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 ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by church geek (# 5557) on :
 
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.

[ 27. September 2004, 16:37: Message edited by: church geek ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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...)
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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".
 

---

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:
I think the problem with the pastoral response is a bad theology of sexuality and gender.

---

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? ...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In reality the church should be as embarrassed at the unmarried mother sister as the gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In reality the church should be as embarrassed at the unmarried mother sister as the gay....

---

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.

---

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.

---

Well-put, well-put.
 

---

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Josephine definitely deserves a

Unfortunately, the reality is quite otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Jajehu (# 6196) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?"

---

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.

---

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.

---

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>

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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....

---

quote:

---

but they aren't hearing the opposite view anything like as often, at least through the liberal media

---

I'm sorry-

did you actually just seriously use the term "liberal media?" As in "the media has a liberal bias?"


 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

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."


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 ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
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.

---

This is true. The church's teaching on loving one's enemies, and on the tax collectors and prostitutes entering Heaven before the Pharisees, and on reaching out to those who are outcasts -- all of this would lead to a very different approach than the world's, when so many gay people are being and have been persecuted worldwide, police turning blind eyes to gay-bashing, gay people jailed and even killed, the list goes on and on. So I would welcome sermons which explain that people shouldn't treat us gay folks (or anyone else) as pariahs, but reach out in love and care, perhaps not agreeing with some of the things we do, but not beating us over the head with it either, or treating us as enemies -- though I suppose if we are the latter, then sermons on loving us as one should love one's enemies would be apropos.

Yes, the church's way is so different from that of the world.


 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So I would welcome sermons which explain that people shouldn't treat us gay folks (or anyone else) as pariahs, but reach out in love and care, perhaps not agreeing with some of the things we do, but not beating us over the head with it either, or treating us as enemies -- though I suppose if we are the latter, then sermons on loving us as one should love one's enemies would be apropos.

Yes, the church's way is so different from that of the world.

---

David, I couldn't agree more with this. And IME of British evangelical churches (and maybe this is because we don't have a moral majority type group here) that IS the message I have been challenged with on many occasions. Sadly, I must admit, to my own shame that because of my own insecurities, I am not as good as I should be at putting it into practice. But that is my fault, and certainly not the fault of the churches I have attended.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Thank you Chastmast for reading what I ACTUALLY said, not what people thought I said. The church's position is (should be) a subtly nuanced mixture of being clear that certain behaviours are wrong whilst maintaining a clear willingness to be truly loving to all those who struggle with the temptation in that direction. The message that this teenager was probably(!) hearing was total rejection - from both his immediate environment and the 'Christians' he knew, mixed with an unconditional acceptance of gay sex from the liberal media. The sermon SHOULD have hit a different note - though the way that his mother reported the way the pastor approached her, one may well wonder.

I'm wildly impressed by Leprechaun's story - that is indeed what we should see as the church's response to such pain. And I like to believe that a gay person would get that response from me - certainly the few I've had dealings with have not run screaming, despite what the expectations of board members might be!
 

---

Posted by Suze (# 5639) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
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.
David

---

Exactly. Nothing more to add.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thank you Chastmast for reading what I ACTUALLY said, not what people thought I said. The church's position is (should be) a subtly nuanced mixture of being clear that certain behaviours are wrong whilst maintaining a clear willingness to be truly loving to all those who struggle with the temptation in that direction....

---

quote:

---

In reality the church should be as embarrassed at the unmarried mother sister as the gay.

---

• He didn't make a scene.
• He went about doing what was called for in a private manner so that Mary would not be killed (stoned).
• While doing it, he listened to God's direction to accept the unacceptable.

quote:

---

Laura asks:
How should we pastorally respond to a moral dilemma?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MadFarmer:

quote:

---

but they aren't hearing the opposite view anything like as often, at least through the liberal media

---

I'm sorry-

did you actually just seriously use the term "liberal media?"

---

quote:

---

Laura:
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.

...

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.

---

The only pastoral response that cons-evo churches can offer that is consistent with their theology, yet loving (or at least, not as destructive as other courses of actions ) is to encourage and support gay people to remain celibate while treating them as they would any other congregation member.

Lep's story is very touching. But that can never be the end of the story in a cons-evo church. Because you can not let your brother continue in his sin if you know about it. You are compelled and obliged to say and do something to snatch him from the fire.

So uh, eventually the happy laissez-faire tea parties with the poofs and lesos have to stop, and the business of repentance and conforming of one's lifestyle to Christ's (cons-evo version thereof) has to start.

So after the initial honeymoon period: there are 2 choices for a cons-evo pastoral response: try to change the person's orientation or encourage them to be celibate.

That, necessarily, is it, as far as pastoral responses are concerned. Everything else is inconsistent with Scripture and lacks integrity for those who hold that homosexual acts are a sin.

(Then of course, you must exercise the judgement of the Church and expel your immoral brother/sister if he/she keeps on sinning. I'm surprised they didn't shun his twice divorced mother though)

Salvation and God's Grace just aren't as transformative as we thought they were.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Coot

You are absolutely spot on of course. However, having a church mark out a formal position is only part of the story. The minister might be gay friendly and the congregation or parts of it not or the other way round and all sorts of other combinations.

I think that it will take a long long time for some Christians and churches to take on board the realities and gifted-ness aspects of human life in all its diversity ... what shall we say .... from a more humane and scientific perspective.

Of course, for those who think that humane and scientific perspectives are more or less incompatible with Christianity, such sentiments are downright heresy and an abomination. Their problem, not mine. I will do my best though to ensure that where I am Christians do not pile suffering upon suffering. Mercifully, I am not currently in a position where I have to do that.
 

---

Posted by Tau (# 614) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Particularly if you want them to change. People may change out of fear, or to conform, but they are simply modifying their behaviour to be acceptable, to earn the love. If you want to produce true, internal change, then that comes from unconditional love and acceptance.

If they know that I love them, really truly know this, and they really truly know that God loves them, then they will see what they are doing wrong, where they are falling short (assuming that they are, and it's not just my opinion that they are). And they will correct their behaviour, secure in the knowledge that they are loved despite it all.

---

Tau
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot:
The only pastoral response that cons-evo churches can offer that is consistent with their theology, yet loving (or at least, not as destructive as other courses of actions ) is to encourage and support gay people to remain celibate while treating them as they would any other congregation member.

Lep's story is very touching. But that can never be the end of the story in a cons-evo church. Because you can not let your brother continue in his sin if you know about it. You are compelled and obliged to say and do something to snatch him from the fire.

So uh, eventually the happy laissez-faire tea parties with the poofs and lesos have to stop, and the business of repentance and conforming of one's lifestyle to Christ's (cons-evo version thereof) has to start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot:

So uh, eventually the happy laissez-faire tea parties with the poofs and lesos have to stop, and the business of repentance and conforming of one's lifestyle to Christ's (cons-evo version thereof) has to start.

---

Well, I'm glad we're not being pejorative.

I'm not sure if you have ever been to a conservative evangelical church Coot, I assume you must have. But it must have been a very strange one if the coffee time consisted of people wandering round saying "Can I point out this sin in your life? Thanks ever so much."

At my CE church, people are above all loved in whatever state they come to us, and over time the preaching, Bible study and Christain friendship brings people to discuss and bring before God their sin. Whatever it is. In the context of my church family, some good brothers and sisters are more than welcome to do that for me. But they love me all the rest of the time too.

With issues of sexuality (not just same-sex attraction but the whole gamut) we usually find that the person raises the issue with us well before we raise it with them, because being in the Christian community raises the question for them. As Prelseyterian has said, the attitude of the large majority of the church to that issue is hardly a secret.

The love doesn't stop at that point. We don't love them simply till they realise that they are sinful, neither do we hold inquisitions as to what people's sins are.

Repentance, in short, is to do with attitude more than action. My church is a church full of sinners who's attitude to sin is that they have repented of it, but who still do it all the time.

And even those who over time do not see it as something they want to repent of (more often this has to do with being sexually active outside marrige) well they usually make their own way away, sadly from the processes of the church, but I can't think of a single one who was then "discarded" by the members or the leadership of the church, and who we haven't remained friends with.
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Hmm... I'm not sure that is totally fair either, Lep. I know of many people who have been 'rejected' and/or 'thrown out' of the church for certain sins. And we do not go around pointing things out over coffee. That normally happens in the comfort of your own home.

The most extreme example I personally know of is of someone who was divorced (ie the other partner left) and was seen with a 'new man' in church. That person was kicked out quicker than blinking an eye.

C
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Hmm... I'm not sure that is totally fair either, Lep.

---

quote:

---

Repentance, in short, is to do with attitude more than action. My church is a church full of sinners who's attitude to sin is that they have repented of it, but who still do it all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:


(1) "Well, we do understand that you are an active gay person but what is really important is not what you do but what you are doing to fight those sinful inclinations of yours."

This is a fast track to mental breakdown in my opinion. Sin>guilt>repent>sin>guilt>repent etc. etc.

---

quote:

---

(2) Most churches that teach against homosexuality do not condemn homosexual orientation but rather homosexual acts. "Repent is attitude rather than acts" is a curious violation of that principle.

---

quote:

---

Needless to say (I hope!) all the evidence points to the impossibility of replacing same sex desires with other sex desires. Those who choose to be celibate (gay or straight) do not become sexless or sex-indifferent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
big assumption ... that ALL sinful actions are (albeit eventually) susceptible of reform by interior change.

---

quote:

---

Coot is right. No matter how tolerant a tradition is in practice, if the formal teaching is in place and the church leadership expects it to be applied (directly or indirectly, actively or passively communicated) then a gay person has either to face up and face down with a robust conscience or get out if he or she wishes to avoid deception and closetry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:


I do not accept at all the healing of gay people toward straight. The evidence does not support this at all. Untold misery and death indeed have been caused by this.

---

quote:

---

Did you read of that lady at Greenbelt who at 41 was an unmarried virgin and doubting her "sacrifice." That's sad.

---

quote:

---

I am advocating the power of God to help anyone live within his guidelines for holy conduct. No matter what sin we are talking about.

---

quote:

---

If they are sinning, then that's between them and God to sort out. Me ppinting the finger, or even simply stating that what they are doing is wrong, isn't going to make them change.

---

I think Sarkycow has a good point here. However much you think you should 'snatch your brother/sister from the fire', you should do in the most effective way possible, and telling a suicidal gay person that what they are doing/feeling is wrong really isn't it.

A non-homosexual example here

Several of your 'friends' (church friends, acquaintances from a CU, whatever) think you're having sex with your bf, which they think is...unadvisable to say the least. They have a 'quiet word' to you 'in love', based on this assumption.
Result: You pay absolutely no attention to them, get upset that they've made that assumption (whether it's true or not) and storm off grumbling about busybodies.

You also have good, close friends whom you trust and you know won't 'judge' you. You choose to have a conversation with them about whether sex before marriage is a Good Thing or not.
Result: you discuss the issues and are more likely to be persuaded towards their point of view (or, if you weren't actually having sex in the first place, you have a good chance to discuss boundaries or whatever with them).

EBx

Just to be clear, I am not at all suggesting becoming friends with someone so you can then proceed to discuss their faults with them. Rather like you shouldn't become friends with people so they can become your conversion project.

[ 29. September 2004, 11:05: Message edited by: evangelical_backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The very idea that someone could be trying to make friends with me and all the time they are really scalp hunters!
 

---

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I actually think that Christianity has got it wrong about homosexuality. I maintain my integrity as a priest in a Church (like yours) whose formal teaching is that homosexual acts are wrong by not prying into peoples' lives, exercising pastoral sensitivity and not judging or putting anybody off.

---

quote:

---

Ender's Shadow wrote: But in the absence of that discipline, we should be wholly accepting, much of the problem comes from our unwillingness to leave God's work to God.....

