|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pastoral Response: Gay Teenagers in the Heartland
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
As far as I can see, no one here would suggest that a minister who genuinely believed homosexual activity (or anything else) to be sinful should say otherwise. Yet there is a wide gap between compromising integrity (a sin in itself) and condemnation from the pulpit.
Sexual sins are no better or worse than any other, and each of us (whatever our orientation) will need to seriously consider how our expression of sexuality must be ordered for our intimacy with God and love of neighbour to be best fostered. Especially for the young, this is an exceedingly delicate area. In most areas, one may preach the virtue (truth, charity, humility, and so forth), yet it is unusual (rare, I would say) for anyone to be able to preach the virtue of chastity without falling either into condemnation or excessive posturing. (Emphasis on 'virtue of' because I am by no means suggesting all and sundry are called to continence!)
I have no idea why I am sharing this, but believe it illustrates how, in youth, sensitivity about sexuality can be extreme. (I am not gay, so I am not suggesting I have experienced the sort of conflicts such as some others movingly described on this thread.) When I was a teenager (and then Roman Catholic), though I cannot recall hearing sermons on chastity, many of the priests and religious who worked with young adults referred to sex a good deal. I suppose that, worried that the church had overly stressed hellfire for sexual activity in the past, they were seeking to over compensate. Again and again, often in syrupy tones, we heard the refrains about how 'marriage (by which they meant sex - I believe there is a bit more to marriage than that...) is so beautiful,' and the business about mirroring the love of the Trinity.
This being the time of the sexual revolution, I suppose they thought that, by overly glorifying marriage, they would urge us not to participate. Yet there was an (unintentional) air of dishonesty. There was no allowance for the pain that can be connected to sexual relationships, nor even an admission that not all marriages are continuous bliss. (Let alone that there can be a miserable marriage even if the one saving grace is great sex!) Even the most naive of kids must have heard somewhere that people do not need to be married or in love to have sex.
I come of Italian parentage, where there is neither obsession with sexual sin nor uneasiness about the pleasure inherent in sex. I did not feel that sexual attractions were at all wrong, and, since I was not even having sex, I had no sense of having done anything immoral. It would take me some time to realise why I had a certain uncomfortableness with my attraction to men. It was because I felt guilty that I did not have the glorified image that these religious mouthpieces were giving! I even felt guilty because I was not attracted to marriage (by which I mean the entire package. Had I not been so religious, I probably would have been the sort who had a once in awhile man friend for lengthy conversations, fun evenings out, food and wine, and an occasional bonk.)
It seems to me that, in any life, working on our life of prayer (which I mean in a broad sense - not only formal or private prayer but scripture, good works, etc.) will lead to a better understanding of and practise of our Christian commitment. Yes, that sounds like I'm saying the grass is green - but the pulpit is a far better place for this sort of focus than for rallying against whatever is currently the most unfashionable (perceived) sin.
It still chills me to remember this, but I can recall, a few years ago, when I read online (and we discussed here) the statements of Jerry Falwell after the WTC disaster. For some reason (which I cannot fathom), he saw homosexuality as calling down divine wrath and endangering his country. I'm sure few people are that extreme (or that irrational), but he must have some 'listeners' to have a forum for his statements. I would hope that mature adults would see the man for the wicked fool that such statements reveal him to be - but what of a teenager, just trying to develop Christian maturity?
In all my years in first RC and then Anglican parishes, I never recall hearing a sermon on homosexuality, nor have I ever served in a parish where gays were not very involved (and sometimes priests). This was true even years ago, when homosexuality was still considered to be a fault in development, rather than a component of one's psycho-sexual orientation.
Whether the young man in the OP eventually decides on a celibate life, committed monogamy, or whatever else is best suited to him, he will never be able to come to that mature Christian decision if he has been taught to hate who he is by nature. Exaggerating to make a point (I am not suggesting any one denomination has a corner on Christian behaviour!): I am hoping he ends up an Anglican priest rather than a self-hating bible thumper.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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?
Because, as I said above, if someone is not applying God's standards and God's word to their life, they possibly don't understand either the teaching or its seriousness. If it becomes apparent that they do understand this, then I'd move on and explore the reasons for not following it.
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?
