“People hasten to judge in order not to be judged themselves.” ― Albert Camus, The Fall link
There are so many things that I want to write about. Since Deb will be out of pocket for the next week, I will be writing the posts. Do not be surprised if I write a few extra posts next week. I am in the mood.
Years ago, when my little daughter was suffering from brain tumor, I felt overwhelmed with the difficulties of managing my other children while coping with my own feelings of overwhelming pain for my daughter and fear for her future. My husband had to maintain his job so that we had the insurance to help pay for the medical bills. I felt quite lonely even though I had wonderful friends who supported me, helping with my other children and making meals for us. How does one explain the pain and fears to others who are not experiencing it?
I was directed to a group that dealt with the difficulties of having a child with a serious brain tumor. I found great comfort in the group as we discussed our issues. Children's Hospital in Dallas provided professionals to help us work through all sorts of things. It was so comforting to be with a group of people who got it even if I didn't say a word.
I grew to understand the importance of the support such groups offer. We formed friendships and held each other up through the inevitable pain and sorrows that arose.
That is why I was excited when I learned about the development of Spiritual Friendship amongst celibate gays. Before I go any further, I would ask that we keep this discussion centered around those gay Christians who have decided that they believe they should remain celibate. This is important to this post because I want to show that even when individuals make decisions that should be acceptable to conservative Christians, they still get criticized.
Wesley Hill
Wesley Hill is the celibate gay author of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. Here is how it is described at Amazon.
"Gay," "Christian," and “celibate” don't often appear in the same sentence. Yet many who sit next to us in the pew at church fit that description, says author Wesley Hill. As a celibate gay Christian, Hill gives us a glimpse of what it looks like to wrestle firsthand with God's "No" to same-sex relationships.
What does it mean for gay Christians to live faithful to God while struggling with the challenge of their homosexuality? What is God's will for believers who experience same-sex desires? Those who choose celibacy are often left to deal with loneliness and the hunger for relationships. How can gay Christians experience God's favor and blessing in the midst of a struggle that for many brings a crippling sense of shame and guilt?
Weaving together reflections from his own life and the lives of other Christians, such as Henri Nouwen and Gerard Manley Hopkins, Hill offers a fresh perspective on these questions. He advocates neither unqualified "healing" for those who struggle, nor their accommodation to temptation, but rather faithfulness in the midst of brokenness.
"I hope this book may encourage other homosexual Christians to take the risky step of opening up their lives to others in the body of Christ," Hill writes. "In so doing, they may find, as I have, by grace, that being known is spiritually healthier than remaining behind closed doors, that the light is better than the darkness.
The failure of reparative therapy is now accepted by some conservative Christian leaders and by most secular professionals.
I believe that, in most instances, reparative therapy is ineffective. Interestingly, so does Russell Moore who is the president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, good friend of Al Mohler (who disagrees), Neo-Calvinist, and a known conservative. Here is what he had to say to a group of journalists:
“The utopian idea if you come to Christ and if you go through our program, you’re going to be immediately set free from attraction or anything you’re struggling with, I don’t think that’s a Christian idea,” Moore told journalists. “Faithfulness to Christ means obedience to Christ. It does not necessarily mean that someone’s attractions are going to change.”
If reparative therapy is ineffective, then, for many gay Christians, celibacy is the only alternative. So, let's assume the following paradigm for the sake of this post. A gay man has committed himself to the celibate Christian lifestyle. What now?
Spiritual Friendship: "Christ-centered chaste friendships offered a positive and fulfilling—albeit at times challenging—path to holiness."
How then does a permanently single gay person live? Wesley Hill and a group of other celibate LGBT and their friends have developed the idea of Spiritual Friendship. Here is how they describe it link.
Reading Aelred of Rievaulx’s little treatise On Spiritual Friendship as an undergraduate was a life-changing experience for me. Aelred, a 12th-century Cistercian abbot, insists that we need to test our beliefs about friendship with Scripture. The treatise is a series of dialogues in which three monks join Aelred to examine their ideas about friendship in light of their Christian faith.
One of Aelred’s insights made a big impact on me. He points out that friendship is based on shared goals, and distinguishes between different kinds of friendship: carnal friendship, based on shared pursuit of pleasure; worldly friendship, based on mutual advantage; and spiritual friendship, grounded in shared discipleship.
The dialogues helped me to see that although Christian discipleship is costly, it need not be lonely. Our culture has become very fixated on sex, but sex and romance are not the same as love. Nor is Christian love the same as the kind of casual friendship that is common in our culture (Facebook informs me that I currently have 554 “friends”).
Aelred insists that, contrary to the transitory nature of so many contemporary friendships, a friend in Christ “loves always” (Proverbs 17:17). He and the other monks discuss how to select and cultivate lasting and Christ-centered friendships.
Growing up as a gay teenager, the only messages I heard from the church were negative. Most in our culture—including many Christians—uphold romantic and sexual love as the most important form of love. But God forbade the sexual and romantic love I desired. Was I just to be left out in the cold?
Aelred helped me to see that obedience to Christ offered more to me than just the denial of sex and romance. Christ-centered chaste friendships offered a positive and fulfilling—albeit at times challenging—path to holiness.
As I read through this thoughtful website, I thought back to my conversation with Justin Lee. During our time together, he raised the issue of the difficulties with a celibate lifestyle. He discussed loneliness, the need for supportive and loving friends, and wondered if friendships could form in which they resemble a mini-family- celebrating holidays together and going on vacations with one another.
So, naturally, I thought spiritual friendship was an awesome idea whose time had come. I couldn't imagine anyone being against it. I was startled to find out that even celibacy isn't good enough for some Christians.
Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows.
The Washington Post looked at the growing phenomena of gay, celibate Christians. It pointed at the controversy surrounding this movement.
The reaction among church leaders themselves has been mixed, with some praising the celibacy movement as a valid way to be both gay and Christian. But others have returned to the central question of how far Christianity can go in embracing homosexuality — even if people abstain from sex.
Interestingly, men like Al Mohler still seem to push reparative therapy.
But echoing the ambivalence of some conservative Christians, Mohler said he believes that sexual orientation can change “by the power of the Gospel.” He said he is not comfortable with the way in which some celibate gay Christians proudly label themselves as gay or queer.
For those of you who wish to read more on celibacy and gays, here is a TWW post written by our good friend Brad Sargent who has adopted this lifestyle due to his convictions.
SSA=Sin
Denny Burk wrote A friendly response to Wesley Hill’s “thought-experiment.” He quotes Wesley Hill as saying the following:
But we live in a constantly changing world, and many modern Westerners—especially, but not only, younger people—recognize that “being gay” today is a cultural identity. It’s a community designation (“gay community”); it names a way of being in the world (“gay culture”); it involves a continuous narrative (“when I came out… my gay friends…”); and it can exist even before or without lust and behavior (think of how many teenagers you know came out before their first kiss). It isn’t identical to “lust” or even “desire.”
I want to suggest—and I do so tentatively, as a sort of thought experiment—that when people like Julie (and I) say that their “being gay” can be the time or the place where they experience redemptive grace, they’re speaking very much within a contemporary framework of thinking about homosexuality. They’re recognizing that not all aspects of this new social construct—”being gay”—are reducible to what the Bible names as lust or what pre-modern Christians (and modern ones) recognized as sin.
Burk responds:
Wesley says that “being gay” is not “reducible” to same-sex sexual attraction. In a limited sense, I would agree with that. I do not dispute that gay people report heightened emotional connections with the same sex that are non-sexual in nature. So maybe we would agree not to say that sexual desire is the only element that gay people experience as a part of their SSA. Nevertheless, sexual desire does seem to be the defining element.
As I mentioned in a recent post, the defining element of same-sex attraction is desire for a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. If same-sex sexual desire is removed from the equation, then we are no longer talking about SSA—at least not in the sense that modern people mean the term. When modern people talk about SSA, they intend a kind of attraction that includes sexual possibility between persons of the same-sex. They do not mean to label as gay every person capable of emotional bonds with a person of the same-sex. No, it is the same-sex sexual desire that is the constitutive element.
In that sense (and I think Wesley might agree with this sentence?), same-sex sexual attraction is not a means to better, more holy same-sex friendships. It is an impediment to them. When one feels himself desiring a sexual relationship with a person of the same-sex, the only appropriate response is repentance from sin (2 Tim. 2:22). It is not right or helpful to think of that sinful attraction as the foundation for building holy same-sex friendships.
In other words, celibate Christians are sinful when they experience SSA. Also, Mohler seems to imply if they still have the feelings they are not responding appropriately to the Gospel.™ Wesley, on the other hand, believes that SSA can be the basis for building holy, same-sex friendships. I think back to that brain tumor support group. We came together due to our shared situation-our children had brain tumors. It was that pain that gave us a particular bond.
It looks like certain leaders in the Christian community are presenting a "no win" situation. Al Mohler seems to think that the gospel™ will make SSA go *poof.* Burk says the feelings are sinful. The sacrifice of celibacy is not enough for some leaders. It seems relevant to point out that these leaders do not struggle with SSA.
Ron Belgau at Spiritual Friendship answers Burk in Some Clarifications Regarding Sexual Orientation and Spiritual Friendship.
…A lot of people in our culture are trying to make sense of their feelings—including but not limited to sexual desires—for the same sex. And there are a lot of scripts out there for how to do that. In our discussions of Christ-centered friendship, marriage, and celibacy, we have tried to offer different scripts which are more congruent with the historic Christian faith. Our stories begin with experiences not unlike what other gay and bisexual people are going through, but lead toward the truths about human love and human sexuality revealed in the Bible and safeguarded by the people of God for thousands of years.
I hope that what ultimately guides the conversation at Spiritual Friendship is not sexual desire, or sexual orientation: it is Christ-centered friendship. One of the things that is striking to me about the stories that married couples have shared is how much the success of their marriage is grounded on an attraction that grew out of friendship.
…And in our fragmented, couple-centric society (and churches), it’s easy to fear that celibacy will equal loneliness. The original reason Wes and I created Spiritual Friendship was to explore how recovering a Christian understanding of friendship could provide a helpful framework for ministry to gay/bisexual/lesbian Christians.
At the same time, we recognize that both marriage and friendship are arduous goods. In addition to talking about the value of friendship, we have tried to speak honestly about all the ways friendship can involve significant disappointment and struggle. And we have tried to present a similarly honest picture of the joys and struggles of marriage.
Here is my concern. It appears that some conservative Christians are putting terrible burdens on those with SSA. No matter how hard they try to be celibate, they are still sinning simply by virtue of having SSA. Move this into the arena of the celibate, single heterosexual and you end up with a person who has sexual feelings and cannot express those feeling due to their singleness. Those very feelings are a sin if we apply Burk's view on sexuality. The only person who has a correct feeling of sexual desire is the person who is married and only feels a sexual desire when he/she is thinking of his/her spouse. I am sure that Burk and Mohler never, ever struggle in this area…
I think back to Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted yet he did not sin. It is not the temptation that is the problem. It is our response to the temptation. The Pharisees put tremendous burdens on the people and Jesus called them snakes. Jesus is with us in our temptations and is quick to forgive us when we sin. If some conservative Christians continue placing unnecessary burdens on the backs of Christians struggling with SSA, they will look no different than the Pharisees who seemed to be the only ones who thought they, themselves, were holy.
TWW applauds the efforts of those involved with Spiritual Friendship and shall be linking to their website.
Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 22:17-23:44 Mark 9:30-10:12 Psalm 44:1-8 Proverbs 10:19
I saw that article in the Washington Post and thought it was awesome.
A friend of mine has a plaque on her family room wall: “Don’t judge someone just because they sin differently than you.” Hill and other Christians who deal with similar sins should be loved and supported as they strive to walk in obedience to the Lord. Just because their sin is different doesn’t make it worse than mine.
If we’re honest, all of us will admit that we struggle with some kind of besetting sin. 1 John says that if we say we have no sin we’re liars. To believe that the Gospel is some kind of magic pixie dust that makes sin vanish is to not think biblically. If we weren’t sinners we wouldn’t need Christ.
I have two friends from seminary who are living this celibate life, and I have nothing but admiration for their courage. As for the religious leaders who don’t get it (Albert Mohler, as usual), I struggle to see them as true leaders.
They might ought to consider a re-reading of Luke 11:46: “Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”
I hold a bit of a different perspective on issues of SSA. For starters, a bipolar child who suffers from hypersexual desire during mania make me wary of simply assuming all feelings are to be validated. And then having had a very good friend who is a lesbian (geography has separated us) but who chose to remain celibate has also colored my opinion quite a bit.
Let’s look at this in a different light. Suppose you are a heterosexual male, married, and hypersexual. You have a very strong desire for women other than your wife but are committed to being faithful to her. Now, how good would it sound to your own conscience to decide you will remain physically faithful to your wife, but have extramarital deep loving bonds with other women? Not good? Tempting fate? Playing both ends against the middle?
Both my son and my friend would tell you this isn’t a place to go, and is no solution to their loneliness issues. Rather, both of them would disagree that romantic and sexual love are the best forms of love, and that they need some sort of deeper than normal friendship.
Instead they find the same outlets chaste and single heterosexual folks find.
linda wrote:
Who is hypersexual in the post that I wrote? I do not think that word came up.
@ Darcyjo:
Thank you for telling us about your friends.
(disclosure, I need to thoroughly read the topic post and am commenting before I do) I remember when there was a whole week of posts on this topic nearly three years ago. This was one: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/08/20/lifelong-celibacy-part-one-of-the-great-debate-on-gay-christianity/
I wish “Trina” would come back and comment, as I believe I didn’t see any more from her after these posts. I liked her take on these topics.
I must have been living under a rock but until about 2 years ago I thought a homosexual automatically meant a person practicing such a sexual lifestyle. I would not call a non-practicing SSA person either a homosexual or a lesbian. I read the 2012 article linked to by bradthefuturistguy and he came to refer to himself as a Christian man. If someone is living a chaste life, does one need to even use terminology like SSA (except to a close relative, friend or pastor)? Anyway I see SSA as another form of brokenness in the world. Why it happens I don’t think we can figure out. It doesn’t sound as if it can be “cured”. Why does alcoholism happen? I don’t think people really know that either. I appreciate the links to all the other articles that showed up before I began reading TWW.
Is this really anything new? I am not sure that Nouwen or Hopkins are role ,odels in the sense these folks say they are. Nouwen seems to have been tormented in many wsys due to his feelings about his orienyation.
I have doubts as to whether this can ever work for more than a handful of people, and again, think it is nothing new, but has been known by different names in the past. I do think it likely is something that many will try and use to make gwy xtians settle for “less thsn,” and i do not belive that is right.
it also serms like the folks in question are both young and idealistic. And that is … well, I’ve been their age and bern idealistic mysrlf, so i think they are in for some disappointments, and hope and pray that they don’t blame themsrlves when those disapointments come.
@ Godith:
I think you might be confusing orientation with activity. Does saying “I’m strsight” brand the person who says it as sexially active? Being gay or lesbian isn’t about having sex wiyh people, but about sexual/romantic/emotional affinities with people of the same gender. Even more: contemporary understandings of “ggay” and “sstraight” as absolute categories only came into being during the 19th c. There is much more to it all, but blog comments aren’t the best place to cover these subjects.
Might i suggest taking a look ayat the Gay Christian Network site, anfand Justin Lee’s book “Torn”? Dee knows Justin and has written about him, and his book, right here.
BTW, first!
Welcome to our world. Heterosexual and Christian and single and celibate!
Friendships out here are incredibly rich.
My parents (nice as they are) have never had a friendship on the level of mine, and I feel my life is better for it.
We could talk about a ton of things about this general subject, but I want to ask this first: Is it just me, or do Evangelicals tend to tweak their definition of lust according to the situation? For example, if they’re critiquing pop culture, lust is any non-marital sexual expression. Yet when talking about young singles, they admit it’s frustrating to not express yourself physically. Doesn’t that conflict a little? It’s almost as if they lower the sin bar from mental “expression” (whatever that really means) to physical, depending on the audience, venue etc. Maybe I’m seeing something that isn’t really there, but it’s what I’ve got from various articles and sermons.
In our culture, when two men kiss in a romantic way, that’s an expression of homosexuality [1]. As Justin Lee says, a teenage boy and girl holding hands are practicing “heterosexuality before marriage.” I’ve known that men are way more interesting than women since puberty, though I didn’t put that together with the term “gay” until after I graduated from college. I’ve had that awareness despite the fact that, to use the Biblical language, I’ve “never known a man.”
The articles at Spiritual Friendship are usually helpful – even if I don’t always agree – though the comments are often less so, particularly when Denny Burk and like minded folks show up to throw some hellfire and brimstone. @Godith echoes something else that is seen regularly in the comments at SF: outsiders butting in to tell all the LGBT folks that we shouldn’t talk about these things in public; we should only discuss them with our pastor / priest / spiritual guidance person. With that said, I’m surprised at the notion that we’re not even allowed SSA terminology. Usually conservative evangelicals just object to the “gay” and insist that we use SSA instead. So I find this objection completely unreasonable, as it dehumanizes us and removes from our vocabulary any language whatsoever that we might use to describe our experiences.