---

I agree with you, Ender's Shadow. But being the 3¾-point Calvinist that I am, I would, now wouldn't I? We seem eager to take over as His Deputy Assistant Undersecretary for Judging & Smiting, but as for the feed-my-lambs stuff? Not so much.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear TrudyTrudy and Arabella

Of course I understands the distinction and indeed I recognise that I cannot go as far as many would want. (I do not accept the characterisation of the Orthodox Church as "conservative" though. Although I know it was contested, remember where Boswell got his information from).

A straight choice faces those in churches that do not teach the exact equivalence of hetero and homosexual relationships ... to stay and maximise opportunities for care and support ... or leave and remove those opportunities and encounters. I have good reasons ... many of them! ... to remain Orthodox. I cannot envision ever being anything else. Such belonging though is not always easy ... nor should it be. Perfect situations do not exist in any church. My idea of perfect is a fantasy of course and a dangerous one. Many gay people who are Orthodox couldn't imagine being anything else either. I know this from personal experience.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Just two points come to mind that I haven't seen others make eloquently already.

First: As often happens, the recommended evangelical approach evinces too much individualism. It is probably reasonable to expect a gay person, like anyone else, to repent and abstain from relatively anonmyous and promiscuous one-night stands. But once one has found a "significant other" and is in a mutually loving continuing relationship, the only way he or she can sincerely repent of homosexuality is to abandon and shun that other person forthwith. No way can I see this in general as a Christian response to one's own new-found "virtue". Pardon me if someone else has already made this objection, I missed it.

Meanwhile we're told that it's okay to have wings but we should never even try to fly.

Secondly, I do think that apparent or self-described gay teenagers (well, "straight" ones too for that matter, in all fairness) should be encouraged to keep their options open and not label themselves too soon. And neither should we label them. Many boys go through a homosexual phase even into their early twenties, but then
settle down into a fulfilled heterosexuality.

I would always celebrate and support a relationship with either sex that a young person finds meaningful. That this happen is far more important than the question whether it is with a male or a female. At the same time, the opposite sex is half of the human population and this is an important period for one to learn what they're like and how to live with them.

They should pray not for "change," but for self-understanding and discernment.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Good points Alogon. And I agree about labelling yourself too early, but on the other hand, don't spend a whole lot of time going out with girls if you're scared of your interest in boys! And that is a deliberately ambiguous statement.

Gregory, I would put the value of a sympathetic minister/priest very high, even if the congregation isn't friendly. One of the friends I mentioned in an earlier post, was blessed by having an entirely encouraging and supportive minister - in an extremely anti-gay Baptist parish. So while there were exorcisms going on to get rid of the demon of homosexuality, the minister wasn't party to them and tried to stop it happening.

My point was simply to say that even in very "welcoming" parishes you still get that negative feedback - so churches aren't null spaces. I know I have always valued the supportive and encouraging people I have met within the church.

And it may be heresy to suggest it, but homosexuality isn't the entirety of church doctrine, nor is it really that important in trying to bring about the reign of God. Most of the work I have done in the wider church has been with people who come from less lesbian and gay friendly churches. That doesn't mean I couldn't or shouldn't work with them.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I would put the value of a sympathetic minister/priest very high, even if the congregation isn't friendly. One of the friends I mentioned in an earlier post, was blessed by having an entirely encouraging and supportive minister - in an extremely anti-gay Baptist parish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I've heard the pope quoted as saying that a good Catholic remarried divorcee (i.e. without an annullment) should live as 'brother and sister'....

So in thoery Rome does do what you expect; but I admit to not having come across it amongst evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

It seems unlikely to us that Jesus 'permitted' divorce for a particular sexual sin via the exception clauses, for this would conflict with His absolute prohibition of divorce in Matthew 19:4-8 and the loyal covenant love exhibited by Hosea for unfaithful Gomer...And should the hard-heartedness of one of the partners result in an unfortunate divorce, lack of forgiveness and a refusal to be reconciled, Jesus requires His disciple to remain single.

---

quote:

---

Life can go on apart from marriage; and those whose marriages have been broken must remember their citizenship in God's kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Sounds like a lovely ceremony, Arabella.

Coot's reference to repentance compels me to bring out that good ol' reliable one-size-fits-all hypocrisy detector: a church's approach to divorce vs. homosexuality.

The evocongos with which I'm familiar are pretty clear on how a gay person "repents" from the sin of homosexuality: lifelong celibacy.

And yet when faced with people who divorced for reasons other than a spouse's adultery and then remarried, many of those same evocongos suggest that the appropriate measure of "repentance" is an admission of wrongdoing -- followed by a long and happy life with Spouse #2. Never once have I heard a pastor suggest that the "fix" for the purported sexual sin of a straight person is lifelong celibacy.

No, I'm not saying that the Church should be equally inflexible when it comes to homosexuality and divorce. I'm just suggesting that if a church exhibits a different pastoral response to the two situations, it's probably a good sign that one should count the silver after the cheese course.

---

I would say, wihout hesitation, that the modern Protestant church is wrong here, and I would affirm lifelong celibacy. We are not all hypocrites. Mind you even my fundy friends and relations think I am a bit extreme.

BTW what is the 3/4 of your 3 3/4 point Calvinism?

Dear Leprechaun,

I agree almost entirely with what you have said. It is a shame if you think you need to back out of the discussion. You responded well and calmly to posts which would only have made me angry.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I've heard the pope quoted as saying that a good Catholic remarried divorcee (i.e. without an annullment) should live as 'brother and sister'....

So in thoery Rome does do what you expect; but I admit to not having come across it amongst evangelicals.

---

On the contrary, the lifelong nature of marriage and the moral prohibition on remarriage after divorce used to be very commonly held to in evangelical circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The ONLY things I am prepared to preach against in the pulpit are (occasionally) heresy and (appropriately ... ie., in accordance with the lectionary), unloving or unjust attitudes or actions. Personal ministration under either category does not belong in the pulpit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
In point of fact, a group calling themselves “Christian Voice”

---

quote:

---

John Edwards,chosen by Democrat Presidential contender John Kerry to be his vice-presidential running mate,attended the Bilderberger conference last month,as did Ralph Reed,past Vice-President of the Christian Coalition.One interesting name from the 9-strong 2004 Great Britain Bilderberg contingent is that of Ben Verwaayen.Verwaayen is now CEO of British Telecom,but before that he was a director of Lucent Technologies,a spin-off from the American telecommunications giant AT&T. Some have drawn attention to the similarity between the name ‘Lucent ’and the name ‘Lucifer ’, and suggested that Luc-ent means ‘Lucifer Enterprises ’.Unarguably,the logo of Lucent Technologies is a flaming red circle with a slight gap in it,rather reminiscent of the occultish serpent swallowing its tail and also of the enso,or sumi circle,beloved of Buddhists.(Cricket followers will have noticed that Vodaphone have a similar logo.) The latest Lucent computer operating system is mysteriously called ‘Inferno ’.British Telecom are customers of Lucent Technologies,which itself has been involved in developing the ‘Mondex ’smart card electronic money transfer system.(Mondex is short for ‘Mondus [world ]Exchange ’.)

---

quote:

---

My experience is what I think of every time someone suggests that we should tell homosexuals to live without sex, without hugs and cuddles, without that deep bond to another person, for the whole of their lives. No doubt it can be done but the effort may so cripple them that they have nothing else to offer God or their fellow human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
My experience is what I think of every time someone suggests that we should tell homosexuals to live without sex, without hugs and cuddles, without that deep bond to another person, for the whole of their lives. No doubt it can be done but the effort may so cripple them that they have nothing else to offer God or their fellow human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
...Meanwhile we're told that it's okay to have wings but we should never even try to fly.

---

quote:

---

Does any conservative evangelical suggest that anyone should live without hugs or cuddles? <snip> I've never heard such a suggestion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Does any conservative evangelical suggest that anyone should live without hugs or cuddles? <snip> I've never heard such a suggestion.

---

I have, I'm afraid - often. Sorry, but I have.

---

Blimey. I can't believe anyone would think that. I must be going liberal.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
The only way to avoid it is to find a way to overtly demonstrate clearly that their actions are absolutely condemned by mainstream Conservative Evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Does any conservative evangelical suggest that anyone should live without hugs or cuddles? Or say that a deep bond (friendship) with another person is sinful? I've never heard such a suggestion. Close friendships are a God given gift - and commended in the Bible. To say such friendships were wrong would be cruel. We need intimacy and relationships. To deny people this would no doubt "cripple them that they have nothing else to offer God or their fellow human beings.

---

quote:

---

(I know this isn't strictly in the topic - but I thought it a fair response to what Isthmus says above!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
Fish fish: I guess it depends partly on whether you consider sex to be a need or a want. I am hardly an authority on the subject, but based on my experience I would argue it is more likely the former.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Is that a Christian point of view? That people can't live, or at least can't live full and complete lives, without sex? It may well be a Protestant view, but it's hardly a universal Christian view, considering the countless numbers through the centuries who willingly gave it up. Sex may be a universal human desire, but it's not a need in the same way that shelter, food, drink, and companionship are needs. [emphasis added]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

Not that I think it's likely to happen in my lifetime, but I think that applying the same understanding and practice to homosexual marriages that we do to second marriages would make a great deal of sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Is that a Christian point of view? That people can't live, or at least can't live full and complete lives, without sex? It may well be a Protestant view, but it's hardly a universal Christian view, considering the countless numbers through the centuries who willingly gave it up. Sex may be a universal human desire, but it's not a need in the same way that shelter, food, drink, and companionship are needs. [emphasis added]

---

There's a huge difference between choosing to be celibate of one's own free will and being told, from the first hopeful flush of sexual awakening, that celibacy is your only option.

Granted that some people remain unwillingly celibate because they never meet a life-partner -- that is incredibly sad and frustrating, but there is always the hope that it could still happen.

Granted also that some people, such as Weed, are left unwillingly celibate (due to belief in the permanance of marriage vows) after being abandoned by a marriage partner. This is also a horrible and sad situation, but I would hope that in most cases there will be memories of at least a bit of the physical and emotional pleasures of married intimacy.

I have the utmost respect for those who voluntarily choose to remain celibate because it is a necessary part of their calling in life.

But to tell someone that they must involuntarily and for their entire life put aside any slight hope of experiencing both physical and emotional intimacy with another human being, for whatever reason, is simply psychological abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
I wasn't speaking about willingness, but about whether sex is a "need" in the same sense things like food and drink are. You don't seem to have addressed the point.

---

• Written in a friendly style.
• A quicker overview, but points out the Maslow studied normal people, not people with problems.
• A longer, more detailed explanation that works into employee motivation.

• Physiological
• Safety
• Belonging
• Esteem

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
It may well be a Protestant view, but it's hardly a universal Christian view, considering the countless numbers through the centuries who willingly gave it up. Sex may be a universal human desire, but it's not a need in the same way that shelter, food, drink, and companionship are needs.

---

It is most certainly not a Protestant view, not across the board anyway.

It's interesting that this "People can't live without sex" argument is being floated here. I raised it as being a particularly weak argument on a Dead Horse thread and was told "No one would ever use that as an argument for the morality of gay relationships."

It stems from an extremely low view of singleness, and the myth that (and I can't actually quite believe she said it) that JLG was defending, that there can be no emotional intimacy without sex. As a single person, committed to only having sex within marriage, and having no potential of that at the moment, I find this implication that my life is emotionally stunted pretty patronising.

For me, it all just goes to show that for many people, sex is the new God.
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Let us be clear here - are we really saying that every human being has a need for touch?

I think I can accept that every human being needs companionship, but think it is a bit far to go further than that.