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:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[*]3. Won't this have the net effect of making someone feel even more pressured, rather than attracted to Jesus?
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 ChastMastr:
[*]4. How (this is a real, serious question, in light of everything which has been said) -- how will this not drive people away?
That is indeed a very real risk. I have two choices:
1. Walk the tightrope of love and truth. So I try not to change what God has said, but also try to love the person with whom I am talking, praying they will accept what God says. But I know that some people stumble over God's call to lose their life and make Jesus Lord - and so will take offence and walk away.
2. Amend what the Bible says, making it easier for them not to take offence and not walk away - but then give them hope in a god that that has been made more palatable, but that is not the one who reveals himself in the Bible.
Which would you choose?
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
I'll accept your apology, for you have utterly and completely missed the point of what I had to say, and misrepresented it entirely.
Are you familiar with the Orthodox understanding of salvation, of theosis? We don't minimize sin, and we don't think it's necessary or inevitable that we sin. We expect ourselves to work towards theosis, towards becoming by grace what God is by nature. It's hard work, but that it is absolutely essential that every Christian srive for that, with the help of God.
Nor do we think that one sin is no worse than any other sin. Quite the contrary. If you read the story I told earlier, from Dorotheos of Gaza, you should understand that.
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. Therefore, although like the rich young ruler, I can say that I have never murdered or never committed adultery, I can't say that I am without sin. My sins, which seem trivial in the eyes of the world, are no small thing. In fact, I can honestly and truly say, as I do every Sunday, that I am the greatest of sinners.
It is my task, my labor, my duty, to learn to see my own sins, to learn to loathe my own sins, and to learn to repent of my own sins. That is a lifetime's worth of work for me.
It is only after I have repented of my own sins, and have achieved such a state of holiness that I can look at another person, and judge that person with the mind of Christ -- which is to say that I know that person every bit as well as Christ knows that person, and that I love them every bit as much as Christ loves them -- it is only then that I dare to try to take the mote out of their eye.
It's true that the mote in their eye is injuring them, that the mote desds to be removed. But if you go after the mote when your vision is still obscured by a plank, you risk blinding them forever. If there's any chance you are not seeing them as clearly and plainly as Christ sees them, how can you dare risk that?
If you want to learn when and how to lead someone else out of sin, read the lives of people such as St. Moses the Black or Father Arseny the wonderworker and confessor of Russia. They repented of their own sins, and the only tool they ever used to bring someone else to repentance was love.
If you want someone to quit sinning, telling them the rules isn't going to do any good. The Jews had the law given them by God, and it didn't work. No one is going to be saved by your telling them that what they're doing is a sin.
But if you love them, if you truly love them, anything is possible.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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.
Thank you for accepting my apology, and for clarifying your beliefs.
I found what you said very interesting becuase I don't know much about Orthodox beliefs. However, I find myself disagreeing on a number of points - because what you say goes against what the Bible teaches.
Firstly, with regards sin - you say
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. 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.
Secondly, with regards to removing the mote, you paint a picture that says one will never be in the position of correcting or rebuking another, becuase one will never be perfect. Again, this is neither the teaching of Jesus nor the teaching of the whole Bible. The church, and her ministers, have a God given task - to humbly and lovingly shepherd the flock - to correct, rebuke and train in righteousness (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, where the minister is given the tools to do this). The church that believes it can never correct or rebuke is failing in its God given calling.
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? *
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.
* this is of course not to suggest that homosexual sex is equivelant to murdering. I am using the extreme example to push the point - we do all in the end think it right to rebuke and correct...
[ 07. October 2004, 22:07: 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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
FishFish -- do keep on with the discussion you are having, but I have to say your concept of how gay people relate to God very slightly unsettling. In my own parish, I know a married (according to the law of the land) gay couple whose love for God and spirituality are models for all christians. Both have been married (to women) and both marriages ended in divorce -- in both cases, the divorce preceeded their getting to know each other. They've been together for nearly 20 years. Their devotion to Jesus is undoubted and unquestionable. One is a third order benedictine. The other would be a classic evangelical if the evangelicals would accept him (they don't --he's gay, and they've made it clear that's why). As I understand you, the congregation whould be periodically -- weekly?, monthly?, annually? -- coming down on them like a ton of bricks for being unfaithful to the Lord?
