|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pastoral Response: Gay Teenagers in the Heartland
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I assume you know where the Styx is if you have a problem.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I am finding this a very thought-provoking thread, and especially agree with Fr Gregory and Josephine. Pastoral responses can never come 'pre shrunk.'
Though I am not gay, I found James Alison's "Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay" to be a very enriching book, and would recommend it especially to anyone looking for a perspective "written out of brokenness," yet theologically rich. I believe that quoting a bit from the introduction would be within copyright law (his reference to being "wrong" is not about his homosexuality - it has to do with an overall thesis he develops about seeing all of our human weakness in the light of the resurrection):
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?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joykins
Shipmate
# 5820
|
Posted
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. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) 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 ]
Posts: 350 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) 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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
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?
No. You have a hope that the situation might change.
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.
I think Paul said it was better IMHO it's quite a stretch to say he said it was more pleasurable. 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.
I also think the idea that it's society that causes people to want sexual fulfillment is ludicrous. It may exaggerate certain facets of it - but do you really believe those desires are not innate?
Custard's comparison with seeing the pyramids - a once in a lifetime experience for most - speaks volumes I think. For some it is like that - but as in all things there is diversity and it seems as though you're assuming that because it's relatively easy for some to live without sexual expression that it is for all.
Now of course some have no choice and still find it hard. But to suggest that because some straight people have a heavy burden that we should ask all gay people to bear a similarly heavy burden - doesn't seem loving IMO.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
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.
[ 03. October 2004, 15:49: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joykins
Shipmate
# 5820
|
Posted
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.
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?
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
Posts: 350 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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
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
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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
About 30% of opposite-sex couples require assistance with fertility - there are several threads about this.
Relevant to this discussion is that many same-sex couples want (or have) children, often through the same means as opposite-sex couples, e.g. adoption or a wide range of reproductive technologies.
I think that your argument was a bit of a strawman.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Yes, quite possibly true. I was trying to make the point that single sex relationships are not like [conventional] marriage in that children are not an expectation (in reply to the point that single sex relationships are about children as well as sexual intercourse). I appreciate that in light of technology it is a weak argument, but it is a strongly held belief, nonetheless.
I find the accepted fact that marriage is all about children as abhorrant as Lep appears to that it is all about sex.
In the same way that it is better for a child to be brought up by two parents, in my opinion, it is better for a child to be brought up by two people of different genders than of one. This is not to downcry single parents, who do a splendid job, nor single sex parents, who can I'm sure, point to a great number of success stories. I'm sorry if this is offensive, but I do not consider these to be ideal relationships for a growing child.
Thus Lep would affirm the value of strong asexual relationships and I would affirm the untold value of childlessness.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Again I reiterate, I can see no indication that a "call" to celibacy is required to make it bearable.
And there was me thinking that a call to celibacy was a consequence rather than a cause of being single.
[Note - if God, through the Bible, tells you to do something, then you are called to do it, no matter how you feel about it.]
[ 04. October 2004, 20:28: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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?
No, it isn't.
Custard, are you or have you been in fact in such a marriage? If so, you have my deepest sympathy. If not, then I respectfully suggest that those of us who don't know what it's like are in no position to tell those who do that they must just "lovingly refrain," grin and bear it, blithely indifferent to how difficult this may be for them. I understand that Jews understand quite clearly that when they get married, they undertake a duty to give sexual fulfillment to each other. It's a shame that this aspect is so seldom explicit among Christians. Be that as it may, I'd call a spouse derelict in duty and abusive who, for no better reason than taste, refuses sex over a long period, and no such spouse deserves to count on the marriage's lasting.
Secondly, when the unfortunate husband or wife of such an ambivalent and mixed-up individual does "lovingly refrain" we must ask why. Isn't it to preserve the other benefits of the existing marriage? I think that in this example you are requiring homosexuals to forgo these as well. Whether two guys living together are having sex is none of our business, and we have no way of knowing the answer. So if preventing homosex is a big priority for us, we need to discourage anything and everything that we can observe, i.e. whatever looks like or conduces to such a partnership. Doesn't that mean preventing them from enjoying even the residual benefits of the marriage you have described?