C
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It stems from an extremely low view of singleness, and the myth that (and I can't actually quite believe she said it) that JLG was defending, that there can be no emotional intimacy without sex. As a single person, committed to only having sex within marriage, and having no potential of that at the moment, I find this implication that my life is emotionally stunted pretty patronising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
In my experience if you are a single heterosexual Christian, there tend to be all kinds of discussions in church youth groups about not having sex before marriage – about how far you can go – about the ‘slippery slope’ of holding hands leading to other things which are undesirable outside the marriage bond. But at no point does anyone’s face fall – at no point are you told that you can never hope to realise the desire for a whole, healthy partnership with another human being. You are not told that your desires themselves (so acceptable if directed at one of the opposite sex) are sinful and should never be acted on. How can someone be told that an intrinsic part of their personhood is flawed and sinful and not be damaged by that? Moreover a part of themselves that if expressed could bring them amazing fulfilment and contentment (and I’m not by any means talking solely or even principally about sex here) must be suppressed and if possible extinguished. Basically – a heterosexual is not going to be told – even if they are told to remain celibate until the right circumstances present themselves – that there is something wrong with them. However it is expressed, I can’t see how traditional Christian teaching can avoid that inference – even if it avoids coming right out and saying it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Weed - your posts are moving. They make it, however, very diffcult to reply to without appearing to make comment on your personal life, which I'd rather not do. If that's ok.

---

quote:

---

Let us be clear here - are we really saying that every human being has a need for touch?

I think I can accept that every human being needs companionship, but think it is a bit far to go further than that.

---

Several years ago I was feeling very low after some years living alone in nasty draughty vicarages. I'm a gay man and have several close friends - also gay men - one of whom was looking for somewhere to live. I asked my (then) bishop if he could move into the vicarage, where we would each have a room to ourselves, and where we would share the "public" rooms of the vicarage as friends. I was told no - because it was known I was gay, having someone living with me might be "a cause of scandal".

So I wasn't being denied sex. I wasn't even being denied touch. I was being denied companionship - and all because I'm gay. This was the mild-mannered CofE's "pastoral response" to me, and one for which I have yet to forgive it.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Adeodatus: I'm sorry.

Cheesy: Every human being has a need for touch.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
If having the thought of that before us makes us quiver, then we need to examine our theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If someone, as Weed has done, is comfortable talking about their personal life on a message board, that is fine. I have a personal preference to not comment on the details of someone's personal situation, not really knowing them, in this medium. Things can easily come across wrongly, and I'd rather not risk that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:


If it helps, Lep, imagine a poster called Mythical Weed and criticise them instead.

---

Kind offer. For the record, I was never thinking of criticising you. But I really don't want to come across as making sweeping generalisations without really knowing you or your situation properly. Hope that's ok.
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Let us be clear here - are we really saying that every human being has a need for touch?

I think I can accept that every human being needs companionship, but think it is a bit far to go further than that.

---

Several years ago I was feeling very low after some years living alone in nasty draughty vicarages. I'm a gay man and have several close friends - also gay men - one of whom was looking for somewhere to live. I asked my (then) bishop if he could move into the vicarage, where we would each have a room to ourselves, and where we would share the "public" rooms of the vicarage as friends. I was told no - because it was known I was gay, having someone living with me might be "a cause of scandal".

So I wasn't being denied sex. I wasn't even being denied touch. I was being denied companionship - and all because I'm gay. This was the mild-mannered CofE's "pastoral response" to me, and one for which I have yet to forgive it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Adeodatus: I'm sorry.

Cheesy: Every human being has a need for touch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:


If it helps, Lep, imagine a poster called Mythical Weed and criticise them instead.

---

Kind offer. For the record, I was never thinking of criticising you. But I really don't want to come across as making sweeping generalisations without really knowing you or your situation properly. Hope that's ok.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
That's fine but in that aren't you inadvertently agreeing with me that pastoral care needs to be geared to the individual in their own circumstances

---

quote:

---

instead of being a matter of laying down absolute rules and preaching them from the pulpit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
If having the thought of that before us makes us quiver, then we need to examine our theology.

---

I'm not sure that's fair. If someone, as Weed has done, is comfortable talking about their personal life on a message board, that is fine. I have a personal preference to not comment on the details of someone's personal situation, not really knowing them, in this medium. Things can easily come across wrongly, and I'd rather not risk that.
I would understand if someone felt uncomfortable commenting on the details of my own situation, not being able to understand it fully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Let us be clear here - are we really saying that every human being has a need for touch?

I think I can accept that every human being needs companionship, but think it is a bit far to go further than that.

---

Several years ago I was feeling very low after some years living alone in nasty draughty vicarages. I'm a gay man and have several close friends - also gay men - one of whom was looking for somewhere to live. I asked my (then) bishop if he could move into the vicarage, where we would each have a room to ourselves, and where we would share the "public" rooms of the vicarage as friends. I was told no - because it was known I was gay, having someone living with me might be "a cause of scandal".

So I wasn't being denied sex. I wasn't even being denied touch. I was being denied companionship - and all because I'm gay. This was the mild-mannered CofE's "pastoral response" to me, and one for which I have yet to forgive it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
There is disagreement about

1) whether it is indeed an "intrinsic part of one's personhood"
2) that this is any more true for someone with homosexual attraction as anyone else, after all, IMO becoming a Christian means admitting that an intrinsic part of one's personhood is flawed - my sinful nature. It also means relaxing into the grace that accepts this flawed personhood. But this means facing up to the flaws, rather than pretending they are not flaws at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I see no reason why conservative churches cannot act as Leper &c. have endorsed, namely promoting a view of homosexuality that is positive and forward-looking whilst still emphasising that whatever intimate relationships may be found should not be sexual in nature. That would represent a profound change, I think, whilst still being in accordance with every traditional rule...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Leper &c. have endorsed

---

quote:

---

"Sometimes gay people approach Orthodox clergy for confession who are lonely. They feel self disgust as they relate how to assuage this loneliness, they seek out casual sex. They repent of such promiscuous acts and receive Communion. Within a few weeks they are back and the cycle begins all over again but, for the most part, they remain communicant members for they return to the confessional, sincerely (but unrealistically) seeking to do better next time.

Contrast this with a faithful monogamous gay couple who wish to be open about their relationship and still receive Communion. Some clergy will deny them this and excommunicate them. So here we have a stable relationship based on years of mutual love and trust being penalised and promiscuous cycles being tolerated. How can this be right? Can we not encourage such couples to remain committed in love, faithfulness and affection but perhaps ask if they could refrain from a sexual relationship?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Leper &c. have endorsed

---

*Ahem* Referring to Leprechaun in this manner (or, indeed, to another Shipmate along a similar vein)is not suitable for Purgatory, being far too close to a personal attack. Please don't do it again.

Alan
Purgatory host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Several years ago I was feeling very low after some years living alone in nasty draughty vicarages. I'm a gay man and have several close friends - also gay men - one of whom was looking for somewhere to live. I asked my (then) bishop if he could move into the vicarage, where we would each have a room to ourselves, and where we would share the "public" rooms of the vicarage as friends. I was told no - because it was known I was gay, having someone living with me might be "a cause of scandal".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Polygamy has always presented a significant problem to Christian missions ... and still does in parts of Africa today. I do not have a specific and uniform Orthodox response to that question but I think it is something that a bishop would deal with on a case by case basis.

---

Would that be true, as well, for other "improper" marriages -- those between certain relatives who couldn't get married in the Church, but whose marriage would be allowed by the society?

It seems to me that the same pastoral, case-by-case response to those marriages would be what we shoudl apply to homosexual unions.

I can't imagine telling the homosexual couples I know, who have been married for many years, own a house together, look after each others' parents, and so on and on, just like any other married couple, that they have to separate in order to become Orthodox. It just grieves me no end.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Josephine

It would grieve and does grieve me. I don't see how Orthodoxy can break anything that is legal, stable, committed and loving. But, hey ... I'm just a crazy old liberal!
 

---

Posted by Coot (# 220) on :
 
But you see ken, there is a way to counter the 'all Muslims are murderers/terrorists impression', which is for devout Muslims who are not murderers or do not advocate murder of infidels/terrorism to speak out against it! So that the majority are visible!

If the Evangelical Alliance (I am picking them as an example of moderate evangelicalism, which they are in relation to Christian Institute, Reform et al) issued a statement distancing themselves every time a bunch of fruitcakes went on a hate march, every time a bunch of loonies called for the removal of secular human rights, I would give more credence to their commitment to love gay people while expecting them to be celibate. Basically: if they make as much noise about the injustices done to gay people as they do about ordaining gay clergy or gay people marrying (At least the O Church doesn't bang on about it, Fr G.!). Hell, even if they gave air time to saying they accept gay people without judgement but encourage them to be celibate, I would have greater respect.

I have seen no positive press releases and no statements in defence (and I don't mean, "Yes, come and keep being sexually active" - more "Gay people, while we encourage them to be celibate, should be loved and accepted as who they are, and we absolutely condemn acts of hate or violence towards them" - and yes, EA on behalf of cons-evos damn well has a lot to do to redress the balance; and as a large and credible voice that is why they should).

Until then, every time they stay silent, I interpret their silence as tacit agreement and political expediency (Don't want to get the extremists off-side or lose credibility with them - it's about who's more important or closer to what is... 'biblical' isn't it?). And it sends a message of: (uncomforable fidgetting) "Well, we think the same, but we wouldn't go so far as do what they do".

Pastor Niemoller, anyone?

[No Lep, I'm not expecting you/the EA/cons-evos to affirm gay sex because I recognise that to do so is incompatible with the way you interpret the Bible. And while I think that even the best the EA could offer won't be enough for pretty much all gay people, there is a lot more they could offer within their own boundaries - pastoral is more than 1-to-1]
 

---

Posted by Coot (# 220) on :
 
(dang didn't see pg 3 sorry all, replying to ken on bottom of pg 2)
 

---

Posted by Joykins (# 5820) on :
 
This presents a real conundrum for the pastor who believes homosexuality is a sin, and believes in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach.

Regardless of whether homosexuality is an innate part of personality or not, let us assume the hypothetical homosexual congregant believes this to be true. Therefore, to him or her, homosexuality is an innate part of personality. What s/he is getting from the paster is that sin is therefore an innate part of his/her personality. ---> "God hates me because I'm gay." No wonder the teen was suicidal!

The (conservative/evangelical) church needs to put some thought into re-evaluating this "homosexuality is a sin" teaching and instead provide a path for how a homosexual Christian can lead a fulfilling Christian life without giving up all hope of 1:1 lifelong monogamous intimacy that heterosexuals and many bisexuals can aspire to (and the current "become celibate or heterosexual" solutions do ask people to give up that hope--I definitely believe celibacy is possible, but that it also is a calling and not all are called).

The core question seems to be whether the church should condemn, grudgingly allow (as Josephine proposes), or affirm gay marriages.

This is certainly one of those areas I would really like to ask Jesus about in person--he always seemed to have a good answer to dilemmas like this. He knows I certainly don't. I think that if you genuinely search the scriptures, your heart, and (depending on sect) holy tradition, without any self-seeking, and come to the conclusion that something not forbidden in the 10 commandments and not out of tune with "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself" is not a sin, well I'm not going to argue with you.

Joy
 

---

Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joykins:
This presents a real conundrum for the pastor who believes homosexuality ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot:
If the Evangelical Alliance (I am picking them as an example of moderate evangelicalism, which they are in relation to Christian Institute, Reform et al) issued a statement distancing themselves every time a bunch of fruitcakes went on a hate march, every time a bunch of loonies called for the removal of secular human rights, I would give more credence to their commitment to love gay people while expecting them to be celibate. Basically: if they make as much noise about the injustices done to gay people as they do about ordaining gay clergy or gay people marrying (At least the O Church doesn't bang on about it, Fr G.!). Hell, even if they gave air time to saying they accept gay people without judgement but encourage them to be celibate, I would have greater respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot:
If the Evangelical Alliance ... issued a statement distancing themselves every time a bunch of fruitcakes went on a hate march, every time a bunch of loonies called for the removal of secular human rights, I would give more credence to their commitment to love gay people while expecting them to be celibate.