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.
You are carefully trying to walk a very difficult line, and I appreciate your efforts -- until I actually met real gay Christians, that was the line I tried to walk (though I confess I didn't actually advocate going out of my way to confront people about their sins -- gay wasn't on my mind, you understand, I was more concerned about charging interest or pride). And I appreciate, I hope, the sincerity with which you are trying to act lovingly within the bounds you have accepted for yourself.
But that's not what's happening in the real world. I have no idea how gay Christians react to your position (I suspect they don't like it) but as a straight Christian, I find it a classic example of ivory tower theorizing -- even granting for a moment that it has theological merit, it's "too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use". I note, for example, that almost every discussion on the acceptability of gays as christians, including some on this ship, starts with an assertion that being gay is no sin, it's just the activity -- and within a few posts, people are talking about "homosexuals" -- the distinction is lost. And the message that sends is that despite the fine words, it's being gay that matters.
JOhn
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
I will never be tempted beyond what I can bear, with the help of God and with the love of other Christians. If I succumb to temptation, it is my own fault. I am without excuse.
But I can't say that for anyone else but me, Fish Fish. I know that I have been blessed and sheltered and protected and cared for in ways that many other people aren't. My mother's best friend, God rest her soul, was a wonderful, kind, funny woman who grew up in the part of the world that was for a time called Czechoslovakia. Her family was well educated and well off, and hated by both the Nazis and the Communists. She saw most of her family killed before she finally escaped.
If she had succumbed to the sin of hate, could I judge her? Would you dare to have looked her in the eye and, from your privileged position, said, "God wouldn't let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, so the fact that you are broken and full of pain is your own fault"? Maybe it is, but I certainly couldn't tell her that.
There's another woman I know. She's lesbian, so I guess her experience is more to the point on this thread. She was molested by a preacher when she was a young girl -- starting at age three. He told her he was doing it because Jesus wanted him to love her, and he told her it had to be their secret, and God would be mad at her if she told anyone. And, as it happens, this same woman was molested by her much-older brother when she was a pubescent girl. He was studying to be a Baptist minister. She regularly heard him say that homosexuals are going to hell. He never said anything about incest or child abuse. Funny, that.
Then, when she was a young woman, and terrified of men, she was wondering if she might be a lesbian, and while she was exploring this idea, some young men decided to teach her what it meant to be a woman, and gang-raped her.
This is a true story, Fish Fish. She is a lesbian now -- whether born one, or made one, I don't know. But when she told me her story, I couldn't have told her that her pain, her fear, the things she'd suffered, were her own fault, and that if she were a better Christian, she'd have been able to bear it without being damaged.
As I said, I am without excuse. But I won't judge anyone for their sin unless I know their story. And, in my experience, once I know their story, I can't judge it. All I can do is try to bear their hurt, a little, and pray.
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. But the fact that you are entirely and solely responsible for your sin doesn't mean that everyone else should be held to the same standard. They have their own master, before whom they stand. That isn't me.
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? *
Right or wrong would be irrelevant. It would be pointless to tell them that murdering is wrong. They already know that, Fish Fish. If they don't, they're a sociopath, and beyond my ability to help. And if they do know, then trying to help them by telling them it's wrong is just totally beside the point.
The only place that rebuke should take place, in my not-so-very-humble opinion, is in the context of a close and loving relationship. If you don't have the relationship, you just need to keep your mouth shut. If you do have the relationship, then in the context of that relationship, you can reprove and rebuke. Friends do that, parents do that, priests do that.
When my first marriage was falling apart, I had several people, casual acquaintances mostly, tell me that I needed to give the marriage another chance, that marriage is hard, and we all go through tough times, and if I just trusted God and worked at it a little harder, we could make it work. After all, think of the children. Well, divorce is bad, isn't it? Didn't they, as fellow Christians, have the right, the responsibility, to try to keep me from divorcing?
The problem was, they didn't know squat. And from their position of caring, self-righteous ignorance, they were trying to push me back into a dangerous place, a place that people who knew what was going on were trying to help me out of.
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. And if, in your heart of hearts, you think their sins are worse than yours, you should keep your mouth shut.
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
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. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
And again I say unto you,
quote:
Amen!
, Alogon!
