|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pastoral Response: Gay Teenagers in the Heartland
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I read today the second in a series of articles about gay teens in the American heartland in the Washington Post. I apologize that the Post requires (free) registration, but it's well worth it, as I suspect the author may get a Pulitzer out of this series. The story for today is here: Young and Gay in Real America I had several thoughts -- for example that this story shows that people who say that being gay is a lifestyle choice are basically wrong here, as none of these kids would remotely have "chosen" anything that had the kind of social result this has in the heartland.
But for this OP, I'm asking about what can be done to improve pastoral response to gay teenagers. What really strikes one in this story is the opportunity this family's church had to help and how much they blew it. Here's the relevant bit re: the pastoral approach (remember, this is to a kid so miserable that he tried to commit suicide and spent time in a psychaiatric ward coming to terms with what his town and family couldn't handle. And he had to drop out of school because of the hostility.
quote:
Janice Shackelford worries about Michael's eternal salvation, but the truth is, she's embarrassed to have a gay son. She imagines the small-town speculations of those who might wonder where she went wrong as a mother. Janice grew up in Sand Springs but has told only two friends about Michael. She thinks her secret is contained until her pastor approaches her one Sunday before church. "Now, Janice," she recalls the pastor gently saying. "I'm going to talk about something this morning and I want you to know that it's not directed at you." He preaches against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Janice sits through it, wondering how many others know.
What struck me in is is the total failure of the attempted pastoral intervention. It won on several accounts some sort of insensitive outreach award. Relying on gossip, his pastoral response was to take the mother aside and tell her that his upcoming sermon "isn't directed at you", then preaches a humdinger against homosexuality and same sex marriage. This is, it seems to me, missing the boat on so many levels.
Anyway, the story ends with the kid ending up back in the psych facility after another depressive episode and then leaving town for Las Vegas (God, what a choice, why not just start with the fleshpots of Tulsa then move up??)
It just seems that, even within the context of the anti-gay evangelical church that basicf Christian charity would compel a better response than this festering pile of crap.
[ 14. December 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Damn. Not a nibble. And I thought it was a good OP. Next thing you know ES will turn up and support the minister's action and Arabella will have him for breakfast and it'll all go to Dead Horses in a day.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Laura,
Do you mean to confine this discussion to what churches that believe homosexuality is sinful should do?
I agree with what you say in the OP. I think the "pastoral intervention" you bring up happens in other areas as well (e.g., churches that preach against divorce). It's a sticky issue when the Church has to raise a standard that the congregation isn't living up to - in fact, can't live up to.
So I suppose churches should work on their general culture - easier said than done, I know - and become more transparent about this. People in a church should know that they're not expected to be perfect, and that they're accepted even with whatever the church identifies as faults.
The pastor in your illustration should've had a much longer conversation with the mother, and should have been supportive in her relationship with her son - helping her to try to understand why she's embarrased, and what she can do about or in spite of it.
OK, there's a start. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 27. September 2004, 16:37: Message edited by: church geek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I'm willing to stipulate for the purposes of the OP that the church in question is faced with a moral conundrum. How should it respond, even given that conundrum? I mean, surely Jesus has given some guidance here. (It's difficult of course for me, when I think the church in question is being not only cruel but is theologically wrong as well, but that's another debate...)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Lyda rushes into class -pant-pant- "I'm here! Sorry I'm late!"
It's tragic all right. The thing is that for people like that pastor homosexuals are not people, they're homosexuals. It's like something I've noted about some people whose main mission is to proselytize, that unless one is saved they are of no use on a personal level except as fodder for salvation. Only this is worse, because despite all the rhetoric about "love the sinner, hate the sin", it is very seldom applied. Such people's idea of love is to hammer the person for their sins until they repent thus avoiding perdition. The fact that a person with a homosexual orientation can't repent and truly change what they are is beside the point. This kind of "loving" Christian would rather be right than offer real love and kindness.
I must say, it seems the RCC does better as a whole than many others. I'm sure there are gay RCs that would disagree but there are significant RC charities that have been on the front lines of AIDS work, so at least they do something of real pastoral help for part of the community. And I've read that the RCC's policy is that a gay Catholic is still a Catholic and is welcome in the community although they don't go so far to approve of homosexual activity. At least it's not "God hates fags".
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Part I of the article is at In the Bible Belt, Acceptance is Hard-Won
I think the problem with the pastoral response is a bad theology of sexuality and gender.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
I think the problem with the pastoral response is a bad theology of sexuality and gender.
Or maybe a bad theology of grace?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
I am a member of a UCC church. While our congregation is merely accepting of homosexuality, other area UCC churches have active outreach programs to try to reach homosexuals who have been the target of vilification because of the nature of their sexuality.
I don't believe that it is possible to preach an anti-homosexual theology without creating exactly the sort of hurt described in the article.