I started the thread "Gay and married" a couple months ago around these issues. 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-- we become largely to blame when a few years later they make such unpropitious attempts at marriage. We are partly responsible for the sufferings of their poor husbands or wives.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
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.
The word 'calling' does not appear in the passage it's part of my interpretation of it. The only way I can make sense of that passage, which appears to favour both singleness and marriage at different points, is in the way I described - that it affirms both - depending on what is suitable for them in God.
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.
I don't agree. One part of the passage appears to say that but that another appears to say the opposite. Most people pair off in some way. I can't believe then that this 'better state' is only for a minority.
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.
Once again I doubt your undoubtable. I don't think that the sense of unfairness comes primarily from "everyone is doing it" - it comes from being denied (or asked to deny oneself) something one wants strongly and not understanding (or agreeing with) the distinction that is being made between oneself and others who are not asked that. That does not come from society but from within.
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.
Custard made the comparison with seeing the pyramids. I think that implies easy. I mean I'd like to see the pyramids - but asking me to never see them is a very light burden compared to asking me to give up any hope of sexual expression. Now there are people with a low enough libido for that comparison to be accurate - but for many, most possibly, it's simply not.
Now asking someone to bear a heavy burden is not necessarily wrong in itself - as you say. Custard's example of a marriage where one partner no longer wishes to have sex - is one where the burden may be quite hard - but, as Custard says, that's a loving act. I can see the good that such self-sacrifice acheives. I can't see the good asking all gay people to be celibate, regardless of other circumstances, achieves. All I can see is asking a certain set of people to carry a potentially heavy burden because Tradition and/or a particular interpretation of the bible says it must be so.
But I guess by now I'm veering directly into DH territory rather than just skirting it - so I'll leave it there.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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. ...
Purported, please, not accepted. I've been married twenty years, and we never intended to have children, and we haven't had any and won't.
The BCP says
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.
(Firstly is children and secondly is "against fornication".)
I'm in favor of "mutual society, help, and comfort" regardless for the gender involved.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
I personally do not believe that conservative evangelical Christianity (and conservative Christianity in general) is at all capable of adequately engaging with young gay/lesbian teenagers. Certainly the fact is that it is entirely unable to do so at present.
There is a “joke” I have heard within the gay community that is quite revealing in itself of the way in which conservative Christianity is generally viewed by the vast majority of people within the gay community. The “joke” goes as follows…
Q: How long does it take highly religious parents to come to terms with your sexuality?
A: No one has ever lived that long.
That sums it up. Most people in the gay community, most ordinary people that is, believe the chasm is far, far too great to ever be bridged and its not even worth trying so you may as well give up on it and forget about religion entirely. That’s the most common view. Those gay people who remain within a Christian faith and attempt to find ways to bridge the chasm – they are very much a tiny minority. The danger is that it is only this minority that is visible to the conservative Christians themselves. That creates a situation where conservative Christians wrongly believe that the “gay rights lobby is trying to take over the church”. That is absolutely wrong. If by “gay rights lobby” people mean the majority of politically active gays/lesbians then the “gay rights lobby” is definitely not trying to take over the church – the “gay rights lobby” has given up on the church and feels it is largely irrelevant for the future.
But the problem when it comes to youngsters. When it comes to young lesbian/gay teenagers. The problem is these young people are NOT often that articulate, they are not great theological experts, they might not themselves be emotionally equipped (yet) to engage in serious “heavy” adult arguments in which they themselves are the principle objects of discussion.
Young gays and lesbians are a total mix of people. Some are strong. Some are not. Some can cope with confrontation/conflict, others cannot. It’s the ones who can’t cope that represent the real worry. Vulnerable, emotionally fragile youngsters who find themselves isolated, confused and growing up to become something that their church has always told them is “sinful” or even “damned”. Can they really cope with such subtle intellectual distinctions as “love the sinner and hate the sin”? Do the people around them, in these churches really adequately make such a distinction themselves? Do they hear preachers giving sermons on how homosexuality is “anti-family” or on how “the homosexual lobby” is “anti-god”? Some of them can’t cope with that – they just can’t. It is too great a burden for them to carry, too much of a millstone.