Now, here’s why this becomes increasingly untenable for some of us: as a guy who’s rapidly approaching the end of his third decade without a wife, or even a hint of a prospect, it becomes more difficult to not lie in answer the questions about when I’m going to settle down and find a spouse [2]. I’m not the kind of person who’s going to start wearing rainbow t-shirts [3] and marching in Pride parades, but I’ve had it with the straight folks who insist that I lie about why I’m not married so they can stay in their comfortable little bubble where all the gay folks are promiscuous unsaved heathens “out there” that we can go save, bring into church, and “straighten up.” Let’s face it: I’ve had to spend my life growing up in a church where not infrequently would someone complain about how the [derogatory term for gay people] are out to destroy America and persecute any Christians who don’t “accept” their “lifestyle.” So pardon me if I don’t care that you’re ever so slightly uncomfortable about my existence. [4]
As to @linda‘s point, I’ve also encountered elsewhere this notion that it’s dangerous for us to have close friends of the same sex [5]. There is no scriptural basis for this restriction, and I find it laughable that I’m not only prohibited from having a marital / romantic relationship, but also from having any close non- or minimally romantic friendships wherein I could experience some of the opportunities for growth and mutual encouragement that a straight couple enjoys.
By the way, if anyone wonders why serious Christians who find themselves to be LGBT are tempted to leave conservative evangelical churches for so-called affirming ones, look no further for one good reason. And while I haven’t experienced depression or suicidal ideation, there are those who despair of life itself because of these ridiculous restrictions.
Finally, to not end on such a sour note [6], @Corbin, I think that you’re right. To add what I’ve seen, “lust” for a straight person is when you move beyond an initial impulse of attraction and start imaging inappropriate things about another person. On the other hand, for a gay person, “lust” begins at the instant of initial attraction. So in other words, I lust a hundred times walking down the block, but a straight woman with the same taste in men could experience precisely the same thoughts and it wouldn’t be lust. It seems slightly inconsistent to me. Just saying…
[1] As Robin Williams said – and I paraphrase – “No, Elton John is a homosexual act!”
[2] In my head, I’m replying, “Oh, honey, I’d love to, but you wouldn’t like it!”
[3] My favorite is the one that says, “Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not.”
[4] Sorry, events of this past week have put me in a “I’m here, I’m queer, deal with it” kind of mood. So this pushed my buttons. I don’t intend any offense by what I’ve written, but if you are offended, I’m sorry, though I don’t think I can do anything about it. Just take consolation that I’m out there on the internet and not in your church, I guess.
[5] Along with the prohibition on same-sex close friendships, opposite-sex friendships are also forbidden purportedly because they present the “appearance of evil” (i.e. two straight people hooking up), though I believe underneath that objection is the old trope that we’re not really gay, and they’re worried that us men are at serious risk of falling into sin with a women (ha! they obviously haven’t a clue).
[6] I’m seeing a green apple E#
@ Corbin:
You are, imo, correct in seeing how the word is selectively used about some categories of people – used as an accusation, as a reference to having a “depraved” character and more.
I have literally heard people in the church that booted me referting to gsy men (xxtians, btw) as having “a character problem.”
numo wrote:
I already replied to Corbin in a
magnumlongus opus that combined several replies. But to this point, if the worst thing that people in my church said about such people is that they (actually, we, but they don’t know that… yet) have a “character problem,” we’d be a few steps ahead of where we are…I am having internet problems….do I have a comment in moderation….or did I just lose my comment…..(I haven’t been moderated in forever….and can’t think of why i would be moderated)
oh golly, I hope my ISP isn’t a proxy server……
Second try….
I have had a number of friends who have struggled with SSA and are married and raising families today(with opposite sex partners) and others who are continuing to pursue holiness in singleness and are involved with things like Spiritual Frienships.
I also have had a number of friends who shocked everyone when they came out, and walked away from community to never return.
The main difference between these two outcomes that I have observed…Early transparency, honesty and loving community. For my friends in the first examples, they almost all came from communities where they heard constantly that regardless of anyone’s struggle they are loved and there was hope and joy to be found in Christ. They virtually all felt free to share their struggles very early on in life and they were surrounded by wonderful caring people who shared life with them intimately and encouragingly.
The other stories were all people who kept it all bottled up inside for their entire lives. NO ONE knew their private struggles and hurt and so they were left to have it keep eating away at them internally until one “day” they just snapped and gave it all up. They felt they had to keep it a secret and just try to “pray” more until it got “fixed”.
Based on my experiences, it makes me very sad that any Christian leader would “poo poo” wonderful and fruitful ministries like SF because what our brothers and sisters who struggle with this particular personal battle need to hear is that they are loved, that there is joy and hope in Christ and that whether or not they ever get “better” they have infinite value and worth and deserve deep and meaningful fellowship….NOT, keep it to yourself and try to be more good…..
@ Josh:
I am straight and have never been married, and i think many people asdume (wrongly) that I’m a lesbian. I have given up paying attention to the assumptions, or, at least, i try to pay them no heed.
I found that “older” single folks were treated pretty muchmlike asexual, superannuated teenagers at That Church (which booted me) and other places like it. Marriage is viewed as the finsl passage to adulthood, so those who have never married are, somehow, “less than.” And God knows, we were not supposed to admit to having a libido, because we were not in a Godly (TM) relationship where that could be allowed some expression.
Now, i realise thst is *not* the same as what LGBT people go through, not by any means. But i am also tired of the way in which evangelicals use terms like SSA to minimize the reality of LGBTQ-ness in the lives of those who don’t fit into the two sex/gender pigeonholes that evangelicals believe are the only Godly (TM) way to feel or simply *be.*
Josh, it’s been quite a while since you started posting here, and it sounds like you’re still at the same church. I can’t help thinking that you might be far happier in a denomination/individual congregation that is affirming, as opposed to what you’re up against where you are.
@ Josh:
I have a reply to you that’s on the back burner.
Btw, i can’t help thinking of Cardinal Newman, and how he was buried together with the priest with whom he shared a house for much of his life. It was whst he wanted. Yet he had to be disinterred and moved before the RCC would consider him for canonization… even in death, his unstated orientation was an offense against decency. But re-inter him, and all of a sudden, he gets beatified.
I wish i was making that up, but…
@ Josh:
A few steps ahead – that’s chilling, because the phrase i mentioned means that there’s something *defective* – morally, ethically and otherwise. I think it’s just a more socially acceptable term for various slurs and whatnot.
The divide in conservative evangelicalism seems to be either on the Burk/Mohler side where same-sex attractions are a sin and you must become righteous by becoming straight [1], or on the other side, where celibacy is the only option [2]. Lindsey and Sarah, a celibate couple, have described the way many of the latter sort of churches approach celibacy as an “unfunded mandate.” In this regard, the lack of support for celibate living affects straight and LGBT singles. Although the former clearly have something called “hope,” in the present tense, both see similar treatment from married fellow congregants and church leadership (which is almost universally married as well). There is a distinct lack of guidance comparable to that given to married couples in teaching series, an absence of role models or mentors, a lack of support on a personal / friendship level, a lack of respect in terms of being treated as immature compared to similarly aged married couples, and often a lack of support – if you can call it that – in a denial of opportunities to serve in capacities that are allowed to people who are married. [3]
@numo, yes, I’m still at the same church. With that said, my three-year term on the board is up at the end of this year. I don’t like to burn bridges, but I’ve been planning my escape for a while now. And for what it’s worth, I wrote the above before I saw your comment, and decided to add this before submitting it (MOD: Delete: banned topic). Anyway, it sounds like we’re seeing similar things with regard to how singles are treated.
And yes, I feel that using terms like “SSA” minimizes the experiences in my life that are particular to the lives of LGBT people. You may note that when I use the terminology, I always phrase it as “experiencing SSA,” which is a thumbing of the nose at the evangelical crowd who demand our self-flagellation by insisting that we say that we “struggle with SSA.” I’ve already made it clear what I think about those who claim that we can’t even use the term “SSA.” {sighs, shakes head, and puts palm to face}
[1] There is no evidence whatsoever, not a single drop, that any sort of sexual orientation change effort can effect a change in anyone’s orientation. A small number of people have experienced a “small shift along a continuum,” to quote – without looking, I think… – Mark Yarhouse, but it has not been shown that they weren’t bi- to begin with, and on this basis, telling any lesbian or gay person that there is a chance that their orientation might change to make a mixed-orientation marriage viable is nothing but false hope.
[2] Some present mixed-orientation as another “option,” but that is an exceedingly failure-prone path for people who are Kinsey 6’s on the zero to six scale of straight to gay, and feels like a slap in the face when suggested by people who have no idea what it’s like to be the complete opposite of straight.
[3] I have been fortunate to avoid some of these pitfalls in my current church as a single person, though it’s clear that volunteer opportunities will likely fall away if it comes out that I “experience same-sex attraction.”
@ numo:
Re. Newman, see
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129930850
numo wrote:
MOD: Delete: Banned topic, but to this point, which I glossed over originally because I didn’t realize you were quoting me, and it didn’t make sense… until now (yeah, I’m spacey sometimes)… well…
Anyway, I now do see your point, and I’d say that the term as you’ve heard it used carries a darker meaning than I had assumed. In that regard, these churches may be closer in position than I’d implied before.
On a related note, the RCC considers people with “SSA” to be “intrinsically disordered.” I have a lot fewer reservations about the Catholic Church than most Baptists, but that is one of the major reasons why I can’t see myself ever swimming the Tiber.
Josh wrote:
Exactly. And that’s because, in their doctrine, EVERYTHING about a gay person’s sexuality is “depraved”, so even the slightest expression is sinful. On the other hand, a straight’s sexuality is the original, per se, so there’s still room for some (albeit minimal) expression.
numo wrote:
I thought I was the only one who didn’t like “SSA”. To me, it just feels like a sly way of saying that gay people don’t exist, they just have something wrong with them.
@ Corbin:
Yep, though Denny Burk is consistent in this regard, in that he says that a man is not allowed to feel attraction to a woman until they get married.
Adam Borsay wrote:
That’s like saying I hope my peach isn’t a green bean. The only way we’d be upset with someone using a proxy server, they would know it and be doing it on purpose. This is a topic that needs to die. If you don’t understand proxy servers you can ignore the entire issue.
Josh wrote:
Seriously? So what are your feelings toward your future wife supposed to be? Indifference?
@ Darcyjo:
A deacon at my church is leading a similar celibate life.
I’m not surprised Albert Mohler doesn’t get it. You may remember that 11 years ago he gave a speech, later rebroadcast on a nationally syndicated family-oriented radio program, in which he pronounced delay of marriage a “sin,” blamed single Christian men for this “sin,” and all but called singleness a sin. He subsequently clarified singleness is not a sin following an outcry among Christian singles and many others.
This is really just the white hood coming off. Some of these “leaders” speak passionately about not being against “gay people”, but as soon as any option presents itself for their inclusion in Christian fellowship, they find another reason to exclude them. It is bigotry, plain and simple.
NC Now wrote:
I’m guessing surprise, when you find out whom your parents have arranged for you to marry.
(I couldn’t say that with a straight face, although, arguably, I can’t say anything with a straight face…)
@ singleman:
If my math is right, I’d have been finishing up high school when Mohler made those pronouncements, so I didn’t hear them firsthand, but I did run into the aftermath on the web. Between bashing people who don’t get married quickly enough, claiming that non-straight attractions are intrinsically sinful, saying that – if I recall correctly – you have to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old to be a true Christian, among much more, I think we could almost make a game of trying to predict “at what angle will he insert his foot into his mouth this time?”
@ Josh:
Or even worse, “strugglers” as code for gay people. It’s awful. Back in the 90s, i actually supported a crew that was part of the larger “ex-gay” deal.
I was reeled in by their claims of substantive change, while also noting that the guys all seemed incredibly gay. Some had married women, and i feel awful when i think of the kind of hell that the straight spouses go through (the gay ones as well, but since I’m a woman, that’s where i gravitate 1st).
All i can say is: my, how times have changed!
@ Corbin:
Exactly. And it’s pretty in-your-face if you’re LGBTQ.
@ numo:
Many of the organizations promising “change” had their roots in the “Word of Faith” movement. They approached change efforts with what we might call a “name it and claim it” perspective. Thus, a person would say “I have become straight,” but that was code for “I have become straight in Jesus’ name,” which was actually a prayer, not a statement of present reality, though some probably deluded themselves that that they had actually, or were far along the path and soon would, become straight. With that knowledge of the [denominational] cultural context in hindsight, it’s easy to see how so many were persuaded that, as Alan Chambers once proclaimed, “Change is possible.” It’s only over the past few years that an increasing number of former leaders of these movements have come out and said that they weren’t changed, nor did they know (m)any who were.
Pingback: Wartburg Watch: Even Celibacy Is Not Enough for Some Christians | Spiritual Friendship
@ numo:
I’ve not been quiet about what perspective I bring to the table, but as much pain as the men have gone through, they have to bear at least some responsibility (the organizations have to take much of the blame, but not all) for marrying women, especially when they married a straight spouse without disclosing their past or present “struggles.”
For the men, at least, they knew what was going on in their own minds, even if they viewed their thoughts through the faulty and deceptive lens provided by the organization. The women, on the other hand, without disclosure, were stuck wondering what hidden faults of theirs it was that their husbands weren’t attracted to them / cheated on them (with a man!) / whatever. It’s a special kind of hell, indeed!
Josh wrote:
LOL. “Sovereign Marriage!” and “Irresistible Matrimony!”
If I never heard what Albert Mohler thought about anything ever again it would be OK with me.
Just sayin’.
Our pastor taught about Jesus and homosexuality a couple Sundays ago. Very proud of him and the congregation that has been very supportive. http://crosswalknapa.org/Crosswalk%20Community%20Church/jesus-homosexuality/
Loren Haas wrote:
You & me both.
@ Josh:
I am all too familiar with name it and claim it beliefs, as they filtered into many churches and organizations that weren’t directly associated with Word of Faith.
One of the most insidious things i ever heard was that people should counter thoughts of “I’m gay” with “i am a child of God.”
And yes, the women married to gay men live (d) through an especially horrible version of hell.
@ Josh:
Help me here, Josh. You seem willing to say some things in a straightforward way, and there is something I need to know. And it is about gay christian celibacy, which I am thinking is not a banned topic, though I have not figured out what the banned topic is. But I am going to give this a try anyhow.
In my extended family there were two (that would be 2) cases of marriage between a gay man and a straight woman. In neither case did the straight woman know that the man she was marrying was gay, or if she did she never admitted it. In both cases the man lived a celibate life (as far as anybody knew) after marriage. In retrospect this looks like it was apparently some brand of gay christian celibacy. Both situations ended tragically with lots of people hurt-not just the straight women.
My question is, are there people out there who are recommending this sort of deception as a christian virtue? Are there people promoting the idea that a celibate gay man ought to do this-get into a mixed orientation marriage by deception no matter how many people get hurt in the process?
Look, if I have not used the precisely correct words in this comment, I have meant no harm. I am not clued into the code words and have been long gone from evangelicalism, and I am doing the best I can here. And I am ‘struggling with’ trying to forgive the gay men involved for the damage done to people I love(d).
Former CLC’er wrote:
If you’re first and don’t realise it until several hours later, does it still count?
😉
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Yes. They will always find another reason to exclude people they don’t like, and then another, etc., ad infinitum.
numo wrote:
Stick with me here- I am talking about gay and celibate, but I have to digress a bit to get where I am going. I want to talk about how the issue is perceived by some people. The issue that I am about to discuss (carefully I hope but with some clinical objectivity) is essential in thinking about gay celibate christians. I am thinking that part of their problem with gaining acceptance for the idea of gay celibacy is the idea that they are not ‘actually’ celibate, and that if they are celibate they are not ‘actually’ gay. Gay but celibate might be a hard concept to get some people to accept.
What the commenter that you responded to was saying was an established idea in our culture and was how the “diagnosis” of homosexuality was made (she did not use the word diagnosis) back in the day and how we were taught to do so when I was in school/ ill fated psych residency. The idea of sexual orientation was not so much the issue as was the issue of what were people actually doing. That idea has lingered to some extent in the larger culture even when it has been dropped by the medical community. The Wiki article on homosexuality mentions that perhaps the word should not be used because it carries some connotations from its prior usages.
Now, which is correct? Well, at the local SBC mega one Sunday evening they brought in a speaker on the subject-not an evangelical but rather a professional of some sort (I have forgotten exactly his degree) to speak on the subject. He was himself gay. He emphasized emphatically just the opposite of what you are saying- that for men the issue is sex-physical sex. He said that he was not qualified to talk about lesbianism but thought that women were different from men in this issue. This is one aspect of the heart of the matter for those of us on the outside looking in. Especially since ‘back in the day’ unmarried people of both sexes, many of whom had life long same sex partners, were not necessarily considered ‘homosexual’ as the term is considered now, though nobody had any doubt as to what the situation was. There were just different cultural ideas about what it all meant and how to think about it.
Cultural ideas do not go away easily.
So, we are getting mixed messages from apparently reliable sources on this very matter. What I cannot figure out is what it is that the people involved want to be called and how they want to be identified. There are some in-your-face folks who talk very loudly about this, but I don’t know if they speak for everybody or whether they are only one slice of the cited population.
@ Nancy:
I am saddened to hear that anyone would have ever advocated secrecy and lies to celibate gay men(or women) so that they could get married so they could give everyone the appearance of being “normal”. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, the people I know who have been “successful” at balancing Christian holy living with their personal struggles is transparency and honesty. In the cases where they are now married it was something that they were blessed to meet and begin a relationship with someone who knew exactly the particular brand of challenge their marriage would face and they entered into it willingly AND with a support system of friendship and ecnouragement. They are sucesful not because they prayed enough of the gay away, but because they don’t hide.
@ Nancy:
Being a young-ish person myself, with no personal experience in the area of mixed-orientation marriage or change efforts in general, I’m going by what I’ve been told by people who have been through one or both of those things.
With that disclosure, I don’t think it was as much a case of deception being explicitly recommended, as it was organization leaders and participants being over-zealous in their expectations (or simply being guilty of wishful or delusional thinking). But I can’t say for sure. Reparative therapy has lost a lot of ground, and I have less knowledge about what is said in those areas today versus a decade or so ago [1]. There is a wide diversity of writers at SF, and the ones who recommend mixed-orientation marriage (ones with whom I obviously disagree) do so with strict demands that the non-straight party completely disclose their lack of attraction to the person they’re marrying (now that I do agree with, if you’re going to get mixed-orientation married against better judgement).
