Owen sounds like a desparate business owner tooting his own horn and pushing his comp brand out of pure desparation for sales.

Do these guys actually espouse the essential gospel of grace?

Their meaning of grace is completely different from anyone outside their purist group. Their “gospel” of grace is really “doctrine” of grace. Any time you see grace, you need to replace it with John Calvin’s meaning of grace. It’s interesting how many Calvinist churches have Grace in their name: Beaverton Grace Bible Church, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Grace Community Church, etc – – all Reformed.

My suing church was Calvinist. Maybe their name should have been Beaverton John Calvin’s Grace Bible Church. Or Beaverton Doctrines of Grace Bible Church. How come we don’t hear church names like that?

I have come to the conclusion that any person or organization that spends so much effort publicly proclaiming how ‘Christian’ they are, when they are examined closely based on their actions they are really all about greed, power, and oppression if not downright abuse. Love for anyone other than themselves is non-existent.

As Strachan and his mentors so loudly proclaim, to be ‘Christian’ you must oppress all women and the LGBT community.

Bridget wrote:

Owen sounds like a desparate business owner tooting his own horn and pushing his comp brand out of pure desparation for sales.

Agreed…it’s obvious desperation imo.

Saying that some churches will not “endorse homosexuality and transgenderism” is practically meaningless. With people like Strachen, it’s unclear whether the aforementioned are used to refer to the unchosen experience of attractions with which some people live, or the actions prompted by said attractions (in the case of trans* people, the boundary between action and state of being becomes less clear). If he intends to say that his approved kind of church will not “endorse” (besides, what does that term mean?) even an LGBT state of being, then he is not only a poor communicator but also dangerously wrong. Whatever your view of holy living looks like, if it’s not something that is possible for a person who experiences persistent attractions to the same sex or persistent identity with a gender not correlated with their sex assigned at birth that never changes over the course of their life, then your approach is fatally flawed.

Honestly, i think Strachan has created his own religion, one that might (like Dominionism and Third Wave spiritual warfare beliefs) nominally evoke Jesus, the Bible and many common xtian terms, but has little or nothing to do with what Christ actually does and teaches in the Gospels. His gender essentialist views are very, very close to Mormonism, jn many respects.

And Jed, thank you for pointing out the reality re. historic confessions and lwrge parts of the church. (I’m Lutheran, but certainly don’t hold the Augsburg Confession to be the 5th gospel, important though it is.)

@ Julie Anne:
It took me a long time (having been raised Lutheran) to understand that their view of grace is nothing like the view of grace held in most other Protestant traditions. I wish they would come up with their own word for it, really, because it confuses thd isdue no end.

Julie Anne wrote:

Their meaning of grace is completely different from anyone outside their purist group.

Julie Anne,

I’m getting a crash course in the New Calvinism. Would you say that their meaning of grace includes words such as “discipline,” “obedience” and “sanctification”?

And if so, how is that different from works? I get myself confused.

@ JeffT:

Bingo.

I have two words for them on this issue of “standing before the dam breaks”: Mark Driscoll. How about it fellas? After all, Driscoll had all the “correct doctrine” you have and now you guys pretend you never promoted him.

And what about the dam breaking with child molestations in the form of SGM, Owen? Think about that when you quote Dever who protected Mahaney when he fled his church!

@ Lydia:

Read the article. A nightmare for SGM as far as I can tell.

As someone who has stated before that I am reformedish and complentarianish I know that many people will here will take Owen to task for any number of places in which you find his hermeneutic wanting……but I find the most glaring problem in his scriptural approach in his equation of “stop the gays, save the church”.

Dee pointed out earlier that cultural wars was not the point of Jesus(which btw…personal plug…was a big chunk of my point for the Palm Sunday message….They were excited to have a warrior messiah…he came in humbly and died a week later….I then told everyone that the billions spent on politics by the religious right was stupid because no form of “better” government will ever be our real messiah….see how that goes over….) And if what Dee pointed out is true(it is) then Owen is making two bi mistakes;

1- That a Christian and the Church’s highest earthly goal should be reshaping cultural/governments to be more Holy

2- He is missing an obvious cause and effect in scripture….Namely, that people desiring and acting on improper sexual relationships is a RESULT of people rejecting God NOT people had improper sexual relations and it caused other bad things to happen.

Whether or not you agree with the Romans 1 paraphrase there…the point being, that OS and other people in his camp will ignore even while using Romans 1 as a battering ram, is that the problem isn’t homosexual practices but the problems that occurred WELLLLL before that.

It is sort of like addressing a gangrene by investing in larger bandages…..

If anyone is to blame for our current condition, it is those who should have known better CENTURIES ago. When the Church is not living as intended, the outflow is negative for everyone. In contrast, the early Church….which was not politically/culturally/socially powerful….lived in a radical way(graciousness in the face of oppression, taking babies out of the dumps, hospitals, etc) it changed the known world in a few centuries…..Then the church got “popular” got comfortable and stopped living radically…..

So, instead of harping on stopping the gays to “save” us all, start living as the church. ESPECIALLY as the world goes its own way.

It seems to me that a hard-line approach only serves to drive people away from the church because it smacks of elitist arrogance.

As a side note, a friend linked this on Facebook today – from Jared Wilson. Apparently he doesn’t forbid taking notes during his sermons, but discourages it. As the comments on this friend’s thread played out, the question was raised, “Why is this even a question?” It seems a bit intrusive and controlling. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2015/03/27/thoughts-on-note-taking-during-sermons/

dee wrote:

These guys all have sins, lots of them. Yet, they deflect onto a sin with which they do not struggle and then come across as holy “thank you very much.” They will never repent of their arrogance, greed, etc. They are modern day Pharisees laying the guilt on the people while they collect the tithes, live well-running around to conferences and patting each other on the back.

Jesus said something very chilling about the religious leaders of his own tribe: They are getting their “reward” now. In God’s economy, I would rather be a person that struggles with homosexuality (or whatever) than a charlatan who uses Jesus for fame and profit and to get as many followers after themselves as they can. I personally think they have things very backward.

srs wrote:

not simply a seven-point position, but a worldview

Wait, I thought there were five points.

But a Six-Point Calvinist is more Godly than a Five-Point Calvinist.
And a Seven-Point Calvinist is even more Godly than a Six-Point Calvinist.

Just like the Taliban were more Islamic than the Wahabi and ISIS is even more Islamic than the Taliban (and both were more Islamic than Mohammed).

@ Josh:
I don’t read it as an equation of; “You” reject God, THEN, you get bad thoughts as punishment….

I have always understood it as a broad understanding of the effects of sin at large in all areas of our world. Similar to the understanding the cancer exists because of Sin. Not because of YOUR sin(outside of obvious behavior induced cancers). God’s design was to not have disease, sin broke everything, we now have cancer.

And to keep in mind, we will NEVER fix all these problems on this side of heaven. And not that we should therefore ignore them. So, while Cancer is a result of Sin, we don’t say, “The Church has only one last refuge in a sinful culture, curing cancer”. We address cancer where appropriate and helpful, but it isn’t all we preach on. Even though it IS a result of sin AND effects a LOT more people.

It is therefore just as ridiculous to say, “Here we will draw hold the line and say the most important thing is to fight this one particular result of a fallen world and ignore everything else….especially those other results of the fall that are my personal problems….”

Momentary rabbit trail: I’ve been reading Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear recently. I can hardly put it down, except to read Wartburg, of course. I thought it was a happy little coincidence that your opening quote came from it.

@ Adam Borsay:
Have you ever read any Jewish opinions on this? Because though Judaism holds that people can and do sin, there is no belief there in Original Sin in the way it has been framed in much of xtianity. (The Orthodox churches have differing views on this, btw – not necessarily what most xtians believe, in fact.)

Myself, i don’t think the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent was meant to be taken literally by its writers/eeditors, though i do believe that we humans sin. But “SSin broke the world” so sin = the reason disease exists? Not so much.

Here’s an essay on the pain of betrayal. God I have so much to write about and I still have awesome blogs like his. I am still processing this one from Owen. If the Clavinista has all the answers I wonder if that includes secret, hidden hush founds that would put the Nixon administration as clean as a Sunday school class! 😛

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/theology-of-betrayal/

@ Josh:
Of course, there are all the various biological conditions that come under the “intersex” heading as well, and i don’t see how those are a direct result of sin any more than volcanic eruptions or dust devils are a “result” of the natural world somehow being irretrievably “broken” by original sin.