Take for example the story of an American teenage boy called Bobby Griffith. He was brought up to believe that being Gay was “bad” – that being Gay was a choice made by people who were in rebellion against god. That is what his church taught and those were the values his own mother sought to teach him.
Bobby was someone who was entirely trapped by this issue. Trapped with no way out. He was not naturally a rebellious person. In fact he was sensitive, shy and often seemed to desire nothing more than to fit in with those around him. Coming out as Gay was a big trauma for himself and his family & came to light only after a failed suicide attempt. His family believed that God could offer healing to gays as long as they genuinely sought healing through prayer. 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.
Largely unknown to everyone around him were the contents of his diary – a diary he kept from his teenage years into his early twenties. His entries reflect his mood swings, genuine attempts to seek “healing”, bemused self-reflection on whether or not god hated him, anger at an increasingly distant god who felt ever more alien and unapproachable.
Typical of his entries was…
quote:
“Fuck you God!”
On the one extreme. And…
quote:
"I am evil and wicked. I am dirt…my voice is small and unheard, unnoticed, damned."
At the other extreme.
Early one Saturday morning in August 1983, two men driving to work noticed a young man, later identified as Bobby, on an overpass above a busy thoroughfare. As they described the next few moments, the boy walked to the railing, turned around, and did a sudden back flip into mid-air. He landed in the path of an eighteen-wheeler. He died instantly. Bobby was 22.
Perhaps the worst thing, I think, is that not only is the terrible, terrible suffering of some of these youngsters ignored…sometimes they grow up in a culture that encourages them to believe that they are rightly blamed and vilified for it as well. Not only did Bobby suffer, Bobby believed that it was his fault that he suffered.
Where is Bobby now?
Where is the tortured boy who wrote “Fuck you God!”? Where is the boy who believed he was “unheard, unnoticed, damned”?
His father, who alone of Bobby’s family was an agnostic, had the answer to the question “where is Bobby now?” – his answer was simple – “he is not here”.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
That's a very sad story.
But Paul, I would reiterate that one failure does not mean failure across the board. I could list several stories of people in Bobby's position who have gone on to fulfilled roles, and full vibrant lives that have meant much to many people in their service of the Gospel, and stayed in churches which have taught that sex is for heterosexual marriage only.
Neither type of story "proves" anything across the board, does it?
Pulling out your worst horror story about the church is the equivalent of those people who say that because some gay people are anti-family values, the whole of gay society is. I don't believe that for a second - because one isolated story proves nothing. Get it?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But Paul, I would reiterate that one failure does not mean failure across the board.
Leprechaun---I ask the following question in all sincerity. Just how many of those "failures" are you prepared to accept?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isthmus
Ship's Super Flumina
# 8171
|
Posted
Speaking from the perspective of a gay Christian active in music ministry (and many of whose friends are former Christians who are now agnostic or atheist), I'd have to say that most gay adults I know (20's on up) who had a relationship with organized religion in their youth are so completely burned by the experience that even the most liberal, affirming churches will have a hell of a time trying to invite them back in.
And conservative churches? Hmmm. I'm feeling a little doubtful on that one.
I do really appreciate the (mostly) thoughtful dialogue on this thread, though.
Isthmus
--------------------
Heresy is back in style!
Posts: 187 | From: Proudly sporting a vehicle without a "W" sticker in Houston | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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?
Paige, I'm not sure what type of answer you are looking for to this question.
Do I accept that the conservative church fails and is failing gay teenagers as we speak? Yes.
Are they irrevocably doomed to fail these people because of their theology? No.
Is it true that every, or even most people with homosexual orientation in conservative churches are miserable and suicidal and feel unloved? Well in my experience of conservative churches (which, to be fair is probably as wide as most people's here) no.
And here's the stinger - do I accept that the "non-conservative church" serves these people any better by legitimising their desires? No.
I've sought to answer in all sincerity.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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.
Paul, that is truly a tragic story. But can I ask, what you would accept that the church taught?
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. 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.
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?
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.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fionn
Shipmate
# 8534
|
Posted
Speaking as an Southern Baptist, I don't think that a conservative church can really minister to someone who is homosexual. The thing to do is to point them to the nearest MCC church that preaches Christ Crucified and get them to it. Even if that means taking them if they are too young to drive and the parents are willing.
