experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths…
Alan Hirsch emailed me this great quote.
“We never have expected to hit upon that final stable structure. This is important for a church to understand, for when it starts to be the church it will be constantly be adventuring out into places where there are no tried and tested ways. If the church in our day has few prophetic voices above the noise of the street, perhaps in large part it is because the pioneering spirit has become foreign to it. It shows little willingness to explore new ways. Where it does it has often been called an experiment. We would say the church of Christ is never an experiment, but where that church is true to it’s mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling words of God to it’s own age.” It cannot do this if it is held captive by the structures of another day.”
(Elizabeth O’Connor….Call to Commitment)
What do you think?
April 12th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
“And if you agree that God does not make mistakes & we lead young people away from God-created sexuality & the path He set for them, then we can be accused of leading that young person astray.”
Reve
while I respect the rights of people to have their own views on this issue that is an assumption.
An equally valid “assumption” is that God doesn’t make mistakes, but that homosexuality is the result of living in a fallen world, as any other sin is.
Cheers
MN
April 12th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Like dwarfism?
April 13th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Er…yes and no…not sure how to respond to that one. It seems to me that the argument being put is if God doesn’t make mistakes then desire for members of the same sex as a function of the genes or whatever can’t be sin. Don’t know if I’m interpreting Reve correctly here.
My response to that is that is one possible explanation. I agree that God doesn’t make mistakes, and that the other main explanation is that all sin, depravity, illness, death, ageing, genetic conditions etc etc are a result of the Fall.
Another way of looking at it…..I’m going to die (unless Jesus come first and beats me to it - I’d be very pleased if He did) - the fact that I’m going to die is not necessarily are a result of anything I have done (unless I drive my car into a lamp post - then it does), but it is a negative outcome, a diminishment of what God intended me to be, and a result of the Fall. Even now my is breaking down and giving me grief at some stage Jesus will fix that and give me a new and incorruptible body….until then…
Cheers
MN
April 13th, 2007 at 7:55 am
AVB7
No not like Dwarfism
The reason for this is because they are not identified by an immutable characteristic, but by a behavior. The one and only thing that defines a homosexual is their sexual behavior.
The homosexual might try to tell you that their behavior is not what defines them. They will say it is a committed, loving relationship. They will tell you they live with a member of the same sex, share the bills, ride their bikes together, go bowling, cook meals, enjoy spending time with one another on vacations and what not. But so far they have only described what any two heterosexual roommates might do.
Once you add the intimacy part you have a behavioral action. And it is one that can change based on preference. There are plenty of ex-gays now straight. There are plenty of ex-straights that are now gay. It’s not like a skin color, where you can’t change it and someone can choose to discriminate based on it. It is an action where, if someone looked at you they could not tell if you were gay or not.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:11 am
abtruth…
c’mon, you can do better than that!!
Firstly - I knew I’d read that somewhere before, and I was right - either you’re ‘CatFish’ who posted a comment in response to ‘The Myth of Moral Neutrality’ by Gregory Koukl, or you’ve just cut and pasted CatFish’s comments.
Secondly - I thought that comment was bizarre the first time I saw it, for the simple reason that our sexuality is NOT defined by what we do, but by a whole range of things, not least of which is who we are attracted to and what we desire. I have been always been heterosexual - being intimate with a bloke does not make me heterosexual.
Thirdly - yep, there are people who used to be intimate with the same sex who are now intimate with the opposite sex, and people who were intimate with the opposite sex who are now intimate with the same sex, but this goes back to the issue raised by several of us in other threads - the idea that there is some kind of scale, with people having various degrees of attraction to the same sex and opposite sex. I know people who feel physically ill at the thought of kissing a man/woman (and they’re not homophobic - they’re just very, very hetero), equally I know people who are just bored by it, vaguely interested in it, or only interested in that, and not the alternative. I believe that some people do have the flexibility of choice - I believe others don’t. I certainly have’t ever felt that pursuing women was an option for me, and that’s got nothing to do with theology or behaviour, and everything to do with who I’m physically attracted to.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:12 am
I have had a number of gay friends, and a few that have lived with my family, and I think you are so incredibly wrong. My friends could not just switch behaviours, they had two choices, celibacy, or homosexual action. Now, I am not trying to be offensive here, please don’t take this as an insult. But can you can choose to look a man in the eyes and pash them? Because there is absolutely no possible way I could do that, if forced at gun point I would experience extreme revulsion. My friends feel the same way about pashing a female. Now there are people that are less naturally revolted by sexual toughing with someone other than their prefered orientation. And again no offense, but you might be one of those people. But do not assume that everyone is like that.