What is sad and most unfair is that, even if we were to believe that homosexuality is sinful, these people are being singled out for so many churchs' special brand of ostracization despite everything that is said about justification by faith alone. They are denied the forgiveness that those who gamble, engage in extramartial affairs, abuse alcohol and drugs, etc are all granted.
Bartolomeo
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Oh.
It's another one of these - say all the things about how nasty evangelicals are that I should say in dead horses but no one will read them there.
Silly me for even reading.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Linus
Apprentice
# 3961
|
Posted
In my eyes a big part of the problem is that where homosexuality is seen as sinful, it is singled out as an almost unforgivable sin - as somehow shameful in a way that other 'common or garden' sin isn't. Whatever you categorize as sinful behaviour or not, i think you'll agree that the definition of sin is anything that has rebellion against God at its root. That's what the term sin means and if all sin is equally rebellion against God (either you are in open rebellion against God or you aren't) it is all by definition equal - it's the same thing at root.
Why is it that the gay community sees the church as homophobic, whilst no-one today suggests the church has a phobia about (as opposed to just disagreeing with) heterosexual sex out of wedlock, even though the churches who preach against homosexuality will generally be very strong on the whole idea of sanctity of marriage? Is this just the church's fault or is it a situation brought about by the state of society or what?
Whatever the case may be, we're in a situation now where conservative evangelical churches must make blatantly clear that the act of homosexual sex is no better or worse in their eyes than any other kind of (what they regard as) sinful behaviour. The prevailing opinion in (my) society is that the conservative evangelical church sees people who live a gay lifestyle as monsters, not humans at all, and that opinion needs to be forcefully challenged by those churches, else they are failing to effectively represent Christ to their communities (He certainly does not think that any of us are monsters, whatever He thinks about any specific aspects of our behaviour - and i'm the first to admit there are aspects of mine that i know sadden Him).
It's also worth pointing out that in order to deal with issues as deep and vital as our sexuality, we need to be able to trust those around us enough that we can be honest about the reality of what we feel. repression and dictatorial control is always destructive and love always allows people to be honest: It really gets to me that the really conservative churches seem to have the attitude that if only they can get everyone to behave outwardly like them - same moral standards etc - then everything will be ok. It's such a controlling and legalistic impulse and its so wrong. There is such an emphasis on this that you could be forgiven for believing such a church wouldn't care about the attitude of your heart to God, provided you could act in a morally "respectable" way. sound familiar?
Jesus said time and again that change comes from the inside out. I've heard it said "Love God and do what you like. In that order" If people preached with that attitude rather than the "don't do this don't do that" attitude then at the very least, hopefully when people went against the (individual) church's doctrine, whilst that church should stand firm on what it believes, it might manage to do so in a less condemning and destructive way - it's an attitude that focusses on God and not on each other's behaviour.
What really saddened me about the article in the OP was that the poor bloke in question had been forced out of his community. Again, way to represent Christ, folks. Fundamental principle - if you want people to change don't villify them. Don't push them away and don't hurt them. Even more fundamental principle - if you love someone, you don't villify them, hurt them or push them away; love does no wrong. And, as usual, love is the key thing.
L:>
p.s. having had a bit of a think, whilst all that i've said above i stand by, i think its worth pointing out that the OP story wasn't just one of pastoral failure, or of the church failing someone - most of what happens seems to be caused by a general failure in the attitude of society, although this is even more of a reason for the church within that society to take a lead in showing love to people, regardless of whether they agree with their actions or not.
--------------------
"In a world full of fugitives, the one taking the opposite direction will appear to run away" - t.s.elliot
Posts: 32 | From: Leicester and Newcastle, UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Maybe he was trying to make the point that his moral position was that it was not a sin to "be" a homosexual person, but is to "act" on the impulse.
Or maybe he was being a turnip.
But I am with Lep on this - it is a dead horse, and IMO is an attempt for it to be dragged back for no other reason than to kick those who do not accept the position.
C
[ 27. September 2004, 18:36: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Cheesy, Lep -- did you read my OP? My OP asks what, even given a certain theological position on the subject, should/can a congregation do better to minister to teens in crisis, when they are to the point where they are suicidal? Do you think this Pastor's approach was effective in any way? I mean, the kid pretty much had to leave town. Is that the solution? Now I'm the disappointed one.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
I'm thinking aloud here but...
I think the theology creates an almost insurmountable obstacle for any kind of helpful pastoral response. It makes it impossible for sincere, loving people to offer unequivocal acceptance to gay people whilst simultaneously creating a breathing space or foothold* for real bigots. And I think that when you take a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach, you can't help but communicate a qualified acceptance only and therefore a less pastorally effective one.
I also think that there are people who are acting in a bigoted fashion because they sincerely believe that is most helpful way to behave - sort of a "cruel to be kind" approach. Unfortunately they aren't able to learn that it's not working.
This is part of a wider problem I have with a certain kind of evangelicalism which puts a particular interpretation of the bible on such a high level (absolute truth) that it can't be questioned. So it short-circuits the learning-feedback process. People, IMHO basically good people, behave in bizarre ways because they are unable to question certain 'truths' even if their experiences and those of people around them - would normally lead them to.
