively seek to *dominate* public discourse. Generally, we hold enough in common to get along. Beyond that we need to be civil.

GV

OT

Peter has really said it all in his extensive post. You have taken most of what I said personally, slightly twisting my words to make them look like a personal attack on you.

However, I certainly would attack you personally when you express some of your views (supposedly derived from the Bible.)

In my experience, fundamentalists (those who take the bible literally) have done untold damage to vulnerable people. When such people eventually arrived at my door I would soon realise that they now had ten problems. The one they originally had AND the new ones created by their time with the fundamentalists.

If I was dealing with a man who was gay and who didnt want to be, the first thing I would do, in conscience, would be to make sure that he never got anywhere near someone who holds the views that you hold.

You may consider that a personal attack.

RJB

Hmmm. You seem to be skipping by some of my comments. Maybe I'm off target, but I'm not sure you can be so certain that OT is so very wicked until you clarify why you believe that the Bible condones faithful homosexual relationships. And what do you say to the celibate homosexual who, in all conscience, cannot reconcile homosexual activity with his faith commitments. (There's at least on prominent evangelical writer in this camp.) Your view - that his sacrifice is unwarranted- is going to upset him.

I'm away for the weekend now. So I'll see everyone Monday.

GV

PS
The Traditional Christian Sexual Ethic is held by more than Fundies. Could be a bit of a straw man you're swiping at.

In any case, I think we need a better definition of Fundamentalist.

GV

My apologies GV, at the end of your questions you say that they were directed at LSV. But I'll be happy to respond later this evening or over the weekend, (since you are away.)

OT (My third response since you last comments, please read the others too.)

I shall try and move on.

Back somewhere in the distant past of posting you wrote a scenario regarding our fictional evangelical friend 'Benny' and asked for my advice. I sought to pause at that moment in order that we might consider the wider church in which 'Benny' might (I would say will) find himself. Whether or not we agree on this context now, I am not sure, but having tried to explain some of my wider concerns I shall attempt a more direct reply regarding 'Benny'.

For the sake of clarity here are my assumptions. 'Benny' is an evangelical Christian, he accepts biblical authority, he experiences a degree of confusion about what the church says about SSA, he is concerned about his own experiences of SSA and especially that it might ultimately separate him from God. This seems to summarize your post 34.

I shall write this by way of speaking to you, OT, and not 'Benny' which is what portwyne did.

My first aim in speaking with 'Benny' would be to attempt to listen to him, rather than offer him my advice. There are a couple of reasons for this, for example, that fact that I really don't know 'Benny' well, that I know nothing of his church or his experiences in church, furthermore, 'Benny' may need to hear himself speak, hear his concerns spoken 'out loud'. Without doing this I cannot assume that my 'advice' is what he needs to hear. (An aside, this notion of Christians giving advice to others, of Christians thinking that somehow we always have 'answers', is another one of the reasons why I hesitated to become further involved in volunteer counseling as I began to realise that it is a presumptuous position to hold.)

In order to help Benny think out loud, to help him hear himself and in order to help me understand him a little better it might be appropriate to ask him some questions; the rate however at which Benny will choose to answer these questions, in fact the rate at which he might be able to answer these questions is again an unknown and so it will be important to allow Benny to control the pace at which he answers and, ultimately, control the direction of any conversation. It is not, you understand, so much about Benny answering my questions as it is about Benny being encouraged in the process of conversation. Indeed if, as you say, Benny doesn't "know who to trust", then allowing time for trust to grow will be crucially important. However it might be worth reflecting on the possibility that in talking to me (or you) the only person 'Benny' is actually talking to is himself. Maybe 'Benny' needs to get to know 'Benny'!

The questions which one should ask are difficult to predict and will themselves be determined by careful listening to Benny, listening to his tone of voice for example, listening for key words he uses, listening for any false assumptions Benny has about himself, the church, or God, (and of course you will realise now that portwyne's understanding of God is different to ours!). However if I were asking questions I think I'd begin by asking Benny to talk about his everyday life, his hopes, dreams, hobbies, interests, stuff like that and I'd talk a bit about me too, in other words I'd seek to find some common ground.

All this of course raises a question for those who might wish to talk with (not to!) 'Benny', particularly those, who like me, may wish to demonstrate kindness, but who have no experience of in depth counseling. The question (questions, actually) are these, 'Am I in this for as long as 'Benny' needs? Am I clear that I am involved in this process for 'Benny' and not because of some need I have, or some point I need to make? Am I prepared to be misunderstood?' And so on. These questions must be asked because they are in contrast to the idea that I will somehow become 'Benny's' 'saviour' (I do not mean that in a spiritual sense, I mean rather that 'Benny' must not become dependent on me however helpful I am, nor must I 'boast' of my role in helping 'Benny')

Now, where next, well without actually speaking with 'Benny' I don't really know, but I think I would wish to reinforce portwyne's point which I have already picked up, which is, "whatever your path do not try to walk it alone." And this is why I spent so much time trying to ask you questions about the wider context of church. Christianity, in my view is a 'team sport', we are supposed to do stuff together, and by that I do not mean 'organize and attend a bundle of meetings'. I mean that we're supposed to learn to like each other, we're supposed to be some kind of functional community, some sort of friends or other, and so I shall finish again which the point I have been making all along only I shall do it by way of a question, 'Do you really think that 'Benny' will be encouraged in his journey if he sees around him people who are happy that he has recognised his 'sin', but who are unwilling to notice their own?'