But, whatevs… 😉

Oh, my, yes, he has all the answers. Except that his answers sound exactly like the teaching/culture that drove our children out of the church, and other children in other families we know. His kind of “religion” is driving people away from Christ, not winning them.

@ Muff Potter:
Agreed. He sounds like he’s trying to convince himself more than anyone else.

lol I had to laugh at some of their phrases when referring to the subject matter. I wont go any further. Dee I dont know how you read these guys and yes most of them are guys with a capital G. LOL. I would go nutz. As usual you gave us alot to think on.

numo wrote:

Honestly, i think Strachan has created his own religion, one that might (like Dominionism and Third Wave spiritual warfare beliefs) nominally evoke Jesus, the Bible and many common xtian terms, but has little or nothing to do with what Christ actually does and teaches in the Gospels.

I agree.

You all are now running a night shift? How do you do that?

@ Adam Borsay:

I don’t doubt your good intentions even though I take issue with your conclusions right much. But here is the thing. You must know that you live and preach at a time in human history when most people are firmly convinced that there is objective evidence of death disease and disorder in creation long before there is objective evidence of humans or human like creatures in creation. The idea of ‘original sin’ as meaning ‘retroactive sin’ does not float with lots of folks. In light of this, obviously, the concepts of sexuality and biology and origins are all entangled just as Josh and numo discuss. IMO at some point those portions of the church who have not dealt with this concept are going to have to deal with it. Tis too and tis not won’t do the job.

Hester wrote:

What makes this even sadder is that there’s a pretty good chance Jesus’ reference to “eunuchs from birth” is a reference to people with some kind of intersex condition. Jesus saw fit to mention these folks, but CBMW can’t because they scare them.

Absolutely. He did mention some sort of congenital condition and he did not condemn these people but merely included them in those not suited for marriage.

mirele wrote:

1b) If the statute of limitations has not passed, I do believe there may be an affirmative duty upon the person who received this information to go to law enforcement despite the existence of this hush fund and agreement.

I could not get this out of my mind the entire time I was reading it. If it was as recent as 3 years prior to the lawsuit then why wasn’t he contacting the authorities?

@ dee:
You can always tell a Westminster California old Calvinist. They must use the word “robust” at least once per writing, as Jed did in his first post. Remember, dee, these are the same people who says “who is in and who is out” as to the keys of the kingdom. They may be old earth but they are still High Church.

@ Hester

Pursuing your idea, and looking at ways to understand scripture, and the need for some leeway in the matter, this issue may fit in with that discussion.

I agree with you big time on this issue of eunuchs from birth.

The guys had said to Jesus ‘If…then it is better not to marry.” And Jesus listed some situations at that point. I am thinking he was agreeing with them that there are some circumstances when it is better not to marry, but it is perfectly obvious that he did not write a new law to enforce. I am thinking that better not to is not the same as must not ever on pain of sin. But he did say that whoever could accept ‘this’ should accept it. So strictly speaking he combined better not to (which the guys said) with a should (which he added) but he did not say must and/or are forbidden to. Now, he was talking as you say about conditions which were known at the time and which his listeners would understand. I am thinking that it is not best to carry that idea too far under the idea that Jesus meant a whole lot more than he said, such as to conclude that should and must are identical terms. I think we can pick up the idea and make some current decisions based on the principle, but again we must not put words into Jesus’ mouth which were not there.

And again my strict and specific reading of scripture (as nearly as I can) lands me in the mushy middle position on some contested idea. But I just don’t see Jesus as a fanatic-more as a healer.

Hester wrote:

What makes this even sadder is that there’s a pretty good chance Jesus’ reference to “eunuchs from birth” is a reference to people with some kind of intersex condition. Jesus saw fit to mention these folks, but CBMW can’t because they scare them.

Because intersex is UNMANLY. (With the pants-peeing fear of contagion?)

You know what these Calvinista Comps (whose ideology will Solve All Problems, just like Communism) must see in the mirror? The Perfect Type Example of The Elect? An Ayn Rand Manly-Man Hero without the cigarettes and obsession with “Am I Getting FAT?”

@ dee:
Well, i think it is more accurate to say “We believe.” Also, not all xtians hold to the interpretation you do, as I’m sure you know. Ergo, some of us believe differently than you on these issues.

I guess i must not have made that clear in my original post on the dubject. It is difficilt, sometimes, to compress things forthe purpose of blog vomments.

This is why the Millinials are no longer are religious.
They are running far and fast away from anything that says a god. I taught many Millinials who grew up religious who, due to teaching just like this are no longer faithful.
Sure there are youth in these churches, but they are just a small fraction of the age group. Those in these churches are seen as buffoons…..by this age group.
These guys are doing more harm than good……doing so, just to keep their fiefdom alive.

dee wrote:

Still looking for a word that describes some Arminians who, except for election, sound just like the Calvinistas.

Arministas?

@ numo

@dee

These two points of view cannot, IMO, be reconciled. If some group chooses the wrong answer to this they will probably be easing themselves off the stage by doing so-either by God or by society. I just read the Wiki article. (I know it is not a good source to reference.) Anyhow, I was interested in the historical development of the idea, since I noted it was not mentioned in the ancient creeds. I have done myself a huge disservice in not realizing long before this that ignoring church history is a really bad idea. Anyhow the article was interesting about the catholic belief and the orthodox belief and the jewish and the muslim beliefs about sin and people and the world. And here is one takeaway: all these other people have a kinder and more hopeful idea of what it is to be human than do the calvinists. Who would have thought?

Nancy wrote:

And here is one takeaway: all these other people have a kinder and more hopeful idea of what it is to be human than do the calvinists. Who would have thought?

Not surprising. Like the Communists and Jihadis, the Calvinistas have poured themselves into their Ideology to the point all that was human has been poisoned off. There is only their Party Line.

Adding to this is Calvinist Predestination and Total Depravity Worm Theology, often racing for the bottom with How Wicked Is My Heart. (And if everything is Sinful and Depraved, how can you appreciate reality?) So you approach Determinism and Nihilism. What a combination.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

It is a culture of fatalism and death. I tell my friends to get their teens out of these SBC YRR churches. Did you know it is a sin not to be “broken” and stay broken in these places? Week in and out that is what is promoted: Brokeness. Nothing about living. Thank you, Al Mohler and John Piper.

@ Jed Paschall:

Me too. NT Wright wrote a book Life After Life After Death, in which he says he thinks that ‘heaven’ is a temporary state but that the ultimate plan is a new heavens an a new earth. Which would mean, apparently not just rehabing and refurnishing the old place but something brand fresh and new. I found this book good reading.

@ dee:
But you did go on to say “weknow,” which is all i was trying to point out. Not a big deal, really, and sorry if I’m bein nit-picky.

@ Nancy:
I know! I was as surprised as you are, and pleasantly so, when i started investigating this. Now i have a place and belief that makes sense to me, and is a great relief re. who we are, how God sees us and much, much more.

The phrase six of one and half a dozen of the other comes to mind. Strachan strikes me as reactionary, meaning reacting to something he perceives happening amongst evangelicals. I don’t altogether disagree with him, and maybe being the days are over for being nice and gentle about it, I don’t know.

I didn’t particularly like him plugging the CBMW although I wasn’t surprised, but I think he has a point here. IF Rachel Held Evans is in any way representative of the egalitarian ‘left’, then gender confusion will indeed lead to the acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism.

The half a dozen of the other comes from reading the torrent of comments he has elicited, where for all the accusations of him being pharisaical, there was plenty of this in evidence from those who oppose him. An equal and opposite zeal that they’ve got it right.

Now a dust up amongst American evangelicals doesn’t affect me particularly, but the issues hotly debated do. I think Christians in the West are going to come under real pressure on this issue, and are going to have to risk being thought of as unenlightened or even bigots. Tolerance is wearing thin, and your job can be on the line if you don’t affirm homosexuality.

So it pays to examine where you stand on this and what sort of church to attend, and that does affect me. Just what does the bible say on this.