Back to the topic - I think the only pastoral response left is to be as loving as possible whilst accepting that you're going to hurt people whenever you have to express what you really believe. In other words, you make loving people - which can be hard enough anyway - harder than it has to be.
But hey, I often think that Christianity is about doing 7 impossible things before breakfast.
*and let's face it, in some cases, a platform for outright hate-mongering.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...Do you think this Pastor's approach was effective in any way? I mean, the kid pretty much had to leave town. Is that the solution? ...
There are two people to whom I see the pastor having a responsibility - Matthew, and his mother. It's hard to see how any sermon of the nature described could be helpful to Matthew. And, it did not help his mother -- and the "it's not about you" talk generally means "of course it's about you".
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
My OP asks what, even given a certain theological position on the subject, should/can a congregation do better to minister to teens in crisis, when they are to the point where they are suicidal? Do you think this Pastor's approach was effective in any way? I mean, the kid pretty much had to leave town. Is that the solution? Now I'm the disappointed one.
Ok, I'll bite.
Again, I don't believe that it is possible to preach an anti-homosexual theology without creating exactly the sort of hurt described in the article.
I will also add that most homosexuals who live in small rural towns, who accept their homosexuality rather than trying to deny it, end up moving to larger cities. This is true regardless of church response because secular institutions are unaccepting of homosexuality in such places. The kids find that they can't get a job and get beat up at bars and so on.
But yes, that aside, the pastoral response in this case was particularly bad.
The best response would have been to sermonize on the diversity of creation, salvation by faith, original sin, or the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" parable.
Preaching about the evils of some particular favorite sin doesn't accomplish anything other than to drive out people who disagree. Sometimes this is useful, as when someone has abused a leadership role in the service of sinful behavior, or when the church wishes to define itself more narrowly at the expense of a few members.
Bartolomeo
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
While I agree that it's difficult to hold certain theological positions and provide effective pastoral care, I don't think it's impossible.
I come from a family in which there are so many ministers that time spent in seminary is often referred to as paying your due on the family curse, and we come down on both sides of the homosexuality issue.
Those who believe that homosexuality is sinful tend to deal with it as they deal with other pastoral issues that affect a small number of their congregations - in private. Just as they don't preach about how sinful sex outside marriage is to a congregation that's mostly married (although they will bring it up in the youth programs), they don't preach on homosexuality, since they view it as irrelevant to the spiritual growth of most of the people they're speaking to.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
I'm in agreement that the theology of the pastor probably had a lot to do with how badly he executed his pastoral duties.
Why is homosexuality a deal breaker for conservatives, most of whom accept divorce without a second thought? (66% actually- source linked below) It obviously isn't a desire to conform to a scripture-based ethic of marraige or sexuality, else they'd be far more concerned and passionate about divorce than they are about homosexuality.
This suggests that the conservative reaction to homosexuality is less about theology or scripture and more emotional or political; the theology is being employed to justify attitudes created and accepted prior to any theology's influence.
This also means then that people holding this position aren't ambivalent about the matter- they feel strongly about it, and so it becomes all the more difficult to act with charity and for the best interests of the gay person.
I suspect that the intense feeling people have about homosexuality is a kind of scapegoating - evangelicals are as likely as non-evangelicals to get divorces (source, and the stats for the previous study in 2001 had evanglicals more likely to get divorces), which suggests that the real anger over the issue of marriage and sexuality might come from the vast divide between the rhetoric of conservatives regaridng marriage and the fact that their subculture and faith practice is not helpful to them at all. So long as this anger is present, it will behard for people in its grip to exercise grace- they have to be able to see themselves as its recipients before they can extend it to others.
[ 27. September 2004, 20:28: Message edited by: MadFarmer ]
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Cheesy, Lep -- did you read my OP? My OP asks what, even given a certain theological position on the subject, should/can a congregation do better to minister to teens in crisis, when they are to the point where they are suicidal? Do you think this Pastor's approach was effective in any way? I mean, the kid pretty much had to leave town. Is that the solution? Now I'm the disappointed one.
I did and it is a very unfortunate story.
What would be an acceptable alternative? Given that the option of affirming same-sex sexual relationships was not an option, what else could he have said [assuming that this is the pastor's position]. At least the man had the gumph to say to the subject of the OP - look man, this isn't directed just at you. Not a very good excuse I grant you, and zero awarded for tact.
I suggest that the best one could have expected in this position was for the pastor not to mention homosexuality at all. But the problem is that extending this to anyone who might get offended at any given subject will mean that the man never says anything.
There are, I'm afraid, two sides to every story. As I said, this man may have been being a complete turnip, and may have a bee in his bonnet about sexual sins. Or it may be that the man was not able to listen to the pastor at that time and would have been better suited elsewhere.
Sexuality is a very emotive issue, understandably as it affects many people and I appreciate that many people have suffered abuse at the hands of the church. But, ISTM that it is impossible to have any sexual morality without offending somebody.