Can you see too OT that such a process of conversation might be useful irrespective of the specific issue being discussed?

Peter

GV is quite right - you dont do personal attacks.

I apologise, I think they might be more correctly described as either objections and/or challenges.

I would like like to step back now and see what you guys make of GV's points from post 67 onwards.

I think he is making some very, very relevant points/questions in posts 67, 69, 70.

I would prefer to observe only until I see his points properly responded to.

In this way I think we can let the debate cool down a bit and remove me from it as a lightening rod, hopefully getting a bit closer to the real issues.

I will be back DV.

Shalom
OT

GV

Hope you enjoyed your weekend.

I do not accept the traditional christian view/teaching on homosexuality in the same way that I do not accept the traditional christian teaching on the earth being flat, the treatment of witches, slaves, women, the divorced and remarried, to name but a few.

My understanding of Christ is that he acted with tremendous compassion towards those who were deemed "sinners" by society/church.
I cannot find one example where Jesus gets angry at such a person, yet the gospels are filled with accounts of Christ "personally attacking" the Scribes and Pharisees, the self righteous, the rich, hypocrites, those who judge - especially those who lack compassion. He consistantly shows tremendous love and acceptance for the outcast, the ashamed, the oppressed, the sinner etc...

These things are self evident from the gospels, even if you read them literally.

The fundamentalism I have witnessed here on this site ignores the above points. And when they are pointed out, they are ignored again.

"I am a humble christian, I am aware of my own faults and failings, I am in no position to judge anyone. However, see those gay people......" is the way it goes.

I am asking the likes of OT and PP to try and get a sense of perspective. While I do not claim that homosexual sex is a virtue, neither do I believe it warrants the amount of attention certain people give it and the stigma they attach to such people.

If the "prominent evangelical writer" who is gay and celibate gets annoyed at me for seemingly making light of his sacrifice, he neednt be. He made a decision for himself, applied it to himself and lives it himself. I applaud him and hope that his example - namely that of applying his beliefs to himself, not to others - will be followed by christians everywhere.

PeterM

I have thought it since you first mentioned that you had attended a volunteer counselling course and the attitude displayed in your post # 72 absolutely confirms it: your decision not to proceed in this area has deprived vulnerable Christians of, potentially, a very able source of support.

It is in no way a criticism (and believe me, like RJB, I would in no wise hesitate deliver one did I think it merited) it is rather an appeal that you should reconsider.

You might perhaps think of exploring those forms of therapy which are completely non-directional.

"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

...still interested to hear feedback from Portwyne and Peter M on GV's comments from post 67 onwards....

...and GV's responses.

Peter M I aim to feedback on your posts this week... but I think we should think about GV's thoughts for a bit first...

OT

OT you have asked for my response to Graham's comments to RJB

Graham began in post 59 with comments about 'Benny' and 'Sue', relating them to biblical authority and sexuality. First of all, as you know I fully accept biblical authority. Beyond that, my immediate response is that this 'dilemma' is more than just the 'sex' thing. For example even if Ben and Sue were to live apart for a few short weeks and married as quickly as possible, what then? The sex thing might be sorted, but what about their shared worldview? Will they grow apart anyway? What about hopes and aspirations for their children, I mean, will Sue want do the Sunday School run? And so it goes on. This, like the scenario of the prominent evangelical Graham describes also exists partly because of what he calls the, "huge premium (placed) on sexual fulfilment". We could go on raising examples like this, can a Christian husband or wife whose relationship has grown cold justify an affair, let us even assume that it is only a platonic one, yet deeply emotional, and so on.

The heart of the problem is our view of (sexuality and) the bible. Portwyne has already mentioned the 'the plain teaching of Scripture", I might add that divorcing in many/most contexts is also forbidden, as is sex outside of marriage. For the Christian wishing to live according to the bible these issues are difficult, sometimes they are almost impossible to live with.

What, for example, of a single man in his forties, fifties who is desperate for a wife and children yet has never married? What of his hopes for love, fulfillment, passion, companionship? Where will he fit in church, how does he dispel his anger? Will anyone even notice his problems? Don't we often, in our churches, adopt an approach which basically says, 'well as long as Benny ain't sleeping with Sue, OK', or 'as long as Benny doesn't marry a non christian, OK', my concern is about the wider implications of these decisions.