One thing that did stike me is that Strachan should be more fearful of God and less fearful of gays. The temptation for me at any rate as I get older is to give in on this, until I am reminded of just who we are dealing with. I have been very gripped by the truth that God doesn’t change, and if we fight against him we can only lose. The flesh wars against the Spirit. Our God is a consuming fire, not a helpless grandmother.

There are areas within evangelicalism which show only too clearly that we have lost the sense of the fear of God, and this is demonstrated in crassly ungodly, worldly behaviour. And if not that, then indifference, and I have been guilty of that at times over the last decade or so.

Just thinking out loud a bit. Oh for a church with Strachan’s strength of conviction but minus the reactionary zeal, and not Evans’ compromised lukewarmness, being the sort of stuff on offer in my locality.

Jed Paschall wrote:

dee wrote:

There appears to be a direct correlation between the original creation of the earth and the recreation of the earth. Paradis lost will become Paradise found.

Hopefully with way better spaceships too. If we are talking about eternity here, I want at least a few billion years to explore every nook and cranny of God’s great creation.

But that would take time away from Never-Ending Compulsory Bible Study!

(Yes, that’s how Heaven(TM) was originally presented to me — Never-ending Church Service/Never-ending Bible Study, Absolutely Compulsory, Long Live Big Brother.)

@ dee:
Btw, i us3d to subscribe to “We live in a broken world” when i was in evangelical/charismatic circles. My view now is: it’s complicated. But, like you, i look forward to the life of the world to come (which is also a longstanding Jewish term, btw, though i am blanking on the Hebrew at the moment).

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

My dentist says he was a job cutting the grass in ‘heaven.’ He is serious about that. I am not sure with ‘perfection’ if the grass will need cut, but I could not tell him that with that suction thing in my mouth at the time.

Godith wrote:

You can always tell a Westminster California old Calvinist. They must use the word “robust” at least once per writing, as Jed did in his first post. Remember, dee, these are the same people who says “who is in and who is out” as to the keys of the kingdom. They may be old earth but they are still High Church.

Gear down there Godith! I can’t even be trusted with my car keys, much less the keys of the kingdom. What’s most important to us old-timey Calvinists is that week in and week out we gather together in God’s presence on the Lord’s Day, hear his Word, confess our sins, see our hope in the gospel, and be nourished at the Table in communion together with those gathered and with us and all in the church at large who commune together in faith (e.g. all those Lutherans, Baptists, and Wesleyans we have doctrinal issues with). And on an especcially blessed Lord’s Day we can witness God’s work in baptism – usually with his most precious little ones, and the occasional Adult convert. This is at the beating heart of our Reformed understanding of the faith.

Except for our Tuesday meetings where we plot the overthrow of everything that smacks of joy in the church, and how we can make small children cry. I would tell you more, but you don’t know the secret handshake.

@ Ken:

The half a dozen of the other comes from reading the torrent of comments he has elicited, where for all the accusations of him being pharisaical, there was plenty of this in evidence from those who oppose him. An equal and opposite zeal that they’ve got it right.

Does “zeal that you’ve got it right” (i.e., having a strong opinion) automatically = pharisaism? I wouldn’t think so. I was under the impression that folks were calling Strachan pharisaical because he claimed a secondary debatable issue (gender roles) was essential to orthodox Christianity (and that is basically what he meant), not just because he has a strong opinion on the topic.

@ Ken:

Umm. If you can legislate or intimidate the women into subjugation then somehow there won’t be any more uppity GLBT people giving you any trouble? And that would be how? That makes sense to you? You have chapter and verse on that, that GLBT people will take the cue from subjugated women and slink away out of sight? Scientific research maybe? This feels like the twilight zone.

@ Nancy:
High Church Presbyterians are not like High Church Anglicans, Catholics, or Lutherans. I can find you some links if you want.

It was on this blog actually. Here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/02/23/understanding-the-opc-and-their-pastors-who-hold-the-keys-a-guest-post/

Hey Folks,
I just posted under the topic of a few days ago, then saw this topic and decided to ask the question here. My Dad has been pretty ill, so I have been spending more time with family recently. The topic of LGBT people has come up in various contexts, mostly talking about family members of one persuasion or another, and how we all feel about it. I have difficulty expressing my opinion, and don’t want to sound bigoted. I am conservative on the topic, but truly love at least the people I know who are part of that community. But looking for resources to help me develop well thought out views and things to say. I think Jesus would be hanging out with these folks if he were on earth now, but I don’t express myself as well as he did.

@ Former CLC’er:
Saying a prayer for you, your dad and family… 🙁

Neo-Calvinism can be cured by going on the Gospel Diet: You read the Gospels only, nothing else, for six months. After a while, you realize Calvinistas probably don’t actually know Jesus.

Bridget wrote:

Owen sounds like a desparate business owner tooting his own horn and pushing his comp brand out of pure desparation for sales.

Well, yes, but I am not offended by used car salesmen. Everyone has to feed the beast. The problem I have is that Owen and the tribe at CBMW have no problem promoting heresy (ESS), mangling the Bible, and reading their social prejudices into Christian theology. It’s really no wonder about the rise of the ‘dones’.

@Victorious – thanks for the prayers. @Dee – thanks for the prayers and the resources. Dad is getting ready to go to Jesus – we’re just not sure how long. I think the emotions and the driving back and forth to Connecticut have affected my brain. As well as the strain of seeing him like this. So reading about something else is actually helping me be in a little bit of denial. 🙂 Maybe I need to listen to “Shake It Off” while driving!

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

I’m annoyed by both; ESS and used car salesmen 😉

Hester wrote:

Does “zeal that you’ve got it right” (i.e., having a strong opinion) automatically = pharisaism?

No it doesn’t, I agree with you. But to the extent that complementarianism (ghastly word!) is a secondary issue, the reaction against it is frequently the mirror image of those who, it is claimed, push this as though it is the most important thing since sliced bread. So it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

@ Jed Paschall:
You laugh about “the keys” but it is no laughing matter. And no communion for those who are not church members of a Gospel (TM) preaching church, right? Very much like Mark Dever and his 9Marks. In fact, except for infant vs. believers’ baptism, I think High Church Presbyterianism is indistinguishable from 9Marks churches. What say ye, Jed?

Long time lurker, but first time commenting here. It’s strange how Owen Strachan thinks that complementarianism is needed to defend the traditional Christian idea if marriage when some of the most prominent critics of same-sex marriage are egalitarian (Richard Hays, Robert Gagnon, Ben Witherington, NT Wright although he’s complementarianish in regards to marriage, etc).

Sorry that should be “men who” not “me. Who”

Ken wrote:

God has create us male and female, husband and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and these are not interchangeable. Enter the secular culture rebelling against this and saying there are no distinct roles, male and female are interchangeable, or that ‘gender’ is a social construct running along a continuum. From that you can then argue a ‘man can lie with a man as with a woman’, or that men can dress and look like women and vice versa.

We have been down this road so many times I am not sure why I bother. You talk in terms of “roles” which is the issue. The reason male/female are not interchangable is “biology”, not distinct roles. Men cannot have babies. That is it. Period. The rest is a debate concerning who should do what as a female or a male in a “distinct” role for that gender. It is hogwash. Women were having babies in the cotton fields and in the back of wagons then sowing seeds.

One thing that many Christians who quote the bible to us forget is tht in the NT, we (believers) are ALL referred to as “sons”. Both male and female believers are “sons”. Interesting, eh? That 1st Century audience understood the significance. In that sinful culture sons were considered better. A gift. Every husband/wife wanted “sons”. Women who could not produce a son were considered deficient. Daughters were a burden.

Calling all believers “sons” communicated the equality

Jesus Christ was supposed to change that thinking for believers. What happened? Ken, someday your wife might have to change your Depends. Will you be her spiritual leader or “repsonsible” for her then? Piper, CJ Mahaney and others say, yes. They even made a video about it using a brain damaged husband from an accident who was still considered teh wife’s spiritual leader. Even though she had the burden of everything from finances to caring for him. She was “responsible” yet he was her authority.