Without getting into dead horse areas, how does the church remain prophetic (whatever and however we understand the term) whilst at the same time protecting the weak? It is a very narrow tightrope.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Laura, my sweet, don't forget I live in New Zealand, so I've been fast asleep while most of you are awake - Tortuf never sleeps so I occasionally get to overlap with him, but most of you are asleep when I'm awake. I had read the first of the articles yesterday, since I read the major US newspapers as part of my job. I've now read the second.
My answer is that you won't get a sensitive pastoral approach from this kind of church because of their belief that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered. Now, I know that is a Catholic phrase, but my observation is that it accurately describes the views of anti-gay churches. They see homosexuals, sexually active or not, as ontologically different from themselves. And those demons which make it so need to be driven out - which isn't a kind or gentle process.
I have a couple of friends who had exactly the experience Michael had and it took one of them nearly 20 years to realise that the church was wrong about her and that it had abused her. She lived in a self-condemning hell for far too long, did absolutely everything she could to become straight, but it never worked. Her parents took about that long to realise that their casting out of her was wrong as well.
If I were to suggest a sensitive pastoral approach it would be to send the gay or lesbian person to a queer support group and keep on giving them feedback that they were an OK person. If there is no support group available, find books for them to read for and by queer people so they know they're not alone. Stick up for them in the congregation. If there is significant homophobia within the congregation then let them know that God won't damn them to hell for not attending church.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
What would be an acceptable alternative? Given that the option of affirming same-sex sexual relationships was not an option, what else could he have said [assuming that this is the pastor's position].
It seems to me that the pastor could safely assume that most of his congregants are not homosexual, and that most are not tempted to homosexual acts. Since he only gets 15 or 20 minutes a week (or an hour, or whatever his standard sermon length is) to teach and exhort most of the members of his congregation, using that precious time to exhort them not to commit a sin they are not ever tempted to commit seems like poor stewardship, at the very least. If he wants to exhort them not to sin, he should be talking to them about pride, vanity, gluttony, avarice, or other sins that are more troublesome for more of his congregation.
Let's say that a member of his congregation is pregnant, and has just learned that the infant is anencephalic. Let's also say that the pastor believes that an abortion in such an instance would be a sin. Would it make sense for him to preach a sermon on aborting fetuses who have no hope of living? Or would it make more sense for him to counsel this couple privately, helping them make sense of their personal tragedy, of the injustice of what God seems to be asking of them, of the fallenness of the world.
Likewise, if a member of the congregation has a loved one who is terminally ill and who is asking for help in committing suicide, and if the pastor believes that providing such help is a sin, I can't see what anyone would gain from a sermon on the subject, and I can see much that could be gained from pastoral support.
If he must preach a sermon on the subject of homosexuality, given that he thinks it's a sin, I think it would be most appropriate to point out plainly that all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful, and that homosexual acts are no more or less sinful than adultery or fornication. It might also be helpful for him to point out that it is easy for most of us to justify those sins we are tempted to, and easy to condemn those sins to which we are never tempted. Clearly, though, we should be careful to do it the other way around -- to see our own sins as being without excuse, while excusing the sins of others.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
I've got nothing to add except to say how moving I thought the series has been and to mention an interesting article in the most recent issue of Christianity Today. It's by a 19-year-old student at a Los Angeles Bible college who volunteered for an AIDS hospice ministry and got paired up with Lance Loud, the never-a-dull-moment son on the PBS documentary "An American Family" who came out on the air in 1973.
I don't agree with everything the student wrote, but it was a thought-provoking piece.
[ 27. September 2004, 22:30: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
The depressing thing about the story is that the woman was dealing with the whole situation without support from the church - and that was where the problems started. She should have run to the church for real support in the situation, and the church should have been there for her as well. Instead she was playing 'Pharisee' - hiding her problems in the closet and pretending all was well, a mistake we all make..... Of course being gay is no worse than many other sins that are out there - how would our liberal brethren cope with Jonathan Aitkin turning up to preach at their church?
In reality the church should be as embarrassed at the unmarried mother sister as the gay. And undoubtedly the ideal is that there should be groups of gay Christian celibates meeting together to encourage themselves in the faith, and to offer an alternative lifestyle to the teenagers struggling with the issue. Because they are out there... though seldom visible like their non-celibate brethren. But I suspect that may be a bit much to achieve in practice over there, though I believe that True Freedom Trust does offer something like that in the UK.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In reality the church should be as embarrassed at the unmarried mother sister as the gay.
I find this difficult because in my view the church should be equally loving and accepting of people regardless of whether they see them as "caught in sin" of some kind or not. This young man attempted suicide, I don't imagine an embarassed response would have improved his self worth any or enabled him to develop a healthy self esteem. In my view a loving, private response was what was required from the pastor, conveying God's acceptance of the person for who he is, a precious child of God, regardless of whether individuals "agree" with is sexuality.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In reality the church should be as embarrassed at the unmarried mother sister as the gay....