---

quote:

---

Do Christians hate homosexuals? The truth is that some individuals who call themselves Christians have acted hatefully towards homosexuals, and we need to begin by definitively rejecting that reaction and expressing our sorrow that this has happened ... As we try to present what the Bible says about homosexual practice we must remember that we are treading on incredibly sensitive ground. The best answer is to be a Christian who loves people in the gay community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot:
If the Evangelical Alliance (I am picking them as an example of moderate evangelicalism, which they are in relation to Christian Institute, Reform et al) issued a statement distancing themselves every time a bunch of fruitcakes went on a hate march, every time a bunch of loonies called for the removal of secular human rights, I would give more credence to their commitment to love gay people while expecting them to be celibate. Basically: if they make as much noise about the injustices done to gay people as they do about ordaining gay clergy or gay people marrying (At least the O Church doesn't bang on about it, Fr G.!). Hell, even if they gave air time to saying they accept gay people without judgement but encourage them to be celibate, I would have greater respect.
...
Until then, every time they stay silent, I interpret their silence as tacit agreement and political expediency (Don't want to get the extremists off-side or lose credibility with them - it's about who's more important or closer to what is... 'biblical' isn't it?). And it sends a message of: (uncomforable fidgetting) "Well, we think the same, but we wouldn't go so far as do what they do".

---

Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the message I have been hammering away at with my own church leadership for some time now. When you're giving as much airtime to "loving the sinner" as you do to "hating the sin" ... well, maybe then you have earned the right to start speaking up about the sin. But when a church NEVER mentions homosexuals or homosexuality except in the context of condemnation...I personally don't believe they have earned the right to make public statements about gay marriage, etc.
 

---

Posted by Coot (# 220) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
From the Sept/Oct 2004 issue of idea (the magazine of the EA) there's an article on the issue of homosexuality (it's on p30-31 for those who have it). Some short extracts.

quote:

---

Do Christians hate homosexuals? The truth is that some individuals who call themselves Christians have acted hatefully towards homosexuals, and we need to begin by definitively rejecting that reaction and expressing our sorrow that this has happened ... As we try to present what the Bible says about homosexual practice we must remember that we are treading on incredibly sensitive ground. The best answer is to be a Christian who loves people in the gay community.

---

---

I think that's good - you have to educate your own (EA) people... make sure they know what they are signing up to with Xtianity It's not really gunna reach wider society though...

I'm waiting for Don Horrocks to get up there with sound and motion and condemn violence and unjust treatment of gay people; and invite them to belong to his church (cof cof don't think they'll come, but still) without judgement while indicating he expects chastity. Or even, gasp, chaste companionship...

That will help a bit.

[And actually, if he could get over looking at trannies as super-homos that would be nice too]
 

---

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
In defense of my own church I should say that they do have an organization that does probably the best we can expect from a conservative church: welcomes and affirms gay and lesbian members while stating an ideal of celibacy and chastity. Their position statement says

quote:

---

We uphold the belief that God at Creation designed human sexuality to be expressed only in loving, mutually consenting acts between a man and a woman within the boundaries of marriage. We believe that it is the work of the Holy Spirit rather than human effort that should determine this conviction in persons. While we do not condone or approve acts or attitudes that are in violation of these principles, we recognize that it is not our right or responsibility to pry into private lives.

---

quote:

---

The background to these texts is not that of a lifelong struggle with the oppressive force of Catholic teaching. I was brought up in a conservative, middle class, English evangelical Protestant environment. The gift of Catholic faith, which I received at the age of 18, was never a movement towards the exotic, the liturgical, the aesthetic. It was, and is, the gift of enabling me to be wrong, and not to worry about it, of letting go of being right so as to receive being loved. I have never experienced Catholicism as itself creating the great annihilation of being which has accompanied same-sex desire throughout the monotheistic world and beyond, however much Catholicism has pandered to, succumbed to, and institutionalised the forms of that annihilation... (Previously) I experienced (annihilation) as a void created and maintained by silent voices of righteous hatred. Hatred can only create a void, and hatred is incapable of being wrong.

---

It seems to me that too much 'Bible based' Christianity works backwards - judging what seems to be moral to them, then either making the 'immoral' the scapegoat (a most convenient way of avoiding a look at one's own sins), and deciding who is on the 'outside.' (I am not suggesting it applies only to this young man's situation.) There is no ascetic sense - no focus on holiness, on fulfilling one's potential for intimacy with God. Certainly, our morality grows out of our Christian commitment, but crying sinner at others (whatever the sin, real or perceived) from a pulpit would make it seem that a particular form of morality kept us from 'hell,' rather than that the invitation to grace was followed by a path that will include avoiding sin.

Would it not be more effective, as far as sin and virtue are concerned, to preach the virtue?
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Can I just as an aside thank everyone here for this very intelligent, thoughtful, respectful and sensitive treatment of this issue? I had half a thought that I couldn't start this here without it going to DH, and you guys have been fabulous. People who disagree deeply about the central issue are debating well and respectfully. It gives me hope.

Thanks, all of you:


 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
Of course, the OP is about gay teens. Same-sex marriage has been discussed, also. There is another related issue: what happens when a person in a het marriage finds it necessary to come out.

I am not asking for this thread to be expanded to include this topic. I am only providng the link for those who may be interested in reading this article in last Thursday's Seattle Times. Consider it an extra-credit assignment that does not require an answer here.
 

---

Posted by Joykins (# 5820) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joykins:
This presents a real conundrum for the pastor who believes homosexuality ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FishFish:

But (almost all) conservative Christians do not say homosexuality is a sin. We say homosexual sex is a sin. Its a world of difference. Likewise, we don't say that heterosexuality is sinful, but that heterosexual sex is sinful, when its outside marriage.

---

Thanks for pointing out that distinction; I agree and was sloppy in my terminology. However, in another sense, the distinction isn't really meaningful. Homosexual sex it isn't even a temptation for most heterosexuals, and presumably most bisexuals could (even if with some effort) channel their interests in the "correct" way (which I suppose incidentally would make them the group most affected by this rule, actually). The only people this is going to present a real problem for is those with homosexual orientations where an intrinsic part of their personality is involved, which means either they will reject the teaching (which many do) while clinging to all the others, that they will be called to celibacy , or that they will suppress/hide/live in guilt about it. The latter is an extremely unhealthy way to live and I don't think that is the kind of abundant life that Jesus is calling us all to.

We don't say that it is a sin to be homosexual--as long as it means so little to you that you're willing to do absolutely nothing about it for the rest of your life, burning rather than marrying (as St. Paul would say), while all the other other people can get married and have families. Boy, I can see that conservative evangelical gay teens have a whole heckuva lot to look forward to. I don't think conservative evangelical pastors have a THING to offer a gay teen in terms of comfort within their epistomological framework! In fact, it's one of the reasons I eventually figured out I'm not really conservative in the same way many other evangelicals are (and I hate change!).

Joy
[edited due to code and signature problems]

[Deleted first two iterations of this post.]

[ 03. October 2004, 04:07: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
I don't see that this problem is unique to homosexuals. Suppose I am stuck in a dead-end marriage. My spouse doesn't want to have sex with me, so I lovingly refrain.

Isn't that the same situation?

The problem is, I think, the view that sexual fulfilment is essential as a part of who people are and their aspirations, when it is us (and society) who have elevated it to that position.

I think a better view would be seeing sexual fulfilment as being like seeing the Pyramids. Nice if you get the chance, but there's more important things to do in life. I wish I could have that view more often!
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joykins:


We don't say that it is a sin to be homosexual--as long as it means so little to you that you're willing to do absolutely nothing about it for the rest of your life, burning rather than marrying (as St. Paul would say), while all the other other people can get married and have families. Boy, I can see that conservative evangelical gay teens have a whole heckuva lot to look forward to.

---

This has cropped up a number of times on this thread and I'm a little confused by it - you can't tell some people they can never have sex because others are having it.
I just don't think that's the way God's economy works - I think he knows what he wants to achieve in each of us, and as such none of us has a "right" to what anyone else has - but to accept what he gives us and use it in his service. I don't assume that God has a "Bill of Rights" that means every Christian deserves what every other Christian gets. I think he deals with us (rather like Father G's pastoral approach ) on a case by case basis.

It also assumes that gay teens have "nothing to look forward to" if they don't have sex to look forward to. Which I utterly refute, and actually would point out that St Paul (and I think the implication is, Jesus) views the single route as the better MORE pleasurable one. It's society that says sex is the best thing ever.
 

---

Posted by LatePaul (# 7562) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't see that this problem is unique to homosexuals. Suppose I am stuck in a dead-end marriage. My spouse doesn't want to have sex with me, so I lovingly refrain.

Isn't that the same situation?

---

quote:

---

The problem is, I think, the view that sexual fulfilment is essential as a part of who people are and their aspirations, when it is us (and society) who have elevated it to that position.

---

quote:

---

Leprechaun said
I ... would point out that St Paul (and I think the implication is, Jesus) views the single route as the better MORE pleasurable one. It's society that says sex is the best thing ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LatePaul:
Taken as a whole that passage seems to say that being single is better if you're called to be single but being married is better if that's what you're called to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joykins:


We don't say that it is a sin to be homosexual--as long as it means so little to you that you're willing to do absolutely nothing about it for the rest of your life, burning rather than marrying (as St. Paul would say), while all the other other people can get married and have families. Boy, I can see that conservative evangelical gay teens have a whole heckuva lot to look forward to.

---

This has cropped up a number of times on this thread and I'm a little confused by it - you can't tell some people they can never have sex because others are having it.

...

It also assumes that gay teens have "nothing to look forward to" if they don't have sex to look forward to. Which I utterly refute, and actually would point out that St Paul (and I think the implication is, Jesus) views the single route as the better MORE pleasurable one. It's society that says sex is the best thing ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joykins:
I didn't say anything, actually about having sex. I said something about getting married and having a family. Which is the other half of the coin, isn't it? As long as you can reduce gay relationships to being only about having sex--which I have only seen coming from conservative evangelicals in this debate, btw--then, yeah, you have a point. But marriage isn't only about having sex--it's all sorts of things that sex is intertwined with and not easily extricated from, but it is not merely a sequence of individual copulation incidents strung together over a lifetime. That's where I think the argument breaks down--sure, unmarried couples are not supposed to have sex, but God has provided a framework (marriage) within which sexual and emotional intimacy is desirable and the human needs for it can be fulfilled. Why, if you are wired to form those types of relationships with your own sex rather than the opposite, should that framework not be available to you?


Joy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joykins:


The only thing con evo pastors can offer teens in that dilemma is, "Hope you're wrong about your orientation or that you're called to celibacy, because otherwise you are living in a continuous state of sin."

Joy

---

Again I reiterate, I can see no indication that a "call" to celibacy is required to make it bearable.
Also underlying your post is the assumption that "partnership" is an intrinsically better way of being than singleness. The opposite assumption seems to underlie 1 Corinthians 7. But I've said that before.

You know, we single people are capable of having fulfilled interesting lives filled with companionship too. Even without sexual relationships.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
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.

---

Tangent--long ago, I had a pen pal. He inquired about my faith; once he found I was already a Christian, he dropped me immediately. He was only interested in proselytizing.


 

---

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
...Well, because in the natural way of things, you need a male and a female partner to have a child.

I will defend the right for anyone who wishes to have their lifelong relationship recognised by the state, but I'm afraid the right to children isn't something that goes with it.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Again I reiterate, I can see no indication that a "call" to celibacy is required to make it bearable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't see that this problem is unique to homosexuals. Suppose I am stuck in a dead-end marriage. My spouse doesn't want to have sex with me, so I lovingly refrain.

Isn't that the same situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LatePaul:
Taken as a whole that passage seems to say that being single is better if you're called to be single but being married is better if that's what you're called to.

---

Taken as whole I'm not sure that passage makes any reference to being "called" to be single - in fact the only reference to "calling", is the calling to become a Christian in verses17 - 22. I can't see anywhere that Paul suggests one needs a calling to be single or married.

---

quote:

---

What is clear is that he views living without sex (and marrige) as a better state to be in than having it, and you should do it if you can.