Of course, if one does not view the bible in these tradition ways there really isn't much of a problem, it comes down to consenting adults, problem solved. In this sense secular society has solved the problem and it's answer is this, 'everyone should be a free thinker'. Other sections of the church have solved the problem by affirming homosexuality, or remarrying divorcees. Although I wonder if the implications are any more clearly thought through, probably not. What for example are the support networks when relationships breakdown?

We however are discussing is a very particular problem, one which relates to a mismatch between our lives and the evangelical biblical worldview. I expect that in the evangelical/reformed tradition of the church it might described in the following terms, 'the church is counter cultural', the 'way' is often sacrificial, in fact we are called to 'leave all and follow him'. This is a view I have much sympathy with, but it is a bigger issue than sexuality. The concept of a counter cultural kingdom affects us all if we say we are biblical christians.


So, some concluding thoughts for now.

The way of Jesus is the way of grace and of the cross. (of course this is dreadfully easy to say)
Sexuality is not the only 'problem' christians face, nor is it the only sacrifice they might be called to make.
The problem is exacerbated in that some of the teaching of Jesus has been tamed by the church while sexuality has become a battle ground. In NI for example we have found it perfectly OK to hate our enemies, we found it OK to charge interest in the PMS, there is no concept of community sharing which was at the very heart of the church in book of Acts and so on.
None of us can walk the way of Christ alone hence our desperate need to better understand that we don't go to church, we are the church. Benny needs the church in addition to whatever other direction he is given.
We need to figure out what 'grace' actually is and how we communicate it to one another not just talk about it.
The church is a mess, but it is a glorious one!
Each of us have stories to tell, all of which fit in the Story of God.
The 'good news' isn't, "You're going to Hell".

I don't know if this answers your questions, but it is what I think. Actually, these last 'concluding thoughts', are also what I live and breath, they are what capture my imagination, they are what motivate me, they are what bother and disturb me, they are what I love. (and sometimes they are what I hate) :-)

Hmmm.........

I wonder what Pastor Fred will say in reply to this. lol

It's quiet today. Too quiet.

My response to Peter Morrow

Peter I do very much get the gist of the many shortcomings of the church and how this hinders credible witness.

I also suspect my communication on this thread has been flawed in that I have acknowledged many of these issues previously and I guess to come extent I may have presumed you knew where I stood on them.

On the other hand... GV also read the same posts above and saw quite clearly that there was no condemnation of anyone in what I was writing...but rather I was offering a hand of hope.


Anyway...

If I were writing to "Benny" my post might go something like this;-


Dear Benny

I found my way to faith in Christ through an experience of God's unconditional love, an experience I expected and hoped to find in another regular human being. To me, being fully known and yet fully accepted by Christ was a breakthrough experience which completed me in many ways.

I found that Christ prompted/prompts me to discard things in my life which were obviously sinful and encouraged me to grow more like him (still lots to do!). To me he is the friend who knows the worst about me and yet still wants the best for me.

It has been clear to me since then that my sinful nature is real and powerful and will never fully go away in this life, always there to seek dominion over me.

But to me the gospel is "good news" that through Christ none of us need ever again be slaves to our sinful natures, to anything which would seek to dominate our lives and violate our consciences (that is not presume we will never sin, fail or fall though).

We can be set free to serve Christ, becoming the personalities and characters that he created us to be from before the foundations of the earth.

Who should Christians trust on the question of whether SSA is acceptable to God? I suggest that you must satisfy yourself what God's view is on this matter.

I believe a helpful guide is the peace of God; if you feel more and more uneasy about a path as you progress I suggest it is not of God. If you find an abiding peace which passes all understanding, I think that is a good sign.

Obviously, as a Christian, you should be familiar with the relevant passages of scripture throughout scripture on the creation, nature and purpose of marriage/sex and the boundaries that God has placed around them for our protection.

To me Christ died and rose again to redeem all people from their sin natures; prime ministers and paupers, black, Asian, white, gay and straight, doctors, lawyers, convicts, refuse technicians, paedophiles, tradesman, housewives and children.

In my opinion, all people earnestly attempting to follow Christ will have mortal battles with life dominating issues (sin). I think as Christians we need to be more honest with each other, ourselves and God about this, because I think this releases grace and healing to overcome such issues as we journey together. This was always meant to happen in an ongoing supportive and open group setting, I believe.

I believe life is much more messy than we are willing to admit (ie our failures) and that we need to give ourselves and others space, grace and full support in our battles. 99% of Christs earthly ministry was in the real world of blood sweat and tears, not in the controlled environment of religious events or programmes, DVDs etc.

In my opinion SSA is just one of many such foes that real believers will battle with. But contrary to common perceptions there are no third class strugglers in the kingdom of God. We are all fighting battles -or losing them- at any given time.

Other battles might be with substance dependence, sexual addiction of numerous sorts, in fact numberless type of compulsive behaviour, not to mention the key roots of pride, selfishness...and of course sins of omission!