[1] The reparative therapy crowd doesn’t interact much with GCN or SF, so I’m not aware of what they may be saying. When they do drop by, it’s usually to tell everyone that they “changed” and we should shut up about our problems and want it harder and we can “change” too, like they did. This is usually not well received.
@ Loren Haas:
I read that link, and while I appreciate his(and your) viewpoint, we are coming from completely different perspectives. Not to derail the content of this comment thread, but the moment he mentioned that 1- Jesus would have no idea what we are talking about with our modern understanding of homosexuality, and, 2- That our modern world would be a surprise to Jesus in general—-I knew that our basic premises and approach to reading and understanding scripture are so at odds we would never see eye to eye.
What is often missed in these conversations/debates is that the “ground rules” are never established. When you come from completely different perspectives on how one is to read scripture you will not come to the same conclusions. So, before we can even discuss what the Bible teaches(or doesn’t) we have to understand the general approach we are taking to read scripture in the first place.
What I have noticed predominantly in the movement to argue for full inclusion and acceptance of homosexual practice is an unstated approach that takes on aspects of “open theism” and completely unorthodox approaches to reading/interpretting scripture. Which is “fine”….but it is never generally admitted to up front. It feels as if people are trying to convince others about something without admitting that they are subtly influencing them to read the Bible itself in a totally different way without actually having THAT important debate first.
@ Nancy:
There is another side of this, which is becoming less likely over time, but which could still happen. I was born in the ’80s, and it could have happened to me given different circumstances. That is that a person does not realize their own orientation until relatively later in life (mid-20s in my case).
If all you’re exposed to are people who believe that it’s a choice and that no good Christian would ever encounter these attractions in their own life, then as a good Christian kid, depending on how introspective you are (I evidently wasn’t so much), you just assume it’s not what it really is, bury the thoughts, and carry on thinking you’re a “normal” straight person. There wasn’t as much pressure to marry from people and church environments in my life, I didn’t have any desire to do so (completely apart from thinking I needed to stay celibate, I just wasn’t interested in it), and there was a distinct lack of anyone who was interested in dating me.
With that said, if there had been a young woman who had taken the initiative to pursue a relationship with me, and with whom I had been able to form a strong non-romantic friendship, I might well have tricked myself – innocently, I suppose you could say – into believing that everything was normal, to the point that we might have gone ahead to the point of getting married … at least if she didn’t realize my lack of attraction before I did. For what it’s worth, this can and does happen; I know people for whom it did.
Nancy wrote:
I’ve seen this too. The straight wife is incredibly hurt, and the gay husband cannot figure out why she is seething with anger when he leaves the marriage after 15 years and two children, one of whom has special needs.
I had to fight the urge to say, “Let me give you a clue, bub.”
@ Josh:
Thanks for your replies. I guess I need to re-read my own motto: it’s complicated. I don’t know how we all (the culture and the church) are going to get this worked out enough, but a start is a start.
numo wrote:
This. Just this.
I have to wonder how much of the negative attitude towards “spiritual friendships” is subliminally grounded in an idea that an unmarried adult Christian–whether gay, straight or whatever–is just wrong. Some of these male critics seem hyperinvested in the idea of heterosexual marriage.
Josh wrote:
Back in the 1980s, we were taught that if you were oriented “that way,” heterosexual marriage would help you fly right. I came >this< close to marrying a gay man, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet. We're still friends after all these years. But when I think about what could have been, I shudder.
Let me be clear, though, it was taught up until rather recently that GLBT persons should get married. I've observed in the three decades since my 20s quite a number of people having to get disentangled from marriages they went into because they were told this was the right thing to do to "fix" their orientation. And to bring this back around to the topic, I think that "spiritual friendship" is just a way of trying to forestall the inevitable.
I also have to say that the idea of friendship in general in the church is problematic as well, because people are so worried about the spiritual implications that they just can't be, well, friends. I have two really good friends at work, two women (both married) with whom I can talk about quite a bit of stuff. I have more in-depth conversations with these women than I did with "friends" in the church. I've come up against a problem–one of them is retiring in 10 days (taking early retirement) and the other is going to be out for months getting her foot fixed. So I'm thinking, now I'm going to have to find other friends at work.
numo wrote:
This makes me want to cry!
NC Now wrote:
Best laugh of the weekend.
@ singleman:
I truly believe Al Mohler would feel more comfortable in the IFB or some Vision Forum like group. Mohler is so good at pointing out ins of others, I often wonder what he is hiding about himself.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
That s exactly how I fell as well. I am so glad that others understand what has upset me about this subject.
Josh wrote:
When people are so set on pointing out the sins of the world without pointing back to their own sins, I always wonder what they are hiding.
@ numo:
I am so glad the issues are out on the table.
One of the reasons I have great respect for Warren Throckmorton is his willingness to admit that he was wrong and set about righting thing. He used to be one of the big speakers on the reparative therapy circuit until he sat down and looked carefully at the rapidly accumulating data. He realized that the studies proved that reparative therapy had been ineffective on a large scale. He then spoke out about this and put up with much grief for doing so.
Josh wrote:
I wonder how they deal with the fact that Paul had a thorn in his side that didn’t go away? Not enough faith?
@ Loren Haas:
Ask the question: What sins in his life is Al Mohler keeping quiet about?
Adam Borsay wrote:
That is how it looks in some cases. I think that it is also true that some folks have had that important debate first but not with the current people about this current issue. It would not be exactly correct to think that people who come to different conclusions have necessarily done so without due consideration. I know that is not what you said, but I am just taking the opportunity to say this.
A large area of disagreement is what to do with scripture once you have read it. Some things in scripture are not current issues, like circumcision for gentile converts. And some things would actually be misinterpreted if literally reproduced in today’s culture, such as the veiling of women/ head coverings would remind one of islam rather than christianity, for example. So once one deals with the issues that have to be seriously thought about in somewhat different terms in today’s culture, it can be easy enough to keep adding things to that list, rightly or wrongly. There are a number of variables in scripture in the areas of sexuality and marriage (and some other areas) which fall into the category of things that need to be thought about.
IMO the big issue right now is what about scripture. We probably cannot solve that, however, because scripture itself does not spell out the answers as to what to do about some things. Without everything being explicitly stated in scripture we will continue to quarrel about stuff.
Part of the issue may be our culture and its pervasive idea that if I want something, I have the right to have it and also have the right to be approved for wanting and having it.
I live in a prison town. While it may sound demeaning, and I don’t mean it to do so, every argument given for gay marriage or pro gay sex is an argument we hear also for pedaphiles, for those who desire sex with dead bodies, with bigamists, and with adulterers.
Same arguments about being made that way and unhappy if locked into straight monogamous sex. In all those other cases we still have an “ick factor” and just say, well, then you don’t get what you want.
Society seems to be turning off the ick factor on gay sex. That doesn’t, however, make it any less a sin than it ever was.
So it is natural we will argue–those holding to the religious teaching that it is a sin will not be convinced by those insisting on their “rights” and vice versa.
@ Nancy:
When I met with Justin Lee, he told me that he tried to date women when he was trying to *cure* himself of being gay. I wonder if that had anything to so with it.
Recently, I read some article about Mormon women marrying gay men. Here is one article. There are lots more.
http://gawker.com/5917022/im-a-gay-mormon-whos-been-happily-married-for-10-years
Apparently, these men feel that they want to have a family and be accepted by others in the church so they purposely marry a woman-fully informing them of what they are doing.
http://nypost.com/2015/01/05/these-women-married-men-who-like-men-and-theyre-all-ok-with-it/
Josh wrote:
I was at a conference in which a reparative group had a booth. When I asked about the long range statistics, they changed the subject and asked me why I wouldn’t want people to change and be happy. It was useless trying to talk with them.
@ Josh:
Thank you for your thoughtful, moving comment. You have helped me to see some of the pain that is caused by churches and Christians who want to pretend that there is no problem with the way we view people with SSA.
When we do not deal with issues within the church, those issues will come to the surface and we will be forced to deal with them. The church, in general, has done a horrendous job by alienating and hurting those with SSA. I, for one, am glad for the battles playing out in our culture. It is good that the church be compelled to think about the issue, review our history, repent of our rhetoric and show love to those we have marginalized.
Thank you for being willing to share your thoughts here. It helps all of us.
I have been following along in the comments and noticed there has been some debate on mixed-orientation marriages. I think in most cases, it is extremely difficult for a gay/ssa person and wouldn’t advise it. I experience essentially only SSA attractions so marriage is pretty much unlikely in my case. I am beginning to accept the fact that I will probably be single/celibate for the rest of my life, but I am still trying to be open to the possibility of marriage if it’s God’s Will. I’m hoping that if it is, he will make it blindingly obvious.
Anyway, there are cases of successful mixed-orientation marriages (MOM). Some of them have even kindly shared their story on spiritualfriendship: http://spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/10/brian-what-makes-you-tick/, http://spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/03/a-simple-reason-to-get-married-we-were-in-love/, http://spiritualfriendship.org/2015/01/26/wait-a-minute-a-mixed-what/. There are also others like Melinda Selmys and Josh Weed(Just to name a few). So, I guess it just shows that God has a unique path for each of us.
@ Adam Borsay:
I am not sure that being open about one’s SSA before going into a heterosexual Christian marriage makes it right especially when neither potential spouse has any sexual experience.
One of my former Sunday School students came to me about this very issue. The young man she was dating proposed to her and told her that he was attracted to men but felt he would be able to have sex with her and that he would be faithful to her. She cared for this man, was attracted to him, admired his character, and really enjoyed his company.
She came to me to discuss what she should do. Since this man was a great guy and needed her would it really be right to turn him down over sex?
As a married woman, I told her that sex with a man who loves you and really wants to be with you is wonderful and asked her if she wanted to spend her life with someone for whom she would be a second choice, someone who might have to fantasize about a man to be with her.
She decided to turn down the proposal. I don’t feel that I influenced her unduly but rather that my comments allowed her to consider the sexual part of marriage as a legitimate concern.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, he is saying the same thing about gay men that many evangelicals say about straight men – basically, that all men are predatory “s*x werewolves” (sstolen from Hester) who just cannot control themselves. Which is a very, very problematic idea on manymlevels, and whivh is, in the case you cited, out and out bigotry.
@ dee:
Well, for Mormon men, it is aldo about immortality and how thst is tied to marriage and children, especially forthose who have gone through all of the temple ceremonies.
I think you’ll find a boatload of matetial if you look at both Mormon and ex-Mormon sites.
@ dee:
Singer Ray Boltz’s ex, Carol, has written extensively on these topics. I started following her story when she 1st showed up, asking for help, on a gay xtian man’s blog, right around the time that Ray came out.
All the ex-gay groups that i knew of inevitably had support groups for women married to gay men. Kindnof goes with the territory, unfortunately, as people were encouragec to “live out their healing” via marriage.
As for Warren, i know, and i have a lot of respect for him.
@ dee:
Dee, let me ask you something – would you be willing to start referring to gay and lesbian folks as gay, rather thsn continuing to refer to SSA? Josh (and Justin, and so many others) makes a vety good case for why this term is not OK, and i vety much agree with them. I feel badly when i see this term, because of those who have to live with this label, who will never be accepted as they are, for who they are, by so many.
@ Marsha:
I think it is hard to say right vs wrong in this context. If we, in any capacity or degree, reduce marriage to sexual intimacy, we do a disservice to the marriages of countless couples who for reasons different than this have significant issues. Does a woman or man who suffered childhood abuse and trauma, therefore causing adult intimacy to be a very difficult and ongoing problem, not deserve to find a spouse who will graciously serve them as husband and wife even though their sexual life will most likely never reach Nicholas Spark romance levels?
Each individual brings some sort of baggage into marriage. This just happens to be a more obvious one. And in each marriage, convenantly before God, we are called to serve the other without expectation of receiving something in return. If marriage is about something far richer and more spiritually meaningful than physical attraction and sex, then a mixed orientation marriage can be a powerful and joy giving relationship that honors God and blesses the participants.
@ Adam Borsay:
You need to look into this specific topic -gay men married to straight wives – more. It is clear to me that you do not understand what is being said here. I cannot think it is ever good or healthy to be martied to someone who simply cannot love/desire/vvalue a spouse for the entirety of yheir being, and cannot imagine the pain that women martied to gay men go through.
@ Adam Borsay:
You know, the Church of England martiage vows, in an older form, had a phrase that was specific to men. Women did not have to say it. And it Is this: “With my body I thee worship.”
There is a reason that thst was in there, and it is as compelling now as it was back when it was regularly used. (People can still use it as part of yheir vows, but it is no longer required.)
@ numo:
1- I have friends in these exact situation, they don’t regret it, and their marriages, in many ways, are stronger and healthier than many “normal” marriages that I interact with.
2- You are reducing marriage to a sex-centric relationship. There are virtually an unlimited amount of reasons that sexual intimacy in a marriage is not possible in the way we would hope and dream about. If only perfectly “free” sexual expression is acceptable in a marriage, every person who has married an abuse survivor, healthy compromised person, genetic/physical problems, etc, is therefore a sad marriage and we should be encouraging people to ONLY marry people who won’t have any of that sort of baggage and let all those “imperfect” sexual partners fend for themselves.
If I sound overly forceful about this…well I am..as someone who has my own history and who is married to someone in a similar boat…and having counseled many couples who are bringing significant baggage into their marriage….it has never once crossed my mind to say….oh, so your future husband/wife might have a lifelong problem with sexual intimacy because of “x”….well surely you can do better than that…move on from that trouble..you totally deserve to have super awesome sex like all the time…..
@ Adam Borsay:
No, i am not reducing anything. You are not, however, someone with whom i wish to argue on this, so let’s just say we are calling it a day. At leadt, I’m doing so, and i hope you will agree to that as well.
Adam, your comment is exactly why I said what I said to that young woman. Because no one else in the Christian community was going to. They were going to accuse her of reducing marriage to sex and talk about what the man she was dating deserved.
In no way do I reduce marriage to sex – that is unfair – and if my husband were to become disabled I would not regret our marriage for a minute. But that is a far cry from someone getting married and accepting less than what they wanted from the start because the other person deserves someone who will sacrifice their own needs for forty or fifty years or however long the rest of their life lasts. Does anyone deserve that?
I know we aren’t supposed to raise this issue on this thread but honestly, the fact that we are even considering asking hereosexual people to make these sacrifices for someone with SSA instead of allowing them to marry and be happy with a consenting adult of the same gender is absolutely mind boggling to me.
@ Marsha:
This!
numo wrote:
Oh dear. I read at another site that the author, who is gay, preferred that term. I only want to use the term that makes those who are gay feel comfortable.
So, if gay is the word, then I shall use it.
Darcyjo wrote:
Best rejoinder to Messrs. Burk and Mohler I’ve heard so far.
@ Marsha:
I do think each individual has a right to make the choices they make knowing full well what the baggage may be. And I would NOT fault someone for saying, this is not for me. But there are plenty of times one individual feels, not just obligated, but desiring to love and serve someone with any particular type of baggage through the covenant of marriage.
For an unrelated example—Some people are willing and desiring to be married to someone who is going to spend their life as a missionary to some third world country—but someone else, upon discovering that the person they are with is headed in that direction will say, rightfully, I do not want that life. The problem would be if I felt called to be a missionary to calcutta and didn’t tell my wife that until the honeymoon……
It is perfectly legitimate for someone to personally say, I am not able to feel personally comfortable with that “future”. But others, say, I am not only ok with that(though I know it won’t be easy, but I joyfully embrace that challenge.
Switching gears a tad=—-one of the great part of the SF stuff vs reparative therapy is that RT reduces the Gospel to being a “name it claim it” theology. The Gospel means getting “better”. Instead of the Gospel meeting you right where you are, and saying, whether or not you are ever “better” you are loved and valuable. It is like telling someone that the Gospel can ONLY mean they are never sick, or, never die from cancer. It is a lie straight from the pit. SF says, “regardless of whether this changes for you personally, you have value and meaning and are loved.”
linda wrote:
Good night!
It is not the same thing. There is a massive difference, a different planet even, when sex is between consenting adults as opposed to coercive sex between an adult and a child. It is insulting to people who believe in consenting relationships to compare this to the arguments for pedophilia. The same goes for dead bodies. No consent possible.
linda wrote:
Hmmm-ick factor. You do know the pushback that Thabitit Anyabwile got on this subject, don’t you? I do not want to get into Sex 101 but married heterosexual couples often engage in similar acts that gay couples do.
Frankly, i am a bit shocked by your response. It does seem like you need to do some further reading on the subject.
Thabiti’s demeaning and poorly received post:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/08/19/the-importance-of-your-gag-reflex-when-discussing-homosexuality-and-gay-marriage/\
Jonathan Merritt’s response (there’s lots more)
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/08/27/three-things-i-learned-from-thabiti-anyabwiles-gay-rant/
I would ask that you be a bit more compassionate to our brothers and sisters who are gay. They are no more “icky” than you and me.
I think there are two falsehoods that we tell ourselves and others;
1- You will NEVER change
2- You will ABSOLUTELY change
Both of these are lies that set up people for failure, ESPECIALLY with this issue. Can God change SOME people. Absolutely. Will he change ALL people. Absolutely not. We see that in all areas of our lives.
The Gospel encourages us to look not at the limited experience of this life, but live within the promise that may not be fully realized until the new life in eternity. We are called to live today in reflection of the truth for tomorrow. Groups like SF, provide the encouragement, the support and the relationships to equip people to walk that difficult line of the “Already, not yet”.