The fact is that most if not all of the people that are truly same sex attracted exclusively will not be able to “switch”. And most if not all will have their marriage fail, and the ones that don’t will not be normal marriages.
Now there are some people that for one reason or another can choose either way. These are the “Exodus” success stories, but they are actually quite few and far between, as most people that can choose will for sociological reasons choose heterosexuality.
rev
April 13th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Bec, don’t interupt me I am talking
April 13th, 2007 at 8:15 am
^ ^ Great post Rev.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:16 am
The one above, not the “shut up Bec” one!
April 13th, 2007 at 9:25 am
abruth said
No not like Dwarfism
The reason for this is because they are not identified by an immutable characteristic, but by a behavior. The one and only thing that defines a homosexual is their sexual behavior.
AVB says
I mentioned Dwarfism as I’d just come to the computer after watching a show on the ABC about it and was suprising moved by thier stories seeing quite a number of similarites in our journeys.
I dont think what you’ve said about homosexuality is actually correct. There is a lot of evidence that shows physiological differences between gay and hetersexual men and lesbians and heterosexual women. Some of those include finger size, handedness, body shape and structure, penis size (for men hehe), size of certain parts of the brain, cognitive processing and brain processing to name a few. Reasearch also shows that gay men and lesbians are not the same in these areas as well.
The behaviour is the result of the internal wiring. thats just the way we are. So it becomes quite offensive when people try and tell is we choose the “homosexual lifestyle”. i’m sure only a heterosexual would say that though. How would they know what it is like to be natrually attracted to the same sex as I am?
I’d also have to challenge the ‘plenty’ comment on those who are ex their previous sexual orientation. I often hear that comment. Fred Nile said it recently when we were both speaking on 2UE. peter Stokes of the Salt Shakers quotes it constantly but we know this simply is not true. Experience says that. Research shows it. I’m gathereing testimonials from former ex gay leaders both gay and straight who say from their years of experiecne in the ‘industry’……no one genuinley changed……although at one time they may have claimed they did.
If these ‘plenty’ actually exist i’d like to meet them. I’ve often asked to meet them…..then I hear……we’ll i know of…….a freind of mines knows someone…….or I’ve read stories. I work in this field all the time. There are not ‘many’ or ‘plenty’….just a few who were actually bisexual and others who are now married but have not become heterosexual only present a heterosexual image and engage in heterosexual sex. Not one of them will tell they now think all the time like a heterosexual. I’ve asked them…….and when they are truly honest they admit they still “struggle”.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Bec re “Firstly - I knew I’d read that somewhere before, and I was right - either you’re ‘CatFish’ who posted a comment in response to ‘The Myth of Moral Neutrality’ by Gregory Koukl, or you’ve just cut and pasted CatFish’s comments”
i cut and pasted from “God and Homosexuality” where i had posted it before and referenced it… that’s probably where you read it first see
http://www.signposts.org.au/2005/10/13/god-and-homosexuality/
Furthermore i really don’t see how Revs comments or Becs necessarily contradict mine
AVB7 if you are right then can we get a DNA test to see whether someone is gay?
I don’t see the relevance as we have been down this merrygoround before that homosexuality is a corruption of our original design just as my desire to have multiple female partners is..
you say “I’ve asked them…….and when they are truly honest they admit they still “struggle”.”
well so what ?? welcome to the struggle with sin that all of humanity is involved with ! the restraint required to do what we know is morally right when that conflicts with our natural inclinations….
no offence intended AVB Bec and Rev but this is Christianity 101 and a no brainer really
April 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
By the way Bec did you read the “myth of moral neutrality” by Koukl? apart from just the above comment? it is an excellent essay.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
O thank you thank you abtruth for stating the bleeding obvious. I confess I get so tired of the bleeding heart o woe is me I have to struggle with my homosexual tendencies, it’s not fair that I should be celibate blah blah that comes from so many “Christian” advocates for all that is gay. Like no one else has to struggle with any sin much less sexual sin. Sheesh.
(BTW that is a good essay too)
And as for the “I was made this way” would that half the Christian GLBT lobby even consider what it means to be a creature of the Creator much less the arrogance of such a statement. A bit like Adam’s self justification instead of confession and repentance: well the woman you gave me…it’s all your fault.