A great book I read was "pursuing sexual wholeness" by Andy Comiskey. Although it starts as his testimony with SSA he makes the point, quite rightly, that the principals he discovered to deal with it are basically new testament discipleship. He says that in reality there is no difference between a Christian struggling with SSA and any other type of Christian. All are fighting the same battles with the same weapons.
I empathised as a person with his honesty about his hurts, failures and discouragement and his bids to live a holy life.

His life lessons apply to us all and he in fact believes that people from SSA backgrounds may be especially gifted leaders in the church in future because of what they have learned and experienced and how they can emphathise with others and lead by example. I couldnt disagree.


Many life controlling issues can stem from making an idol of ANYTHING in which we seek our peace and security ahead of Christ. Often we can seek to find our fulfilment, identity and joy in another person ahead of Christ.

In my experience this is building a house on foundations of sand which will eventually leaving both us and Christ weeping.

Obviously I come from a traditional orthodox view which would see SSA - like all other sexual practise outside of marriage between man and woman- as contrary to God's plans for us and our lives and therefore leading us towards pain.

No matter where God would have placed boundary lines around humanity, human nature means a part of us will always rebel at his boundaries he, even though it is for our own safety.

In other words, I believe it is our hidden, rebelling attitude to God himself and his laws rather than the detail of any specific law that really poses us problems. wherever his laws would have fallen, part of us would always have rebelled against at least some of them, and in reality, striking out at God's very right to be God.

Should you decide this is broadly what you will believe I would suggest you take advice from someone who has fought and won many of the battles you will face and can offer you ongoing support (Andy Comiskey's organisation? Mike Davidson of Core Issues?).

If you feel it would be of interest, I would be glad to meet up some time for coffee etc. I am always encouraged to meet others who are keen to follow Christ and are also honest about the battles they are facing. It lets me know I am not alone in mine.

Kinds regards
OT

OT

Thanks for the comments. I have written another reply to you, but have come to the conclusion that useless we were in a position to speak face to face all we will do is create more misunderstanding.

Ultimately I think that this is going to boil down to what we think the church is, how we understand the process of christian renewal and maybe even what we think faith is, but to try and discuss all that, at distance, on a blog is, I think, almost impossible.

I will say this though, my Christian world view is firmly within the Reformed tradition, I can relate to nearly all the language you used in post 80, I just think it's awfully easy to say and I think a lot of us are kidding ourselves about how spiritual we are. If the church was as honest as you suggest it should be in post 80 then all of us, Benny included, would find it a lot easier, I don't think it is that honest though, maybe that's why we're good at organising religious programmes!

OT - on Graham's posts, I believe very strongly in free speech and would vigorously defend your right to voice your opinions in this forum as in any other you might chose. I do not believe that the giving of offence is any reason to silence or curb free expression by legislation or censorship. I would defend equally the right of others to rebut your arguments and to do so in as forthright a manner as they saw fit.

On your reply to Benny, there are, as PM pointed-out, underlying differences in aspects of our shared Christian faith: I do not believe in creation, I do not accept that our nature is shaped by God nor do I think that He has any will or expectation as to how we conduct our lives; I do not think "sin" is a particularly useful concept; I do not consider the Bible in any sense divinely inspired; I do not believe there is anything whatsoever wrong in experiencing SSA or in acting upon that attraction. I fully accept that these beliefs are not traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Those considerations aside, however, I have to commend your experience of the cleansing and completion we experience in Christ, your understanding of the need to be honest to God and the power that such an approach releases into our lives, your advocacy of progress in and through community, your acknowledgement of the range of need in society, and your personal willingness to engage with the individual in distress.

Peace at any price peter m?

I thought I was very realy about my own failings.

There are groups in the church where you can find reality and honesty, if we really want it.

Thanks for a very generous response portwyen.

shalom

OT

Your failings have nothing to do with this. I thought we were over that. Please.

What do you mean peace at any price?

Really OT, I'm beginning to think that you have it in for me rather than the other way round.

If there is an issue here can we please get to the bottom of it. Maybe you think I'm a liberal or something. Maybe you think I have an ulterior motive, at this stage I really don't know what to think anymore.

For goodness sake I said, "my Christian world view is firmly within the Reformed tradition, I can relate to nearly all the language you used in post 80"

What on earth is going on here?

Can you please understand that of utmost concern to me in all that the church is, is how we work out what we say we believe. Hence the need to discuss what the church is, what faith is what, for want of a better word, 'santification' is'

We are talking at cross purposes. I'm now creating misunderstanding by saying nothing? Can I 'win' (I don't mean I want to beat you in debate) here?

Please OT if you have an issue with me would you just state it then I can clarify things and we can move on.

Tell you what, against my better judgement let's further our discussion with this, you said "through Christ none of us need ever again be slaves to our sinful natures". Now I whole heartedly affirm the sentence, but what exactly do we in the church mean by this, what do you mean by this, how does Jesus, tomorrow morning, free me from my sinful nature, how do I overcome temptation, what does it feel like, what does it sound like, how does it work out in my life, your life and the life of church, what do we do, individually, or together, how will it happen. These are the specifics we need to discuss if 'Benny' or any of us are actually going to be transformed by the gospel.