Regardless of the particulars of someones personal baggage, the Church should be a place that provides the support to strive after that. Any Christian leader (mohler) that attacks these types of support communities is acting in direct contradiction to the truth and the call of the Gospel.
@ dee:
I hear you – this can be very tricky!
Adam Borsay wrote:
Paul said that married people should not deny sex to each other (with one short exception and then by mutual consent) but rather then “come together” again and explained why. I think that in marriage there are expectations consistent with scripture.
I have always been single, and being in my late 50s I doubt that i will ever get married. Years ago, I decided to focus on serving God and others, and let whatever happen, happen. Up to now, it has been a great ride!
Living in an area of California where the LGBTQ lifestyles have been out in the open for decades, I am coming to the conclusion that we all may have some kind of attraction (heterosexual singles as well(), but we are biblically called to channel our sexuality in a God-honoring way. Heterosexual singles can struggle, too, we just don’t talk about it as much (I think). I have a firm belief that God will meet us where we are when we are committed to his stands of sexuality (between male and female, within the confines of marriage).
So, I don’t “identify” with a “swinging singles” lifestyle, I don’t watch things that might oversaturate my libido (think 50 Shades of Grey), and I constantly work on developing my spiritual relationship with God. Lonely sometimes? Occasionally. Tempted to impure thoughts? Sometimes. Satisfying relationships with single and married people? Many because I know my boundaries. Happy, full life? It’s abounding because it is based on my relationship with God as his beloved child.
Have I gotten everything I wanted in life? No, at least not the husband, two or three kids, house in the suburbs kind of life. But I do have a church family that is dear to me (several over the years), friends that consider me family, and a wealth of community and professional relationships I treasure. I also have been able to use my gifts/talents in ways that would not have been possible if I had experienced all of the attachments married life brings.
Our society says we have to have it all, even if it is sinful. I do believe that sexual activities are for the heterosexually married (see Ephesians 5). If we are challenged by homosexual thoughts and desires, or sexual desires of any kind, I believe that God can lead us to completeness in celibacy. I know that goes against the culture, but whoever said that a godly, Christ-affirming lifestyle ever was sanctioned by any culture?
dee wrote:
And that makes it okay safe sex? Because if some heteros do it then it must be a good thing? If you (word omitted) then you won’t suffer the effects of it because you are, after all, hetero? The list of things that heteros do that are not a good idea, some even perverse and some even so dangerous that eventually somebody ends up in the morgue-that I won’t get into. And we don’t care if people engage in activities which can lead to disastrous consequences because they are homo?
I know you did not say all that, but I think some people take that line of reasoning and run with it and that is a bad idea.
I think the issue is much more complex than Christians want to admit. Let’s be blunt….a number of evangelicals are simple minded, black and white. This issue is complex. I know two people who were serious about their faith who came out as gay. My accountability partner in CRU’s brother came out as gay when he attended (I think…) Piper’s church in Minneapolis. I do firmly believe evangelicals need to repent for how they treated gays. Many evangelicals have caused gays searing pain.
linda wrote:
It’s probably never occurred to those who hold such a strong ‘ick’ factor towards the sexuality of gay and lesbian folk, that they (gay & lesbian folk) have the same reaction when they look over the fence at straight sex.
One more thing…evangelicals act like gays are always have explicit sex. Many hetros have and can engage in explicit sex acts as well. AND this was encouraged by Mark Driscoll as well. So what needs to be brought on to the table that evangelicals also engage in illicit sex as well.
Mom! You know what would be nice? Could you contact Warren Throckmorton and ask him to guest write a post on how he changed his mind and why reparitive therapy doesn’t work. It would be cool to hear his thoughts in a couple of concise posts.
Marsha wrote:
I’ve met numerous women who claim they are attracted to men, but explain their sexual attraction also falls somewhere on a spectrum, with one end at 100% heterosexual (attracted only to men) and the other end at lesbian (attracted to other women). They usually identify somewhere between 60 to 90% heterosexual which means they are primarily attracted to men, but there still remains a desire or attraction for other women.
@ Eagle:
great idea, Eagle.
@ Joe2:
Um. Really? You are having conversations about women’s sexual desires with numerous women who confide in you that they desire other women? This just happens to come up in conversation?
Hmmm. Doesn’t make sense. 1+1=2 and it says if. Man has died to their sins then they are dead and incapable of ‘thinking’ about living in sin.
When a thought brews up that is ungodly….. make sure to have enough meditation on the word to banish it beneath one’s feet.
It is like daily gardening of the mind. The icky stuff needs the trellis of scripture or the sin will seep in under the cracks of the door.
All people will have times of ‘loneliness’ in their lives and feel isolated in the wilderness. That comes from all culture around the world. All community choices. It is a matter of how you resolve that issue…… with the word or against the word….. for Christ or antichrist. In love with Jesus or in love with selfish culture….. for theology or for scripture……CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS……
I know that thoughts can and should be wrapped around love for scripture because I have a cousin of mine who is six feet under…… simply because he let the pharmacist and not the scripture and love of God take control of his life.
@ dee:
On the identity / labeling thing, I can only speak for myself, but I am not offended when you use either terminology. What “steams my broccoli” is when the Mohlers and Burks of the world bloviate about how people like I are (i.e. should be, because hellfire) “struggling to overcome our SSA.” It’s all in the context and attitude of the speaker, and for what it’s worth, I have found your treatment to be sensitive and not at all offensive, regardless of terminology.
@ Muff Potter:
Adam Borsay wrote:
The real, solid, evidence-based truth is…
3- You will PROBABLY NOT change.
Let’s face it, I could frustrate myself and waste my life praying and trying to force a change in my attractions, or I could accept things for what they are and get on with living, hopefully growing in sanctification over time – which I do not believe necessarily implies any reduction in the strength of said attractions (other than natural diminishment with age, as most people experience).
To be clear, if you offered me a magic pill that would make me straight today, I’d refuse it. Growing up with the brain I have has been no disability, and if I came out of the womb with a conventionally oriented brain, I’d have ended up a different person – and not necessarily a better one!
@ Muff Potter:
Yep.
@ Eagle:
And besides that, there are more of us than some people realize who, while we love our own kind and wouldn’t mind being intimate with another person, have no desire to engage in that one peculiar act that is so often stereotypically associated with us.
@ Joe2:
Although they are often erased in discussions like this, there are women and men who experience attraction to both men and women. The ratio of one to the other varies from one person to the next, and in some people may fluctuate over time, irrespective of any orientation change efforts. For the record, people who are bi are not saying that they need both a man and a woman, just that they are capable of finding both attractive to a greater or lesser degree. But in terms of this discussion, we primarily seem to be focusing on people for whom attraction to the opposite gender is [practically] impossible.
@ Marsha:
I think that expecting someone to marry without the expectation of a satisfying sexual aspect of the marriage is to put the spouse who wants a sexual relationship in serious temptation of the first man that come along and offers to “help” her with her situation. And have we all not seen that from both men and women? This is not ‘deliver us from temptation’ but is rather asking for temptation. Why would anybody think that is something a christian should choose to do?
Now, life throws curves at everybody and when that happens it just has to be dealt with. But I am talking about an initial choice to voluntarily enter into a marriage where there are serious sexual issues.
linda wrote:
I have had deep friendships with males all my life that I never thought of being intimate with. Some of them I traveled with on business. I realize many people always jump to conclusions but I think people are missing out on some of life’s greatest friendships because we sexualize everything.
All good relationships are based upon trust. If one does not trust their husband/wife in such situations there must be some reason. Why do we assume all people live as sexual animals and cannot avoid intimacy because of approximation?
Moore and Mohler’s differences over this would play out in areas way beyond sexuality (which I probably come out differently on than either of them) if they thought it through. Imagine they were talking about alcoholism. Moore would say that alcoholics might find their condition controllable under the power of the Holy Spirit, but I doubt he’d say they would ever be able to drink socially with friends. Mohler would say they could host keggers.
Off topic. One of the little two year olds in our church was found in the family pond the day before yesterday. The news from the pediatric ICU regarding his cardiac status and his neurologic status is not good today. Father S is on his way over there now. The four year old opened the door, and did not close it and the two year old wandered off. I don’t know how anybody in this family will even survive this. Lord have mercy on these people.
Nancy wrote:
I have to agree. I was appalled when Driscoll was advocating it to pastors wives at an Acts 29 boot camp.
@ Nancy:
I will place this as a prayer request.
@ Nancy:
What a tragedy. I am so very sorry for them. The guilt will be horrendous. God have mercy.
@ Nancy:
oh my. I am so very sorry to hear this. Prayers are (as they say) being offered.
I cannot imagine how they will all get through this, and as for anyone in Father S’s position – it must be so incredibly difficult to know that there is nothing, practically speaking, that one can do.
@ laura:
What?!? If you’re implying that one should trust God and not take medication for mental illness, then I couldn’t disagree more strongly! As to the rest of your post, I’m still trying to make sense of it. I do know that it makes life torment if you convince yourself that it’s sinful to feel a basic biological drive that almost everyone experiences. Those who feel that they must “kill” (i.e. mortify the flesh, or however you wish to refer to it) every slightest attraction toward the same gender end up in deep depression and despair. That is why I say that we should avoid lust, but also avoid conflating with lust the rudimentary feelings of attraction that most of humanity shares in common in one form or another.
@ Tim:
I beg to differ: both are Southern Baptist, so neither would condone any drinking whatsoever. 😉
Josh wrote:
Indeed. I have been (virtually) yelled at on another site for saying as much, bu someone who claimed that if I wasn’t a gay man, I should stop talking about it.
Yep. I think it is FAR more common than most people realize – might even be the norm, rather than the exception. Seriously. And people who have been in entirely gender-segregated environments – English public schools being a prime example – often spend their early lives in same-gender relationships, moving on to opposite-gender attraction, marriage and the whole megillah later on. (Of course, not the men who are truly on the “totally gay” end of the Kinsey scale, but a lot of the rest of the men aren’t there, and lack of access to girls – especially in the early-mid 20th c. – was a big determining factor in this.)
@ Josh:
fwiw, if you like books set in England and/or are a mystery fan, you might really enjoy James Runcie’s interlinked short story collections about C of E canon Sidney Chambers, whose parish is right next to Cambridge, England. Runcie’s lead character is very non-judgmental about the many gay clergymen he knows, who were products of highly homo*social* public schools + universities, in the days before women were admitted to any of the older colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. In fact, there are vignettes of both the C of E at that time, as well as the environment at Cambridge that fostered the recruitment of Soviet spies at Cambridge (most of them were gay), which is a pretty fascinating, if somewhat infamous, story re. pre-war and post-war England.
As an addendum to my back-burner comment about gay clergy in the C of E, the spy situation that I mentioned re. Cambridge has been fictionalized by one other than John Le Carré, beginning in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.”
dee wrote:
Mohler is a fundamentalist. I think he is on a crusade to
destroyreinvent the SBC.@ laura:
I’d be curious to know what the weather is like on your planet….
numo wrote:
For the record, Stephen Fry, who needs no introduction, has said the same thing. So there’s that…
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
My SBC-loving family gets mad if I imply that it wasn’t so much a “Conservative Resurgence” as a “Fundamentalist Resurgence.” But Al Mohler seems to be inching away from SBC as I remember it and closer to an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist attitude, if not entire set of beliefs (well, if you substitute ESV-only for KJV-only, it starts to show further similarities).
Lydia wrote:
Double bingo Lydia! This is so true, so sad, and soooooo vapid.
Josh wrote:
However, public and private behavior may differ.
Eagle wrote:
Plus the highest density of Christianese Buzzwords and stock phrases I’ve heard this side of a bot.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I think he succeeded.
Lydia wrote:
I trusted my husband because I thought you trusted a spouse until you had some reason not to. Then I found out he had availed himself of the women from three surrounding counties (not actually but pretty close) and realized how foolish I had been. Some people did not miss the opportunity to remind me how naive they thought I had been. As in, if you don’t care enough to keep what you have (by watching his every move) then you deserve to lose it. It was not my best day right there.
dee wrote:
As the saying goes, “Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Protestants don’t recognize the Pope as the head of the church, and Southern Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store.”
😀
@ Nancy:
I am so sorry. Many have been fooled. It is a whole other topic that deserves some analysis. I once trusted my own “Christian” family. But as I look back there were red flags I ignored for years.
Dee/Deb.
I may write on this next week in my blog. I have a large number of readers of my blog in the LGBT Community in SE Texas.
May I link this blog in my blog?
@ K.D.:
You never have to ask us permission to link or reprint our posts. Anyone can reprint the whole darn blog and comments if they wish.
@ Josh:
It is really funny bumping into a Baptist in the wine and beer aisle-they quickly throw the paper towels on top of the 6 pack.
Okay – I don’t have time to read all of the comments. But I wanted to add this to the discussion. In my experience – especially in the Word of Faith cult I walked away from 8 years ago – the idea of Spiritual Friendship was itself a no-no. I and a female friend were both told (separately) that we should not allow the other person to get too close as close friendships are dangerous. In the end, it was the fact that we ignored this ‘advise’ and became close that exposed the cultish nature – and the abuses that were going on – and gave us the emotional strength to survive being thrown out/walking away.
In my observation, I believe that culturally, the US has lost the concept of what being a close friend really means. Because we have become, as a culture, hyper-sexualized, and feelings of regard are viewed as inherently sexual in nature, regardless of the genders/orientations involved. Women holding hands, for instance, is immediately viewed as suspicious. It took a while for that same friend and I to not feel awkward when reaching out to hold the others hand just to say “I love you.” For that matter, telling someone who is not family and not spouse that you love them is viewed as suspicious, as well.
Hmm…I feel like I am not expressing this very well. I think that especially fundagelicalism fears close friendships of any kind precisely because of the accountability that is inherent in that relationship. It takes a friend that knows you better than a brother to take you aside and call you on your s***. And it also takes that kind of friend to walk you through the tough path of knowing yourself and being honest with yourself and God.
I believe that regardless of gender, orientation or marital status, we all need to have at least one of these kinds of friends. And honestly, none of us could probably handle having more than 2 or 3 friends like this.
This is a sad statement on the way I was raised and the level to which I sank into the cult-think, but at the moment I realized that it was okay to pursue friendship, I had to actually ask God to show my in the bible what being a friend looked like. Imagine my relief and delight to find that it looked like what I was hoping it could be….it is interesting to do a topical study on friendship in the bible.
Josh wrote:
All leaders of the “purge” in the SBC had to say was LIBERAL and the masses could see them doing no wrong…..man, it makes you wonder if these people can think for themselves? Or want to do so?
dee wrote:
Thank you!
@ Josh:
I know. That’s who i was thinking of when i made the comments that upset that person so much…
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I’d get in trouble with these people. I have two female friends that I am close with. Both are former students, both in their 30s now, both married, and I hear from them on almost a daily basis.
One was even my student teacher, I helped her get her first teaching position, and even sat by her this week at a funeral.
Sex is the least thing on my mind with either lady. I am friends with both of their husbands, both of which I met after they were married.
Why is sex always the concern of these people? Because they can’t trust themselves?
numo wrote:
Cambridge spies !!!
errr, I don’t know if the admission of women has changed much. I don’t know. Perhaps anecdotal ‘evidence’ is all that can be relied on. Maybe Nick can answer that one.
numo wrote:
Watched le Carre’s literary to film adaptation, “A most wanted man” with Philip Seymour Hoffman recently – I highly recommend it.
Josh wrote:
Being a little divergent – this is his take on the differences between men and women… (haaaa)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A211L382EVI
( the excerpt is from this brilliant music DVD http://www.oneworldmusic.com.au/p-53-1-giant-leap-what-about-me.aspx )
@ linda:
linda, if you are not able to tell the difference between 2 consenting adults of the same sex falling in love and enjoying sexual intimacy, then you are the sick and twisted one.
K.D. wrote:
It seems oddly reminiscent of the Red and Lavender Scares of the McCarthy era…
Channeling Headless Unicorn Guy, “Purity of ideology, comrade!”
Interesting article and timely in light of the recent Indiana religious discrimination bill that was passed. I always wonder why SSA is singled out, but divorcees, adulterers or gluttons get such a pass? There are a lot more of the latter both percentage and actual population size.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Too many fat preachers, half the congregation is divorced, and the deacons are hoping for a little sum thin’ sum thin’ with their secretary….
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Scapegoating.
@ Haitch:
Thanks! I really want to re-watch the 80s adaptations of his Smiley books (wwith Alec Guinness), but they are, sadly, not available here in any form at all. I could pay big $ for import DVDs, but I’m not exactly flush, and resellers want too much for them.
linda wrote:
Thank you for being so forthright with your opinion. It’s good to know where people stand and you have left no doubt.
To @ dee: and many others on this thread echoing Dee’s rebuttal, thank you as well.
@ Haitch:
I doubt anything has changed at Eton, Harrow et. al., but i somehow think Oxford’s upper-class students aren’t *quite* the same as they were in Evelyn Waugh’s day (as described by him in Brideshead Revisited).
@ Albuquerque Blue:
De nada. I hope that linda takes note, too.
Burk seems to be assuming that Hill meant getting into a friendship with the person you are SS-attracted to. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure that’s what Hill meant. I read him as talking about two people who both experience SSA bonding over that shared experience.
@ Josh:
Burk is even more clueless than I thought. I’ve never understood how these 100% nonsexual dating relationships are supposed to work. Just because you’re not having premarital sex doesn’t mean sexual attraction isn’t in play. But if Burk has redefined all sexual attraction as “lust” (and he has to have to say something like this), then I guess he left himself no other options. The natural outcome of this logic is the patriocentrist “emotional purity” position where even a crush is “emotional adultery” against one’s future spouse.