I’ve long held a view that most “gay and lesbian Christians” (now there’s two mutually exclusive terms) who don’t even wnat to acknowledge their sinfulness have a problem with authority. Mega big time. They are either flagrantly disrespectful of anyone but themselves or else they are super anal about the most perfunctory matters - true authoritarianism - as if that somehow can make up for or cover up being anti-authority (think the Lavender mafia).
I am also a bit surprised at some of the views about sexuality expressed on this and a few other threads. Either absolutizing it (like male and female are the same bar a few bits and pieces) or relativizing it (like you each get male and female proportions and its just a sliding scale). And note that I deliberately use male and female not homosexual and heterosexual. Because male and female is how God made us, and maleness and femaleness permeates every part of our being, and given that male and female are made in the image of God, guess whom you have to know first before you know who you are? And guess who can completes the one so that they are “not alone”. And guess why Paul likens homosexuality to idolatry, the worship of creature rather than Creator. Would that people really really really reflect and understand the meaning and significance of God as our Creator, we as creatures within his cration, and what it to be created in the image of God.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Oh and btw, while it is common to refer to “the Fall” the story as told in Genesis speaks of a transgression, a stepping out of bounds. And if you believe the Bible is inspired by God, then think about why God moved the human authors to use those particular words.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
And yes, while I am cranky, one more thing:
Anyone of any persuasion who is broken and recognizes their brokeness should be welcome in church. But anyone who wants to tell me that evil is good, or sin is not sin can go off start their own or go join the MCC or something.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
“Because male and female is how God made us”
just wondering…i have a friend who’s little brother is hormone deficient and is honeslty physically between male and female. How does he fit into your theories?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
also when I was talking about a sliding scale I was talking about attraction. What you do with that attraction is what counts, but I thik to say it’s sin and there’s something wrong with you just because you have that attraction is naive and hurtful to those who can’t change it. As to what we do with that attracton, well that’s a different issue. I don’t agree with most of what youve said, but I do agree (and I think I posted this before) that just because something’s hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and do it (like deny ourselves).
And as for “I confess I get so tired of the bleeding heart o woe is me I have to struggle with my homosexual tendencies” well I guess that’s how you see it. But it seems a bit loveless to me. Any spiritual struggle that people experience I think is worthy of another Christian’s time, love and support. I’m glad Jesus doesn’t get tired of our struggles.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Ben Witherington recently posted on the topic of how does Church treat or react to pedarasts. Now I’m not making the link between gay and pedophiles - just the principle of how a church attempts to be the church and welcoming to the marginalised of the community so this principle is enacted by replacing the topic of the pedarast with either a gay person, or a terrorist or an adulterer or a con man - how does the church treat them?
This from Ben:”One of the issues one has to deal with honestly in thinking through this issue is what does conversion or sanctification really accomplish? Does it really snuff out aberrant desires of various sorts, or does it just give the person power to control and stifle them? Can people really be transformed by conversion? In other words, what do we believe the grace of God can really accomplish in the life of person whose sinful inclinations are so deep-rooted? I personally do believe real transformation is possible, and I have met various persons for whom it is so. I also know others who are real Christians but they struggle day by day to keep those inclinations in check.
The other issue is whether knowingly having such a person in one’s midst might not ruin the warm fellowship of a church, and replace faith based thinking with fear based approaches to other members of the church. Would you always be looking over your shoulder, especially if you had children who could be victimized?
These are very hard questions. And when a church takes a stand to allow “whosoever will” to come into the church because they believe it is what Jesus would want, then it must be prepared to work through the consequences of such a stance.
…God give us wisdom to know how to be compassionate without being naive, loving without condoning sin, caring without giving up accountability and responsibility to the body as a whole.”