I just don’t get it how the thinking goes. If some man stays home with the kids does that mean that the woman across the street and three doors down is going to declare herself a lesbian? Or are they afraid that the guy at home with the kids will as a consequence take up with the guy next door in inappropriate ways? If some woman gets promoted on the job instead of some man, are all the men in the department going to take up with each other sexually, as if they really all were born that way and this trauma activated that hidden genetic tendency until now? Or perhaps it is all a choice, and the men on the job chose to ‘like’ women, but now that they see it does not guarantee promotion at work they are going to ‘choose’ to ‘like’ each other, which was what they wanted to choose all along?

Or do they think that it is all a choice, which they do seem to think, for both men and women, and unless strict role behavior walls are built the whole population will decide they ‘like’ their own sex better? Maybe they think our whole population stands on the brink of epidemic same-sex ‘choices.’ Maybe they think that some guy washing the supper dishes will recognize within himself some satisfaction associated with the supper dishes and that will push him over the brink?

Or perhaps they think that women, given any choice at all in life will not choose them, specifically them.

I don’t know, but I wish the hyper-comp guys would quit beating around the bush and just spell it out what it is that worries them so much.

dee wrote:

Christians have often been counter cultural. How is this going to hurt me? So what if the culture goes to hell in a handbasket? Jesus still saves. In fact, it is often during such times that the faith flourishes. I think we Christians are wimps when it comes to comparing us with the early Christians

Be careful what you wish for.

I’m not an hysterical evangelical who fears losing a supposed culture war, and we all need to avoid being so. But as far as Europe is concerned, and the UK in particular, there is the very real possibility of pressure being brought to bear if you don’t affirm the innate goodness of homosexuality. It’s already starting.

There are not the same protections to religious freedoms that the US constitution has. We’ve not got to the stage of churches being forced to ordain homosexuals under anti-discrimination laws, it may never come, but I see precious little respect for the consciences of those who see this as wrong.

This agenda is being pushed by homosexuals, it is not as though the church has been singling them out for special vilification. In fact in my lifetime and experience, this has largely been a non-issue, it is one sin amongst many.

Now I don’t think martyrdom is just around the corner, but hate speech codes and similar could be a very useful way of shutting Christians up and sidelining them. Christian broadcasts already have to be censored in case they ‘offend’ someone.

Even Peter Tatchell, a homosexual activist, has warned his fellow activists that they are in danger of mirroring the bigotted attitudes they claim Christians and those of other religions had or have towards gays. One wonders whether they will listen.

dee wrote:

I have heard from Gram3. She was on vacation and then came home and got sick. She will check in with us soon. She says “hi.”

Hi, Gram3. *waving* Get well soon.

Lydia wrote:

The reason male/female are not interchangable is “biology”, not distinct roles

In the most essential point, we are in agreement. (Did you not notice the italics in the sentence “Enter the secular culture rebelling against this and saying there are no distinct roles, male and female are interchangeable …?) The point being I am not interested in exactly who does what, but that homosexualty and transgenderism are wrong because a man or a woman is trying to be something they are not. It’s why God regards these are being an abomination, to use the old-fashioned OT expression.

As regards all believers being ‘sons’, I understand this to mean all have the privileges of the first-born. Simmilarly, both men and women are the bride of Christ, and therefore in submission to Christ. The NT keeps a lovely balance!

As a final observation if not plea, my views on this do not derive from American evangelicalism, with its innate tendency always to go to extremes. I’m not a disciple of Piper or Mahaney. If I end up an invalid and my wife has to look after me, she will be showing respect (and love) as commanded in the NT. She will also have to take up responsibilities either I should have but can longer carry out, or that would otherwise be shared. I don’t see the problem!

Bridget wrote:

@ Nancy:
@ lydia:
They do keep saying that the Gospel is up for grabs if we don’t get comp right? Now these same issues were going on when Jesus walked the earth, yet he didn’t seem to spend much time on them.

Well, you know the gospel is up for grabs for any number of reasons. Ken Ham says, for instance, that the problem is not believing in six-day creation. It seems the gospel is feeble and has no power to save unless the Spiritual Gurus help it along.

@ Muff Potter:

You ought to go for that Muff. Original sin and/or original guilt and/or neither is a core issue in a lot of things. I imagine gram3 might get involved on the subject when she gets back.

@ Ken:
Oh, drat! I thought we might be able to get through one thread without that dreaded agenda raising its ugly head!

You know, my copy must have gotten lost in the mail. I didn’t get my laminated membership card or “free gift,” either! I’m sorely disappointed! 😮

@ numo:
Someone could make $$$ selling appointment calendars that were labelled as “the gay agenda,” I’m thinking – maybe someone already has? Either way, it could be a fun “silly” gift.

@ Angelacfr:

This is much more complex and difficult an issue that most Christians believe it is.

Agreed!

Addendum @ Ken:

But I also don’t think gender as 100% hardwired either. I actually think the majority of what most people think of as “gender roles” is socially constructed and cultural. But there probably is some kind of hardwired “core” underneath all the cultural stuff. Though at this point I don’t think anyone can actually determine what that core consists of.

Ken wrote:

“Enter the secular culture rebelling against this and saying there are no distinct roles, male and female are interchangeable …?)

Not sure how that can be since men cannot have babies. Can you name some of the distinct roles you think are imperative for women/men that will keep men from becoming homosexuals and women, lesbians? I am trying to get a feel for what exactly you think they are rebelling against?

I will clarify my position that as a libertarian I just don’t see the point in trying to micromanage culture like that. If their behavior is hurting others or violating their liberties then that is different. Now, I have seen some very vulgar behavior in public by both homosexuals and heterosexuals that I had wished the authorities would intervene. Can be embarrassing if you are vacationing with your kids, for example.

I do not think homosexuality was God’s intention. I don’t think fat genes were God’s intention nor Down Syndrome, etc, etc.

Ken wrote:

homosexualty and transgenderism are wrong because a man or a woman is trying to be something they are not. It’s why God regards these are being an abomination, to use the old-fashioned OT expression.

There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Why don’t we pick on these seven abominations from time to time? Why is homosexuality the only one we protest and ignore the others? Proverbs alone lists 17 abominations. Why do we think one is more evil than the others?

@ Josh:

I’m 100% with you on this one, and I’d say that the hard-wired “core” is far smaller than any CBMW type would permit.

Oh, definitely. This is why that infuriating Mark Gungor talk “A Tale of Two Brains” makes me want to climb the wall and scream. “Men’s brains are made of little boxes and they only talk about one subject at a time, women’s brains are this tangled web of emotion and they remember everything!” Barf. When people use this stuff to excuse bad behavior it makes me even madder. Like here, where an average hearing sensitivity difference of 2 dB (= tiny) becomes “little boys behave badly because they literally can’t hear their parents’ instructions”:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130331130906/http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003419.html

Per the monkeys, it would be interesting to see what they would find if they studied the hormonal makeup of children who liked the “wrong” toys for their gender, like me who always hated dolls (though I never was into stuff in wheels either). Women do have some level of testosterone so it would be worth looking into. In fact my mom’s friend’s sister was recently diagnosed with “low T” and they had to put testosterone capsules under her skin to get her testosterone level back to normal.

I have heard of the gay/straight and trans/cis brain research, but unfortunately don’t know where to find a source for that stuff that isn’t behind an academic paywall.

Victorious wrote:

Why don’t we pick on these seven abominations from time to time? Why is homosexuality the only one we protest and ignore the others? Proverbs alone lists 17 abominations. Why do we think one is more evil than the others?

Did you notice my ealier comment:

This agenda is being pushed by homosexuals, it is not as though the church has been singling them out for special vilification. In fact in my lifetime and experience, this has largely been a non-issue, it is one sin amongst many.

I agree with you the church should call all sinners to repent from all ‘abominations’. I’d go further and say it needs to get its own house in order, of which one area is sexual immorality amongst its own members in general, and sinful remarriage after divorce in particular.

But if homosexuality and transgenderism are sinful, the church cannot go along with them. The question (for evangelicals at least) is then what does the bible teach on this? If the bible describes such bahaviours as sin, then are we going to ignore the bible so as not to ‘offend’ the surrounding culture? This latter is surely why this issue is so important.

Are we going to submit the bible, Jesus and the apostles he sent, to modern psychological insights and advances that they could never have had? Has God waited for us sophisticated and educated people of the 21st century to reveal new knowledge about this subject? Or are we going to treat people as being made in the image of God, that volition is real and notwithstanding their environment playing a part as responsible for their actions, rather than blaming them on evolutionary predestination over which they have no control?