Thank you for your prayers for Josephine and her family! Much appreciated! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
God's word is about a thousand pages long, of which all the verses even remotely tangential to homosexual acts occupy no more than a column. So if you discuss God's word even-handedly for a whole hour every day for a year, about how much time do you estimate you'll spend on homosexual acts?
Furthermore, since you have admitted that a homosexual orientation is o.k., what reason do you have to spend any more time discussing those verses with admitted homosexuals than with anyone else? What evidence have you that he or she is even guilty of the sins in question? I don't suppose that you caught them in flagrante delicto? Did they show you the pictures? Did you trample all over the privacy that a gentleman would grant anyone else, with a prying, voyeuristic inquisition? Where is your rationale that they need what you have to say?
(ChastMastr asks:)
Won't this have the net effect of making someone feel even more pressured, rather than attracted to Jesus?
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.?
I'm sorry if I don't have infinite patience watching your tightrope act or trying to help you refine it. Without more reason to suppose that homosexual acts are categorically sinful, it's a circus stunt, and particularly bizarre in requiring even greater feats of virtuosity and endurance from those in the audience (I mean, in this case, gay teens) than from the star performer.
Pardon me, but Our Lord has nowhere "made it clear" that homosexual acts are sinful. You reasoned that He never challenged the Jewish Law, so it survives by default (and not only survives but has somehow automagically been extended to gentiles, let us notice, which was not the original intent). But the Apostles decided otherwise in the book of Acts. Did they make a mistake? Do you know Him better than they did?
Homosexual acts per se do not bother my conscience, nor can I see a rational need to condemn them. They are subject only to the same law of love cited by Our Lord that everything else is.
The deeper cause of our disagreement is really a matter of biblical inspiration and canonicity. Your assumptions in this area seem quite naive to me, as well as a definite novelty given the two-thousand-year-history of the church.
Or maybe we should see them as a black box which somehow inscrutably takes as input the premise, "Jesus is Lord" and spits out the conclusion "homosexual expression is wrong." If I ever became convinced that this black box were performing its logical processing correctly, then I could not remain a Christian, because we'd have no responsible choice but to reject the premise. Even leaving ourselves aside, we've had too many friends over the years whose obvious and hard-earned human integrity this conclusion insults: a truth right in front of our eyes.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
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.
A small tangent but this has been niggling me because I didn't think it was to do with sex at all (I think the differences in translation have been mentioned) and now I have found the relevant verse.
quote:
Leviticus 18v8: Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
Surely that was the offence here. So, how many people get shunned and thrown out of church for not honouring their father?
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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.
Absolutely - so many Conservative Christians seem to have (or the media has told us they have) fallen off the tightrope of love and truth, hammering away about truth with no sense of love and gentleness to the real people involved. That is indeed bad news - its not the gospel as you say.
But nor is the Gospel is simply the "loving" acceptance of every lifestyle. The gospel is costly. The gospel involves immense cost to God in dying - and the costly call to us in response is to repent, deny self, take up a cross, follow Jesus, make him king, in live in obedience to him and his word. This is a costly thing to do. It means me saying "not my will but your will." It means accepting things God says which are hard, and may not seem acceptable to us. It means putting God's will and desires above our own.
The sad thing about so many examples in this thread is that they are a reaction to the perceived Conservative failure to love - that conservatives have fallen off the tightrope of love and truth by just banging on about the Bible. I would be the first to say Conservatives are failing frequently to let people know that Jesus loves them. But sadly, those who talk of love have also fallen off the tightrope. They talk about love and justice - but rarely about the truth of God's word and God's will as revealed in his word.
So, you talk of your examples, of "a married (according to the law of the land) gay couple whose love for God and spirituality are models for all christians." But sadly, if they do not accept the teaching of the Bible, then they are not loving God as he reveals himself, and so are not models for all Christians. This is a hard and tragic thing to say, because it involves real people. But the church and its leaders are given God's word as our standard and our pastoral manual - and given the mandate to teach that word. And yes, we must teach it with love. But teach it we must. If people find it too difficult, and cannot accept it, then they must clear their conscience before God. I could not do that.
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.