I'm not being flippant when I ask the following:
Are you saying the Church should be embarrassed about Mary, the mother of our Lord?
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
quote:
how does the church remain prophetic (whatever and however we understand the term) whilst at the same time protecting the weak? It is a very narrow tightrope.
I think that "protecting the weak" is part of the very definition of being prophetic.
quote:
It seems to me that the pastor could safely assume that most of his congregants are not homosexual, and that most are not tempted to homosexual acts. Since he only gets 15 or 20 minutes a week (or an hour, or whatever his standard sermon length is) to teach and exhort most of the members of his congregation, using that precious time to exhort them not to commit a sin they are not ever tempted to commit seems like poor stewardship, at the very least. If he wants to exhort them not to sin, he should be talking to them about pride, vanity, gluttony, avarice, or other sins that are more troublesome for more of his congregation.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Well-put, well-put.
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Given that this topic is a bit like certain threads down at the knackers, I am loath to add anything to the augment.
However one thing strikes me, given the difficulty gay people have in finding tolerance let alone acceptance in the 'Heartland' the sermon should have been on tolerance of others. But sins like intolerance are a plank in the eye of the intolerant.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It seems to me that the pastor could safely assume that most of his congregants are not homosexual, and that most are not tempted to homosexual acts. Since he only gets 15 or 20 minutes a week (or an hour, or whatever his standard sermon length is) to teach and exhort most of the members of his congregation, using that precious time to exhort them not to commit a sin they are not ever tempted to commit seems like poor stewardship, at the very least. If he wants to exhort them not to sin, he should be talking to them about pride, vanity, gluttony, avarice, or other sins that are more troublesome for more of his congregation..
Hey, more troublesome for the whole population. This is the best point I've heard so far. Why spend time preaching against same sex marriage to a community of predominantly straights? I never think about "committing" gay sexual acts. I'm a glutton about daily. I even (shudder) have have lust in my heart. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Josephine definitely deserves a
Unfortunately, the reality is quite otherwise.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Arabella: I know you're in New Zealand! I was just making an ill-timed jest, as I knew you'd have something to say about this.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
I think the pastor's lapse goes well beyond his theology about homosexuality.
If the mother in the story had ever gone to him for counsel, advice, support, etc. that would be one thing. But it appears that he approached a parishioner about an assumption he had made concerning her son. The fact that the assumption may have been based in fact is, in the context of this lapse, irrelevant.
No one in a position like his -- a position of both trust and authority -- has the right to speak or act toward a parishioner on the basis of assumed knowledge. At the very least, he had a duty to attempt to discern the facts first. If he had any true concern for this woman, he would have found a way to speak with her well in advance and sound her out, encouraging her to share any concerns she had. If she didn't share this confidence, then he has no right to presume, in his remarks to her, a confidence that was not offered.
If she did share her issues, then he would have the responsibility to share with her in private, well in advance of any sermon, that he would preach on this subject. This at least gives her the option of sitting that Sunday out. As I read the story, he sideswipes the poor woman on her way into the sanctuary -- plus he's done that on the basis of an assumption.
Both the timing and the assuming show a profound lack of pastoral care for his parishioner, quite apart from the theology he has embraced about the son's sexual orientation.
Such a lack of care for a member of his congregation should send up red flags for every member of his parish, and if there's a heirarchy involved, to those to whom he reports (bishops, elders, etc.). This pastor does not deserve the privilege of serving.
It needn't be about homosexuality. Suppose he approaches, out of the blue, a woman about her husband's cheating, proposing to preach on infidelity? "This isn't directed at you."
He needs a long enforced vacation somewhere far away from parishioners.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I've got nothing to add except to say how moving I thought the series has been and to mention an interesting article in the most recent issue of Christianity Today. It's by a 19-year-old student at a Los Angeles Bible college who volunteered for an AIDS hospice ministry and got paired up with Lance Loud, the never-a-dull-moment son on the PBS documentary "An American Family" who came out on the air in 1973.
I don't agree with everything the student wrote, but it was a thought-provoking piece.
I agree -- I encourage everyone to read this piece. This is really about seeing with the eyes of Jesus even when you think the recipient is sinful in a big way.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I agree -- I encourage everyone to read this piece. This is really about seeing with the eyes of Jesus even when you think the recipient is sinful in a big way.
I agree, too. Thanks, Presleyterian, for posting that link. It is a beautiful essay.
(And I think more of Lance Loud for loving cats.)
Rossweisse // with one purring on my lap
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
The approach I have been taking lately with people in our (conevo) church when the topic comes up is stressing the importance of good communication.
For instance, a few weeks ago in NZ there was a public rally against the Civil Unions Bill on the basis that it was granting homosexual the right to a legal equivalent to marriage. The general public perception of that rally was that it was hate filled and anti-gay.
Someone I spoke to in our church about it thought that this was an unfair characterisation of the rally, because the marchers were saying "we love you, we just hate what you do." He thought I'd be impressed by his defence of the rally.