Now there will be those that say the MCC cannot preach Christ Crucified but that is false. I have attended such.
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. A person cannot be true to themselves if they are forced to deny their actual being. A person who is not true to themselves cannot be true to God. If a person must live a lie then they cannot be a Christian or a godly person.
I would never attempt to bring a homosexual into a Baptist church but I would do my best to bring them to Christ ( and let God judge their sexual behavior) and try to persuade them to join in fellowship in a church that is not so hung up on sex. Most christians have this hang up about sex in any form that is absolutely amazing in its denail of Jewish teaching and tradition. If more Christians would study the Jewish teachings prevalent in Jesus' time we would have a better attitude about the basic goodness of sex.
But I ramble.
Posts: 179 | From: horsecountry | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isthmus
Ship's Super Flumina
# 8171
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
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
--------------------
Heresy is back in style!
Posts: 187 | From: Proudly sporting a vehicle without a "W" sticker in Houston | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
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
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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]
How is this the best, most compassion-filled, closest-to-the-way-Jesus-acted, pastoral response?
"I can see you're suicidal over all this torment. But you're making a mistake in your behaviour. You can honour God by acting this other way instead."
How does that get anywhere close to helpful for the person?
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?"
Once they are through the crisis, and know they are loved as they are, unconditionally, no-strings-attached - that means, btw, that you love them even if they never change - then, they will change in response to God's prompting in their life.
If God's not prompting them to change, then you may well be wrong about their behaviour.
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.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isthmus
Ship's Super Flumina
# 8171
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
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
--------------------
Heresy is back in style!
Posts: 187 | From: Proudly sporting a vehicle without a "W" sticker in Houston | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
This is such utter crap I can hardly type for frustration. If you really think that it is merely some primitive puke reflex that stops conservative Christians counselling struggling teens towards fulfilment of homosexual desires then...then....well I can't say it in Purgatory. I was finding this discussion helpful, but having attempted to withdraw before I am out of it now, before I suffocate under the pile of "notworthy" smilies.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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.
Absolutely. I believe God's word is God's authoritative revelation - by which all other revelation is judged. So, I'd disagree with bishop Robinson, since for God to do a "new thing" in this moral issue would make contradict himself. But this really is a dead horse.
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?"
I agree. I was trying to give the longer term response rather than the imediate crisis response. In the short term, any challenge could be totally insensative. However, in the longer term, the right thing might be to gently challenge someone's behaviour.
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).
I guess that partly depends on the context of the conversation. I am assuming here, because we are talking of pastoral care, that I / we have pastoral care for the homosexual teenager. As such, then sometimes it is right to say what is right and wrong. That is the loving thing to do. If I am pastoring someone, and they are heading headlong into danger, the loving response is not silence. But of course, nor does it have to be slamming condemnation!!
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!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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!
(Bold mine)
Good passage. I'd disagree with its application here, however.
The passage talks about if your fellow christian is sinning against you, you should go and take it up with them. Do you want to explain to me/the class how someone having gay sex is sinning against you?
In my book, someone is sinning against me if they are:- Gossiping about me
- Telling lies about me
- Backstabbing
- Stealing from me
- etc.
Getting jiggy with someone else (unless that someone else is my partner) is not a sin against me.
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fionn
Shipmate
# 8534
|
Posted
Lep -
Perhaps a better phrasing would have been 'Many' instead of 'Most'.
I have found that most discussions on homosexuality and christianity flounder on the "disgusting" elements of homosexual sexual activity. I have been escorted out of one Baptist church and asked to move my membership elsewhere because I tried to get the members of my Sunday school class to get past the "disgusting" behaviour of homosexuals and into discussing how to minister to them.
The entire discussion was occasioned by the suicide of a gay student at the local high school. Isn't it amazing how often one must confront suicide among young teen homosexuals?
Posts: 179 | From: horsecountry | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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?
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.
So I'm afraid I have to disagree. Being pastoral sometimes does mean teaching right and wrong, sometimes correcting, and sometimes affirming and encouraging.
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:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
People will only change if they feel secure enough in the unconditional love.