Addendum @ Josh:
Or the other logical outcome is, since Christians should avoid all sin and lust is sin, then celibacy is mandatory because the process of finding and marrying a spouse must inevitably involve sin (because all attraction = lust).
@ Haitch:
Yes, it was excellent!
@ numo:
Check the library. That is how I was able to see the 80’s adaptation of Tinker, Taylor…
@ mirele & Josh:
…and if spiritual friendship as an idea catches on and the evangelical mainstream becomes aware of it, then the poor teenagers won’t be allowed to have any friends at all. They’re already not allowed to have opposite sex friends, because male + female = romance/sex ALWAYS. (I gleefully flouted that restriction since it was such obvious BS.) Now they won’t be allowed to have same-sex friends either because OMG YOU MUST BE HIDING GAY.
Last comment directed at Josh, mirele added by mistake.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Been reading up on this from various sources because a lot of what I am hearing makes no sense. It really depends on the source but I kept reading it was like the federal law. This is interesting:
“So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
oops, forgot link
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html
I haven’t read all the comments yet… but a couple of things stand out.
First, I am a celibate (divorced) straight woman, and let’s just say I miss some of the perks of being married, with occasional (I guess you could call them) lustful thoughts. By Jesus’s standard, have I committed adultery in my heart only if I have those lustful thoughts while looking at an attractive man, or have I committed adultery in my heart if I have no particular man in mind when the memory of what I’m missing crosses my mind? I try to minimize my exposure to any and all input that might trigger lustful thoughts; but hey, I’m a healthy heterosexual woman who knows what she’s missing out on, so they do creep in from time to time.
Secondly, I am invited to the wedding next month of 2 women who are celebrating their 35th anniversary of being together by legally tying the knot. And you know what? I’m going. (Their shower is actually tomorrow, and I’m going to that as well.) Some of my Christian friends are a bit skeptical; one advised me to fast and pray on the matter, but no one has specifically tried to order me not to go. Which is just as well, because I’m a stubborn lil’ cuss and don’t take kindly to being told what to do. And I have been trying to hear God’s voice in all this, and everything points to “go.”
For one thing, God arranged it so that I will not be conveniently out of town at the time of the wedding, so from a worldly point of view, I have no excuse (unless I become deathly ill at the last minute, which I am not counting on). I actually have 3 trips out of town this spring–and the wedding falls right between them.
For another thing, these women are my friends. I’ve known them for almost 25 years, and they’re what anybody would call “good people” in a worldly sense (hard-working, law-abiding, don’t cheat on their taxes, etc). They’re very pleasant and likable. They don’t flaunt their lifestyle and they’re not militant.
And for another thing, Jesus said love your neighbor. He didn’t qualify that with “unless their sin is _____ (fill in the blank) and then you’re off the hook.” How do we build bridges to people, especially ones in a camp that much of the world thinks that Christians hate, if we don’t go love on them? And how would my boycotting their wedding be any kind of witness that might draw them (or any of the other guests) to Christ? Rather, my conspicuous absence (and they know I’m a Christian) would probably just reinforce the unfortunate “Christians hate gays” stereotype.
And just for the record… I am firmly in the “homosexual acts are an abomination before God” camp. Or, to use a well-worn cliche, I hate the sin but love the sinners (or at least try to, to the best of my feeble ability).
Do I have a point? Heck if I know.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I have learned that sometimes it is better to let people express their opinion outside of the comfort of their closed system and see just how it sounds to others. When I saw the comment, I almost didn’t approve it because it made me feel *icky* and I knew it had the potential to hurt others.
But, years ago, someone told us not to delete awkward comments. They said that it was important for people to see how some Christians think. And by allowing these thoughts to be expressed, we would give others the opportunity to confront, rebut and reject.
However, this one was hard for me. I am so sorry if it caused any pain to any reader. Please know that such an opinion does not reflect the thoughts or feelings of The Deebs.
@ Lydia:
Having read the Indiana version of the RFRA, I can’t say that I understand it, but I’m irritated with the liberal side who are acting as though the sky is falling because now people can discriminate on the basis of orientation, when that was already legal before the RFRA passed because orientation is not a “protected class” in the state of Indiana, unlike race, religion, and sex. From what I’ve heard from people who are “out,” there doesn’t seem to be a ton of discrimination, but it has happened, and may become more commonplace now that business owners think they have free range to do so (it’s the perceptions that matter most here, I’m afraid).
On the contrary, I’m more irritated with the conservative reporting, because they’re acting duplicitous in claiming that this has nothing to do with discrimination on the basis of orientation, when that was one of the few big things that they were telling Christian business people that the bill would give them legal protection to do while the bill was up for debate.
(As an addendum, dealing with this stupidity from all of my Facebook “friends” – not directed at me, mercifully, because they don’t know that I’m you-know-what – but anyway… that was what I mentioned above that put me in a grouchy mood.)
Josh wrote:
Has it worked like that Federally? I cannot see Bill Clinton or the democrats putting something forward like that. I don’t think how the liberal media is positioning it is how it will play out when challenged. I think it might be scare tactics. This has been around for a while. 19 other states have similar.
@ StillWiggling:
I really loved your comment. So many good thoughts.
I, too, would attend such a wedding and so, it seems, would other Christians. You might find this article of interest. It gives four opinions to the question “Should I Attend the Wedding of a Gay Friend or Family Member?”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march/gay-wedding-attend-christian-marriage-family.html
Lydia wrote:
Remember, the federal RFRA passed in 1993. I can’t find an easy-to-follow timeline, but until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, 14 states still had laws against physical relations between two men. Marriage equality really wasn’t much of a conversation at all back then, either. Many fewer people knew [that they knew] an LGBT person in 1993 than today, and acceptance was lower.
Whatever motivations may have been behind the passage of the 1993 RFRA, I can’t buy that there’s not a desire to ensure that people who wish to discriminate on the basis of orientation continue to have legal protection, even if that is added to the list of protected classes. I hold this to be true on the basis of hearing “family” organizations who were lobbying for this bill say that this is why it’s necessary.
@ dee:
In that article you posted (The CT article on whether to attend a gay wedding), the one person who said she would is Eve Tushnet. She’s an excellent gay celibate Catholic blogger, who is definitely worth following. She also has podcasts.
@ StillWiggling:
I’m right there with you. Thanks for sharing your decision and the background. I would do exactly the same thing. I have gay friends whose wedding I will definitely attend. And I will hug them both.
Josh wrote:
Liberal here, of the sky is falling persuasion. On the one hand, you are correct that there wasn’t any protection for LGBT people to begin with in that state but on the other hand, if these laws are allowed to stand around the country, especially where LGBT people ARE otherwise protected then we have a dangerous precedent with Constitutional overtones.
I believe 38 states now permit parents to neglect a child’s medical care for religious reasons. If a child is obviously seriously ill and a parent neglects to seek medical care and the child dies, then that parent can be found guilty and serve a substantial jail sentence. I believe that is just; however, in most states if the parents can establish that their religion forbids the kind of medical treatment needed or any medical treatment and the child was ‘treated’ with prayer, then they can evade prosecution. I believe that this double standard is Unconstitutional.
Allowing religious people to opt out of obeying laws established for the common good is IMO establishing religion.
Either a law is NOT in support of the common good, in which case it should be changed, or it IS, in which case everyone should be required to follow it. Maybe it doesn’t seem so disastrous when you are thinking that there are plenty of other bakeries to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, but it certainly is when children die of easily treated infections because they have the misfortune of being born to parents who have a religious exemption to child neglect laws.
lydia wrote:
I’m not so sure. I just think he just has the biggest platform and conference circuit, and maybe all the money. But there are plenty of gracious and more traditional baptists out there; Roger Olsen comes to mind. A lot of SBC churches I have been to are just keeping their heads down and waiting for the storm clouds to clear.
Marsha wrote:
Thanks for challenging me with a different angle to consider. I fully agree with regard to medical care for children, and will think further about how this applies to the other angle that hits closer to home.
linda wrote:
You left out bestiality, for shame !
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604
I think Dee can give you the stats on who NOT to leave your children with. I would be more comfortable having my children babysat by the gay couple next door than letting them attend church activities.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
You should read the article I wrote on my blog about gluttony. I explore that issue.
@ dee:
I’d always rather hear a persons true position, even if it’s not an easy one to see people have. It’s something I appreciate about the comment section y’all run. Heck you even let the friendly opposition (me) post freely. Kudos to you ladies.
@ Haitch:
Right on Haitch.
@ Eagle:
Sure, got a link?
Haitch wrote:
As would I. In fact, a safer spot can scarcely be imagined. Being gay, after all, does not make folks turn into Pearlites in any numbers, but who knows what lies in the minds & hearts of that “church lady” with the snippy temperament?
@ Josh:
Josh you may find this link helpful in understanding the problems these sort of bills can generate. It’s not just wedding cakes and photographers that can be affected. http://freedomindiana.org/facts/
@ Lydia:
I watched it on TV when it aired here in the US, but that was a long time ago! Thanks for the suggestion, but i live in the sticks and doubt it could be obtained via interlibrary loan. Will keep trying Amazon, as legit copies show up every now and then, for non-rnon-riduculous prices.
Hester wrote:
This kind of thinking makes me want to weep – do they stay up at night coming up with more & more ingenious ways to weigh people down & mess them up. We had a new ‘elder’ join the eldership team at church a good few years ago – caused a church split as after behaving in a very authoritarian way it turned out he equated his eldership vows with marriage vows, i.e. indissoluble (I could never work out why, & he never let on while being hired). He was a former soldier & he also believed if you look at another human being lustfully then it’s the same as raping them. So conducive to the mental & emotional health of the young soldiers he’d been working with. STOP MAKING CRAP UP RIDICULOUS MEN. 2+2 does not = 22.
Haitch wrote:
I met an elderly man dog walking recently. We talked about life & our work. The penny finally dropped that what he was saying was that he’d been undercover in cold war Russia & had to run when Philby blew their covers. Total goosebump moment with a lovely humble man. I’d love to know the full story but think the official secrets act is till in force for him.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I really appreciate Roger Olson! Thanks for cheering me up with that reminder.
“The only person who has a correct feeling of sexual desire is the person who is married and only feels a sexual desire when he/she is thinking of his/her spouse.”
You nailed it: SSA is viewed as a sin for the same reason that girls have to wear modest clothing.
Many conservative Christians view ALL sexual thoughts or feelings as lust (unless they are toward your spouse in which case all the guilt and shame magically disappears). They don’t differentiate between attraction and a sinful decision to act or think about it in a wrong way. I still believe lust is a sin; I no longer believe I can cause a guy to lust by wearing a shirt which shows some cleavage.
Also, I DO believe a lot of Christians object to any “gay” behavior, whether sexual or not. So it’s not simply are you doing the specific thing that the Bible forbids (or are you tempted to), but if you are otherwise outside of the norm of heterosexual male behavior (whether you actually are gay or not) I think that can be considered at least borderline sinful. Because we frequently confuse ‘normal’ with moral rightness.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I read the article you cited, and I have to say that it has some serious flaws. First let me say that I fall within the group of people who see some dangers for both society and individuals at both extremes of the continuum of this issue. It is always difficult to speak from the mushy middle, but I never let that stop me before, so why would I now?
In the first issue they mention that someone tried to claim on appeal a religious liberty law. Note that this person was already convicted by the lower court. There is no mention of the success or failure of the argument on appeal. So…at one extreme the person might be let to get away with child abuse by such a claim and at the other extreme the person might be denied the opportunity to present to the court whatever argument he chose, reasonable or not. Since the claim was made in a state with a religious freedom law, and since the author of the article did not state the results of the appeal, I assume the person did not get very far with that appeal. If that is the case, then this case would be a good example of the limits of some religious freedom law(s) even when enacted-in other words, a good example of just the opposite of what the author was trying to say.
Under domestic violence he only says “in our history.” Well, in our history we have had a lot of mess we no longer have. The argument needs some current evidence, upheld in court, that domestic violence has been excused as religious in some state that has religious freedom laws. If so, then that would be an excellent argument for him, but if not…
The police officer who refused to attend a muslim event. Well, I read one such case where a police officer refused to attend a service at a mosque, but I am not sure if that is the case in point. In the old days, prior to Vatican II, catholics were forbidden to attend any protestant church service even if it was the funeral of their own grandmother. This was considered extreme by a lot of protestants, but nobody said that they did not have a right to have such rules for their own people. What I am saying is that this is not a new issue in this country-attendance at religious events. I would not be in favor of requiring anybody to attend religious services to which they object, including if it was a police officer. Now a street festival which happened to be sponsored by muslims or hindus or whomever an officer might be required to attend in line of duty. Or some police officer refusing to answer a call in a muslim neighborhood–no way would that be okay. But a religious service, even if it were promoted as a ‘community event’? that just depends. The author did not specify.
As to gay and transgender people being treated with respect by businesses and government offices I whole heartedly agree with the author. Business yes. Government yes. Next door neighbor yes. Who the landlord rents to, yes. That sort of thing. But the business issue is not just about gay and transgender people. It would ostensibly include the kosher Jewish deli and the proverbial ham sandwich. The law would have to be carefully written and I am not too sure that could happen.
Something about sign postings. Not enough information to know what actually went on, but sometimes local ordinances are upheld and sometimes struck down and I see no problem with people challenging local ordinances. Some language should not be used on public signs, some language might be a matter of free speech. It depends. Not enough evidence here.
I think we need to maintain freedoms (not just religious freedom) where we can, within the limits of public safety. For one (not the only) example, public health laws need to be enforced because ‘my’ violation of some such could endanger ‘your’ life. But ‘my’ refusal to attend ‘your’ religious service (that would be attend, not talking about flowers or cakes) does not ‘hurt’ you in any way, and no being ‘offended’ is something that grown ups just have to get over. (I am with Josh on the matter of how much I don’t care if somebody is made uncomfortable sometimes.) On the other hand the terminology ‘public welfare’ understood as what is best for the nation as a whole is a quagmire because we do not any of us agree on what that would be in a lot of issues.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I never look at people as the opposition. I love to hear what people think and how they come to their place of peace with what they believe. As I often say, I get bored of talking to myself.
Also, you are a very kind person and I appreciate your comments. Plus, you live in Albuquerque. I love Albuquerque!
Janey wrote:
Thank you. I am going to check her out today.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Roger Olsen is one of my favorite authors. I was chronically being told by some Neo Calvinists that my objections were not rational and might even indicate a lack of believe in the true God. I felt like I had found an oasis when I started reading his books. He is also a truly nice guy.
Haitch wrote:
I certainly understand why. Also, your comment on bestiality made me choke on my yogurt. Too funny!
@ Beakerj:
Now that is one guy I would have loved to go to lunch with. I always find it fascinating when people run with Scripture and I always have lots of questions.
Beakerj wrote:
I have read that event. Wow!
@ Serendipity:
I have read some articles in which the Taliban want women to not only coverup with burkas but also to make sure their ankles never show. Apparently ankles are capable of causing lust. (Although if they saw my ankles after being on a plane for 10 hours they might reconsider.) Cover up the ankles and I bet cute fingernails would be the next on the “it causes lust” meter.
@ Beakerj:
Wow. Lots of interesting history from the Cambridge spies and on.
I read Spy Catcher years ago. You could not buy it in the UK then (now?) Peter Wright of M15 moved to Australia write it and to have it published because they withheld his pension.
Hester wrote:
You got me to thinking. It appears that some groups think that we are attracted by all people of the opposite sex and we must avoid fanning the flame of lust.But that isn’t true. I have been and am friends with lots of men and really enjoy their company .However, I do not view them in a “gee, he’s attractive and I’m tempted”way. In fact, the more I think about it, the more weird that seems to me. Such assumptions could ruin perfectly good friendships.
@ Nancy:
I am with you concerning both extremes on the continuum. “Mushy middle”…I might have to steal that.
Have people successfully made claims of religious exemption from child abuse laws? Not to the extent that they are found not guilty but definitely to the extent that they receive lesser sentences. Take the case of Douglas and Kristen Barbour, a Pennsylvania prosecutor and his wife. They adopted a six year old boy and a thirteen month old girl from Ethiopia. They sought help for the inevitable adjustment problems but refused to take professional advice saying that the children would need to adapt not the parents. Six months later, the six year old had lost ten pounds, his body temperature had dropped to 93 and he had a skin infection from lying in his own urine. The little girl was brain damaged – brain damaged! – with multiple skull fractures as well as a healing femur fracture and broken toes. Dad got probation. Mom got 6 – 12 months in jail but that was modified to a work release center and she was allowed to go home in the daytime for 6 days out of 7 to take care of her biological children.
The judge justified the light sentences on the grounds that the Barbours were a fine Christian couple whose act of charity had gone awry. The Barbours had the full support of their church who called their prosecution ‘evil.’
How many decades would a meth addicted couple whose children were found in that condition serve in prison?
@ dee:
My cousin took video of a woman being beaten around the ankles with a stick on Chicken Street in Kabul about 10 years ago. Her fellow aid workers had to pin her down from trying to rescue the woman because it only cause more problems. So she got out her camera and filmed it. She got it back to the states. It was a horror to watch how NORMAL this seemed to the other people walking by. It struck me how careful we must be about what becomes our normal.
Their guide told them it was because the woman’s ankles showed when walking to the market.
Marsha wrote:
<blockquote
How many decades would a meth addicted couple whose children were found in that condition serve in prison?
That is a horrible story! But sadly the meth parents might not get much time either except a stint in rehab over and overI have friends foster parenting a child of meth addicts who are battling this very thing. They desperately want to adopt him but it is not looking good. The child literally had scarring on his privates from lying in urine for days. He was seriously malnourished, too.
So what are the courts thinking in both cases.?.. The meth parents are getting an exemption of sorts…but not in the name of religion?