Thank you for your post, Josephine. I agree with your sentaments - we must tread extremely carefully when dealing with people's lives. With that I completely agree. But I still find myself having to say, that need for gentleness and love must be balanced with truth. God's truth and God's standards need to be understood by us all - no matter what our pain and what our temptation and our tragedy. I may not always communicate that in the best way or the most sensative way. But God's truth is the salve tragic lives need. That is why Jesus said:
quote:
...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
and
quote:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
While we must keep talking about love, as you have so eloquently, we must also talk about truth. For God's truth is the answer to all our needs. It may not seem like it - It may seem to trap us in standards we don't like. But the wonder of God's love, is that when we submit to his wisdom and teaching, we find the life and freedom he wants us to have.
We talk on this thread of gay people, as though they have a common mind on this issue. That is not true. So many Gay Christians have submitted themselves to God's word, and live lives of celibacy in obedience to his word. They don't find it an easy life (but then whose is?) - but they have the peace of knowing they are within their heavenly father's will. They say with assurance - they know the truth, and the truth has set them free. It may seem like a contradiction to you. But they are at peace. And they strive to be obedient to God's word.
Please lets not just strive for love. Please lets not bang on about truth. Please lets try and walk God's tightrope of both love and truth. He calls us to both.
I could say so much more - but I must work.
--------------------
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
I think, this is resolving back to posters holding one of three positions:
1. Gay sex is wrong according to the Bible, and we have to tell the truth on that (albeit speaking the truth in love).
2a. We have to act with love and compassion first and foremost, and only earn the right to speak out our opinions once the person knows they are loved unconditionally.
2b. Gay sex isn't wrong, and we have to act with love and compassion first and foremost.
1 and 2 seem impossible to reconcile, and their proponents appear reduced to repeating themselves now.
But we've had a good dialogue.
And I'm now bowing out, as I don't see the value in repeating myself.
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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I'm not sure that 1 and 2a are irreconcilable.
I think that 2a describes the better position to openly sexually active homosexuals outside the Church and 1 describes the better position to openly sexually active homosexuals inside the Church.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I tend to agree with Sarkcow that there is not a lot of point to continuing with this, but she did use one term that could use a discussion.
She used the term "gay sex".
The condemnations in scripture (which we have all already agreed have nothing to do with orientation or the possibility of a sinless relationship between two men) condemn anal sex between men. Leaving everything else aside, from what people tell me, many sexually-active gay men never indulge in anal sex. I would suppose some committed gay male couples never do so. And gay women, of course, don't either, at least in any terms the bible would recognise.
So on what basis do we talk about "gay sex"? Is that a short form for anal sex? Cause if so, we need to be more precise. And the reason we need to be precise is that nowhere in scripture is oral sex condemned, and nowhere is scripture is anything that takes place between two women condemned. When we use the term "homosexual activity" as the description of sinful activities, we are in fact rolling into "sin" a number of activities about which the bible is strikingly silent, and which on the face of it are not sinful (for example, oral sex between husband and wife is not consdidred a sin).
So far as I can see, if we are to take scripture so literally that we accept the condemnations of man/man anal sex as universal and precise, we also have to take seriously the failure of scripture to condemn any other man/man sexual activity, or any woman/woman sexual activity. It is the specific action that is condemned, remember, not the orientation or the relationship per se. I think we all agreed on that some time ago. And don't gum up the works by talking about analogy or parallelism -- Paul was not using stories or metaphoicallanguage, the words have to stand on their own.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
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!
Sorry to go back so far, Fish Fish, but I just got caught up on this thread, and this comment stayed with me even through all the subsequent two pages of discussion.
I think this is an important point. When I read "love your neighbor as yourself" I don't see anything said about holding them to the same standards I hold myself to. In fact, after a good chunk of my allotted time on earth, I finally realized that you can't do anything with the "love your neighbor" part until you have dealt with the "as you love yourself" part.
Take some time to really ponder and pray about this. Just how do you love yourself? If you're at all human, it will be a real mish-mash of pride, doubt, self-criticism, acceptance, remorse, wishing to be different, joy, despair, etc.
(For most of my life, one of the things I couldn't accept about Christianity was this "we are all sinners" bit. Until I realized it just was a different way of saying we all want to be perfect, and we are all imperfect, and we all hate ourselves for that.)