Victorious–what you wrote is not quite true. Jesus did indeed tell people at times to go and sin no more.

And please don’t assume those on the conservative side are not expressing love, mercy, grace, or compassion. Please realize the scriptures list a whole lot of sins as sending people to hell. Some see that as eternal conscious torment, some as annihilation, and some as hell here on earth, but none of them are a good state to find oneself in.

There is a sense in which it doesn’t matter if ANY sin is biologically driven or not. Scripture already tells us the sin is in the flesh. Perhaps someday science will be able to determine “this gene makes one gay” and “that gene makes one a liar” and “that gene leads to violent crime.” The last one is already being recognized in fragile x syndrome.

That doesn’t mean those with any biologically driven sin propensity should be given free rein, blessed in a special ceremony for sinning, or supported in the sin.

Rather, the most compassionate thing to do is tell them the ACTIONS are sinful, that sin leads to hell, that there is a Savior, and help them find creative loving ways to walk away from the sin.

linda wrote:

Jesus did indeed tell people at times to go and sin no more

I’d appreciate scripture references. If you’re referring to the woman caught in adultery, research shows the story was not part of the earliest manuscripts. That’s the only place I’m aware of where someone is told to stop sinning. But if you know others, let me know.

linda wrote:

Rather, the most compassionate thing to do is tell them the ACTIONS are sinful, that sin leads to hell, that there is a Savior, and help them find creative loving ways to walk away from the sin.

Jesus did say that what’s in the heart comes out of the mouth I believe and Paul mentions the flesh is at war with the spirit, but that’s not the point. Where are we told to monitor the behavior or actions of others? And to point them out to them? How is this different than what the Westboro Baptist church does?

dee wrote:

So, are there are sins that send people to hell even if they are Christians?

Big subject, and bordering going off topic. I have been impressed by the fact the doctrine of hell is almost exclusively revealed on the lips of Jesus himself, and that he was directing his warnings about it to his disciples, rather than the heathen.

Having been an ardent exponent of ‘once saved, always saved’, this comes as a bit of a shock. But there are numerous places in the NT which indicate the ticket to heaven after accepting Jesus mentality is in fact wrong. I’m still thinking this one through, it calls for a major change in how I understand the NT.

One change is to take Heb 6 at face value; if you deliberately abandon the faith in apostacy, there is no way back. I’ve seen all sorts of mental gymnastics to get round this, and I’m not finished with the issue yet, but it is and should be sobering that we can’t mess around with the things of God.

Perhaps is the church showed if feared God more, the world around might take it a bit more seriously when it tells them to fear God.

Ken wrote:

One change is to take Heb 6 at face value; if you deliberately abandon the faith in apostacy, there is no way back. I’ve seen all sorts of mental gymnastics to get round this, and I’m not finished with the issue yet, but it is and should be sobering that we can’t mess around with the things of God.

Also look at 1 Timothy 1: 18-20. Among the baptists the Free Will Baptists believe in the possibility of apostasy. I do not see any reason to not take these statements at face value.

@ Ken:
I agree we need to take sin seriously, what I think we all miss is sin is usually a symptom (well, habitual sin is). If we keep finding ourselves in some sort of sin often the root is an “idol” or “god” or “desire” that is not about the Kingdom, but about self. The cross is all about dying to self daily.

If we take the earliest church (before Rome got it’s hands all over it), we find a group of believers who felt it was more holy not to marry – could serve God freely this way. It wasn’t about better that others, it was about living apart from the world. Leaders had to be celibate to show a complete devotion to God. In their culture, marriage wasn’t about love, but procreation. So, if one was married, the man was expected to remain faithful – something other Roman men didn’t do. Either way, their sex lives were supposed to be under God’s control and romance was not considered something to achieve or strive for in this life.

Fast forward to today’s world. Since the Protestant revolution overthrew Catholicism and its two largest early leaders were former priests, they rebelled against the Catholic’s strict laws on marriage for priests and threw out celibacy – I am not against that notion entirely, but they threw the baby out with the bathwater (it just became apparent slowly). With celibacy gone from the Protestant church, marriage became something God has never taught the NEW TESTAMENT believers to follow. It is NOT a sign of godliness to be married, nor is it really a sign of morality. That began to get intertwined in Protestant teachings. Without celibacy, there was no place for women in ministry, so they got relegated to a spiritual second class (not saying they aren’t in Catholicism to some degree, but there are women doctors of the church in Catholicism, they just all happen to be celibate women).

Over time, the church began to make more out of marriage than Jesus ever taught. Marriage is a temporal thing (not continued in heaven), marriage is a distraction from God (according to Paul). Now, marriage has become a sign of being a good believer – all this nonsense about male and female roles is a lot less necessary when people are celibate. [I have a friend who works for a large Christian Charity in Africa, she was there when the two workers were sent back to the US with Ebola, she does a lot of work in other areas of Africa. She has this freedom because she has no kids. She is a leader in an org. that cannot give her the top leadership role because only men can lead. What they don’t get is, you want a leader in Africa that can live there, speak the language, work with locals and foreigners and has been there long enough to know what works and what doesn’t. Male or Female is irrelevant.]

My point is, our society has made marriage into a place of “finding happiness” or belonging or contentment. That is actually sinful. The place of our contentment should always be with Christ. My husband and I are conscious that our life is about more than our little bundle of happiness. We adopted a child with special needs a few years ago because there was a need for disabled kids to have a forever home and we could make the extra room in our family. I heard many different comments about adoption after we adopted. One person said they wouldn’t adopt because it might put strain on their marriage. I thought, if your life isn’t being tested and stretched, you are probably doing something wrong as a Christian.

You’d think the Bible says we should all be living the Big Easy and that is the sign of a Godly life.

When God is first, sexuality is a far second. Even marriage needs to be a second, not a goal or a ministry. In our culture, sexuality is considered essential. Telling someone to be celibate is akin to telling someone to become mentally unstable (since all our mental and well being is considered somehow connected to our sex lives). In Christian circles, this translates to seminars on health marital sex, healthy marriages, purity culture (where virginity is a prize or something). Christians have already capitulated to society’s view on sexuality instead of God’s. They just try to fit it into marriage.

This attempt to elevate sexuality and marriage waaaay above it’s place in Christianity has lead to the reaction to homosexuality, women leaving traditional roles in marriage – by either not marrying or working. Reality is, once society accepts it, laws will bend to make it work and it will become a norm. What Christians need to do is start valuing kingdom life over marriage, traditional families, focus on families. It is a big hurting world out there, I would love my kids to go work overseas for disadvantaged people as God’s ambassadors. I would love my kids for living a life that leads to looking different from other families – adopting kids that are hard-to-place, being careful of whom they marry – not someone who just says they are a christian, or can’t see that couples can be a team (not a leader, follower) for Christ.

There is really nothing I need my husband to do that I couldn’t do myself. He is not my leader, he is my partner in our journey toward’s Christ. I don’t want my daughter to grow up thinking she needs a man for anything. She needs Jesus for everything that is enough. If she never marries, she has everything she needs, if she marries, I want her to marry a partner who is focused on Christ, not roles or lifestyles but on how they can do God’s work every day.

The church isn’t much help. It encourages early marriage as a solution to raging hormones. It acts like marriage is the Christian’s only goal in life and that you can turn your back on the hurting world if you fear it may damage your fragile marriage. Actually, I’d be more worried about people’s fragile faith than marriage. Turning your back on Christ is far, far worse in my estimate. In the end, most of my friends who married guys with weaker (as in non-risk taking for God) faiths aren’t that happy in them. Those of us who are like “well, let’s just do this, even if it is risky, because God is good” are much happier with our lives anyways. But don’t expect North American Evangelicalism to ever teach people that. It is just too weakened by false idols and lame goals.

@ Hester:
funny, but i’ve noticed the same thing…

@ linda:

I was also thinking of a particular vacation we planned not realizing a gay pride parade was scheduled the same time. No problem. Except for some vulgar “simulations” and the “raves” that they got special permission to have loud music to the wee hours that even most of the residents did not know about. People were not expecting what they saw because the area is mostly older folks and families.