If people called to pastor and teach don't teach what is right or wrong, how will people know they are meant to change?!!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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!!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 05. October 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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!
I'm trying to understand what this quote has to do with the topic. The first words are "If your brother sins against you". How does just being a gay teenager, even a "sexually active" one, constitute a sin against a pastor or anyone else in the congregation? Wouldn't he have to rape you personally in order for that clause to be satisfied?
In general, a prerequisite for helping any gay teenager is that he or she bother to approach you for counseling in the first place. 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 kept the closet door closed very tightly until I'd moved away from my home town at almost age 22. Then, whadya know, within a couple of months I met two priests who were gay themselves, and my first lover was a vestryman. All in all, I had it relatively easy as far as confrontations with the church were concerned, simply by not tempting fate.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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.
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. I ain’t going to get into what is/is not sin…(I have other things I would rather bible-bang at you all) but I do take issue with the “no one is to judge” statement. Gosh golly geez whiz, if some guy in my church murders his wife, comes to church and wants to go to Fresh Choice with me and the gang afterwords, wel then OJ can just take his sorry@$$ home, ok?
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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*
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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.
She is your friend, and you have each earnt the right to give each other your opinions. You love each other unconditionally, meaning that the friendship and you two will survive being told what the other one thinks.
I'm still not entirely clear how a pastorally responsible adult counselling a suicidal teen is comparable to two friends being accountable to one another.
Particularly when you add in the power differentials, and the bonds of love.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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?
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.? And despite the evident opinion of some Baptists to the contrary, dancing is not having sex. Right?
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.
How's that for starters? Too much change all at once?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fionn
Shipmate
# 8534
|
Posted
Alogon -
Even though more and more baptists are accepting dancing a snowball has a better chance in hell than that a conservitive church is ever going to permit a homosexual (celibate or otherwise) to occupy a prominent position in the church. We are still too hypocritical to allow that.
Notice that it is seldom a lesbian teenager that is tormented by the elders. However, the mere thought that two males might perform anal penetration or perform fellatio on each other can rapidly clear a room as rapidly as someone yelling "fire".
There is some hope for the future but not within my lifetime or probably that of my nieces or nephew.
Posts: 179 | From: horsecountry | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Lep,
quote:
“I would reiterate that one failure does not mean failure across the board”
However, Bobby’s case is not isolated by a long shot. A great many gay/lesbian teens experience deep psychological trauma at the hands of organised religion. Suicide is an extreme example of that failure but it is very far from an isolated case. Aside from the suicides there are many more examples of teenagers who suffer from extreme depression, engage in self-harming and so on and so forth. This is very common. The cause? Being taught that gay sex is “bad”. Probably the most common end result though is simply that the youngster abandons Christianity altogether – they just can’t imagine how a truly loving God would be responsible for such an arbitrary and cruel pronouncement as “homosexuality is an abomination”.
Fish,
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.”
Right now, what mainstream Christianity in general and the conservative wing of Christianity in particular claims as its standards does exclude 90%+ of gay people.
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.”
This is the other problem here that I don’t think many heterosexuals could remotely appreciate. Why did Bobby “seek sexual thrills on gay scene”? From reading his story & the opinions of those who met him on gay scene, I’d say it was mainly because his internal war made him shy away entirely from a long term relationship. A long term gay relationship would have meant an absolute commitment to a belief that there was nothing inherently wrong with being gay. Given his inner turmoil that was not possible. For someone who is swinging between one minute think gay is OK and the next thinking that gay is damned it is much easier to cope with promiscuity. A one off encounter/experience can more easily be put down to a one off, never to be repeated sin during those dark moments where you convince yourself “gay is bad”. A long term relationship cannot. Long term relationships are only likely to endure once you win your internal war in favour of “gay is good”.
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?
Ever wondered why there is quite so much promiscuity as there is on gay scene?
Duchess,
Expressing judgemental opinions of others and pointing out what we perceive to be their faults to them is all well and good in theory. However, Bobby’s friends and family pointed out what they perceived to be the faults in being gay – and, guess what? Gosh golly gee whiz – Bobby’s dead.
[Too much code.]
[ 06. October 2004, 10:25: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