I could go on, how will we abandon 'idols'?, what does it mean to be secure in Christ, is it an experience, a thought, a mantra, what does it mean to you? is it based on personal experiences, feelings, is it based on our earnestness in prayer.

My point of view, briefly, in a word, is that these things cannot happen outside of meaningful fellowship meaningful communication of the gospel in the church, we don't learn them in books, we don't overcome then in personal prayer alone, we don't change by daily bible reading, sorry we don't, not really. (at least I don't and I'm not going to pretend I do) And, for clarity I'm not saying you said any of that I'm trying to have a debate, clarify things!

Maybe it will help if I end by saying that in your last post there is much I agree with, in fact when I read it I couldn't really see what you were disagreeing with me about, but I'm also going to keep saying that whatever groups there are in the church, in general 'Benny' is going to be lonely. That concerns me.

OT

I also need to say that after all my clarifying and re-clarifying and explanations about not being personal towards you and the limits of my own experience and my wider concerns and the reasons why I do or do not want to comment on certain issues and my christian theological position and tradition, I am completely perplexed by your comments to me.

Honestly I don't know what to say anymore, what is it you want to hear?

Peter
when you say you can relate to nearly all the language OT used in post 80, were you refering to the 7 battles, the 6 sin/sinfuls, the 4 fightings, the 3 fail/failures, the 2 rebels or the collection of struggles, foes, flaws, worst or falls?

Or was it the mention of slaves, violate, messy, blood, sweat and tears, weapons, contrary to God, and pain?

As a Catholic I was certainly used to this religious terrorism as a child. (With a few schizophrenia inducing 'God's unconditional love for us' thrown in.)

Benny, dont go for that coffee!! If you are a Christian, there are many, many other things you have to take into account other than just the Bible or Andy Comiskey's views.

If you search the Bible for "God's view" you will get a hundred different answers. If you listen to the fundamentalists, you'll get one answer - change and live a lie or you are doomed.(But, loads of cups of coffee!!)

It may also interest you to know, Benny, that in Scotland at the moment, a gay minister is being targeted by these so called Christians. A website trying to get him sacked from his Aberdeen church has been signed by over 5000 members of the Church of Scotland. (Not from his parishioners.)

I also hope that Will does a thread on this subject - again - and is not frightened off by OTs constant moaning about its regular appearance on this site.

Benny, you should know that OT is against people like you, against the subject of your sexuality appearing on anything to do with the BBC, that you must change or you will be an outcast who is to be pitied forever.

Many fundamentalist Christians will lecture you about sex. Dont listen to them (that's if you can hear them for the sound of their own bed springs rattling, whether they are married or not.)

Pete

First, sorry, I dont think that peace at any price comment was constructive at all.

I am more than happy to agree to disagree on any of these matters with you, if you wish to leave it where it is.


You say: "I will say this though, my Christian world view is firmly within the Reformed tradition, I can relate to nearly all the language you used in post 80, I just think it's awfully easy to say and I think a lot of us are kidding ourselves about how spiritual we are."

I respond, I dont think it requires spiritual perfection to offer the option of a hand of help to someone, if they should want it.

I honestly think a good start in spirituality is to realise how unspiritual we are. To me real spirituality is brokenness over how far short we fall from God's perfection.

I dont think I need to be an accomplished swimmer to offer to help a drowning man, if he should want such help.

I am not standing in condemndation of anyone at all, I simply know that Christ has made real changes in me that were needed and which I could not have done myself ( I am not suggesting you would notice a glow around my head BTW, I have allowed far too little change, I know).

You say: "You [OT] said "through Christ none of us need ever again be slaves to our sinful natures". Now I whole heartedly affirm the sentence, but what exactly do we in the church mean by this, what do you mean by this, how does Jesus, tomorrow morning, free me from my sinful nature, how do I overcome temptation, what does it feel like, what does it sound like, how does it work out in my life, your life and the life of church, what do we do, individually, or together, how will it happen?"


Peter, I sense frustration from you on these points which I empathise with.

Do I find this all easy to understand and work out in practise? No. Does anyone? I dont think so. Has anyone ever? I dont think so either. Will anyone ever? Not this side of eternity IMHO.

But I do know it makes a difference inside me - when I really want it to.

And I also know that you are, in reality, expressing frustration with foundational truths of mainstream Christian faith, not with me.

I too am frustrated by "the church".

I find the following activities help;

Prayer - talking to God about my life - and listening,
Confession - owning up when I have done wrong in thought or deed
Word - drinking in his word and asking him to help it make a difference inside me.
Corporate prayer and worship. My church is currently holding fervent personal and corporate prayer meetings which have certainly helped. I attend a regular home group where people encourage one another, discuss difficulties and ask for prayer from each other.