Now some on here will think I “hate” homosexuals because I wrote the above facts and experience. They could not be more wrong. I am a libertarian. I am wondering why other groups would be turned down over the noise ordinance but they were not. Because people don’t want to be accused of being hateful. That is a powerful free speech inhibitor.

@ Lydia:

It seems to me that the passage in Hebrews is about a deliberate decision to quit following Jesus. And act of the will to call it quits. And this is specifically for mature believers according to the description in the passage, not jut somebody who was young in the faith or a catechumen who was saying ‘not now and maybe never’ or an inquirer or such. It does not read like some lightning bolt from heaven because of some sin. At least that was the take on it of the FWB when I was one. (FWB not apostate.) As for the blasphemy in 1 John, we are not told what it was, but perhaps blasphemy against the Holy Spirit against which the warning had already gone out. It looks like it is really difficult to become an actual apostate, but that once one does become that then the consequences are less than delightful.

@ dee:
OK, did Jesus heal people and even raise the dead before he was himself crucified?

Was the paralytic man who was lowered yhrough the roof both forgiven and healed before Jesus died on the cross?

What about all of the other people who expetienced healinh, deliverance and God’s forgiveness through Jesus before he went to the cross?

I am not meaning to be difficult, but i think maybe thos particular pastor is overly invested in the cross as something almost “magical” in its effects. Weare us, and God is God, and there is muvh that we do not understand. You know, like the penitent yhief and where Jesus said hewould be when he died.

@ dee:
What about pepple who are not xtian, but who change for the better? Who also do other things that are taken by many xtians as signs of a good, godly life?

Right now i am reading a series of historical mysteries set during yhe reign of Richard II. one of the principal characters in one of them is Robert of Geneva, a priest who ordered all of the inhabitants of a town to be brutally slsughtered (ehich did, indeed, happen). A few years later, a group of French cardinals made him the 1st to sit on the papal throne in Avignon, beginning the fight between Rome and France as to who was actually pope and thus which European sovereign held the most power.

Given acts like those, it’s little wonder that do many opt out of the church altogether. Fortunately, people don’t get killed for their religious differences anymore, at least, not xtians and Jews being mudered by supposed xtians.

@ numo:
Ack! My phone is plotting against me, via autofill!!!

@ dee:
OK,let me be a little more “answer a question with a question”-ish: do you think there was no forgiveness from God prior to the Passion and Resurrection? (A leading question for sure, but what the hey…)

@ Nancy:
But what about knowing you did something wrong and simply asking for foregiveness? Like you, i see a whole lot of continuity, but i don’t believe the King of the Universe (one of the titles of God that is used in many Jewish prayers) was or is tied to a system of humans sacrificing animals.

@ dee:

I suppose you have heard about the new element added to the periodic table. It is called Bn. (Bacon)

@ Hester:
Shemight have, though.

@ Nancy:
Nancy–Well said.

@ Ken:
Yeah, but part of this is the church’s fault. If we go back to the post-war rise of evangelicalism and the baby boomer years the church was all about family. Fast forward to the 80s, Focus on the Family, fast forward to the new Millennium and it was all about the poor gays who are being denied a family.

It isn’t an accident we are where we are. Christians pushed for laws favouring married couples – baby bonuses, income splitting, etc. Suddenly, marrieds couldn’t help but being better off than singletons and on top of that, they were hired as the “more trustworthy” employee.

In Catholic countries, there is another group that is also powerful socially and has a voice and community respect. That is the church orders – nuns, monks, priests, etc. So the unmarried can also be considered valuable. Now, I am not saying we start opening Evangelical monasteries, but we should consider that when married couples get all the benefits, tax breaks and societal approval, while others don’t something was going to give.

Add the charming gay man who flirts with all the girls (I work with many gay men, so I can attest to this) who asks “What about me?” I’m a nice guy.

See the Evangelical church has been highly political, but not very fair or inclusive. Pushing family values leaves a lot of people out. Those people have found a voice.

The reason we are so sympathetic (as a society) to homosexuals, is that society values honest sexual expression and approves of everyone seeking satisfaction. The porn industry is huge and needs to convince society sex is something you need to constantly satisfy. So society sells an image to us of everyone getting what they want and that always working out for them.

The church, of course, doesn’t like that image, so it makes marriage into the idol the rest of society has turned sex into. Now, this doesn’t make marriage wrong, just not the most important thing for men. The early church would tell men struggling with Celibacy to trust God to handle it and they spent hours in prayer each day anyways. Perhaps we are just not capable of trusting God, so everyone (even those who shouldn’t) gets married. I have NEVER heard of a pastor telling a couple not to get married. To go get educated and work for a few years first. Why not? Stats show the lowest divorce rates in the US are in the least religious NE corner. Why? the study showed living together wasn’t the biggest indicator of future divorce, but income and post-secondary education. The higher the education, the better each couple did. Regardless of family history of divorce or co-habiting before marriage.

Churches can’t fathom their 1950s view of marriage isn’t a universal ideal for all Christians. They can’t even handle marriage not being an ideal. But the Catholic church does have a stronger say in Europe, and perhaps that is because it has less hypocrisy when it comes to sex and positions of authority in the church? I don’t know, but the Pope doesn’t worry too much about offending people – of course he isn’t an EU citizen either.

What happened was the world woke up, noticed mandating marriage to Christian/1950s standards wasn’t necessary and went on. Of course it can work without 1950s marriages. The church lasted through the Roman era of wives, mistresses and prostitutes by *being celibate* NOT pushing one man- one woman marriages on people. That way the net was cast wide. Anyone could heed God’s call (not that they even knew this term, but…) gay, straight or bi (which all male citizens would have been classified in those days) all had a place in the church. Like their straight brothers, they were called to celibacy and taking their energy spent on chasing their libido around and putting their energies to use for God.

No one was denied a place of high standing in the church, but the price was steep. It weeded out those in leadership for personal glory, the price was too high. And the reward was usually death.

Today, if a gay person is Catholic, they can find a place in that community as a celibate, but fully participating member. Many famous Catholics have said they too are gay, but they have dedicated their lives to serving Christ as a celibate priest or monk. They are denied nothing. The world can’t accuse the Catholic church of discriminating against gays. Instead, they accuse them of repressive sexual teachings, but that is easier to overcome, since a call to God is so much bigger than chasing sex.

In Evangelicalism, we’ve dug ourselves a hole. We only allow men who are married to lead (for all intents and purposes). If you don’t fit the middle class married lifestyle the church doesn’t know what to do with you. Either they pressure you to marry (even if it is sinful to remarry in your circumstance, that will be the pressure) or reject you. A child who says they are gay often create a reaction. Even if it isn’t outright negative, it is still a reaction of “prayer request” a.k.a. gossip chain or hushed comments and sideways glances (who wants that?).

The attempts to “convert” gays to straight show how misguided the church’s understanding of sexuality is. There is no attempt to be straight in the Bible, it is to be moral – even at personal cost. As if straight people don’t get caught in all sorts of sins! The church has treated gay people as a threat to their “family values” as if fam. values are above Christ. Isn’t our job to love our gay co-workers and have them want to come to Christ?

I have struggled for years to know what to do when my gay colleagues take to me about religion. They and I both know the church would try to change them. Unfortunately, not to be a follower of Christ, but to be “straight” and be convicted of how wrong their orientation is, which is silly, Jesus and Paul never say you have to like women to be a Christian. Or, the church will just say “oh that is lovely you are gay, keep right on going with your lifestyle”. But I know of nowhere where Evangelicals say, hey come to our church, you won’t be judged, you will be welcomed and we will show you who Christ is, and allow that person to make their own journey towards what to do with their sexuality. Most pastors would feel the need to say something so no one gets the wrong idea about their church and it’s views on homosexuality over and above not stating that and allowing everyone to be loved and ministered to and then trusting God will guide them.

So, with no place for gays (or most singles), the world has turned on the church as a bastion of sexual control, outdated rules for marriage and political aspirations. It is sad. None of this should be what the church is known for.

Gram3 wrote:

But it does not follow from that that people who live with SSA are somehow sinning any more than people who are born with ambiguous sexual organs.