@ Marsha:
That is just really awful in the worst sort of way. But did they claim under some religious freedom law that they had a right to do this to their children? If so, it would be a good example of the dangers of such laws. Or was this some judge making a bad decision, possibly political if he was elected to the bench? I think the issue at hand is whether or not the laws like Indiana just passed, and which several states have I think, are good or bad laws.
Some of us seem to be at home on palm sunday. I am here because the church is going to ‘process,’ a religious word somewhere near ‘walk’ but more formal. Outside and then eventually into the church. I can barely walk as it is–so I copped out of the whole thing. I don’t know if this is going to work between me and the episcopalians. Already the kneeling was about too much, but we will have to see.
About the only thing that old age is better than–is the alternative. Just saying.
@ Nancy:
If you explained your physical condition to the church, wouldn’t they be fine with you sitting through the service? Is there some written rules that you must kneel, sit, stand, walk or you are booted. I’m thinking not.
@ Bridget:
I am sure they would make allowances. But if I cannot participate in what they do, why would I want to go in the first place? I like my methodist church, but with the vertigo I need to go to church with somebody and it is my kids’ church we are talking about. So I am sorely tempted to merely show up once in a great while and otherwise just read the homilies and readings on line. At this church, I think, to be a communicant you really don’t have to show up all that often, and since I am only a visitor I don’t see why embarrass myself and ask for special favors from them basically for nothing. I know that sounds flippant, but that is how I see it.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, when some evangelical churches were going cool hip with about 30 min of praise worship standing up, I became very concerned about the seniors. My 90 year old step dad always trief to make it through. Thankfully at my former church the pastor started reminding the seniors to not feel obligated to stand. It seemed the worship leader could not bring himself to include that!
When I was a kid churches seemed to be much more senior focused and friendly than they are now. Sad.
Nancy wrote:
I too am home. Not happy or feel at home anyplace.
A great deal is the fact the churches today are all oriented for the under 40 crowd.
And like you Dr. Nancy, I’d go Anglican, but my back, knees are shot.
@ Beakerj:
Wow. How did you keep it together? Not sure i would have been able to do it!
@ dee:
You do realize this is also a thing from not that long ago, when women wore full-length skirts? Male characters in some Victorian novels have serious problems when they catfh sight of a shapely ankle or two.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, i would not be concerned about not using the kneelers and such. They know that there are people who can’t, just as they know that there are people who are unable to do the procession thing. Please don’t look at this as not being able to participate – though i certainly can see how it would be frustrating for you.
@ Nancy:
I have been at RC masses where a fair number of people clearly could not use the kneelers or sstand/ssit due to their age and/or physical problems that constrained movement. Nobody bothered them, and it certainly didn’t seem like anyone thought ill of yhem, gave them dirty looks or similar.
I think liturgical churches tend not to be as “lletter of yhe law” about these things as you think, and i hope this stuff doesn’t, by itself, keep you from going as frequently as you would like.
@ Beaker:
Uh…wut.
I’ve heard of vows to an individual congregation being equated to marriage vows, but never eldership vows.
Missing Gram3….hope she’s alright.
numo wrote:
Again, I did not get my point across. First: this anglo-catholic mass at this episcopal church is significantly longer and more complicated that the catholic masses we used to attend. It is very participatory; there is nothing much about it that one might say lends itself to a spectator approach. Now, they would not have a problem if somebody just sat there. These people overlook everything- race, gender, economic status-I never say such overlooking of things in my life. They would not care one way or the other what I did. One of the things we note is how little this worship style is about the individual and how much it is about the group and the liturgical activities. I am the one who would have a problem with just sitting there. At the beginning we just sat through catholic mass until we got the hang of it. This does not lend itself to that, and I am not remotely interested in doing that. Me. I. See no reason to do that. This is the downside of participatory liturgical religious practice. Everything has its strengths and weaknesses. This just happens to be a problem for me, perhaps temporary if I can rehab from this balance issue, or perhaps not. But no, I don’t want to go watch people do what I can’t do like they do., and I don’t really see a reason why I would want to do that.
@ dee:
1. Haha! Silly Dee. You’re attempting to test if the idea holds true in observational reality. YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT YA KNOW. You’re supposed to just believe them.
2. One of my best friends is a guy and I’ve never so much as even had a crush on him, despite the fact that we’ve had lots of intellectually/emotionally deep conversations over the years. He’s basically like my brother.
3. I suspect banning opposite-sex friendship comes mostly from two sources:
a. The one I mentioned above, that all men and all women will naturally start wanting to have sex if they spend too much time together; and
b. Gender stereotypes/essentialism, which tells people men and women are too different to really be able to interact well anyway.
Both (a) and (b) are, as you know, contradicted by, like, everything in reality.
Per (a), everyone of both sexes can probably name multiple people of the opposite sex who they’re not attracted to at all. There’s also an understood exception clause for (a), which is “…except blood relatives.” I.e., if a man and woman spend too much time together, they will always end up wanting to have sex, EXCEPT a father and his daughter, or a mother and her son, or a sister and her brother, or an aunt/uncle and their nephew/niece, etc. This directly contradicts (a) but no one really thinks about it or cares, because (a) is vitally important for some reason.
Per (b), it doesn’t have much predictive value if you actually reason it out. I mean, if (b) was true, why would people need to be discouraging opposite-sex friendships so much? They wouldn’t be happening in the first place, if men/boys and women/girls were so different that they might as well be from different planets and need entire books to teach them how to talk to each other. Except in real life, men and women manage to communicate and have meaningful relationships all the time, without a translator.
@ Nancy:
I get that, and I feel for/with you, believe me. Praying for good rehab.
@ Josh:
Josh, you are wonderful. Can we be friends?
Nancy wrote:
They didn’t claim that they were exempt from the laws but rather that they were utilizing Christine discipline that inadvertently went too far. For some time now, I have been following these cases where Christian couples have adopted children, were unable to compel obedience, and disciplined to the point of abuse. There doesn’t seem to be a discrepancy in sentencing where the child dies; however, short of death, no matter how severe the abuse, these parents seem to get a break.
I, too, am a celibate gay Christian. Thanks for putting this great post together!
Outside of the writings at Spiritual Friendship’s site, I recommend folks read Julie Rodgers’ blog: http://julierodgers.wordpress.com and Lindsey and Sarah’s blog: http://www.aqueercalling.com
I’ve written some about my own experiences of being celibate at my blog, too. http://tetheredsoul.wordpress.com
For me, one of the greatest blessings in my life has been building community online with other Christians ‘in the same boat’. Mainly through a private Facebook group. If anyone reading is looking to find community with other celibate gay Christians, please contact me, and I’d be happy to bring you in.
There is no support from conservative evangelicals or Southern Baptists for celibacy and adult singleness period, regardless if we are talking about homosexuals or heterosexuals.
I’m a virgin past the age of 40 and a hetero. Most conservative Christians do not truly respect my lifestyle.
Much of conservative Christain culture views marriage and having children as the norm. They pay lip service to celibacy and singleness but do not seriously embrace either.
There are many reasons some Christians do this, but one reason (as with their focus on strict gender roles) has to do with the misguided belief that if they uphold marriage, the nuclear family, and traditional roles, they can fight what they perceive to be encroaching sins or problems of the wider culture (such as homosexuality, abortion, feminism).
Some of them are concerned that white conservative Christians are being out-paced by non-white, non-Christians in the reproduction area, so they are really mobilizing white teenaged Christian kids to marry by the time they are 21 and have ten children.
Celibates (whether homosexual or hetero) face ridicule or marginalization from Christians and secular culture, because many people are in fact having sex and view anyone who is voluntarily abstaining as a freak, weirdo, or flawed.
(I’ve seen this negative attitude against celibates on “progressive Christian” sites and blogs as well, not just conservative ones. The Christian progressive are not as enlightened about sexuality as they think they are.)
There will be no communite for single / celibate adults from the wider Christian community, whether they are hetero or homosexual. I’ve written before that single adults (even the celibates) are viewed as potential sexual threats by many married Christians, so married couples make a point not to invite single Christians out to lunch or over for holidays.
Christians segregate singles into separate singles classes and so on (if they even bother to have a singles class. Some churches offer nothing to or for singles).
I think it’s true that a lot of conservative Christians seem to have a special hang-up against homosexuality, but they also have derogatory attitudes towards heterosexual singleness and celibacy as well, because they place a premium on (traditional) marriage and the nuclear family.
So long as (traditional) marriage and the nuclear family are put on a pedestal by wider culture and Christians in particular, I think you will continue to see the marginalization of single celibates, both homosexual and heterosexuals.
(Traditional) Marriage is being used by conservative Christians as a tool to fight things they disagree with (such as secular feminism, that some women are choosing singleness or career over marriage/family, abortion, etc). So long as marriage is being used in that manner, there won’t be any support for singleness, celibates, or celibacy.
(Dee quoting Burk),
Burk writes,
”When modern people talk about SSA, they intend a kind of attraction that includes sexual possibility between persons of the same-sex.”
Christians also buy into wrong headed secular ideas that friendship between two adults is impossible; they insist on seeing a sexual or romantic sub-text in every male-female relationship (or, I guess, in the case of homosexuals, male-male or female-female relationships).
So, Christians believe that there is always a “sexual possibility between persons of different sexes.”
This is one reason conservative Christians are always saying on their books, blogs, and TV sermons that men (single and married) should never, ever meet alone with an un-married woman.
Dee wrote, “No matter how hard they try to be celibate, they are still sinning simply by virtue of having SSA.”
Conservative Christians do this with hetero celibacy as well.
Over and over in their publications, they insist that “lifelong celibacy is impossible” for anyone, so homosexuals should not be expected to adhere to it, or, hetero kids should marry by the time they are 25. Conservative Christians have all kinds of way of dismissing even the possibility of anyone staying a virgin or being celibate past their mid 20s or so.
Many male conservative Chrsitians simply cannot conceive of anyone having the self control to sexually abstain into adulthood; they assume it is impossible for anyone, except for a tiny percentage of people whom God has “gifted” or “called to” celibacy (there really is no such thing).
I had planned and hoped to marry (and yes, to fool around) – I sure as heck was not “gifted” or “called” to be celibate and single this long, that was just how my life turned out.
God did not give me any superpowers to not cave in to having sex. Anyone can abstain for decades – it does not take special giftings or callings. It’s a self-discipline.
Conservative Christians also say virginity and celibacy don’t really matter – to insist that they do matter and are biblical stances or behaviors is to shame people who fornicate, they say, so Christians should avoid supporting both.
There is no value placed on virginity and celibacy for anyone over the age of 25 in conservative Christianity, not for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Dee wrote, “Al Mohler seems to think that the gospel™ will make SSA go *poof.*”
They feel that way about a host of issues. They think a mere belief in the Gospel will heal depression, domestic violence, a stubbed toe, a paper cut.
I have respect for the Gospel message, but no, it does not automatically heal most people who believe in it from physical, mental health, or relationship problems.
You occasionally might hear of the testimony where the person says (I know I’ve heard some of these), “I was a raging alcoholic until I accepted Christ, and presto, all desire for alcohol was removed.”
However, for the vast majority of people I’ve met or read about, an instant healing or delivery from whatever they are battling does not happen. Some people have to fight their demons or temptations their entire lives. The Gospel does not magically deliver most people on the spot from whatever problems they face.
numo wrote:
Those who have SSA are called by Christ to live the same as hetero singles. Anyone can be celibate over a lifetime. I’m over 40, hetero, and never had sex. And yes, I have a normal sex drive and was not expecting to be single/celibate this long.
Lydia wrote:
In my state, child welfare cases start with a goal of family reunification unless there has been serious abuse. Multiple skull fractures would qualify and result in an immediate goal of termination of parental rights.
In cases where addicted parents have neglected but not abused the child, they would be expected to go to rehab, take parenting classes, and prepare a safe home for the child. If there hasn’t been substantial progress by nine months, the goal changes to termination of parental rights. If the parents of the child your friends are fostering didn’t get their act together pretty quickly, your friends could definitely adopt here.
We made a lot of changes to ensure that children get permanent homes within a year and don’t drift in foster care. The parents are provided with attorneys who make sure they know what to do if they want their children back. More than half do what what they need to do. If they don’t, it is not because they don’t understand or aren’t being offered services.
I have observed a lot of court cases in consulting. I never saw one where the parents followed the Pearls or other similar abusive methods of ‘Christian’ child discipline.
@ Corbin:
I’ve seen that too. Conservative Christians often speak out of both sides of their mouths when discussing sex, dating, marriage and other subjects.
I’ve used this one example before, but – single Christian women get told conflicting stuff, such as, Jesus loves you for who you are on the inside, so be yourself and you will attract a godly man.
But, single Christian women are told, men are “visual,” so stay trim, in shape, and diet, because no godly man wants to date an unattractive, unsightly cow.
Single Christian women are told in Christian dating and marriage advice books and blogs they supposed to be sexy but not too sexy.
And you’re supposed to be independent, have your own job and apartment/house, but don’t be too independent and have your own job and apt/house because many men won’t find that attractive. Be independent but not too independent.
One marriage advice book I saw by Christian counselors: on one page in the book, told marriage-minded women to take their time finding a man, don’t rush things.
A few chapters later in that SAME book, though, they were saying “you need to step on it and find a man now, now, now, because eventually, Christian men don’t want to marry an old hag.” -not a direct quote, but the gist of it.
So, according to Christian how to get married advice givers: single ladies, don’t hurry to get married, but do hurry to get married before it’s too late.
I have sense found much peace since I’ve learned to make my own choices about dating, marriage, and other things, and have started disregarding most everything I’ve read or ever will read by preachers or Christian book authors.
I’ve noticed a lot of Non-Christians marry just fine without using or believing in the Bible or Christian dating booklets and blogs.
@ Daisy:
Daisy, what is true for you (or me, and I’m older than you and also have been celibate for a long time) is *not* necessarily true for everyone out there. It might seem like it’s easy, but for other people it just isn’t – for all kinds of reasons, many of them having nothing to do with libido.
Josh wrote:
I think this runs a little deeper than sexual orientation. Conservative Christians are utterly fixated with marriage and procreation, though the Bible is not.
Interesting most Christians like this will instantly quote ‘be fruitful and multiply’ from Genesis at adult singles and celibates but then totally ignore or downplay other parts of the Bible (from the New Testament) that affirm God is fine with someone being single, celibate, and childless.
There is no mandate in the New Testament for Christians to marry or have children, no matter how much the Al Mohlers of the Christian community feel otherwise.
Mohler thinks that being un-married is wrong or a sin.
Mohler doesn’t think unmarried men can or should be preachers. You can google for that.
Some single lady wrote a rebuttal to Mohler here:
“Is Singleness a Sin?”
http://www.crosswalk.com/11621125/
Josh wrote:
That is really odd. Why would anyone want to marry anyone if there was not an initial state of attraction for both? (That is, women are sometimes attracted to men too.)
numo wrote:
Celibacy is possible for anyone. I didn’t say it’s easy for me. It’s not. Where did I say it’s easy? I did not.
But to maintain this view that it’s tough or impossible is false.
You’re setting people up for failure and lowering the bar of expectations, which actually, I believe, creates more sexual sin.
People are not beholden to sexual urges, no matter how strong they are, regardless of their orientation.
@ numo:
Post Script.
I’m not just celibate, I am a virgin. I’ve never had sex.
Victorious wrote:
Due to your kind comment, I sent her an email to check on her. I will let you know if I hear from her.
Lydia wrote:
See-a woman couldn’t cover herself up enough to stop this nonsense.
singleman wrote:
Which is wrong of him, because the Bible does not command that any should marry, nor does it specify an age at which a person should marry.
Some of the characters in the Bible did not marry until they were 40 years old or older.
Mohler also threw some shade on un-married women, as well, in that address, if I recall correctly.
Conservative Christians assume older unmarried men are playing hooky from marriage and choosing to play on the X-box video game console rather than marry, but they assume older unmarried women deliberate chose to forgo marriage to obsess over career.
There are actually a lot of older single Christian women who want to marry, and they do not understand why Christian men are not asking them for dates.
Nancy wrote:
I think every church should invest in Segways! Wouldn’t Easter processionals be a gas using them?
@ Nancy:
My dad was Russian Orthodox. The devout often stand for the entire service. The really, really devout would prostate themselves in the aisles for the service. Come to think of it, I wonder if that got started when some of the older folks couldn’t stand anymore. Most of those folks on the floor were rather old. 🙂
numo wrote:
Did they get excited over swollen ankles as well?
Hester wrote:
Listen, this week I received a compliment. Somebody called me a badass and it was said in an admiring way. I know because I had to ask. All weekend long i have felt rather cool, even if I need inserts in my shoes!
@ Andrew:
Would you be interested in writing a post for TWW? I would love to feature your story and also have recommended resources in the post. If this is of interest to you, could you please contact me at dee@thewartburgwatch.com
@ mirele:
Yeah, a lot of conservative Christians/churches are not supportive of or conducive to platonic friendships.
They can be just as bad as some segments of secular culture about this – absolutely every relationship is suspected to have sexual or romantic undercurrents. It makes it really hard to have friendships with people, single or married when that is the general attitude.
@ dee:
There is also a large man-shortage in the Mormon church (there were articles about it about a year ago). And the Mormons are just as bad about hyping marriage and the nuclear family as evangelical Christians. So, there are lots of single Mormon women out there – they want to get married, but there are no men for them to marry (not of their religious affiliation).
So here’s the thing. When I see a beautiful woman, I think “Man, what a hottie!” Is that lust? Maybe. Who cares? It is biology. And because I am a grown man, I am perfectly capable of appreciating beauty without devolving into obsession, unfaithfulness, or rape. God made a lot of beautiful women (all women are beautiful), and I for one intend to go about my life appreciating them all. If Jesus decides to scold me for that in the great by-and-by, then whetev. Whatev, peoples.