I pointed out to him that communication is a two way process. We need to pay attention to those we speak to and ensure that they are hearing what we intend to say. If we genuinely believe we communicate in love, then we need to make sure that love is what they are hearing. If people can't hear what you think you are communicating then you're not communicating.
Instead, the conevo's in this situation simply felt indignant and blamed the media and the listeners for misrepresentation. The fact is, they added the words "but we love you" in parentheses. This is entirely back to front. (Assuming that there is a problem with homosexuality - which is not the question being posed in this thread.)
Where are the rallies of people proclaiming "We love you! God loves you!"? Maybe if the conevo church can get that bit right, and establish beyond doubt the genuineness of that love, then you could add in parentheses "and I'm a little concerned at this." But it needs to happen in the context of genuine relationship, trust, unconditional love and mutual respect.
What's more important, to tell someone that God loves them recklessly, or to tell them that they aren't living up to the "standards" (as you see them)?
Kiwi // undecided on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, but utterly convinced that if it is wrong then it's nowhere near as big a deal as many make it out to be.
PS. The guy I spoke to about this seems to be avoiding me now.
[ 28. September 2004, 02:40: Message edited by: kiwigoldfish ]
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
Am I the only one here who is entertaining the possibility that the pastor preached his sermon as a response to current trends in American culture? And that it was, in fact, a very pastoral thing to approach the mother beforehand lest she think she was being explicitly condemned?
(I had several ideas on what this second paragraph should contain but none of them would get past the hosts, so forget it.)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I've got nothing to add except to say how moving I thought the series has been and to mention an interesting article in the most recent issue of Christianity Today....I don't agree with everything the student wrote, but it was a thought-provoking piece.
I don't want to let my biases about others enter in, but I think this is the closest statement in this article that would create a "dead horse" argument:
quote:
The concept of loving the sinner and hating the sin is difficult to practice. Distinguishing the sinners from their sin is not so simple. Had I told Lance that I hated his homosexuality but truly loved him, he would have likely asked, "Jonathan, what the hell does that mean?"
The trouble is that I can't be absolutely sure what "hating the sin" would be in this case. The article describes various activities in which Lance Loud participated which, I think, could be safely "hated." And, the author of the article clearly acknowledged that there is a problem with this "love-hate" relationship when he said Loud would have likely asked, "Jonathan, what the hell does that mean?"
I give the author much credit and praise for working on this issue, and getting over an irrational fear of the "other," as demonstrated with the following:
quote:
He once asked me, "Jonathan, why are you my friend?"
I thought for a moment. "Because I love you."
"Are you going to save me?" he asked.
I smiled. "Maybe. We'll see."
His unspoken condition was that he be my friend, not my project. I don't believe anyone wants to be a project. I wasn't Lance's friend because of his homosexuality or in spite of it. And this unexpected friendship brought healing to my own fear and prejudice toward gays.
There are some people on both sides of this issue that need healing to their fear and prejudice. I know. The motorcycle club to which I belong has all-gay membership.
In the past year there have been those who have shown fear when saying the phrase "I praying for you" as I have dealt with cancer for almost the entire past year. I find this somewhat surprising, as I have mentioned (on rare occasions) my participation in church activities.
There are also those that, by their actions, have made it clear they didn't want me to ever use the word "church," "God," or "Jesus" in front of them. Since the action is "make a friend, be a friend, lead a friend to Christ," I oblige them. (This is about the only Bill Bright you will hear me quote.) I know they need to ask me why I believe.
And, who can argue with the following:
quote:
Lance needed spiritual, not moral reform. Sickness had already kept him from being sexually or even romantically active. And such reform needed to come through divine grace rather than simple change in behavior.
Maybe too many evangelicals have faced homosexuality without coming face to face with homosexuals. Theology, morality, and politics have an essential place. But if these don't make room for simple love and friendship with homosexuals, how will we be instruments of redemption? Gays will not be reached with the love of Jesus without being touched by loving Christians.
This is one of the best articles on this subject I think I have ever read. And, it pleases me to know that Lance Loud had an opportunity to see Jesus without the foibles of the church as he came to death.
I have yet to see anyone reject Jesus in my almost 50 years of life. The rejection has always been of those of us who bear His name and how we have abused our privilege of carrying it.
Coming back to the OP, the pastor in question simply doesn't get it. He appears to be so afraid of the "gay issue" that he is willing to walk all over one of his parishoners.
It seems to me that it is usually fear that drives people to do things like this. There could be many things he is afraid of, including looking wishy-washy on this issue, so there is no need to speculate.
I appreciate what Josephine had to say on this issue. She hit the nail on the head when it comes down to the pastor should be spending his sermon time on what is really affecting his congregation.
Somehow I thought the whole idea was to help the other connect with the Saviour, not turn the other into a clone of me.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
What would be an acceptable alternative? Given that the option of affirming same-sex sexual relationships was not an option, what else could he have said [assuming that this is the pastor's position].