There is one issue to be careful of here. Someone may be born with “ambiguous sexual organs” that look ambiguous on external examination but DNA may show that actually this is a male or female with thus and such developmental variant of this or that anatomic structure. That is to say that some congenital defect in some sexual organ does not necessarily indicate that the genetic sex of the individual is not knowable. But this is not always the case of course. What I am getting at is that there is more evidence for what is going on with people with ambiguous sexual organs, and there is evidence that once some medical workup is done then the ambiguity is resolved and appropriate steps can be taken in some cases. I could use anatomically correct descriptive terms here, but that is not necessary considering the topic. That sort of evidence is lacking in the matter of sexual orientation.

There can be some similarities in the arguments used in both cases, but the issues are not identical as far as we know at this time.

@ Nancy:
Thanks for that clarification. The point I was incoherently trying to make is that there are undeniable physical/genetic issues which defy neat categories sometimes. The CBMW folks do *not* want to talk about physical issues because they have no answer for those within their neat system.

True confession time. I was pregnant with my first child when in college, so I decided the very best thing to do was to to to the library at the medical school and see what to expect. This is a Very Bad Idea for a first-time mom who has no medical training whatsoever. However, it made me very aware of genetic and developmental issues, including those involving sex, and I have *not* forgotten that. The faces of the children were blacked out in the textbooks, but those are/were real human beings who bear the image of God as well as all the “perfectly normal” children do.

Thanks for the welcome back and for the prayers from all. Very much appreciated. These last few threads have been very thought-provoking, and I have tried to follow along. Obviously, there are residual cognitive issues. 😉

@ Victorious:
Thanks, Victorious. That means a lot!

@ Gram3:

The surest way to mess up a class on “Complementarianism” is to introduce the reality of ambiguous sex into the discussion. They do *not* have an answer for that physical reality, and I have witnessed myself the way that topic is dismissed as unimportant and irrelevant. As if people who don’t fit the mold are unworthy of consideration in their system.

Well, when sex is the first checkpoint for what you can and cannot do (i.e., all the rules are pink and blue), how can you give any direction to an intersex person? They’re completely unintelligible to your classification scheme. A couple of examples (I = intersex person, C = complementarian):

C: Ordination is great! We need more pastors!
I: I might be interested in that.
C: Great! But only men are allowed.
I: Oh. Well, the doctors weren’t able to medically determine my sex. So can I still get ordained?

C: The Bible states clearly that crossdressing is an abomination!
I: Oh. Well, the doctors weren’t able to medically determine my sex, but I still want to please God and wear the right clothes. So what should I wear?

How can the comp answer either of these questions?

Unmarried people, of whatever orientation, who decide to be celibate should be celebrated

This would never happen in the average evangelical Protestant Bible church if the person was straight. Only if they were gay.

@ dee:
Yes, i know, but remember, those sacrifices were made at a specific place, and most people went there rarely – some, I’m sure, never.

Did God not acknowledge the prayers for forgiveness offered by those who couldn’t havd the appropriate sacrifice made at the time of repentance? What about those who simply were too poor to purchase an animal for sacrifice?

Just because God commanded a specific thing (which had become highly complex and evolved by the time of ghe 2nd temple) does not, imo, constrain him from working solely via that system. God is transcendent, but we are not. To us, the specific place sith specific people makes morse sense than trying to simply imagine that transcendent God. There was a true evolution and refining of Jewish monotheism, and it can be seen – partly, at least – happening in the tdxts of the OT, which cover a pretty good chunk of time, all told.

@ dee:
Common grace means, imo, that people have a consvience and can choose to live and act in a manner that is truly goid – often better than many who claim the name of Christ.

At leadt, that’s how i sed it.

@ Josh:
Thanks, Josh. I appreciate your help in keeping the discusdion and communication open, as well as factually acvurate. It is a vety complex isdue, given the spectrum of conditions that come under the intersex heading.

@ numo:
The “No soup for you!” attitude of the church space I currently inhabit is why I find communities like this one and GCN to be so life-giving. Then there are the topical area-specific blogs like AQC (which I just mentioned above) and Spiritual Friendship, though the comment threads in the latter can be toxic for a non-straight person who doesn’t necessarily hate their orientation and think that their attractions must be “killed” every time they surface (not everyone there believes that, but those who do are quite vocal).

So communities and challenging albeit friendly discussions like this are much needed. After being negative in my last post, I felt the need to refocus a bit and thank our hosts and you all for making this space what it is. (Ok, now I’m done being mushy, LOL…)

Gram3 wrote:

You are probably not old enough to remember George Rekers (hope I’m spelling his name correctly.) There is more than one lesson there.

I didn’t stumble upon that story until it was approaching its end, but George Rekers is one of a hundred reasons why I tune people out the moment they start talking about “change.” There’s a “he doth protest too much, methinks” vibe to these cases, and after a while, well, sure enough…

@ dee:
So if Judaism didn’t see growth, that means it wasn’t the True Faith.

This is also Passover, and I’m feeling extremely torn. Xtianity evolved from Judaism; the savior in xtianity is Jewish. Without Judaism, we would not exist, yet we avt like we owe Judaism nothing, and that it isn’t really important.

I strongly disagred.

@ numo:
Kahn, not Kan.

@ dee:
You know, with xtianity being based in the tenets of Judaic monotheism, it is troubling to me that we serms so often to turn from understanding whst thst was. To my mind, it enriches our faith, rather than being unnecessary.

I am also not at all certain that we actulayy understand the distinctions made regarding law and grace – something that the majority of the original audience of the NT canon would have understood. To me, it seems wise to get the background straight, lest in our lack of awareness, we misread and misinterpret, which has, unfortunately, been a massive problem throughout church history.

I said a lot of this last year regarding that whole “God divorced Israel” as literal statement of fact dust-up, but i think it bears repeating.

@ Josh & numo:

Josh, for those of us who are straight and never have married, it’s not regarded as some kind of consolation prize. More like failure to acheive the pinnacle of adult life and responsibility snd normalcy.

And patriocentrists will tell you it’s “normative” to marry, which basically means it’s a command unless you have the “gift of singleness” (which they never tell you how to identify). But even there they don’t seem to recognize said “gift” as an actual thing in real life, because they tell you to train your children for marriage, i.e. the “gift of singleness” only happens in other people’s families.

Why would we ‘celebrate’ celibacy while criticizing those who ‘celebrate’ marriage? Jesus seemed to affirm both the married and the celibate state. So did Paul. Why would we not be neutral in this case and try for what seems to be the biblical approach, that one is right for some people and the other is right for other people and this rightness may vary with the circumstances.

@ Nancy:
I’m uncomfortable with the language of “defect” in this context because of the history it has in being used with prejudice against people like me. The quote Andrew Solomon shares at the beginning this TED Talk shows what I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EVEmZ2c_es

As to “celebrating” marriage or celibacy, I don’t see it as a zero-sum game where one should be celebrated at the expense of the other. But on the other hand, I also confess that “celebrate” is a sub-optimal word to describe what I was thinking. It would be more apt to ask that “support” for celibacy should become more widespread throughout the church. To me, it’s not a matter of cheerleading (“Go celibacy!”), but a matter of making it a matter of general consciousness in the community to look out for the needs of single people in a similar fashion to how churches already look out for the needs of married people (and not at the expense of the latter).

Nancy wrote:

Why would we ‘celebrate’ celibacy while criticizing those who ‘celebrate’ marriage?

Because a person who experiences sexual attraction of any sort outside of marriage and decides to be celibate deserves to be praised and affirmed. In addition, singleness and celibacy is not a sin nor a state that is “less than” those who are married. This particular point really irritates me when I see it, and I see it a lot in the church.

Those who decide to marry should be praised as well when they live out their marriage in imitation of Christ and remain faithful to one another through life.

Paul is clear that both marriage and singleness have challenges and opportunities that are different. I think we should celebrate and encourage one another regardless of marital status, not making one better or more praiseworthy than the other.

Josh wrote:

But on the other hand, I also confess that “celebrate” is a sub-optimal word to describe what I was thinking. It would be more apt to ask that “support” for celibacy should become more widespread throughout the church.

Since I’m the one who introduced “celebrate” into the discussion, let me say that I have in mind the idea that a single person who remains celibate is being faithful under challenging circumstances, and that is worthy of celebration just as people who have remained faithful in marriage are celebrated. That involves support, but I think it also involves affirmative encouragement, just like we give to married couples. Instead of that, what I’ve seen is exploitation or indifference to single heterosexuals and rejection of homosexuals, celibate or not.