@ Daisy:
You don’t think this has anything to do with emotional closeness? Comforting one or the other partner? Just plain human-ness?
Because if you do, I beg to differ. People who have sex are not necessarily just indulging in sexual desire. If they love each other, there are w whole host of things that come into play, not least being physically close to each other, expressing love and tenderness, just plain touching (and not simply touching genitals) and so much more.
This is part of the problem that comes about when people reduce all of this to “base” physical desire and biological drives only. You know, people have sex sometimes for the purpose of conception, because they want children, even when neither party is feeling particularly “sexy” or whatever. I wish these things would be spoken about more openly – it would help many people to better understand what is involved, for all human beings.
I like Hester’s comment from a week or so ago, about many evangelicals thinking that hormonal urges turn young boys and men into “sex werewolves.” That is funny, but only because it’s true to the, um, ideology.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I hear you, though from a female POV. Goodness, I even feel these things about straight-looking, straight acting gay men. Oh, the horror! 😉
@ Adam Borsay:
I’ve seen what appears to be a rise in the last year or two of articles about married couples who cheat on each other, sometimes with the partner’s knowledge and/or consent.
In one article I saw, the husband is attracted to horses. He’s married to a woman, but she knows he has sex with a horse once a month. He was interviewed by a New York magazine, it was published on the internet.
In several other articles, I’ve seen situations where the husband has medical problems and cannot perform sexually, so the wife starts a series of affairs with other men.
For some people, unfortunately, marriage is boiled down to being nothing but sexual acts, or getting one’s sexual jollies fulfilled. Some of the married people in these sorts of marriages feel justified starting affairs or getting into “open marriages” or “wife swapping.”
People these days really do feel entitled to have sex whenever, however, and with what or whomever they so desire.
@ Daisy:
Look, people having sex with “partners” that canNOT consent (as with your horse example) is just wrong. Really, truly wrong.
But I don’t think that has much of anything to do with same-sex relationships between consenting adults, does it?
dee wrote:
I’m usually not on Team Linda, but to a degree on this one, I understand where she’s coming from.
I’ve seen people who want to legally be permitted to have sex with dogs, horses, and children say they should be allowed to do so because they were born that way, they cannot help it if they are attracted to dolphins or five year olds.
I think the aspect of things being consensual is somewhat separate – but you do have homosexual rights groups who use the “I was born this way” argument, as well as the pedo groups, and the guys who want to date horses. That is just a reality, that the arguments for all these groups can be similar at times.
@ Andrew:
Certainly!
@ Daisy:
For the past century and change, you wouldn’t. Back in the day, it didn’t matter, because you married whomever your parents selected for you. There are people who have written against what they call “pornographic marriage,” which I understand to be marriage on the basis of attraction (I don’t have sources handy, but Google will take you there, though be careful!). Needless to say, I have no desire to go back to the so-called “good old days.”
@ Daisy:
Throwing shade… now there’s a term that until now I’d never heard outside of RuPaul’s Drag Race… 😉
@ dee:
Segways! One time in a brainstorming session for a Christmas music program, I threw out the harebrained idea that we could open with a song where I would process around the sanctuary and down the center aisle toward the stage on a Segway with a miniature keyboard hooked to a wireless transmitter and strapped to the handles of the Segway. Unfortunately, I didn’t know anyone who had a Segway that I could borrow, and they were too expensive on eBay to make it worthwhile for a one-off joke, so that idea was off the table. Of course, I didn’t tell anyone that I’d first seen this done by Christian “Flake” Lorenz, the keyboardist for Rammstein, in a video of a live performance of “Amerika”… 😮
@ Daisy:
That’s why we have the term “friend with benefits,” and for when someone isn’t interested in providing said “benefits,” we have the term “friendzoned.” At least that’s what I think those terms mean; I’m not in the middle of the culture that frequently uses those terms, having mostly churched friends who at least pretend not to do those sorts of things.
@ Daisy:
apropos of nothing in particular, I have a longish reply to you that’s currently on the back burner. You might want to back here in an hour or two, though it might be visible before that.
@ Nancy:
This actually happens in other contexts.
I just wrote a post about it above. I’ve seen more and more articles the last year where one spouse has a medical problem, cannot perform, so the spouse feels justified having affairs with other people. There are more and more articles appearing all the time about swinging couples and open marriages, even among self professing Christians.
One lady said she uses a cheating site for married people to hook up with other men for regular sessions. One guy she services was 50 years old, his wife had cancer, and so they couldn’t have sex for months because she always felt sick. So this guy had an affair with this other woman.
To a point, I’d agree that sex is an expected benefit of a marriage, but I’d be careful of pushing that concept too far, because you can end up in situations where some Christians argue sex is “owed” to a spouse.
Do you know what happens then? Here’s what happens:
Julie Anne at SSB blog had to write posts exposing creepy patriarchal Christians who don’t believe in “marital rape,” in that they seriously believe the minute a woman says “I do” to a man, that man, her spouse, has all access to her body any dang time he pleases. So, a woman cannot refuse her husband sex for whatever reason, it is the husband’s right.
Married people, I guess, should expect sex – that is a reasonable expectation, but it’s not an absolute right.
If your spouse becomes sick for extended periods, or is in the military for a year or more and they get shipped overseas on a tour of duty, you don’t have a right to have an affair. Time to practice celibacy.
Daisy wrote:
After my experiences with CHRISTIAN(TM) dating services and Church Ladies-in-Training…
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
That sounds like one of the best descriptions of a healthy attitude that I have heard in a long time. More power to ya.
dee wrote:
Both my parents were Southern Baptists, but they drank on occasion. My dad likes beer and my mother liked wine. (My father is still alive but mom passed away). I have a SB uncle who is very anti-alcohol. I don’t drink just because I hate the way it tastes.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I totally agree and see this thinking everywhere, among Christians and Non Christians alike.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I think it depends on the particular church or denomination, because while some Christians do give divorce a pass, while others are very unloving and harsh to divorced people, even towards women who had to divorce their husband because the husband was verbally or physically abusive.
Divorced people in some churches (from what I’ve read of their stories on other blogs), are treated like outcasts, like failures, or with suspicion. They sometimes are kicked out, or asked to leave their church for having divorced their abusive spouse, while the abuser is permitted to stay and is emotionally supported by that church.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, what is the status of that little child you posted about yesterday?
@ Daisy:
I think it is all about respect, full consent, and a truly loving attitude toward one’s partner/spouse.
My dad was at sea for long periods of time as part of his job, so yeah… I think it is doable for both parties, but not necessarily easy, especially due to loneliness. And my mom was treated as a social outcast by many people when my dad was at sea – we’re talking about just people, not necessarily church people. It was very hard for her, and my dad felt awful about this, yet he kept on going to sea.
Hester wrote:
I wonder how guys who promote that view feel Christians should date, or are they into arranged marriages?
If they are okay with dating, I guess they would only support herding a group of singles into a room and putting paper bags over their heads, so people cannot tell what each other looks like?
I can just imagine a group of single adults standing around a room wearing paper bags over their heads with cut-outs so they can see but not have a clue what the other person looks like.
@ numo:
Loneliness is one of the hardest things for people who are unpartnered, imo, or who are separated from their partner for long periods of time (months, even years, depending on military tours and all of that). I think it’s crazy to assume that it *isn’t* difficult, and not necessarily all about libido.
Hester wrote:
This reminds me of a study I saw a couple of years ago. It’s not just about Christians, but Christians certainly push this false idea that one can or should only get one’s need for friendship and companionship met through an opposite gender spouse.
The researchers found Non-Christian society buys into that idea, so it was discovered that single adults have more friends and get out and help other people more, because they do not have one single person that meets any and all their needs for friendship and company.
The study said that many married couples turn inwards, and seldom to never help anyone outside their immediate family.
This may be one of the pages that discussed it:
“The greedy marriage – The New York Times”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/world/americas/16iht-16greedy.7519861.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Daisy wrote:
True story, along that line. I have disguised the details for my own security. Back in the early sixties there was a couple at XYZ Seminary, both good looking and religiously successful, who had a ministry as it were of this. He was an employee of XYZ and was on site supervisor of the pastoral care students at X Hospital with an office in the psych department. I met him. Nice guy it seems. She was seriously attractive (a knock out actually) and had a job (paid?) of trying to pretty up the wives of the seminary students, and show the women at (related women’s school) how to get attractive enough to marry a preacher while they were there. The very stage presence of this couple seemed to be a selling point for this ideal, and they were indeed looking good. So the idea was how to (a) marry a preacher and (b) how to keep your hubby “happy” wink wink after doing so.
Punch line. Turned out it was all a sham. He was gay and was accidentally outed by somebody and the whole show went off stage. That’s all I know.
Loren Haas wrote:
Oh my gosh, thanks Loren for posting this! I am craving the truth, having spent my life in the evangelical wasteland of America. I am teaching myself ancient Greek, discovering what God’s word really says, and digging through historical info to really get the context of the NT. I don’t necessarily believe every statement this teacher makes, but I plan to investigate every thesis he proposes. Anyone wanting to take this journey with me is welcome to come along.
@ dee:
Thank you!
@ Haitch:
I’d be careful about making too much hay out of that too. Please google the name “Frank Lombard”.
“Gay couple left free to abuse boys – because social workers feared being branded homophobic”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys–social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
Daisy wrote:
I once tried to put a small head of cauliflower on top my winecoolers on the checkout belt when i realized an elder’s wife was behind me in line.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, you forgot to add: and then be ready to give up all your hard won independence to become a properly submissive good Christian (TM) wife.
@ Beakerj:
My theory is that the men coming up with these odd or extreme ideas about dating and lust are by and large being written by 50 year old men who have been married for two or three decades.
What will these men do if their wife dies tomorrow, and they start feeling lonely or randy after a couple of years? You can pretty much bet they will conveniently refine their former views about lust and dating. They would no likely equate finding another person attractive to necessarily being tantamount to being “lust.”
It’s easy for these sorts of Christians to write very stringent rules about dating and attraction in their books and on their blogs, since they are, and have been, happily married for years, and are, I assume, having regular relations with a spouse.
What do they care if Joe Average is single and attracted to men or women, feels lonely, and has urges? It’s not their problem to live with on a daily basis, so they don’t care.
singleman wrote:
There comes that Mormonism lite that the SBC embraces. A youn woman of my acquaintance was called to a meeting with her Ward leader (?) after her first semester at BYU because she wasn’t engaged yet. And it continued every semester for 3 more years.
@ Nancy:
That’s what they call having a “beard.” Inasmuch as I think the term seems demeaning to the women whom it describes, the concept and its implementation are even more so. Nowadays, beards are still common, but they’re worn on the face rather than held in the arms…
For all the mockers who mock and don’t like scripture then they are heading closer to the six feet under state of life, and leading others there as well, which is no life at all. I have a cousin who thought it would be ok to be a part of a special ‘therapy group’ called ‘sexual impurity’ and forget commitment to relationship…….. in college. As a result of not using proper ‘thinking’ and checking ahead of her self, checking with bible knowledge first, she got her self an STD. She almost died in pregnancy. She is not dumb, her mind was not filled with truth of scripture.
Moral of the story. Use your mind to CLING to the truth in the scripture……BEFORE assuming a therapy group will ever solve the sin problem.
A dead person cannot nor ever will want to sin any longer. No gambling, no gluttony, no depression thoughts, no laziness, nothing icky because no heart that beats wickedness.
Plan ahead. Study scripture alone. Take thoughts captive to Christ. St. Augustine speaks of overcoming lusts. Scripture is the method he used to study. Native American rely on ‘great spirit’ for reparative therapy without ‘therapy group’…… I’ve buried an unborn disabled child and SCRIPTURE was the therapy. The purest therapy available. A therapy group that cost one dollar at dollar store.
Celibacy is good for those with any from of sexual impurity problems…… it CAN save their life. Cornering bad thoughts or impure thoughts with words of scripture is therapy IT CAn SAVE from a life of hell on earth. Christ died alone on the cross. His therapy was to go home to the heavenly FATHER.
numo wrote:
I didn’t mention homosexual in my post where I was talking to Adam B. about the guy who is married to a human but who has sex with horses.
Like it or not though, the same arguments homosexuals use are also used by those who practice bestiality and into pedo.
@ numo:
I will probably be getting off in a bit, and I have no desire to get into endless debates with people, so please don’t be upset if I do not return and read it or if I do I do not reply.
Daisy wrote:
The issue of consent among competent adults is never separate.
My stepdaughter was taught in her Christian school that people choose to be gay, that they could be heterosexual if they wanted. I am not talking about people with SSA choosing celibacy or marrying someone of the opposite sex despite their orientation. She was actually taught that people with SSA could choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex so the fact is that this is an important issue in and of itself. The argument for gay marriage does not rest on it, however. It rests on consent between competent adults, something lacking when the object of desire is a child.
As far as bestiality goes, I believe this to be rooted in unfortunate youthful experiences. However, I suspect that pedophilia may be a result of either genetics or something that happens in utero and may not be fixable, meaning that people with this problem need to keep away from children and remain celibate.
We consider pedophilia as heinous and indeed the behavior is. However, there are young people going to therapists for help, people who have not hurt children and want desperately to be normal. The therapists don’t know what to do and have formed a group to try to find or develop effective treatments. Unfortunately, these therapists have been demonized by some Christians.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I hear you, but not all single Christian women are alike, HUG.
As I’ve related to you before, on the dating sites I used to be a member of (and when I was 100% Christian), I came across a lot of potty mouthed, “dude bro”, and/or raunchy single men ages 35, 45, and older, who identify as Christian on those sites.
It’s not a picnic for single Christian women out there in the world of dating, believe me! 🙂
Nancy wrote:
More gays in the ministry than the SBC cares to admit. I knew two couples that filled the bill of that when I was in Ft Worth at SWBTS.
Questions outed one couple when the church family wondered why there were no kids, and she confessed to ( I am thinking to a couple of WMU ladies) why…needless to say, he lost his church position, and they are now divorced.
Not a clue about her, but he’s teaching in a Junior College, has a new partner and when I ran into him in Dallas, couldn’t be happier.
numo wrote:
I never said it was easy peasable, but abstaining can be done.
My father was in the military for many years. He went on tours of duty for year or more at a time. Neither he nor mom had sex with other people.
In light of that, and the Bible says self control is possible for people, and that I’m over 40, still a virgin (despite having a sex drive), I don’t tend to feel pity for other folks who are being asked to abstain (such as homosexuals, for example), or people like Pastor Mark Driscoll who whines when he has to go without relations with his wife for more than three or five days.
Having sex is not inevitable. And people can durn well live without it.
A lot of conservative Christians, though, do not teach that. They think self control is impossible and everyone will cave in. This is one reason they have been strongly advocating for heterosexual kids to marry before they reach 25 years of age.
When you tell people celibacy is too hard (I’m not saying it’s easy, so don’t sugar coat it, but it’s not insanely hard), or you tell them it’s impossible (and I’ve seen Southern Baptists say in their conferences, it’s impossible and it’s an “heroic standard”), you are not helping people who do deal with issues in these areas.
It’s not being compassionate to people maintain the view “celibacy is impossible.”
Beakerj wrote:
That is a way cool story (it made me wonder though how they would apply the OSA to you once you get dementia/Alzheimers etc). I played bridge once with a Polish chap who reckoned in WW2 he would ski in all white, would poke a Russian in the butt cheek with his ski pole and then take off. I’m sure there was a lot more to the story, but that’s all I remember.
Nancy wrote:
Wow.
@ Marsha:
What do you do with the NABLA groups and guys who want to have sex with horses who do argue they are entitled to their choice of sexual partners because they were “born that way.”
The horse guy? He was asked about consent. He had a reply to that, about why he feels either he does have the horse’s consent, or why it’s irrelevant (I can’t recall the exact details, it’s been a few months since I read his interview).
dee wrote:
It gets better – now there’s the Air Wheel ! Someone went past me the other day on one and now I want one too ! (it was Air Wheel lust I believe).
@ Andrew:
Hi Andrew! So glad you have found a community.
Daisy, as I said the difference is obtaining the consent of a competent adult. Pedophiles arguing for the legalization of sex with children are morally wrong and so the man having sex with his horse who is dependent upon him for food and shelter. Just because someone might be born with certain desires doesn’t mean that it should be legal for them to gratify them.
As neurological research continues, it is seeming likely that a subset of murderers may have neurological problems that lead to murderous rage. If so, we won’t be legalizing murder nor should be.
Daisy wrote:
Because lets argue on exceptions and base our opinions on exceptions…
@ Josh:
Josh, I’m interested in getting to know your story more, as I can really relate to it. Would you be interested in e-mailing me?
My e-mail address is ajasdell@gmail.com
@ lydia:
Thanks, Lydia.
One of the hardest parts of when I first accepted myself as gay and committed to celibacy was that I did not know anyone else walking this path.
Through reading the blogs out there and talking to people I met, I stopped feeling so alone. Then I realized one of my long-term in-person friends was also gay and celibate, but he took a bit longer than I did to come out. Through the online community, I’ve met dozens of these folks in person, and it turned out that these aren’t just internet-only relationships, but true friendships. It’s amazing how God has provided community.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Exactly !
And I’ve just gone and confessed to Dee that I have machine lust. For an air wheel. Oooops. I wonder what that’s called, ‘machiniality’ or something. Sorry to be so flippant but some of the discussion here is driving me nuts.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I love your comment.
numo wrote:
That bears repeating.
numo wrote:
Agreed.