In order to love oneself, one has to accept that one will always be imperfect, a sinner, and to stop hating oneself for that, even while striving to be better. It's not a question constantly punishing oneself for breaking the rules, so much as it is just a constant noticing of what one is actually feeling and thinking in a totally honest and non-judgmental way.
Oddly enough, the non-judgmental part of it is absolutely essential, because it allows the total honesty. Once that internal voice starts calmly saying "Hmmm, When X talks about subject Y, I am flooded with hate and anger" without an immediate self-defense ("Well of course, because X is wrong!" or self-flagellation ("I am such a bad, bad person for being hate and anger!"), you are then free to either just let it go or contemplate just why X on Y fills you with hate and anger.
Eventually, with a lot of practice, you can actually come to love yourself; and yes, as the gospel promises, "the truth will set you free".
And as you come to accept yourself, still fully aware of all your sins (failings, inadequacies, bad habits, whatever), you find yourself more inclined to accept others just as they are.
Accepting people as they truly are, not as you wish to see them or want them to be, is a very difficult commandment.
I have a rather sordid past which is totally unknown to the people in the community where I have lived for the past 20 years as a nice married lady with two well-behaved and 'successful' children, a rather mysterious husband, school board member, volunteer, all that good stuff. And now I'm an actual church member, sing in the choir, serve at the altar, go to daily mass.
Once in a while, I'll be talking with someone and decide it's a good time to be honest about my past, so I'll share a bit about the promiscuity or the abortions. I always get a moment of shock, followed by a frantic or smooth drawing down of a curtain and a return to business as usual. People don't really want to know about the aspects of someone else that don't fit with their image of that person. 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.
And I am a middle-aged woman who has pretty much worked through all this and chose to join this church.
I can only imagine how much more intensely a teenager struggling with sexual orientation feels the subtle emotional distancing from even the most sincere "love the sinner, hate the sin" advocate. If I try to imagine it, though, I feel a stake through my heart and I find myself looking down into that horrible black bottomless pit that I experienced when I was struggling with the depression brought on by sexual abuse which was never acknowledged by my mother.
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.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Thank you for that heartfelt post Jennifer. I have not been following this thread, I just happened upon the last post.
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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 . . . ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
jlg: I read your post, I went to do other things, and I had to come back to say
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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.
But there can be opportunities. They may be precious few and far between, but they will arise, I promise you. In the right setting, sharing a confidence about what you have experienced can make a world of difference to the listener. It may the parent of a teen who is going through struggles, and that parent is feeling like the child is hopeless. That might be the time to say, "Hey -- I can top that, and I survived and even flourished, right? Even your kid can come through this and turn out to be as good a person as they would have been even without the struggles."
And, what you and I know is that they will be an even better person, because they will be less likely to judge and more likely to show compassion, because they've been there.
I've learned when to be quiet by asking myself, "Will this person benefit by knowing?" I wouldn't call it "sharing". I call it, "Quit dissing your kid, 'cause I did worse, and you think I'm a regular Mother Theresa. So there." The higher the pedestal, the farther the fall.
Don't feel isolated, Jen. There are just some things we have to hide in our hearts.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear John
Although the intentions of your last post are formally correct and honourable in aspiration they generate an absurd conclusion in saying yes to oral and no to anal. Do I need to spell it out? This orifice is OK ... this orifice isn't. I am not sure that human sexuality can be so neat and tidy as that ... unless that is, one takes the view that only penis and vagina will do but that would be to draw a tighter limit round sexuality, a reproductive one only and, preferably therefore, without contraception.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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.
Thanks for this. I guess loving your neighb our includes all around you - all those outside the Christian afamily. 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I guess loving your neighb our includes all around you - all those outside the Christian afamily.
You guess, Fish Fish? I wouldn't pick up on this but I've seen one or two comments in the past where obligations seem to have been interpreted as limited to Christians only, as in, for example, Matthew 25 v40 "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me". I was so stunned before at the suggestion that in the commandment that we love our neighbours the word neighbours meant other Christians that I let it go. 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.
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.
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?
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
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.
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.
Quite frankly, there are those that I just don't have it in me to challenge or "judge" in a loving way or any other way. There are enough people prepared to judge, condemn and challenge without me adding to their numbers, so I would prefer to show love and acceptance and let God work in their lives as He sees fit - it's not as if He needs my help!