---

quote:

---

Undoubtedly the desire for sexual fulfilment is innate. The idea, however, that if one is denied the means to fulfil the desire one is being treated unfairly, because "everyone is doing it" is undoubtedly societal.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, I don't think anyone made any reference to it being "easy" - quite the opposite in fact, but then, being a Christian is not "easy". "Easiness" is not the point - I think we're all agreed that it's the solution that most honours God that needs to be found, and that, for whichever side of the argument needs to change, is not going to be "easy". Nevertheless, the best way forward is seldom "easy" for anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
...
I find the accepted fact that marriage is all about children as abhorrant as Lep appears to that it is all about sex. ...

---

quote:

---

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

---

quote:

---

“Fuck you God!”

---

quote:

---

"I am evil and wicked. I am dirt…my voice is small and unheard, unnoticed, damned."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But Paul, I would reiterate that one failure does not mean failure across the board.

---

quote:

---

It's only necessary here to reiterate that when we maintain a school and church environment steeped in heterosexist assumptions--marginalizing, brainwashing, and punishing gay or bisexual youth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
Leprechaun---I ask the following question in all sincerity. Just how many of those "failures" are you prepared to accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
...But healing never came & Bobby, a teenager with raging hormones swung erratically between being a “good Christian trying to seek healing through prayer” and being a gay young man seeking sexual thrills on gay scene. Within him was raging a war for self identity and acceptance.

---

quote:

---

So, the question we have to wrestle with (beyond the emotion of a tragic story) is this - do we uphold those standards, or do we reduce them? If we said sex within a gay marriage was morally good, then we'd exclude those who want to explore the gay scene. So do we further change the standards so that no one feels excluded? If we do that, what do we have left that is distinctive about being a Christian?

---

I suppose this raises some other questions that may already lie elsewhere in Purgatory or even DH, but the following occur to me after reading the above:

* A pastoral approach to a gay youth may be heavily predicated on whether one believes that revelation is finished with the canon Bible or whether one believes that revelation is ongoing every day, as expressed in the lives of ordinary people all over the world. I'm reminded of one point when Bishop Robinson said he believed that God was "doing a new thing in the church" with the increasing affirmation of gay relationships in a religious context.

* Is it more important that there be a distinctiveness about Christianity or that all people be reconciled to God in God's own manner and time? I grew up in one denomination but joined another as an adult because I felt there was too much emphasis on the first one being an "exclusive club."

Isthmus
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Fionn,



Fish Fish,

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a 'loving' 'I think you are making a mistake' about my decision to change gender role, I think you should know something. If anyone says that without asking the person whether they want your opinion or not first, it can come across as anything but loving.

When I was a Con Ev, I thought that love meant that I had to warn people, etc. It was the 'if you don't warn them you'll be answerable to Me' syndrome. It was almost a compulsion.

Now, I believe that love without respecting another person's freedom, isn't really love, it is more like 'nannying'. It is really annoying when one is on the receiving end. With me, I guess I reaped what I sowed.

Christina
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But the issue of this thread is the pastoral response to someone in a similar situation to Bobby. If I met someone like him, hopefully I'd show him love and acceptance for who he is. But, it seems to me, to be truly pastoral sometimes involves explaining why some behaviour is not good. Sometimes the loving pastoral thing to do is say "I think you're making a mistake", and seek to help someone find ways to honour God.

We have a tightrope to walk, between acceptance and saying "I'm sorry, I think that's not right". Its not loving to jump off one side into simple condemnation (as sometime seems to happen in conservative circles) . But nor is it loving to jump off the other side of the tightrope, and never challenge or promote God's standards (as you seem to be suggesting). The truly loving thing to do is walk the tightrope. We'll fall off, and make mistakes - as perhaps happened with Bobby - but that's still the line we must try and walk. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Oh and, it's not your business to judge people based on their actions, or to even determine whether they are honouring God with their actions (unless they specifically ask you). It's your business to love people; remember the second greatest commandment? The kingdom of God happens in peoples' hearts.

---

Amen to that.

Isthmus
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Sarky
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Sarkycow,



Christina
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fionn:

Most conservative Christians cannot get past the mental image of two people of the same sex in the throes of passion. This image prevents them from ministering to the needs of the person in need of love and guidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
* A pastoral approach to a gay youth may be heavily predicated on whether one believes that revelation is finished with the canon Bible or whether one believes that revelation is ongoing every day, as expressed in the lives of ordinary people all over the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
At crisis/tragedy point, the pastoral response is surely:

"God loves you just as you are. I love you just as you are. How can I show you that I love you?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Oh and, it's not your business to judge people based on their actions, or to even determine whether they are honouring God with their actions (unless they specifically ask you).

---

quote:

---

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

---

(Matthew 18:15-17)

So, I guess if we have problems with the idea of sometimes challenging someones behaviour, we'd better take it up with JC!
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Through the years, I have read various books, articles, and so forth (sorry that they are not the sort I keep on hand in my library, so I cannot 'quote chapter and verse') which are the work of the sort of conservative element described on this thread. The specific situation we are discussing here is one of the more drastic (and, for some reason, currently very popular) manifestations of a deep flaw in some evangelical approaches overall - the preoccupation with mankind as being basically wicked, and, with our being so flawed, our desires as being rather evil in themselves.

Though he was both heterosexual and married, and therefore not using sex in a way that anyone would judge immoral, reading some of Kingsley's work (19th century) recently rather chilled me. He and his wife were very highly sexed people (nothing wrong with that, of course), but, for all that he went on and on about spiritual meanings to marriage, I sensed that, deep down, he could not deal well with his sexuality at all. Anyone who has to constantly use religious imagery to describe what goes on in his bed (or who saw Newman's celibacy as an attack on family) seems quite uncomfortable with himself. Of course, we all know the plight of homosexuals in the 19th century - but celibates hardly were thought better of - for some reason, the only way to be a good Christian was seen as in marriage and procreation.

I do not mean what follows to be offensive to any of our teenaged ship mates, because indeed I have known individual couples who were quite mature in their love for one another at a very young age. However, overall, there must be sensitivity to that devout teenagers are in a period of confusion. Some of the uneasiness or even guilt one may feel about sexual attraction (whatever one's orientation) actually is not about sex primarily, but stems from an awareness of other elements of Christian maturity. And older people are so concerned with what directly is concerned with sex (whether morality, natural consequences, whatever) that one cannot always see the basic good and potential for growth in that 'uneasiness.'

For example, a committed Christian in his (allow for that this can mean either sex - I'm sick of 'he or she, him and her') teens is (it is hoped) growing away from the selfish, self-absorbed ways of childhood. He is at an age where the libido is through the roof, and he has little experience dealing with this. He may think he is in love when he is infatuated, or feel distressed when he knows his attraction to another, however intense, is mostly or even totally physical. If desire is seen as good in itself, the sexual attraction is not a problem - and, recognising the selfish element, one can grow in greater maturity in love of God and neighbour. But if we are seen as basically evil, and our desires as following from that, how can we see the positive side of getting away from selfishness, that real love and commitment may follow? No - it will be "I am in danger of sin - I can go to hell" - and the possible response from those older often is either threatening or useless sentimentality. (No one feeling sexual arousal needs the further guilt of 'I should be trying to mirror the love of the Trinity' at that moment.)

I cannot begin to imagine how horrid it would be for a gay teenager in such an environment. He is not just 'wicked' (and depraved - and the idea of depravity is central to some evangelical theology in relation to human nature). He has no way out - no 'moral' marriage ahead.

I'd prefer the 'case by case' approach, as discussed earlier, but, in the sort of environment where hell fire is preached from pulpits, would the individual counsel be much better?
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Ok, I hadn't realised that you were talking about a longer-term response, as opposed to a crisi intervention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As for making judgements of people and their actions - while Jesus teaches us not to be judgmental, he does urge us to make judgments. We are to judge whether people are behaving in a Godly way or not, and even judge whether it is right to take the elders along to challenge them.

quote:

---

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

---

(Matthew 18:15-17)

So, I guess if we have problems with the idea of sometimes challenging someones behaviour, we'd better take it up with JC!

---

• Gossiping about me
• Telling lies about me
• Backstabbing
• Stealing from me
• etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Ok, I hadn't realised that you were talking about a longer-term response, as opposed to a crisi intervention.

---

I hadn't made that clear! No need to apologise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Getting jiggy with someone else (unless that someone else is my partner) is not a sin against me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Getting jiggy with someone else (unless that someone else is my partner) is not a sin against me.

---

I agree, that passage is about sinning against an individual - but it does show how we are to sometimes to make a judgement about right and wrong behaviour. Furthermore, the sin may have been against the individual - but the "one or two others" that go along to m ake the challenge also have to make a judgment about right and wrong behaviour before they would go along with the challenge.

The Bible does make clear that sexual sin should be challenged - 1 Cor 5 for example. Combine the two principles, and it seems clear to me that to never say anything to anyone about their sexual behaviour is neither loving nor honouring to God.

---

No, no and no. Thrice no, in fact. Or is that six times?

Anyway,

Jesus is clearly commanding us to go and sort stuff out with someone who is sinning against us.

Paul then says (in 1Cor 5) not to associate with fellow christians who are immoral, greedy, idol worshippers, slanderers, drunkards or thieves.

(So I can still associate with murderers presumably? )

You can't put the two passages together, and claim that they give you a mandate to go and have opinions to a homosexual about their behaviour.

Repeat after me: It's not your job to determine whether people are sinning or not. God will sort that out. You are called to love them as you love yourself. People will only change if they feel secure enough in the unconditional love.
 

---

Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Repeat after me: It's not your job to determine whether people are sinning or not. God will sort that out.

---

Do you have the same version of 1 Corinthians that I have?! Verses 1&2:

quote:

---

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You are called to love them as you love yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
People will only change if they feel secure enough in the unconditional love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Paul then says (in 1Cor 5) not to associate with fellow christians who are immoral, greedy, idol worshippers, slanderers, drunkards or thieves.

---

p.s. I note you were rather selective in your quotation - Paul actually says "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral..." which rather makes the point that we have to make judgments about sexual morality!!



[ 05. October 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As for making judgements of people and their actions - while Jesus teaches us not to be judgmental, he does urge us to make judgments. We are to judge whether people are behaving in a Godly way or not, and even judge whether it is right to take the elders along to challenge them.

quote:

---

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

---

(Matthew 18:15-17)

So, I guess if we have problems with the idea of sometimes challenging someones behaviour, we'd better take it up with JC!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:


Anyway,

Jesus is clearly commanding us to go and sort stuff out with someone who is sinning against us.

Paul then says (in 1Cor 5) not to associate with fellow christians who are immoral, greedy, idol worshippers, slanderers, drunkards or thieves.

(So I can still associate with murderers presumably? )

You can't put the two passages together, and claim that they give you a mandate to go and have opinions to a homosexual about their behaviour.

Repeat after me: It's not your job to determine whether people are sinning or not. God will sort that out. You are called to love them as you love yourself. People will only change if they feel secure enough in the unconditional love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Paul then says (in 1Cor 5) not to associate with fellow christians who are immoral, greedy, idol worshippers, slanderers, drunkards or thieves.

---

p.s. I note you were rather selective in your quotation - Paul actually says "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral..." which rather makes the point that we have to make judgments about sexual morality!!

---

You didn't specify a version of the Bible.

I'm going from the Good News, which simply says 'immoral'

Now take back your nasty remark about me being selective, before I stop loving you *snicker*
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Yes, heathens must be left to God’s judgment, v. 13. But those who identify themselves as members of the church are bound by the laws and rules of Christianity, and not only liable to the judgment of God, but members of the same body, when they transgress those rules. Case in point: my friend was gossiping. I took her to Starbucks and confronted her over a latte. She in turn did this same thing to me a month later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

It's only necessary here to reiterate that when we maintain a school and church environment steeped in heterosexist assumptions--marginalizing, brainwashing, and punishing gay or bisexual youth

---

What would a church environment look/sound/feel like, that did not do this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Do you have the same version of 1 Corinthians that I have?! Verses 1&2:

quote:

---

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

---

Here's a case of sexual sin. Paul is saying not only that they should have made a judgement that it was wrong, but also they should have said something about it.