Will Benny be lonely. You bet.

That is life and the Christian faith on many occasions.

I have certainly experienced it.

Will he be any less lonely by embracing SSA Peter? Ultimately impossible.


Is it possible he can seek out and find genuine Christians who will fellowship with him in a supportive way. Absolutely. This is happening every day, certainly in N Ireland, that people with the deepest and most personal problems find love and support among Christians.

There are specialist support groups also - Core Issues in NI eg, Desert Stream.

I know that people get hurt in churches too, been there done that, but you seem to have a long list of reasons which would mitigate against either the church reaching out to Benny or to him accepting such help.

It does seem strange, IMHO.





RJB

It sort of goes back to the start, but you are confusing the issue here by your use of the word "fundamentalism".

This was an American movenment which is only about 100 years old.

But as Portwyne repeats in his last post, embracing SSA is not Orthodox Christianity ie never has been.

Using the term fundamentalism like this simply tries to marginalise mainstream, traditional teaching as "extreme" when it is normal Christian teaching and always has been.

I should have said, Comiskey pointed out that the core of what he learned was that his real task was to be focussed on Christ, not sexuality and that this was real discipleship......for everyone!

What standards do you think we should abide by, if any, in marriage and sexual relations? Does God have any firm standards? or can we each do as we please with God's blessing?

Do you believe in God and if so how do you get forgiveness for wrongs you have committed?

Do you believe that Christ was God and died to bring us into peace with God?

You seem to think that I would judge or patronise someone who could not rid themselves of SSA.

In no way. Never.


BTW, did it ever occur to you that William might post these threads because he is interested to hear a wide variety of views, including mine?



I repeat a helpful excerpt from CS Lewis on the subject of sexual sin, ie to empower readers, not to condemn. I have found it very encouraging perosnally;-



"...There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance of our will to overcome them.
Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult. It is easy to think that we want something when we do not really want it. A famous Christian long ago told us that when he was a young man he prayed constantly for chastity; but years later he realised that while his lips had been saying, "Oh Lord, make me chaste," his heart had been secretly adding, "But please don't do it just yet." This may happen in prayers for other virtues too; but there are three reasons why it is now specially difficult for us to desire-let alone to achieve-complete chastity.
In the first place our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the desires we are resisting are so "natural," so "healthy," and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a truth-the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is "normal" and "healthy," and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and "nature," but between Christian principle and other principles in the control of "nature." For "nature" (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards obeying the others.
In the second place, many people are deterred from seriously attempting Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible. But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper, one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.

We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help. Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help, or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure, ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, or truthfulness, or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.
Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about "repressions." It teaches us that "repressed" sex is dangerous. But "repressed" is here a technical term: it does not mean "suppressed" in the sense of "denied" or "resisted." A repressed desire or thought is one which has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form. Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all. When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire, he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else. They come to know their desires as Wellington knew Napoleon, or as Sherlock Holmes knew Moriarty; as a rat-catcher knows rats or a plumber knows about leaky pipes. Virtue-even attempted virtue-brings light; indulgence brings fog........."

Peter

....confused - are you really saying you have never experienced Christ's power over temptation and sin in your life?

Or are you saying you don't think I have explained the reality of it and how to acquire it adequately?

If so, I never thought I could in this environment.

I am simply acting as a sign post to people seeking help from other peopel better qualified to give it.

Shalom

Peter...

Perhaps you could explain to us how you find that Christ helps you overcome your sin nature and temptation?

I believe you have experienced this and can share it with others here.

I find a key issue is sowing and reaping.

If we pour junk into our minds and spirits regulalry ie from the media, from people, from books, through putting ourselves in the way of temptation, this is going to cause problems.

If we take care what fuel we put in, and deliberately pour in quality fuel, people, books and media into our minds, I believe we are moving towards victory.

Consistency over time and allowances for failure are required, as pointed out by CS Lewis, above.

God is looking at our motives and "...will not judge us as though we had no difficulties to overcome..."

Shalom

before I go Peter,

the overwhelming impression I get from you on this thread is that you are embarassed by the church addressing this subject, either because we are not intellectually or spiritually up to it.

I feel as though you are reluctant to explore it yourself but still appear determined to challenge every point made on accuracy, clarity or credibility, every step of the way.

It doesn't seem to add up to me.

Not attacking, articulating my perception and feeling....

You are saying that we have critical differences in how we see matters of faith, but I cant really see what you mean.

To me this is a pretty safe space for all sides of this discussion, there is no condemnation of anyone with SSA and no pressure on them to take part or stay.

It seems like an ideal place for people to be informed and discuss the matters IMHO.

I am therefore struggling to see the reason for the persistent objections you raise.

It would make more sense to me if you expended the same amount of energy to show how it should be done rather than to issue some objection or challenge to every post I make.

confused!