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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! ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
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?
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". 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 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.
I agree that sexuality is an intrinsict part of what makes a person and we must show them love. But Christian love does not mean aceeptance of all behaviour - especially when the Christian God has said such behaviour is sinful. In that case, the loving thing is to express love for the person, but not for what they are doing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
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!
Thank you.
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".
So what happens? Do you stop them?
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.
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?
I ask these questions not to be antagonistic, Fish Fish, but because the subject concerns me greatly. Do you think the women and the slaves in the churches Paul established went round rebuking the male elders? I think churches that encourage the sort of behaviour you describe are taking his words dangerously literally.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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?
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.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
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?
Well I'm no longer a member of any church but I would say that sort of thing should be a function of senior clergy who should be trained in Counselling 101 at the very least and have experience in the field. It's the idea of "the whole church", ie the laity, considering it their job that gives me the collywobbles, especially in such sensitive matters as the subject of this thread.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fionn
Shipmate
# 8534
|
Posted
FishFish:
In the Bible that I read, Jesus has nothing to say toward homosexuality but he does speak forcefully against adultery. I believe it was you that opined that it was alright to be a homosexual as long as no sex was involved and that a church member who was a practioner of homosexual sin should be taken aside and rebuked.
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??
Try reading Matthew 9:9 or Mark 11:11-12.
The homosexual in your midst should be treated in the same loving manner that you treat those who have divorced and remarried in your congregation.
Posts: 179 | From: horsecountry | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
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.
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. Do you have experience of sitting with someone who is in pain, confused about their very identity and scared of others reactions. Have you sat with that person and tried to tell them, in love, that they are wrong and that God will judge them.
Theory is always great, in theory, but I don't know how you show love and acceptance to someone who is suffering by preaching about moral issues from the pulpit. Whatever happening to coming alongside someone in love and support. Surely that should be the correct pastoral response rather than blanket condemnation?
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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??
I don't want to go further down the divorced / remarriage dead horse here. Suffice to say, I try and be consistent in my understanding and application of the Bible's teaching.
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.
I guess there's two approaches to teaching - and every church needs both. The church needs the general, week by week teaching from the pulpit about what the Bible says - hopefully in a sensitive but faithful way. And the church also needs to sit and listen and talk with anyone who want to sit and talk.
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.
Yes. And experience of that in my own life - experiences which hopefully help me be understanding and show empathy.
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.
No - I wouldn't do that. I would, however, tell them God loves them passionately, and wants the very best for them. At an appropriate time, we could talk about what God wants for us - including moral decisions.
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?
I have consistently said in this thread that is exactly what I would do
Please put yourself in my shoes. I believe the Bible is God's word, and that the Bible says sex outside marriage is wrong, and so that homosexual sex is wrong. If you believed what I believe, how would you approach a sobbing gay teenager having a crisis? By listening - yes of course. But it is NOT loving to avoid saying "some actions are wrong in God's eyes". If someone is about to stick their hand in the fire, the loving thing to do is say “Don’t do that” rather than sit in silence. If you believe some actions are wrong in God's eyes, then the loving thing to do is explain that to someone, or discuss it with them, or pray with them about it.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I suspect Fishfish is a proponent of the "it's not the person, it's the principle" school of thinking about homosexuality. This is the line that I have most often had thrown at me over the last few years, and it is used to explain why, even though I might be the reincarnation of Peter or Paul, my lesbianism is not acceptable to the church and that means none of my gifts are acceptable either.
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. 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.
PS: I'm not suggesting that I am the reincarnation of Paul... although I have written lots of letters.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fionn
Shipmate
# 8534
|
Posted
Ms Winterbottom:
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.
When I first moved to California and was looking for a church home (there was an election involving some anti-homosexual initiative at the time) I was visiting a church in Huntington Beach and quoted those verses in response to a stridently anti-homosexual screed from the man teaching the Sunday School class. After services I was asked to not return.
Some time later I was asked to remove my membership over those same verses. Turns out one of the deacons was divorced and remarried.
Hate the sin and love the sinner indeed. Only if the sin is socially acceptable
Posts: 179 | From: horsecountry | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Jennifer
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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.
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?