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/04/should-pederasts-be-in-pews.html
Perhaps this is where “church is true to it’s mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling words of God to it’s own age”
April 13th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Actually I know a pederest in my in’laws congregation. I think it is a testimony to that church that he is embraced, and this gives him the support needed to live a celibate life. Anyway I don’t think gay person, pederest, adulterer or con man are interchangeable. Some of these actions are crimes. Some are not. People who commit crimes should and dog go to jail. But Jesus embraced everyone…even Osama! as we saw that sign caused quite a stir because Jesus’ words are radical. Your examples of terrorist, pederst and con man are examples where the powerful prey on the weak, a situation Jesus condemned. The relationships you have described cannot exist without a power imbalance. Adultery is painful, but doesn’t necessarily involved this power imbalance. Nor does a committed relationship between gay people. Jesus was always very much on the look out to protect the vulnerable.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Emma you have successfully managed to miss the whole point of the post - read it again especially “Now I’m not making the link between gay and pedophiles - just the principle of how a church attempts to be the church and welcoming to the marginalised of the community”
If it’s easier for you to understand replace the term pedarast with lier, cheater, slanderer, etc etc and for your info there are a lot of gay people who freely admit of their predatory actions then go back and read Saint’s comment he says it better than me. And another point fyi I was not referring to crimes - I was referring to sins and sinners of all persuasions.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
April 13th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Veritas, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you but I was perfectly aware that you weren’t linking gay people with pederests. I think perhaps you misunderstood me too. I said ” I don’t think gay person, pederest, adulterer or con man are interchangeable” - and you wrote “so this principle is enacted by replacing the topic of the pedarast with either a gay person, or a terrorist or an adulterer or a con man”. How did I get that wrong?
If I do replace “pederest” with liar cheater slanderer etcI am saying the same thing. In some of these cases the powerful prey on the weak and in some cases this isn’t true. I think sin is sin, but how we appraoch different sinners and help them live life as Christians might be different according to each person. I don’t expect you to agree with me there. But I think that is part of how we attempt to ne the church and welcoming the marginalised in the community. I’m sure there are gay people who admit to predatory action, but for me they wouldn’t fall into the committed gay relationship I was talking about, just as predetory heteros wouldn’t fall into the marriage category.
also it was not my intention to “successfully manage to miss the whole point of the post” as you seem to imply.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
sorry saint I don’t understand…are you saying that because he predominantly appears as a male (albeit very feminine) he still is male and must therefore be hetero? And I don’t know how he will fitninto my “theories” I guess you mean the sliding scale…with the hormojne imbalance he is definitely attracted to both sexes, so he would be in the middle somewhere. Again, my point is what he does with these attractions is what counts, not the fact that he has them in the first place.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Indeed which is why I have an issue with the AVBs of this world who want to extol it as natural, or God-approved and should be entertained and encouraged and taken to its (un)natural conclusion. Even there I would say that attraction may not itself be wrong. Just about every kid goes through a stage where they want to marry their father or mother. And just about every teenager goes through a stage of being more fascinated with those of their own sex, or get insane crushes on their teachers or whatever. But that is part of the maturing process. I would expect adults to be well mature and have a measure of balance and self-control. And I’d expect that as Christians we also aim for a maturity that is much more balanced and holistic and true to who we were created to be then what the world deems to be “well adjusted”.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
well…I agree with some of what you say but not all. We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess. I still think peole who have same sex attraction should not be dealt with so summarily as you did in your first post…maybe I am a “beleeding heart” but I do feel a genuine sense of compassion for people who are marginalised in this way, and I think to say well you have to celibate, get over it and get on with it isn’t helpful, it really is a genuine struggle. Anyway! Am tired, brain dysfunctioning, going to bed.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Emma you referred to him as a little brother. Meaning either he or others or both identify him as male. So he has hormone imbalances. Hormones alone don’t define your maleness or femaleness. He won’t be the first or last with hormone imbalances. He will have his own struggles but he won’t be alone.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Emma, if you had read the post that I linked to it might be a bit clearer for you. Then replace the word pederast in that post (not in the entire world) with a word that describes a sinner of the marginalised kind (be that gay; wife basher: husband basher; gossiper; con artist; or whatever consider it a blank for you to fill in and then read the post again and then ask yourself if “church is true to it’s mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling words of God to it’s own age.” I was referring to the reaction and treatment of the church not on whether or not you consider a committed homosexual sin is less of a sin than predatory homosexual sin. In your words sin is sin, amen.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
abtruth - I read Ben’s post when he originally posted it. There are no hard and fast rules on this, because each person/situation/church is different. Given that pederasts/paedophiles have a worse “cure” rate than AVB’s gay stats - extremely high recidivism - I’d also suggest this is not ministry for the naive or the bleeding hearts.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Saint I couldn’t agree with you more - Ben did link in the story to a local newspaper article that detailed a church’s approach that wasn’t ’successful’ at all and agrees that it is not something to be taken light heartedly or without deep thought,reflection, and training. The ignorant or naive - no matter how sincere and good their intentions maybe - can also cause a lot of further damage to the individual and the church.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Saint - by the way even though I love abtruth’s work I presume you were posting to me