It seems to me that the pastor could safely assume that most of his congregants are not homosexual, and that most are not tempted to homosexual acts. Since he only gets 15 or 20 minutes a week (or an hour, or whatever his standard sermon length is) to teach and exhort most of the members of his congregation, using that precious time to exhort them not to commit a sin they are not ever tempted to commit seems like poor stewardship, at the very least. If he wants to exhort them not to sin, he should be talking to them about pride, vanity, gluttony, avarice, or other sins that are more troublesome for more of his congregation.
<Big snip>
I agree with most of your post, however, I don't think we have enough information on the pastor's sermon or motives to condemn him the way you seem to. He said that the sermon on homosexuality was not aimed at anyone in particular, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we should take him at his word. Likewise, did he actually say that homosexual acts were worse than other sins?
On the matter of time devoted to preaching on different sins, much the same applies. How often does he preach on homosexuality? Every month? Year? Decade? Whenever it is the main topic of the day's readings, assuming they have set readings? Perhaps he speaks about the perils of some sin or other every week or two, often lambasting the proud, greedy, inhospitable etc, and only rarely mentions homosexuality; this would certainly fit with my experience of conservative preachers.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
He said that the sermon on homosexuality was not aimed at anyone in particular, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we should take him at his word.
If we do that, if we accept as a fact that the sermon was not aimed at her, would that really make a difference? If you point a gun into a crowd and fire, without bothering to take aim, does that absolve you of responsibility for the results of your act?
When I've had someone point a gun in my general direction, I didn't want them to tell me they weren't aiming at me. Where they were aiming didn't seem relevant if the barrel of the gun was pointing towards me. The only thing that was relevant was that I felt threatened by their incompetent handling of the gun, and I wanted them to put the gun away.
This minister clearly knew that the woman would see that the barrel of his sermon was pointing in her general direction. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that she would feel threatened. Even if he wasn't aiming, he should have put that gun away.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
There is nothing wrong with a conservative church preaching occaisionally about homosexuality, as it is an issue on which the church's view is in direct contradiction with the view of the world. There is relatively little point in the church spending its time saying exactly the same as the world; people are hearing that message every day - but they aren't hearing the opposite view anything like as often, at least through the liberal media - though I guess what comes out of the air in Oklahoma may not have quite as much of the pro-gay spin that we get in the UK . And such a sermon should of course be an opportunity to make a 'balanced' presentation, including the need to be as affirming as Jesus was of the "prostitutes and sinners" whom he spent time among. And of course such a sermon / teaching needs to be shared quite regularly with the high school kids, to enable those who are beginning to struggle with the issue to know that they are not alone.
Of course the other point is the two different issues that, as ever, get mixed up in this debate - orientation and practice. The church has ever right to challenge all forms of sexual expression outside marriage - and needs to be as negative about 'straights' in this field as gays. The fact that the subject of the article seemed to have no issue with having sex as soon as he got the chance is at least as significant as the fact that it was gay sex......
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Oh.
It's another one of these - say all the things about how nasty evangelicals are that I should say in dead horses but no one will read them there.
Silly me for even reading.
Clearly, you didn't.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If we do that, if we accept as a fact that the sermon was not aimed at her, would that really make a difference? If you point a gun into a crowd and fire, without bothering to take aim, does that absolve you of responsibility for the results of your act?
When I've had someone point a gun in my general direction, I didn't want them to tell me they weren't aiming at me. Where they were aiming didn't seem relevant if the barrel of the gun was pointing towards me. The only thing that was relevant was that I felt threatened by their incompetent handling of the gun, and I wanted them to put the gun away.
This minister clearly knew that the woman would see that the barrel of his sermon was pointing in her general direction. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that she would feel threatened. Even if he wasn't aiming, he should have put that gun away.
Shall we, then, extend that principle to say that a minister or priest should never preach against a particular sin if he knows there are those in his congregation/parish who are guilty of it?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Can someone please remind me not to read threads like this when I'm in a "how the hell can I remain a member of the church and maintain my integrity or even a scrap of human dignity" mood?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Can someone please remind me not to read threads like this when I'm in a "how the hell can I remain a member of the church and maintain my integrity or even a scrap of human dignity" mood?
*Beep*
Adeodatus: Don't read threads like this when you're in a "how the hell can I remain a member of the church and maintain my integrity or even a scrap of human dignity" mood.
*Beep*
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
*slightly weak but nevertheless sincere smile* Thank you.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mathmo
Shipmate
# 5837
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Shall we, then, extend that principle to say that a minister or priest should never preach against a particular sin if he knows there are those in his congregation/parish who are guilty of it?
I as understand it, the problem was not so much that the pastor preached against homosexuality, but his hypocrisy in what he said to Janice first. What message was he was really trying to put across? "Homosexuality is bad, unless you're Janice's son."