---

Ah yes, the biggest most abominable sexual sin known to man: marrying your dear old Dad's ex-wife - and we all know what a fuss the churches make about that, don't we?

L.
 

---

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :
 
Lep,

quote:

---

“I would reiterate that one failure does not mean failure across the board”

---

quote:

---

“If God has standards - and surely we must all accept he does - the "problem" with standards is that they exclude some people who live outside the standards.”

---

quote:

---

“So, even if the church taught that monogamous sexual relations between two men was fine, Bobby may still have been "seeking sexual thrills on gay scene". So the church would still have to say such a lifestyle was sinful, and not God's will for him.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

---

(Matthew 18:15-17)
I'm trying to understand what this quote has to do with the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
If they know full well from your preaching and other general statements that you will just advise them, in effect, not to be themselves, why would they ever voluntarily submit to the embarrassment? I am not impressed by descriptions of how kind and sensitive you would be one-on-one if and when you were ever in that situation, when the entire tenure of your doctrine precludes the likelihood.

---

I do hope you're not judging me?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
Ever wondered why there is quite so much promiscuity as there is on gay scene?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
Could a heterosexual marriage last if, 50% of the time, one of the couple thought their marriage was inherently evil and perverted? Could you even begin any kind of long term heterosexual relationship if you thought like that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Well, what can I do? I believe the Bible teaches such relationships are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Could you say to someone: 'This is what I believe, but there are some who don't agree. You might want to check out what they say too, and seek God's guidance for yourself.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Well, what can I do? I believe the Bible teaches such relationships are wrong.

---

There's also this whole thing about the "beam that is in your own eye". In that light, is confronting someone about the wrongness of their relationship the primary thing that you should be doing?

---

quote:

---

Well I guess that's where we need to make the distinction between being judgmental and making right judgments. The former is condemned, the latter required, as I have tried to show above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
With all due respect, Fish Fish, I think you're splitting hairs. To judge is to judge is to judge. Since you like to cite scripture so much, why don't you fill in the rest of "Judge not..."?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
It seems like you're trying too hard to get around the basic idea that God Almighty is the Judge, not you, nor I, nor any other. It's not our place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
...to convince others that God loves them fiercely and unconditionally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged..." (Luke 6:37)

But does Jesus mean that all and every judgement is wrong (as you seem to be suggesting)? No - since immediately afterwards he tells us about Good trees and bad trees, good fruit and bad fruit, and good and bad men (v43-45) - how are we to recognise these if we do not make a judgement? Indeed, Jesus tells us we must make a judgement - "Each tree is recognized by its own fruit." - how do you recognise a good tree or bad tree (a good person or bad person)? By their fruit. You must judge their fruit to see if its good or bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you would judge someone who is loving, kind, gentle, faithful etc (ie: producing the fruits of the Spirit as Paul outlines them) to be a good person, and someone who is hateful, selfish etc isn't a good person. A real shame that people of all sexualities can be found among both "good" and "bad" people as judged by the fruits of their lives.

---

quote:

---

Are we never to make a judgement of right and wrong? If so, why are you replying to my posts? You've judged that they are wrong, have you not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
"I think you are wrong and I know without a doubt that you will burn in hell."

Your present approach seems to lean towards the latter, but I do not pretend -- even with revelation in the Bible or elsewhere -- to ever know or even be capable of knowing confidently the state of your salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
The Bible does not give either you or me the incentive, license or permission to judge or condemn other people's worth or immortal soul -- that is the province of God and God alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
...but I do not pretend to know the mind of God in judging ... your worth as a human being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Well, what can I do? I believe the Bible teaches such relationships are wrong.

---

There's also this whole thing about the "beam that is in your own eye". In that light, is confronting someone about the wrongness of their relationship the primary thing that you should be doing?

---

quote:

---

Whenever I hear someone speak of motes and beams - in any context, I am not trying to enter the discussion on homosexuality - I think 'here we go again, someone saying "put your own house in order before you criticise me" when of course they mean "don't criticise me about this, ever, even after you have put your house in order."'

---

quote:

---

So just as you are clear what is not a violation of the law of the land, we can be certain what is a violation of God's standards.

---

quote:

---

p.s. I struggle to see in what way the conservative evanglical does this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
Originally posted by Zwingli:

quote:

---

Whenever I hear someone speak of motes and beams - in any context, I am not trying to enter the discussion on homosexuality - I think 'here we go again, someone saying "put your own house in order before you criticise me" when of course they mean "don't criticise me about this, ever, even after you have put your house in order."'

---

Have you considered that perhaps the real implication of the passage is that none of us can ever clearly and completely "have our own houses in order" enough to avoid hypocrisy in criticizing others?

Isthmus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
One of the fruits of the Spirit is Self Control. If someone does not exibit self control over their sexual life, as God says that we should, then yes it its true to say "that people of all sexualities can be found among both "good" and "bad" people as judged by the fruits of their lives."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you would judge someone who is loving, kind, gentle, faithful etc (ie: producing the fruits of the Spirit as Paul outlines them) to be a good person, and someone who is hateful, selfish etc isn't a good person. A real shame that people of all sexualities can be found among both "good" and "bad" people as judged by the fruits of their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Unfortunately, Alan, just recently I was informed by a minister that if you are a lesbian there is no way you can display the fruits of the spirit. Being a lesbian overrides all other good one might be evidencing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
It was then that I realised that for this minister and the others of his ilk, lesbian and gay people are ontologically less than other human beings. If it was just the various sexual acts that were ontologically worse, then the good I did would still count in my favour. But no, in his eyes, whatever good I might do was completely negated by the fact that I choose to commit myself to another woman.

That's why I don't believe the "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
I see the failure to admit that you don't know everything that God does about salvation as being distinctly un-Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
One Q, Fish Fish -- do you really believe that the person won't have already heard that position? Very probably used as a weapon with accusing fingers pointing at them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Unfortunately, Alan, just recently I was informed by a minister that if you are a lesbian there is no way you can display the fruits of the spirit. Being a lesbian overrides all other good one might be evidencing.

---

What an ignorant asshole. He needs to find out something about the Christian faith, cos he clearly doesn't at the moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Well I guess that's where we need to make the distinction between being judgmental and making right judgments. The former is condemned, the latter required, as I have tried to show above.

---

With all due respect, Fish Fish, I think you're splitting hairs. To judge is to judge is to judge. Since you like to cite scripture so much, why don't you fill in the rest of "Judge not..."?

Isthmus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
You make a good point ChastMastr - some people may well know the Biblical arguments, and banging the Bible on their heads may not help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:

quote:

---

I see the failure to admit that you don't know everything that God does about salvation as being distinctly un-Christian.

---

I am more than happy to say that I don't know everything that God does about salvation. He is God. I am a puny small brained human. How can I possibly claim to know everything? (I don't belive I even hinted I did!)

---

quote:

---

I am valuing their worth, but talking to them about the danger to our salvation if we turn our backs on what God has said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Given the present social climate regarding people being treated that way, I take for granted that any fellow gay person I meet has already been told what the "traditional Christian position" is, and that it's based on the Bible, and very probably in some truly nasty ways. In my view, we've already heard it to death. It's old news. Unconditional, non-preachy, non-pressuring caring and real friendship, even if one doesn't agree with what the person does, or how they define themselves, or their political opinions, or subculture -- now that's new, and all too rare.

---

Which is where I find some problems in my life.

In some unusual way, I have found my self to end up befriending some gay teens online. Most of them are from the south. When they found out that I was a Christian (which didn't take them long actually) they reacted that I would no longer want to be their friend since Christians weren't friends with gay people. They find it odd that I tell him that their sexuality is between them and God and that I'm not going to talk or harass them about it unless they want my opinion. We've had alot of discussion over what the Bible says and doesn't say in that way.

But I still don't judge the conclusions they come to, I just give them the information they need. That is something that I find is lacking in what they hear. They simply don't know the whole story of Jesus, just what the Bible says about homosexuality according to some people. That I find to not be a good way to evangelize anybody.
 

---

Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on :
 
I don't know anything muchabout anything .. but I will say that this thread is starting to sound like it should be in hell!

God loves us. He hates our sin. Whatever our sin is. I don't think he judges the sins as worse than others. We all fall short of the glory of God and we are all healed by the stripes of Jesus. That's how I see it.

If somone repents of their way of life (whatever it is) we - as a church - are to love them, and help them not to sin in that area anymore. The sinful situations that they aren't repenting of (yet) are between them and God. He's the one who enables and His presence is what convicts.

Or have I misunderstood entirely?

[ 06. October 2004, 21:27: Message edited by: Ilkku ]
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Seraphim Ikku
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Fish-Fish wrote:

quote:

---

I do hope you're not judging me?

---

quote:

---

Does any conservative evangelical suggest that anyone should live without hugs or cuddles? Or say that a deep bond (friendship) with another person is sinful? I've never heard such a suggestion. Close friendships are a God given gift - and commended in the Bible. To say such friendships were wrong would be cruel. We need intimacy and relationships. To deny people this would no doubt "cripple them that they have nothing else to offer God or their fellow human beings."

---

quote:

---

Teachers would not make anti-gay statements or jokes.

At events where young people bring dates, a same-sex date would be just as welcome as an opposite-sex date. They could even dance together. Didn't Fish-Fish proclaim that same-sex hugging and cuddling are o.k.?...

Clergy would not advise parents to send their young "sodomite" bound and gagged against his will in the dead of night to an out of state boot camp to straighten him out (yes, this has happened in our "free country").

Adult leaders will promptly step in and stop all incidents of bullying, and will pray for and counsel the bully even more than the bullyee.

If the pillars of the church hear of a witch-hunt, they will go after the witch-hunter, not the 'witch.'

A openly gay adult or two could occupy a leadership position and be a role model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My apologies for being vague in any way in my post -- my intended point was actually that everybody has heard the Biblical arguments, often in a destructive way, and that banging the Bible on their heads will not only not help, it will in many cases do harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ilkku:
The sinful situations that they aren't repenting of (yet) are between them and God. He's the one who enables and His presence is what convicts.
Or have I misunderstood entirely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
give them the information they need. That is something that I find is lacking in what they hear. They simply don't know the whole story of Jesus, just what the Bible says about homosexuality according to some people. That I find to not be a good way to evangelize anybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
I'm sure I don't have to remind you that the topic in question on this thread never comes up once -- not once from Jesus recorded words -- in the Gospels. Given that God in Christ Jesus never "said" a single word about it, how do you claim absolute truth in your assertion that gay sex poses a "danger to their salvation"? You would be accusing someone of turning their backs on something God -- and neither Paul nor the old testament prophets were God --didn't say.

---

quote:

---

And since all scripture is God breathed, I refuse to make a distinction between the gospels and epistles as authoritative scripture. And I'll stand by what they teach - both in my life, and in my teaching and pastoral care of others. To ignore what God says is to give false hope...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
On Sept. 30, You wrote:

quote:

---

Does any conservative evangelical suggest that anyone should live without hugs or cuddles? Or say that a deep bond (friendship) with another person is sinful? I've never heard such a suggestion. Close friendships are a God given gift - and commended in the Bible. To say such friendships were wrong would be cruel. We need intimacy and relationships. To deny people this would no doubt "cripple them that they have nothing else to offer God or their fellow human beings."

---

I commend you for this concession, which I wasn't expecting. Are you prepared to stand by it? Perhaps you haven't considered the implications.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isthmus:
I don't think you have either heard anything I was saying or are really open to any other ways of looking at this, so I will just bless you and go my own way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I think that as conservative evangelicals, we sometimes need to be much clearer that no-one goes to hell for being gay.

[I've never heard a cons evo say that, but I know a lot of people think we do.]