OT

"there is no condemnation of anyone with SSA"

Come on OT, that is hypocricy even by your standards. Your christian views have made you the voice homophobia on this blog for years. There's examples from both your present poster identity as well as the pb/pbmild/originalpb identities you've run away from in embarrassment.

OT

To save long posts from here on in, one thing at a time. (in reverse order)

You said, "It would make more sense to me if you expended the same amount of energy to show how it should be done rather than to issue some objection or challenge to every post I make."

In terms of how it could be done, I have already said what I would say to 'Benny', of course it was only a starting point, but the underlying presumption is this, my view is that I will now try to listen to another person, another Christian, before I use evangelical language like, "God's unconditional love", " none of us need to be slaves to the sinful nature" and so on, because sometimes I'm not sure what I mean by these words or what the preacher means by these words, (and sometimes the preacher doesn't tell us what he means) so how can I be sure what Benny means by them?

We need to take small steps and we must understand each other, we must know what the words mean to us, and that takes time.

Second in terms of challenge, how can I understand what you mean if I don't question/challenge what you say, I am looking for clarity and meaning, that's what debate/conversation is. Of course I could just set out to find an agreed form of words, but what would that do for our understanding of one another, not much I suggest.

Third, to take an example away from the gay issue, I might point to some of what happens on this blog, and I'm as guilty as anyone. You know what I do here, I keep on defending traditional reformed christianity, but I have rarely ever asked Brian or Helio or PeterK, "Guys, what is it really bugs you about me, or Christianity?" In other words I don't listen enough, and we in the church need to listen more.

RJB I'll get back to you I want to see the Chelsea highlights.

Hello petermorrow,

"Guys, what is it really bugs you about me, or Christianity?"

I can't say that anything has ever bugged me about your style of posting. I was slightly astounded when OT accused you of personal attacks on another thread. I can't remember you being anything other than very civilized and patient in your posts. If I had any criticism in that area it might be that you are perhaps more trusting of people than some of them deserve.

If I find anythings to disagree with it would be in the message of your posts. I generally dislike christianity (or religion in general) being taken as a source for answers. That goes very much for answers about things in the tangible world (and that world may encompass quite a few more things than people suspect) where it is either wholly inadequate or there are at least far better sources available. My dislike also applies to things like e.g. morality, where the supposed word of god doesn't inspire only what I consider good behaviour but also some outright grotesque things. I would happily see it go altogether.

That means I don't like your world view. But I may also think a little of how John Wright described his experience in Saddleback. He said something like 'If everyone was like that, that would be great'. I'd rather see chrisianity be thrown onto the dung heap of history, but as long as there are people who follow it, it would be good thing if their behaviour mirrored your presence on the blog here. Apart from starting from a christian perspective, I can't see much wrong with it.

Ok Peter.

And if you happen to get filled with righteous indignation, (although I know you are not that type of guy), about the way Chelsea were defeated - God the English Press will be full of it tomorrow about cheating - maybe we can all reflect on a match a few years ago when Chelsea played Barcelona at Stamford Bridge and......... Chelsea poured tons and tons of sand on the park to stop Messi and his pals from actually playing. (They had the park fully returfed within a week of that game!!)

Seems match fixing is "widely spread!!"

Tonight was almost Biblical. "Vengeance is mine" sayeth the Lord.

And while the English newspapers will be filled with headers like "Jaime FIXED it!", I hope the Spanish headers read "GET TURFED, CHELSEA!"

OT

Give me any definition of 'fundamentalist' you like. You are one, however softly or harshly you care to define the word.

The world is no more than six thousand years old.... The only sex approved by God is in marriage.... Every word of the Bible must be obeyed.....

Not confused, certain!!

Peter M

Thanks for your reply.

I am wondering, perhaps the reason we appear to be in tension on the issue of sexuality is that you affirm same sex relations as perfectly acceptable to God.

I don't think I have ever seen you express any spiritual/biblical concern about same sex relations at any time throughour our discussion.

Perhaps this would explain why we appear to be misunderstanding each other???

If this is the case, it would be helpful if you made this clear.

I will still be glad to continue the discussion in a civil manner either way.

sincerely

OT





PS In ref to some other points;-


- I do see that the bible clearly forbids homosexual relations but my approach on the matter is not to focus on condemnation of those with SSA but rather to share my experience of Christ.

- I openly changed my username on this blog, the BBC apologised for problems with my account

OT

This thread,

My post 26 (last paragraph)

My post 77 (paragraph 2)

The Vermont Legalises Gay Marriage thread

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/vermont_legalises_gay_marriage.html

my post 58, my post 69 (second line)

I have also made my views know on other threads but shall not refer to them as I don't think you were involved in those discussions, and I dont presume that you have necessarily read them.

My response to RJB (to follow) might also explain some of my thoughts on the wider matter, and it is the wider matter I am trying to refer to.

Tell me this would ongoing statements from me about my views on traditional Christian marriage, affirming and reaffirming it in any way help 'Benny'? I just don't see the need to keep making the point.