Either he disapproved in general, in which case what he said to her was totally hypocritical (as Josephine was saying), or he didn't really disapprove, in which case he shouldn't have preached about it in the first place, or at least should have included that perspective in his sermon - yes, "hate the sin, love the sinner" and all that. As it was, if anyone else in the church did know, he was rousing them against Janice and her son, regardless of what he said to her privately.
Regardless of what that is preached about, the pastor shouldn't seek out those people that the sermon is relevant to and say, "It's not about you," before preaching it. A good sermon should be about truths that apply regardless of who you are.
--------------------
I'm the fool I never, fool I never thought I was.
Posts: 233 | From: my own little world | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Ender's Shadow wrote: There is relatively little point in the church spending its time saying exactly the same as the world; people are hearing that message every day - but they aren't hearing the opposite view anything like as often, at least through the liberal media....
"Aren't hearing the opposite view"?! Do you really think there's a single gay teenager sitting in a pew -- or anywhere else -- who isn't already well aware that according to many members of the Church, homosexuality is a sin? Seems to me the Church should pat itself on the back for the bang-up job it's done communicating that message to just about everybody. How how about we move on to communicating another message? Like the Gospel, for starters.
And regarding one of Laura's points, I can't remember the last time I heard a sermon targeting one of my Top Ten Favorite Sins. (Send postage-paid self-addressed stamped #10 envelope for a comprehensive list.)
<edited to correct Freudian typo: Top Ten Favorite Sine>
[ 28. September 2004, 14:12: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
quote:
but they aren't hearing the opposite view anything like as often, at least through the liberal media
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I'm sorry-
did you actually just seriously use the term "liberal media?" As in "the media has a liberal bias?"
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
And regarding one of Laura's points, I can't remember the last time I heard a sermon targeting one of my Top Ten Favorite Sins. (Send postage-paid self-addressed stamped #10 envelope for a comprehensive list.)
And it's very effective when you do hear such a one. Our Assistant Rector preached a sermon based on the Mary and Martha story in which she talked about busy, busy people (like Martha) who might use "caring for everyone's needs" and trying to do everything as a way to flagellate themselves and the people they care for, instead of taking the time to hear God and our fellow humans. Afterwards my (then six-year old) son said, "she was talking about you, Mommy."
![[Frown]](frown.gif) Busted*
*"found out" for those across the pond who don't watch Law & Order or NYPD Blue or similar
[corrected spelling of "flagellate"]
[ 28. September 2004, 15:13: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's just that there are so many gospel readings in the Lectionary that lend themselves to preaching about homosexuality, such as when our Lord said, um, when He said, ahhh, well....
Come to think of it I guess He never mentioned it, did He?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
In a genuine attempt to answer Laura's question, (which I think is "how can people who say gay sex is wrong be pastorally responsible to those with homosexual orientation?" although I'm not sure) there is a linked article in Christianity Today about leadership on this issue amongst those who think the Bible teaches against same-sex sexual acts.
I think it gives a good overview of how conservative churches can hope to deal with the issue. I especially was struck by this quote: quote:
A couple years ago, a man began attending our church, and for three months he just worshiped. He never talked to anyone and kept to himself.
Then suddenly he showed up at a different small group every night of the week, and in each group he told his story of sexual addiction and drug addiction and homosexuality. We have about 30 groups, and he hit seven of them in a row just to see what would happen.
Later he testified that he anticipated negative reaction from every group, but instead, every group just surrounded him and prayed for him and loved him. By the end of the week he was so loved, he was blown away. That transformed him.
As a pastor, I don't want to be known for my stand on "the issue." I want to help a person meet Jesus and grow into mature faith. That guy needed tremendous healing. He still does. And it goes beyond his sexual activity, though that's part of it. There was a deep wound in his life that only God can heal, and he just needed a healthy context to be healed in. We loved him and accepted him. There's great power in that.
I hope that contributes.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I would think, just treat them like anyone else, and give them care and love, and not put extra pressure on them about it. If they believe that it is a sin, or acting on it, or any number of things, there is nothing saying they have to hammer that belief in harder than others, or even -- gasp -- talk, in that situation, about the sin issue at all, unless the person wants to. They could (in the same way, for instance) be kind and helpful to an unmarried girl who's pregnant, even if they believe she's sinned to get that way, without preaching at her about unmarried sex, unless she asks what they believe about it.
Some people have said (I don't mean on this thread) that if they don't preach about homosexuality, or about unmarried sex, or about lots of other things, then they are doing a disservice and the person will never know they're sinning and will never know they need Jesus. I believe this is bull. I think they've already heard this particular message, whether they believe in it or not, and what someone who's an outcast needs is unconditional love first and foremost. Even if you think they're doing wrong, the time for that can come later, but while someone's emotionally bleeding to death is not the time to tell them how wrong they are.
I believe someone can take a "love the sinner, hate the sin" belief, and do this, too. But I think singling out perceived sexual sins over others does send mixed messages. If they taught "love the sinner, hate the sin" and treated other, non-sexual sins the same way, not being any preachier about one or the other, then I think it would help.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