Gram3 wrote:

I’m distinguishing between the orientation and physical conditions but probably not communicating very well.

Yeah, well, me too.

@ Josh:

Terminology question about the [PIA] suffix on the end of LGBTQ. I know I = intersex, and I’m pretty sure A = asexual (correct me if I’m wrong), but what does P stand for?

@ Hester:
request seconded.

numo wrote:

@ Hester:
i think it might be ‘pansexual,’ but i’m not certain.

What would pansexual mean.

@ Josh:
As soon as I typed that, the term “two spirit” (used by some Native Americans, of themselves) flashed into my head.

@ numo:
That was intended as a reply to Bridget; not sure what went wrong.

@ dee:
Have you ever been to an wctual, unadulterated Jewish Seder? I think you would love it.

I went annually from about 9-10 to twenty-something (late 20s), at our next-door neighbors’ house, and wish i had somewhere to go now. I would loveto sed more Jewish people actually conducting Seders for xtians, whivh is, indeed, happening in some place. But i feel extremely uncomfortable re. “church Seders,” and always have. Istm that most are pretty much changed to the point that they aren’t actual Passover Seders anymore, and that is what Jesus and the apostles actually had (thhough the ceremonial portion would have been quite different, in some respects, and the meal would likely have been less elaborate).

@ dee:
I bet your small group is delightful!

Hester wrote:

Do you think science has any bearing on how we interpret the Bible?

Morning Hester, and I hope you had a good Easter! Regarding your post:

i) I think it is anachronistic to read modern scientific thinking or classifications back into the bible. The OT in particular speaks to its audience from the viewpoint of the earth-bound observer and using readily understandable concepts from everyday life. Even today we talk of sunrise and sunset as though the sun revolves round the earth. So I’m not into science versus the bible until and unless science is used to explain things without God. Apart from that, science is thinking God’s thoughts after him.

ii) Science to my mind cannot tell us much if anything about what is moral; it cannot define good and evil. That is beyond its pay-grade.

iii) The secular community very much denies we are made in the image of God and therefore have true volition or freewill in any meaningful sense. The latter is the result of the former, and is often denied. You will see this in discussions about homosexuality, where the debate is engaged between those who say it is a lifestyle choice, and those who say it is the result of unguided evolution, a kind of biological predestination for which the individual is not responsible and for which he cannot be subject to moral criticism. If you grant the latter, then evolution is also the reason why some people are religious, it is not something they ‘choose’ to believe in, making it hard to criticise them for it!

iv) I haven’t changed the subject when intersex people are brought up, I have ignored it for the reason it is not imo relevant to those who choose to identify as being a different gender to how they were born. It is a genuine medical condition, and therefore not a moral issue. If gender dysphoria actually exists, then this too is a mental illness – though this is not usually how the issue is cast by the so-called transgender community! As you say medical conditions are not something you can repent of. Where, however, people’s actions are the result of moral choices, then they are accountable for those choices.

Dealing with these issues with genuine compassion is never going to be easy. Christians can come across of self-righteous, especially if they have not been tempted by these particular sins. Yet they need to avoid being intimidated by this into acquiescing with something God opposes (to put it mildly). On the other hand, preaching a God of unconditional love who ‘accepts’ everyone as they are is also false, though there is clear pressure for Christians to give way on this in a gender-confused culture.

Josh wrote:

when we try to find a congregation that will treat us like human beings, we look for one that will respect us when we tell our stories instead of telling us that we don’t really feel what we clearly feel.

Homosexual acts and transgenderism lived out are both examples of unrighteousness and moral wickedness at work. You cannot bring them into the kingdom of God. It is not that such things are unforgivable, nor do they deserve bullying or mistreatment, but they do need to be forgiven.

I don’t think feelings and stories have anything to do with this, which gives away that I am getting too old to relate to post-modern thinking. It puts us as sinful human beings in the centre, rather than God and his commands.

A company I know recently introduced gender-neutral toilets (rest rooms), which was celebrated as a huge step forward in civilisation and tolerance. In the comments thread under the announcement, someone wrote they hoped this would not be used for gender-politics. The result of that innocuous remark was that a transgender person was “offended” and went behind the colleague’s back to his boss to report this “offensive” behaviour. He did get some pushback for this underhanded action even from those sympathetic to transgenderism, but it showed me at any rate just how much ‘tolerance’ there is of opposing views on this subject. In fact it wasn’t even opposition, it was failure to affirm.

This is not a subject I have devoted much time to, it has rarely if ever actually cropped up in real life; but Christians are being forced to consider it whether they like it or not. God, who doesn’t change, is not going to accommodate to post-modern thinking or any other thinking on this, nor is he likely to be caught out by advances in science, so-called!

This whole area is one where we need to ‘tell the truth in love’, the NT has a wonderful balance between the two. There is a balance between accepting people as they are and not necessarily accepting what they do, and this applies equally to everyone.

Bridget wrote:

Val wrote:

Reality is, once society accepts it, laws will bend to make it work and it will become a norm. What Christians need to do is start valuing kingdom life over marriage, traditional families, focus on families.

This is great! I would just add to your last sentence ‘sex’. The church really is no better than society at large when it ties so much of life to sexual issues.

Christians are just as screwed-up sexually as everyone else, just in a different (and usually opposite) direction.

Ken wrote:

Even Peter Tatchell, a homosexual activist, has warned his fellow activists that they are in danger of mirroring the bigotted attitudes they claim Christians and those of other religions had or have towards gays. One wonders whether they will listen.

When someone who’s been stomped on finds themselves on top of the heap wearing the boots, they WILL throw their new-found weight around. HARD.
“STOMP HARDER!! IT’S PAYBACK TIME!!!!”

Josh wrote:

Alan Chambers, who was probably one of the most influential people in those circles, whose influence was felt in my own little church in the rural midwest.

Influential though he’s been, he is very much the 2nd generation of ex-gay bloc thinking. He is far too young for that. Others started Exodus and related “ministries,” and ran them for a long time before Chambers showed up.

@ Ken:
I have a reply to you that’s on the back burner. Hope you will check back for it.

Ken wrote:

This is not a subject I have devoted much time to

This is kind of obvious, Ken.

it has rarely if ever actually cropped up in real life; but Christians are being forced to consider it whether they like it or not.

One of the primary reasons it is “cropping up” now is that trans people are asking for equal treatment and an end to harassment, which is very often violent (you can check into the crime stats if you like; they are incredibly high for such a small group of people who openly identify as trans).

As for xtians being “forced” to deal with this issue, no, not any more than xtians over here were being “forced” to have to deal with the reality of black folks being equal to white folks, obtaining full voting rights, and so on – and yet, the struggle continues, and many white “xtians” are still in the 19th c. in their thinking.

This issue has about *zero* to do with so-called “postmodern thinking” and everything to do with compassion and acknowledgement that those who are not like you and me deserve to be treated with every bit as much respect as you (as a straight man) and I (as a straight woman) get. (Though whether women get as much respect as men is a whole different topic! And one I won’t go into here.)

@ Josh:
Do you know if he and his wife are still together?

@ numo:
Amen!

numo wrote:

Do you know if he and his wife are still together?

The last I heard, they still are. Unlike Michael Bussee and Gary … what’s his last name? who – I think – were in that movement well before Alan Chambers was (although my timeline is probably off, I think that aligns with what you said earlier today).

Ken wrote:

If gender dysphoria actually exists, then this too is a mental illness

That is quite some assertion Ken, how do you know this? As far as I’m aware many causes may eventually be ‘found’ for gender dysphoria, including various hormonal issues during early foetal development which means that the balance of male/female hormones on various stages of development of mind may be as disordered as those which produce intersex conditions, for example. What if it is that physically based & that complex?

@ Beakerj:
Exactly.

@ Nancy:
Excellent points Nancy, I really appreciate the way you put that. Add to all that the fact that we now know what’s going on all the time, anywhere. It seems we’re more disconnected then ever, while at the same time under more social pressure then ever. No wonder things are a touch acrimonious.

@ Beakerj:

Yes. It is much more complicated than a black/white response. On another note, I didn’t know that Ken was in the medical field and had the answers to these complicated issues.