What you are suggesting is that morality should be determined by rejecting any standard that upsets somebody. That is a slippery slope, becuase every standard and every rule excludes some people, and so every standard becomes expendable.
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?
I'll say it again - morality can not be determined by who hurts the most.
But again, this is a tragic illustrative story - which illustrates the pain in a young gay 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 gay Christians have expored the avenue that sexuality and self esteem are closely linked. They have discovered actually that gay sex does not bring them the peace, fulfilment and healing to their self esteem that they so seek. They would say to the gay teen "Don't make the mistakes I have made - there is a better way." That too is a loving response.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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 ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Congratulation to fionn - sounds like you upset some comfortable people over your comments... always a worthwhile achievement
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
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.
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.
For the gay teenager, the "better way" does depend on one's biblical interpretation. No doubt Dead Horse territory.
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.
Whilst the church struggles with whether it should offer the route of committed gay relationships as an option, some gay folk are simply leaving the church. They see the church talking about "the issue" rather than talking to them as Christians loved by God. They see sectors of the church stereotype and demonise everything gay, and as a result feel misunderstood and rejected.
Those that do remain, often feel the pressure to remain closeted, and therefore are hardly able to act as good role models or mentors to the very teenagers who would most benefit from their more understanding point of view.
I therefore think that the future for the struggling gay teenager very much depends on the church sorting out a compassionate response to the gay adults in their midst. When teenagers see that response, they will be more likely to trust any offer of support from their church, rather than bottling things up in suicidal anguish.
[closed quote tags]
[ 13. October 2004, 12:39: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And it needs to be said quite often
In a congregation of any reasonable size there will be parents of a child who is gay and who may be or become sexually active. They probably won't have told anyone else because of the church's preaching and it will be their secret shame. How many times do you think they should be told that their child is going to go to hell? Seven times? Seventy times seven? Jesus Christ have mercy.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
How many times do you think they should be told that their child is going to go to hell?
i'm no great fan of the post you quote - but that wasn't actually what he said was it?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
When I said "this case", I meant the OP, of course.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
Oh dear - and another straw man: that some idiots with my views say stupid things doesn't mean my view is wrong.... 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. Of course if the church is not addressing the gay issue in the context of this reality, then they've got the whole thing badly wrong.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
Great post. I agree totally so far. I know that I made a lot of mistakes as a teenager while coming to terms with my sexuality, and I think my situation would have been easier if there had been more people modelling and encouraging a better way.
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.
I think the calling to celibacy is just a part of being single, the same as the call to faithfulness is part of being married. And where God calls, he also equips. I'm writing this as a single heterosexual who would probably rather not be single, and of course I struggle. But God is gracious.
I guess that leaves the question of how 1 Co 7:9 applies to gay people. And I'll have to go away and think about that one.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
In reply to no one in particular, but in response to the idea that saying something desparately desired (such as gay sex) is to be denied (because it is wrong).
I'm just reading a book, and this sentance, although not about this issue, strikes me as pertinant:
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
(David Jackman's biography of Abraham.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
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.
Just as it is the biblical position that the happily married, utterly monogamous, church-going Husband-and-Father-of-the-Year 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" if he just one single time in fifty years of faithful marriage looks at his attractive female neighbor with an untoward eye.
Given our relentless capacity to sin -- regardless of whether our downfall of choice is cruising gay bars for anonymous sex or thinking we're better than people who cruise gay bars for anonymous sex -- every single one of us is "no worse off and no better off as far as 'going to hell' is concerned." Which is why, I suggest, the Gospel doesn't make any such distinctions.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
What JLG said.
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?
These don't have to be mutually exclusive, Fish Fish. You could remain faithful to the truth as you understand it and conclude that the time for telling someone their behavior does not fall in line with that is going to be very rare, leading by example and waiting until they actually ask you for moral advice.
I think the disagreement here is not so much about whether or not gay (or straight or whatever) sex is or isn't wrong, or about sex at all, but about whether or not unsolicited moral advice is going to be received well -- and in a context in which "not received well" has a dangerously nasty chance of equating to "hearing this message as personal condemnation and exclusion." Not to mention the whole issue of how this may be presented in the first place -- as an even-handed give-and-take discussion, or as something coming from a more authority-based position?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