---

quote:

---

People go to hell for rejecting Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
touch is important, and most people value (and often need) a hug etc. However, it would seem common sense to me that if one finds that hugging a particular person sexually arounsing, I'd suggest that hugging that person was inadvisable. Basically, I'm advocating non-sexual human contact as very important. But sexual physical contact seems unwise, because of the temptation to go further...


Does that answer your question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
give them the information they need. That is something that I find is lacking in what they hear. They simply don't know the whole story of Jesus, just what the Bible says about homosexuality according to some people. That I find to not be a good way to evangelize anybody.

---

That's why we need to walk the tightrope between loving and gentleness, and also being faithful to the truth of God's word. We must try our best not to lose either the truth or the love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
I don't always completely understand them either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

<Big Snip>

Zwingli, our Lord didn't say that no one should stone the adulterous woman. He said that the one who was without sin should throw the first stone. Do you not think the story of motes and beams was making the very same point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
You would, therefore, advise heterosexual teenagers to go on dates, dance with, hug, kiss, and become close friends with only those of the opposite sex to whom they are not attracted. Or maybe, just to be sure, they should go out only with members of the same sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
One cannot get into heaven by following all of the rules in the Bible. I can keep all of the rules in the OT and NT and not get into heaven without knowing and having a relationship with Jesus. When our relationships with people outside of the Christian faith revovle around telling them the rules and not the person of Jesus, we are failing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
And if they come into relationship with Him, then He will lead them to eternal life with or without my understanding of the rules and regulations in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Well, since we are saved by grace, you are right. But one must still ask, if someone wilfully disobeys what they know Jesus teaches them, in what sense is he Lord of their life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
However, the context of this debate is how to pastorally care for a teenager from church - presumably within the Christian faith. As such, it is entirely apropriate to talk about the holy life Jesus calls us to lead - the life of repentance. So it is firmly within the Christian faith context that I am having this conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
You would, therefore, advise heterosexual teenagers to go on dates, dance with, hug, kiss, and become close friends with only those of the opposite sex to whom they are not attracted. Or maybe, just to be sure, they should go out only with members of the same sex.

---

Yes I would be consistant. I think it unwise for anyone outside marriage to be involved in physical contact that is sexually arousing. That strikes me as common sense if we want to avoid falling into sin. You may think I'm prudish for thinking this - so be it. But I would say so consistenatly to gay and straight alike.

---

Have you really thought this one through Fish Fish? Have you ever had a girlfriend? (assuming you are male of course!! ) Are you really saying that if you find someone attractive, you should wait until you are married to them before any hugging kissing holding hands etc? That strikes me as plainly ludicrous and unworkable.

According to your rules you are allowed to hug anyone, in a friendly manner, as long as it is not someone who you might see as a potential life partner. Does this not strike you as rather strange?

I'm not trying to ridicule you, just pointing out what seems to me to be something that you may have not thought through very consistentlyy.
 

---

Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Even if my sins, by society's standards, are trivial, God doesn't judge the same way we do. He doesn't judge all fornication the same, or all stealing, or all murder. He sees the heart, he sees the body, he sees the pain, he sees the desires, he sees the needs, he sees the temptation, he sees the effort, he sees it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:
So, can you make it concrete? Michael and Janice are in your congregation. It's after service, at coffee hour and Janice looks like the world fell on her and she's on the verge of tears. What do you do and say?

You happen to be at the bus station and Michael comes over to you to say Hi. He has a ticket in his hand. What do you do and say?

---

I'd ask if we could go and sit somewhere and have a chat. Would I give them a dman good talking to? no. I'd give them a damn good listening to. And when the time was right, which may be weeks or months later, we'd hopefully talk about the Bible and we might make progress to living in line with it. The whole time I'd be trying to walk the ightrope I've been talking about - between gentleness with the person, and faithfulness to God's word.

Do I pass your test? I do hope so, otherwise I might lose sleep!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Have you really thought this one through Fish Fish? Have you ever had a girlfriend? (assuming you are male of course!! ) Are you really saying that if you find someone attractive, you should wait until you are married to them before any hugging kissing holding hands etc? That strikes me as plainly ludicrous and unworkable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
...I'd give them a damn good listening to....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
...I'd give them a damn good listening to....

---

Mark 12:34 "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I beg to differ. People need to hear what God has to say. I'm sure the way that is communicated could be improved in many cases - but the message needs to be heard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I beg to differ. People need to hear what God has to say. I'm sure the way that is communicated could be improved in many cases - but the message needs to be heard.

---

But my point is that the message that "homosexuality is sinful" has been heard over and over and over again. I'm sorry if I'm being in any way vague or unclear. Are you seriously arguing that is has not been heard?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Even when a message is well known, if a person is not applying the truth in thier life, then it needs to be discussed / explained again.

---

• 1. Why does it need to be discussed or explained again, rather than the other things discussed on this thread?
• 2. If it does, who is the person who should discuss it with the person again? Does it have to be the responsibility of every Christian who believes this way to do so?
• 3. Won't this have the net effect of making someone feel even more pressured, rather than attracted to Jesus?
• 4. How (this is a real, serious question, in light of everything which has been said) -- how will this not drive people away?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[*]1. Why does it need to be discussed or explained again, rather than the other things discussed on this thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[*]2. If it does, who is the person who should discuss it with the person again? Does it have to be the responsibility of every Christian who believes this way to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[*]3. Won't this have the net effect of making someone feel even more pressured, rather than attracted to Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[*]4. How (this is a real, serious question, in light of everything which has been said) -- how will this not drive people away?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If I am struggling with a sin, such as giving into sexual sin, I have two options.

1. I can say "Oh woah is me - I am sinful - but always will be sinful - and its no worse than any other sin - so I'll just let it ride, knowing God will forgive in then end."

2. I can say "Lord, I am sinful. I persistently sin. Please Lord change my heart so I can break this sin."

The first seems to be your view, and plays down repentance and denies the power of God. The second seems to me to be more honouring to God, and more in line with the Bible - achnowledging sin - but casting ourselves on God for his mercy and his power to change. The results may look similar to the outside - I may still sin in this persistant way. But in the latter way, I am seeking God and his power to change - never accepting my sin to be inevitable.

Apologies if I have misreperesented your view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I'll accept your apology, for you have utterly and completely missed the point of what I had to say, and misrepresented it entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The sin of someone who has been given every advantage in pursuing holiness is far greater than the sin of someone who, through injury, circumstance, or frailty, succumbs to temptation that is greater than they can bear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The sin of someone who has been given every advantage in pursuing holiness is far greater than the sin of someone who, through injury, circumstance, or frailty, succumbs to temptation that is greater than they can bear.

---

But the Bible teaches us that we are not tempted beyond what we can bare (1 Cor 10:13). And God's spirit gives us the gift of self control. So, if we succumb to temptation, its our own fault.

---

quote:

---

We are of course all damaged, sick, sinful beings - but if I sin, I am responsible for that sin - I can't blame my circumstances or any other influences to the extent that I abdicate responsibility for my actions. I may have been influenced - but in the end I am responsible for my sin.

---

quote:

---

Do you think that the church or ministers should never rebuke or correct. What if someone say they were going to murder (extreme example) - would you not feel it right to tell them murdering was wrong? *

---

quote:

---

Again, sorry if I have misrepresented what you believe. I can only respond that on these two points it seems to me Orthodox belief underplays personal responsibility and underplays the churches role in keeping its members in a life of holiness.

---

I've clearly failed to explain anything about Orthodoxy with any coherence at all then, because Orthodoxy hardly underplays personal responsibility, or the church's role in keeping her members in a life of holiness.

Maybe you could read The Orthodox Way by Bp. Kallistos Ware. Or read the life and sayings of Dorotheos of Gaza. But I give up. I've got to do laundry and pack so I can catch a plane.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
That was an eloquent post, Josephine, and may the prayers you pray speed your journey and bring you safely home to us. May God bless you in all you do.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
That was an eloquent post, Josephine, and may the prayers you pray speed your journey and bring you safely home to us. May God bless you in all you do.

---

Amen! Although it's nothing unusual coming from you, Fr. Gregory, or our other Orthodox shipmates.

Back in the free heyday of tabletalk.salon.com, many religious issues were discussed by participants many of whom knew what they were talking about. (I'm afraid the place is only a shadow of its former self now that the price is $10 per month. Obviously, the relationship between intelligent articulateness and wealth is tenuous at best.) People came from many backgrounds and points of view, but there didn't happen to be any Orthodox participants. I always felt that we suffered from that lack, but my efforts to find any Orthodox willing to leaven our lump were never successful. Now it's clearer than ever what we were missing. It's so great to have found you on the Ship. If only I didn't love organ music so much....
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Josephine and John Holding said what I was going to, Fish Fish.

David
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
And again I say unto you,

quote:

---

Amen!

---

, Alogon!

Thank you for your prayers for Josephine and her family! Much appreciated!
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What reason is there that any caring Christian should not discuss God's word with another Christian? Because we'll be banging someone over the head with it? Perhaps. But if we're all walking the tightrope of love and truth, then that could and should be avoidable.

---

quote:

---

Is that really a reason not to share God's truth with someone? If we don't teach the truth, what sort of Jesus will they be attracted to? A false one who says "its OK, I love what you do" when he has made clear he does not love what we do. Is that the sort of Jesus you want to attract people to? That's a false gospel I'm afraid.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish several pages back:
Do you have the same version of 1 Corinthians that I have?! Verses 1&2:

quote:

---

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

---

Here's a case of sexual sin. Paul is saying not only that they should have made a judgement that it was wrong, but also they should have said something about it.

---

quote:

---

Leviticus 18v8: Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Gay people - yea, even some gay teenagers, are Christians who are being made to feel that they don't matter. That's what's actually happening. And that's bad news -- not the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Telling someone what they can do, what they should do, what they are strong enough to do, when you don't know the whole story, is stupid and dangerous. I'm not saying it should never be done. But it should be done in fear and trembling, with much prayer, and only, ever, in love.

---

quote:

---

...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free

---

quote:

---

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish [on Oct 6]:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You are called to love them as you love yourself.

---

Agreed - thats why I apply the same standards to myself!

---

quote:

---

This was rather long-winded, Fish Fish, but my point is that loving your neighbor isn't about helping him or her meet standards, it's about being willing to feel that stake through your heart or experience the bottom of that black pit of despair with them. It's called compassion and contrary to what many people seem to think, you can't feel it from a distance.

---

It was a wonderful description of what I think, "Love your neighbor as yourself" really means. COMPASSION, not only for your neighbor, but also for oneself.

Thanks again . . .
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
jlg: I read your post, I went to do other things, and I had to come back to say
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
I am left feeling an outsider. As much as I am accepted and approved of, it comes at the cost of not being able to speak honestly about what I have experienced and what I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
This was rather long-winded, Fish Fish, but my point is that loving your neighbor isn't about helping him or her meet standards, it's about being willing to feel that stake through your heart or experience the bottom of that black pit of despair with them. It's called compassion and contrary to what many people seem to think, you can't feel it from a distance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I guess loving your neighb our includes all around you - all those outside the Christian afamily.

---

quote:

---

What I have been talking about on this thread is people within the Christian family, and how the Bible says that we should in some instances challenge, rebuke, correct and teach people - but in a loving way. I'm afraid we can't get away from what the Bible says the church should be doing - walking the tightrope of love and truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I have been talking about on this thread is people within the Christian family, and how the Bible says that we should in some instances challenge, rebuke, correct and teach people - but in a loving way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Correction, Fish Fish - what you think the Bible says. But you must be aware, surely, that "What I think the Bible says" and "What the Bible says" are not necessarily the same thing?

---

Yeah yeah, Blah blah! Really can't face going down that track again.

But in my defence, no one seems to be disputing that the Bible says things like we should discipline, correct, rebuke and challenge. No one seems to dispute that's what it says - they are disputing whether its a reasonable thing to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Surely our neighbours are everyone regardless of creed? That's what I've always been taught anyway and never thought there was any other interpretation.