RJB (sorry!)

OT

David Wells, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, in his book Above All Earthly Powers, writes, in his concluding chapter, "It is only as the evangelical church begins to put it's own house in order, it's members begin to disentangle themselves from all those cultural habits which mitigate against a belief in truth, and begin to embody that truth in the way that the church actually lives, that postmodern skepticism might be overcome. Postmoderns want to see as well as hear, to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is being said. This is a valid and biblical demand. Faith, after all, is dead without works, and few sins are dealt with as harshly by Jesus as hypocrisy. What postmoderns want to see, and are entitled to see, is believing and being, talking and doing, all joined together in a seemless whole. This is the great challenge of the moment for the evangelical church."

I might add, the use of postmodern is a general cultural term (this is not specifically about postmodernists so much as it is about the evangelical church and what we have become) and that if 'Benny' does not see the church acting holistically in this way then it is hypocritical of the church to offer him advice. It is what I have been trying to say all along.

BTW I'm not accusing you of being hypocritical. (just to be clear)

I shall not quote any more professors!

Romejellybean

I am not a Chelsea supporter. Whisper it quietly, I support M. United. Having said that I felt dreadfully sorry for Arsenal, the first two goals were just bad luck, anyone would be sick at conceding them, I didn't cheer (not much anyway) I did cheer loudly though on sight of the third goal!

You are correct, I am not full of righteous indignation, but that is only because I know, with all my heart, that I am always right and so never feel the need to be indignant!

In terms of OT's post 80, I am familiar with nearly all the language, including battle, sin, fail, rebel and so on, it is the language of the evangelical world, I am of the evangelical world.

Now here's the thing (and don't go off on one (!) please) I don't have a particular problem with the language or the concepts, although I do agree that some can use the terms as 'religious terrorism', and yes the 'God's love' bit is often an after thought.

But I do approach Christianity on the basis that it has something to do with redemption, a making of all things new. I also suppose that his might involve me changing in some way or another and that it might call me to confront some uncomfortable truths about myself, for example I'm a vengeful, and judgmental **** at times. Not good.

I'm not convinced either that God's love and the call to personal change are incompatible, Christian mystics, for example, of all sorts and denominations, have spoken of this for centuries.

My problem is basically this, there is a fair amount of finger pointing in Christianity, and a communication of a significant amount of guilt too, I have fired a fair bit of it around myself over the years but have learned that in the end this is just Phariseeism. In the end most of us finger point so we can feel better about ourselves, it isn't good.

I hope this helps to explain my point of view.

PeterM

I wont go off on one lol. Although I'm not used to the evangelical lingo which I find extremely dualistic and I cannot understand the perseverance with old English translations of The Bible, from which such language is derived, I am very much aware that as Catholics, we are indebted to the Protestant churches for our understanding of the scriptures today.

I have absolutely no problem in debating issues with you as your arguments are reasoned and open to change, development and learning. I find your response to people like Benny, christian, compassionate, understanding and, you certainly dont appear to me to be looking down on the Bennys of this world from an ivory tower. I think Benny would be in safe hands with you for one reason - he would be on a level playing field and you would not be attempting to impose your beliefs on him.

OT, on the other hand comes across as condescending to the Bennys of this world, and just doesnt see it - genuinely doesnt see it. I would use the phrase 'sincere insincerity.'

I also abhor this notion which is embedded in concrete in OT that sex is wrong outside marriage. What a narrow, negative, destructive view that is. God speaks to us most powerfully through the people in our lives and often most powerfully in the person we choose as our partner. To dismiss all these people just because they didnt happen to choose to have some minister/priest/registrar pronounce them husband and wife, I find offensive. (It is irrelevant to me whether those two people happen to be of the same sex. They are who they are and are just as open to God's grace as anyone else.)

I once heard a woman sharing very courageously on the subject of sexuality at a weekend for young adults. She took the risk of describing a day when her daughter had been involved in a car accident. The woman described how eventually they left their daughter lying in intensive care and returned home. Herself and her husband fell into bed that night, their lives wrecked, their hearts broken. They clung to eachother in their grief and ended up making love.

Much to the laughter of the young people present, she went on to say that she actually felt that the Lord was present with them in that moment. (Laughter because of the comments about three in a bed!!) However, when she stopped smiling, she went on to teach that audience AND ME, something very important about the gift of sexuality and it had absolutely nothing to do with procreation. Two people brought every single aspect of who they were to eachother that night, in pain, terror, grief and the depths of what it is to be human. (Their daughter survived, by the way.)

Am I to believe that, that moment would be frowned upon by God had they not been married? (That's direceted at OT, by the way.)

Its for reasons such as this that I find OT's views condescending, narrow and damaging.

Great thread guys - and great resolution on some of the obstacles to the discussion. When I finally caught up tonight it gave me a good read. :-)

For the record I agree most with Portwyne, and Oul Peter Morrow isn't too far behind.