---

I'm slightly confused by this, becuase I thought thats what I said as well!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
You give virtually nothing away in your profile, Fish Fish, and that's your right but are you willing to say whether you have a leadership position in your church? Or are you saying that every individual Christian has a positive duty to rebuke everyone else in the church they believe is going wrong on something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
Others have said this more eloquently than I Fish Fish but I don't believe it is possible to challenge in a loving way unless we truly love the person - sexuality is an intrinsict part of what makes a person and we must show love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Surely our neighbours are everyone regardless of creed? That's what I've always been taught anyway and never thought there was any other interpretation.

---

I'm slightly confused by this, becuase I thought thats what I said as well!

---

quote:

---

Yeah, I'm one of the leaders of a church. And so I am in the priveleged position of knowing more about some situations than others in the congregation. So, yes, sometimes I see people about to rebuke one another and I think "But you just don't know all the info".

---

quote:

---

That's why i agree with everyone who says we must tread very carefully. But in the end, no matter what the excuses or trauma or background, some actions are morally wrong and ruled out for Christians - and it seems to me that the whole church has a role in keeping one another in line and within the faith. So, no,I wouldn't see pastoring and occasional "correcting" as my exclusive role. but I would bang on to people about the tightrope, so they too act in love and listen very carefully as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
What training in pastoral care, counselling and such matters as confidentiality do you give members of your congregation? Is there any co-ordination of the rebuking and correcting? Do you recognise that great harm can be done to fragile people by the wrong words however well meant? Do you consider that everyone has an obligation to divulge every detail of their private lives or their medical treatment or whatever to any member of the congregation? Do you consider that sometimes acting in love may require you (individually and collectively) not to speak out at that moment? Is your church well-insured?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Other questions I have for Fish Fish are these: have you ever rebuked someone for actions or attitudes that were really central to their life? Such as a business person in your church, who while generally conforming to most other Christian principles is cold, greedy, and unethical in the business world? Or a person who makes it their business to "rebuke" others constantly in a "spirit of Christian love" on their own judgements of Christian behavior- too much make-up, too little submission to one's husband, the pastor's not mentioning repentence and hell enough in his sermons, etc. etc. etc.? Or a person who dumps their aged parents in a poorly run nursing home while buying the latest cars/electronic equipment/boat/summer home for themselves? Or a spouse who is verbally or physically abusive to spouse? What are your percentages like for turning people around? Over half?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But let me turn it back to you - this is a Biblical mandate for the church, to teach and correct and challenge in a loving way. Do you prefer to ignore this mandate because it may go wrong sometimes? And if someone is about to fall away from the faith becuase of something they are getting involved with, how do you see it to be loving NOT to say something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
To be honest, I don't think we've done much beyond addressing moral issues in sermons. I don't know how much people talk to oneanother in their private conversations. I'm sure those that do don't always get it right. We're all learning to love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fionn:
Do the leaders of your church take aside people who have divorced (for reasons other than adultery) and remarried and cautioned them against having sexual intercourse??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
So, when you are talking about balancing truth and love when rebuking or challenging, your experience seems limited to this being passed on from the pulpit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
Do you have experience of sitting with someone who is in pain, confused about their very identity and scared of others reactions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
Have you sat with that person and tried to tell them, in love, that they are wrong and that God will judge them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
Whatever happening to coming alongside someone in love and support. Surely that should be the correct pastoral response rather than blanket condemnation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Now, I'm an adult, and I can see it for the crap it is, but your average teen is not able to differentiate terribly well between person and principle (or for that matter, sin and sinner). Its very dangerous language.

---

That's the same point I was trying to make earlier when I posted about my feelings about being sort of an outsider in my church, because I know that my beliefs are quite at odds with what various people project upon me due to my behavior and involvement.

It is quite one thing to deal with this perpetual sense of being always at odds with your worshipping community when you have voluntarily and consciously chosen that situation and are a mature adult with a solid core of self-confidence.

But in ministering to gay teens (which is what the OP of this thread was asking about, after all), I think that even the conviction that gay sex is clearly unacceptable (a mortal sin -- I'm Catholic) needs to take a pastoral back seat to providing an environment of unconditional love and acceptance while these anguished and fragile young people come to terms with their sexuality.

Let me put it a bit bluntly for Fish Fish and the others who feel compelled to point out the Biblical teachings. Would you rather see a gay teen commit suicide, having remained a virgin, than have him/her commit the sin of extra-marital sex? Or would you rather be giving spiritual support to a gay 25-yr-old who shares your interpretation of the Bible and sincerely wishes to pursue a life of celibacy and also needs to repent of some youthful mistakes?

Of course, the third option is that the gay teen will turn into a 25-yr-old who no longer shares your interpretation of the Bible. In which case I present you with an even blunter challenge: Would you rather see a gay teen commit suicide while still a virgin than convert to a Christian denomination which would accept his sexuality as normal?

We're talking about pastoral response here, remember, not the validity of any particular teachings of any particular church.
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Jennifer
 

---

Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
It basically means that the person saying the line, who has probably already said "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't have to take responsibility for their words and actions should they upset or damage me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Let me put it a bit bluntly for Fish Fish and the others who feel compelled to point out the Biblical teachings. Would you rather see a gay teen commit suicide, having remained a virgin, than have him/her commit the sin of extra-marital sex? Or would you rather be giving spiritual support to a gay 25-yr-old who shares your interpretation of the Bible and sincerely wishes to pursue a life of celibacy and also needs to repent of some youthful mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fionn:
From FF's response I surmise that there are members who are remarried after divorce and since that is socially acceptable no sermon is ever preached denouncing them for practicing adultery.

---

Wrong. While I don't like the emotive term "denounced", I have talked and will talk about remarriage when the Bible talks about it, just as I will talk about homosexual sex when the Bible talks about it.

I'm sorry that the inconsistency tag doesn't stick as neatly as you would like it to.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
A most impressive straw man, jlg.... congratulations.

The need for the issue to be addressed sensitively but clearly from the pulpit is because it is not in accordance with what the world is trying to teach us. Therefore the church must make the effort to explain to her members why she believes as she does, in such a way as to make sense to them. Otherwise it will come as a surprise to people who will assume that their church is conformist on the issue. But of course any such sermon needs to start from an admission that sexual sin is a major challenge for everyone, and being tempted towards sex with someone of the same sex is no worse than being tempted towards someone of the opposite sex. But in both cases outside marriage, those temptations can't be acted upon. And then the hard bit starts - explaining why the church's view is that no permanent gay relationship can ever be accepted by the church..... And it needs to be said quite often to help ensure that anyone struggling with the issue hears BOTH sides of the story when they need to.

But in the midst of that needs to be clearly heard that the person who is 'gay' is no less acceptable to God than the person who is 'straight'. Both are loved by God to the point of dying for them

Congratulation to fionn - sounds like you upset some comfortable people over your comments... always a worthwhile achievement
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
I don't doubt there's a lot of "homophobia" (I dislike the word) out there. Nor do I doubt there's a lot of hypocrisy. But just because someone is homophobic and hypocritical does not mean that everyone is, and does not mean their opinions are always wrong (though many of them will be).

I agree about the comparison with remarriage of divorcees (assuming the first wedding was after conversion to avoid the argument over whether a marriage counts as a marriage if God isn't involved). I think it is a big issue which people need to address.

We don't marry divorced people (unless they are remarrying their original partner). Neither do we marry same-gender couples. And we speak against sex outside marriage. I personally don't see the inconsistency.
 

---

Posted by whitebait (# 7740) on :
 
Fish Fish responded to jlg's illustration, and I wanted to raise a couple of points from it.

To make my point clearer, I have taken the liberty of removing the word 'gay' from FF's answer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
... this is a tragic illustrative story - which illustrates the pain in a young .. life. But its not the the only possible loving response to say (bluntly) "Accept it, embrace it, and go and have sex." A loving response is to take God at his word, and explore why God has said what he has said. Many many .. Christians have expored the avenue that sexuality and self esteem are closely linked. They have discovered actually that .. sex does not bring them the peace, fulfilment and healing to their self esteem that they so seek. They would say to the .. teen "Don't make the mistakes I have made - there is a better way." That too is a loving response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And it needs to be said quite often

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
How many times do you think they should be told that their child is going to go to hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
How many times do you think they should be told that their child is going to go to hell?

---

... that wasn't actually what he said was it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
How many times do you think they should be told that their child is going to go to hell?

---

... that wasn't actually what he said was it?

---

I can't speak from this case, but in my diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada, this has been said, completely explicitly. That is, in the case of a gay-rights advocate who was murdered, a person in a position of authority explicitly said that the murder victim went to Hell. Not my idea of pastoral sensitivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitebait:
Fish Fish responded to jlg's illustration, and I wanted to raise a couple of points from it.
My first point is that teenagers of whatever sexuality are struggling with how to deal with their emotions, and much in the world around them is just saying "go and get on with it".

A loving response, as FF has suggested, is to point out that the experience of many has shown that sex does not fill the void as hoped.

The second point lies around the response "there is a better way".

For the heterosexual teenager, we might stress the value in building healthy relationships with the opposite sex, and the prayerful hope that, if God so leads, a relationship might develop which eventually leads to marriage.

Note the emphasis on relationship. I think it is demeaning to teenagers (and adults), straight or gay, to railroad the whole issue into sex alone, when many actually seek relationship first.

---

quote:

---

One viewpoint might say that the teenager should seek to live celibately. Whilst this is an option, my reading of scripture has always seen celibacy as a gift or vocation for some, and I cannot find any specific passage that indicates that this gift/vocation is automatically bestowed on all gay folk.

---

quote:

---

...God works for our good, not for our hapiness or ease. Every parent knows the difference there. A dearly-loved child may be denied all sorts of things for his or her ultimate good, while a spoiled chiold may not be really loved at all

---

quote:

---

Ender's Shadow wrote: The biblical position is clearly that the sexually active straight (unmarried) teenager is in the same dangerous position as the sexually active gay teenager, no worse off and no better off as far as 'going to hell' is concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I am genuinely saddened when what I say upsets people. I try and avoid it. But I also am saddened when I am not faithful to my God and what he has said. I have to balance the two. So when I try and walk the tightrope of love and truth, I am aware that the truth as I understand it will upset some people - but how can I abandon what I understand the truth to be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
A most impressive straw man, jlg.... congratulations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Please don't try and paint me and all conservative Christians as one issue, Bible thumping, bulls in china shops, who are unable to listen, or show love. Please do understand we are trying to walk the tightrope of love and truth. You may not agree with my understanding of the Bible. But please try and respect our attempts to be loving in the way we apply the truth we hold to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
I do hear your struggle to reconcile a loving, accepting response with your honest understanding of Bible teaching - it is indeed a tightrope. I just wonder if in trying to walk the tightrope folk sometimes don't put themselves under impossible pressure... I don't think both responses are mutually exclusive, it is possible to offer sensitive support while staying true to your beliefs. It is, in my view, more about recognising when you have earned the right to speak these into the lives of those you seek to minister to - and accepting that in some situations that it may not ever be your place to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The only thing we should ever say about sin at a PERSONAL level is:- "I am a sinner ... amongst all, the first." Period. Everyone else is a matter for them and God. Period.

If they come to us we show them mercy as we desire to have mercy shown to us. What actually constitutes sin is learnt in our own soul first and not from the Rule Book. We should only be able to see the good in others.

As we deepen in self-understanding .... an awareness that only comes through personal faith in the Lover of humankind ... that ability to see the good in all grows stronger. It is not Pollyanna-ish though, because it is forged in the death of our own ego ... and, my God, that healing hurts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Alogon

The only thing we should ever say about sin at a PERSONAL level is:- "I am a sinner ... amongst all, the first." Period. Everyone else is a matter for them and God. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What DO the Orthodox do about the numerous Scripture references to the church HAVING to take notice of another's sin?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0