@ numo:
Besides, it is really weird. I bet that guy has other problems as well. Little did I know when we started this blog…
Marsha wrote:
Competent adults, even as part of their religious beliefs, can and do consent to polygamy. We have to be careful what we accept as definitive argument.
dee wrote:
Try consulting with Family Court and the prison system! I don’t think I am shockable anymore.
Daisy wrote:
This is really quite simple. If the person/animal cannot consent to it, it is wrong. Add the Scriptural implications and it is really, really wrong. Add to that fact that these people have screws missing.
I saw an interesting Law and Order-SVU in which a doctor was impregnating women in a vegetative state and then aborting the 3 month fetus in order to get stem cells to treat a man with Parkinson’s Disease. Even though this was done for a greater good, it is wrong and illegal. Only the rogue doctor and the patient with Parkinson’s seemed to think it was hunky dory. And this is not a Christian show.
Most people understand the basic moral issue involved in this. There will always be self centered wackos who do not.And those folks, if they are acting on their impulses, will be arrested. I doubt this will change in any near future.
Josh wrote:
If you ever get someone to approve this, call me! I would love to buzz around a church on a Segway.
laura wrote:
Who the heck is a mocker here? And who the heck is suggesting sexual impurity therapy! Good night. I was a nurse in the community for years and never heard about sexual impurity therapy!
Daisy wrote:
They are not the same arguments whatsoever.
Andrew wrote:
That has happened here as well. I planned to write about this in the near future.
@ dee:
Curiously enough, decades ago in the secular realm, having gay men sleep with, um, women who were paid for that “therapy” was one method (and one of the kindest methods, compared to electro-shock and other revulsion “therapies”) that was used in an attempt to “cure” the men. Needless to say, I don’t think that ever had any traction in Christian circles, although a few Christian groups have had connections with reparative therapy organizations that have promoted techniques of using “imagery” (if you know what I mean…) to try to bring about attractions for the opposite sex.
Dee–oh but they are the same arguments–at least here in our town.
Those arguments are: I was born this way. Studies show a hormonal or brain difference. Or, if the hearts fit the parts fit. Or, the heart wants what it wants. Or, who are “you” (whoever that is at the time) to judge me? Or, keep your religion out of my bedroom. Or, there are studies that show cross species copulation or copulation with the young of one’s own species in many animals. Or, the Bible only forbids those things because they were being done in pagan temples. Its really ok today since the pagan worship has been removed. Or, come talk to me about my relationships of love with young teens when you stop eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester clothing.
They really are the same arguments. The same rationalizations, the same excuses.
The difference is that our culture no longer finds gay sex to hold the same ick factor as bestiality and pedo. That is all.
Nancy wrote:
I agree. And actually this is an example where I do think that a practice by consenting adults is socially injurious. (I do not think gay marriage is socially injurious.)
Polygamy as it is commonly practiced in the United States frequently involves making use of a safety met of social services designed for single parents in poverty. It is socially dysfunctional for groups to choose a lifestyle that cannot be sustained without taxpayer support.
In addition, it almost always involves one man with multiple wives. The boys are chased off without adequate education and job skills – again a socially injurious practice. Even where this is not the case, societies where there are more males than available females (sometimes because male children are valued and female children aren’t permitted to thrive) have higher rates of crime and violence and social disorganization in general
IMO, society has a compelling interest in not legalizing polygamy.
@ Josh:
I am thinking that this kind of ‘therapy’ was not limited to gay men, but right now I can’t remember the details. Somewhere, though, I have heard this before in a different setting. Man, I hate it when the whole memory will not snap into place, but I remember a discussion as to whether this was immoral (for the women) if you did it for the right reasons (therapy).
@ dee:
*of course* that guy has other problems. I can’t believe we’re discussing this, actually…
numo wrote:
Nor can I!!!!
linda wrote:
I must disagree with you. There is a difference when consent cannot be freely given. For example, a mother cannot have sex with her 12 yo male son. It is against the law because our society understands the difference. A child cannot give consent. That is why they have few legal rights-like driving a car or fighting in the military or signing a contract.
Now the mother could have sex with another man who is not her husband. It is wrong from a Biblical perspective but it is allowed by the law since both are consenting adults. However, if one of them were mentally impaired, a case could be made for inability to give consent.
Why do you not apply the *ick* factor (a derogatory term IMO which will harm your ability to persuade people to your point of view- but who cares, right?) to unmarried people living together as opposed to having sex (I cannot believe I am going to say this) with horses?
Marsha wrote:
What would you say to a wealthy man who could support 10 wives and a boatload of children? The kings did that in the OT.
Josh wrote:
I have heard of this. From what I understand, it was highly ineffective.
numo wrote:
So, Bill is on call. When he gets home, he always asks “So, what’s going on in the blogging world?” I wonder what he will say if i mention *sex with dolphins?* He has been supportive to this point…
Marsha wrote:
I don’t know what you mean by “demonized” but often therapists will announce that someone is now able to “manage” their perversion. I think most parents would like to know who is “managing” pedophilia who is around their kids in the neighborhood, etc. This is one area where rehab and such can become a problem. The person deserves a chance and has rights but there are innocents to consider and protect.
@ Josh:
Downton Abbey even touched on this concerning Thomas. He got some kind of therapy to turn him straight in the 1920’s. Wonder what it was?
@ Josh:
What about asexual people? There are people for whom sex is no big deal. They never think about it, etc. I know someone married to someone like this and they thought it might be a hormonal problem. That did not work, either.
BTW: What IS normal in this area? :o)
dee wrote:
It certainly was dysfunctional and caused quite a few problems in David’s family alone!
Lydia wrote:
Here is an article that addresses that question.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/60365-thomas-choose-your-own-path-on-downton-abbey-isnt-far-from-the-truth
Lydia wrote:
I mean that Christian bloggers have cited the therapist group as immoral and an example of why the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Someone was ranting and raving about it on another blog. I hadn’t heard of the group so I looked into it and I couldn’t see why anyone would object to therapy. I engaged one of these commentators and asked what exactly was the problem, in his opinion, and he thought that their language indicated some kind of normalization. Specifically he objected to these people as being described as being sexually oriented towards children. I don’t know how else you would put it. They aren’t sexually oriented to adults. The whole point is to find effective therapy and prevent child molestation so clearly they aren’t normalizing this at all.
What else can you do with someone who is sexually attracted to children but hasn’t acted on it but provide therapy? Take him out back and shoot him? Offenders should be jailed, of course, but you cannot imprison people who don’t commit crimes.
@ dee:
thanks! I love the way that show incorporated the latest technology or inventions of that time. Remember the torture cast that was to straighten Bates’ leg? That was a time of great advancement in technology from phones to electricity and they incorporated it into the show.
Marsha wrote:
Aren’t most of them married? I seem to recall reading some stats about convicted pedophiles and most of them being married.
@ Lydia:
I can’t speak for people on the continuum of asexuality, but I’ve heard that they get grief from the usual suspects as well. I find that hard to comprehend, though certainly not hard to believe!
Lydia wrote:
A good percentage of convicted pedophiles are married. It makes a good cover for a determined predator.
Lydia wrote:
I am so sad that the series ends after the next season. However, i heard the producer is going to do a new series following a titled family in the Victorian era.
@ Lydia:
PS All of the Downton’s costumes are on display at the Biltmore House in Asheville through May. I am going to try to get there.
@ dee:
Hemlines. It is always about hemlines. :o) I hope you go! Yes, the series is ending but I can understand why. I told my daughter, who is mourning this loss already, that in years time, they will probably do a sequel of sorts because it really was that popular and by then they will be looking for ideas to redo. I have always been a fan of Julian Fellows so I look forward to any new things.
@ dee:
Ha! Dolphins. I could say more, but won’t, other than that something about this got a huge amount of discussion on the intarwebs about 10 years ago.
@ Daisy:
I would believe that, esp. after watching basically any combox on the internet after an article talking about having single friends while married. They all devolve into three groups: 1) pissed off single people whose married friends dumped them, 2) married people justifying having dumped all their single friends, and 3) married people who committed to keeping their friends and did keep them, but who are completely ignored by all the other people in the thread.
Eagle wrote:
There’s more than just the way GLBT persons have been treated in church. I’ve been extremely unhappy about Gov. Mike Pence signing a law that allows for discrimination against GLBT persons on the basis of religion. Additionally, states are now passing laws not allowing cities to implement anti-discrimination ordinances for housing and employment. I’m posting what I wrote here, but I’m editing it slightly to change one word.
A Sermon for Palm Sunday and Indiana governor Mike Pence
If your religion says you cannot serve a GLBT person in your restaurant, your religion is saying GLBT persons don’t deserve to eat.
If your religion says you cannot rent or sell housing to GLBT persons, your religion is saying GLBT persons don’t deserve to have a roof over their heads.
If your religion says you cannot employ a GLBT person, your religion is saying they can’t have a job.
If your religion is saying these things, your religion is DOOMED** and you need to think very hard about who you’re actually worshiping, because Jesus said nothing about this kind of discrimination. He certainly didn’t say to go get a law passed to protect you while you discriminate against your fellow GLBT persons in basic life functions.
Now hear the word of the Lord (Matthew 25:34-40):
34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[g] you did it to me.’
Thus endeth the sermon.
**Word changed from a six-letter curse word. I had no problem using that word on Facebook, but because I respect the Deebs, I won’t use it here.
Lydia wrote:
The Weekly Standard would have people to believe Indiana’s RFRA is the same as the 1993 US RFRA. It’s not. Plus, 22 years have passed and we’ve had Hobby Lobby in the meantime. Here are some law professors commenting on this in a letter to the Indiana House of Representatives:
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf
I am of the opinion that the trend towards protecting religion at the expense of everyone else has gone entirely too far. I live in the Intermountain West, in a state that has the FLDS. Judge David Sam up in Utah ruled that a FLDS man could avoid a Department of Labor deposition in an investigation on child labor because of Hobby Lobby and RFRA. That is the bridge too far for me.
@ dee:
Yeah, consent is all-important and it’s NOT separable from the orientation issue.
The “loss of ick factor” (i.e., destigmatization) thing is part of the reason that pedophiles are now trying to use the “born that way” argument, because homosexuality did used to be heavily stigmatized. But the full form of the argument isn’t actually “My orientation is inborn, therefore I should be able to act on it.” That’s the short form. The full form of the argument is “My orientation is inborn, therefore I should be able to act on it with other consenting adult(s).” This becomes obvious when you look at the actual ethical arguments made by pro-gay folks, because they (rightly) hammer on consent. Which is why they are against pedophilia and bestiality (children and animals cannot consent), but not homosexuality.
Granted, in popular discourse the full form of the argument isn’t usually stated, and gets boiled down to the short form that leaves out the consenting adults part. That probably has more to do with the fact that popular discourse generally sucks, though, because I have read many, many liberal folks writing about their sexual ethics, and they are unanimously against anything where one party cannot consent. So even if it could be shown that pedophilia and bestiality were somehow hardwired “orientations” (don’t know anything about the research in this department), they would still be against, say, a pedophile acting on his pedophilia, because there is no way for him to act on it without violating someone’s consent.
Personally, I seriously doubt that bestiality is an orientation. I would believe it of pedophilia though. Which is why the full form of the argument needs to be used instead of the short form. Pedophiles like the short form because it allows them to dodge the core issue (consent).
So no, the “ick factor” is not the only difference here.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’d rather remain single than marry a CHRISTIAN(TM) man. Because there are too many CHRISTIAN(TM) men who think marriage is also a key to ownership of their wives. Nope.
…and it turns out that I basically just repeated what Marsha already said at 4:05, just longer and in a different way.
Hester, I loved the way you put it!
dee wrote:
Me three!
dee wrote:
@ Bridget:
Oh my! That comment should start with the second “Dee.”
@ linda:
No, Linda, that is not all. Whether they use the same arguments or not is not relevant to the fact that with gays, it is between two adults able to give consent. Whether someone believes that homosexuality is wrong or not does not negate this fact. Sex between adults and children cannot be consensual in this way because the child does not have the emotional development to give informed consent. Certainly, animals do not. Two adult men or women certainly do.
As the survivor of child sexual abuse, I grow very weary of pedophilia being compared to homosexuality – by either side. You do understand that when when you agree that the two are the same, you are saying that a child is the same as an adult and in so doing, giving credence to the pedophile’s argument? Either that, or you are saying that homosexuals are chidldren unable to give consent…..
I don’t know how to state this any more plainly.
Regardless of whether you are for, against or neutral regarding homosexuality, it is not, nor will it ever be the same as pedophilia. Just because a pedophile tried to claim it is, does not make it so.
dee wrote:
WHY IS IT ALWAYS HORSES WITH THESE GUYS?
About 20 years ago, the “Zoos” (that’s their name for themselves) tried to get into Furry Fandom, loudly proclaiming to all the media that this is what Furry is all about. The highest profile one was a guy called “Hossie” who went on every media outlet he could loudly proclaiming his True Love for his mare (as in four-legged, RL mare) and how he was being Persecuted by sexual prudes for Twu Wuv. Big sigh of relief all around when the guy finally died — that was the only way he could have shut up. Guy was straight out of those PETA types in that one South Park episode.
And 20 years later, I feel the fallout in Bronydom. Thank you, Hossie.
dee wrote:
Here’s something that could get a substance resembling guacamole to drip out of Bill’s ears:
Back in the Seventies when dolphin mating behavior became generally known (as in bi and nympho) it got tacked on to Vietnam-era tropes about dolphins being more highly evolved and ethical than humans (after all, they didn’t have The Bomb or send their offspring to Vietnaaaaam). Result was a short lived advocacy of bi and nympho because dolphins did it.
And when the Shirley MacLaine set hit critical mass in the Eighties and Nineties, there were Spiritual Advisors who (for a fee) would channel pods of dolphins off the Pacific Coast (from as far away as Sidona, Arizona). One of their clients gushed “I had no idea dolphins were so Spiritually Evolved!”
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
— Hunter S Thompson
(So when are we going to see a paycheck?)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Because Ezekiel 23:20.
I don’t know that I could find it now, but there was a video where Dan Savage (who, probably to the surprise of some, did not approve of horse-love) talked about interviewing this guy who “married” a horse. At the end of the interview, when he asked whether the horse was male or female, the guy became all indignant at the mere suggestion that he might want to be with a male horse!
Lydia wrote:
Subversive Wisdom of ha-Tanakh.
Harem polygamy was NORMAL to Semitic tribesmen. So instead of arguing against it (“That’s Crazy Talk!”), Tanakh records exampled of its down side.
Marsha wrote:
Herd Animal harem behavior. The Alpha Male/Herd Bull claims all the females in the herd for himself and drives off any sexually-adult male rivals — even his own male offspring after they reach puberty.
(Or he offers them to the White Walkers at birth…)
dee wrote:
In that scenario, they would.
The patient with Parkinson’s was the one personally benefiting from the arrangement and the rogue doctor was channeling either Mad Scientist or Digory’s Uncle Andrew (“Ours is a High and Lonely Destiny…”)
Lydia wrote:
Subversive Wisdom of ha-Tanakh.
Harem polygamy was NORMAL to Semitic tribesmen. So instead of arguing against it (“That’s Crazy Talk!”), Tanakh records exampled of its down side.
Josh wrote:
I THINK THAT WAS “HOSSIE”!
i.e. THAT’S THE GUY!
After all, he WASN’T one of THOSE!
“What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been…”
— The Grateful Dead
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Found it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDGvnQDbxM
@ Josh:
Thanks for this response!
Hester & Marsha, we are on the same page.
The horse thing? I can’t predict just how violent I could become if a ‘husband’ told me he had sex with a horse. I have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to those who don’t get the consent argument, whether children or animals. Uck uck ick ick ick, get me the breadknife.
Josh wrote:
LOL. Classic.
linda wrote:
I’m in 90% agreement with you. Secular society on the whole has abandonned the Judeo-Christian sex ethic. It never really embraced it in the first place, but it is now openly rejected. That ethic is one man and one woman until death us do part. That is how is was ‘from the beginning’ and Jesus reinstated this under the New Covenant.
That is the dam that has been breached, with a resulting ‘flood’ of immorality. Now even the secular society will try to put sex with children off limits; it tries to rebuild the dam on a tributary further downstream, but imo has no basis for doing so. The arguments you cite that are used to justify homosexuality simultaneously undermine the arguments against paedophilia – or against polygamy for that matter.
The 10% where I might differ with you is I take Dee’s point about consent. I also think it wrong to equate homosexuality with paedophilia, though I am not sure many actually do this. People get very uptight if they think you are doing so. But I wonder if this is because if you argue those who are attracted to children should exercise self-control, why not also argue this for abstaining from homosexual sex, and promiscuous heterosexuality as well?
Nevertheless, even on the consent issue, many ardent secularists want this reduced or abolished for heterosexuality, and in the UK is is routinely ignored as an offence. If you use the same arguments they do about youngish teenagers being old enough to make up their own minds about “relationships” so-called, there is very little left to outlaw paedophilia either morally or legally.
That is why I think the church has either to stand by its traditional and biblical ethic, or abandon it. There is no middle ground for compromise. Regardless of what our opinion is, God is not going to change.
How you deal pastorally with those who have SSA is a different issue, but I don’t think attempts to affirm this in order to appear to be ‘loving’ or to distance yourself from bigotry are the way to go.
@ Corbin:
I am all for being just and kind to people. Understand what I am about to say has nothing to do with some way to put down gays or anybody else. Far from it. But!
‘Born that way’ (a) is not a good argument and (b) is not a safe argument. It is not a good argument because there are a multitude of things that people are born that way with which are considered pathologic (congenital and/or hereditary defects.) Any argument from ‘born that way’ has to include some reason why whatever it is would be ‘normal’ (using a medical word) or why it would not be ‘normal.’ It is not safe, because somebody may find a way to ‘diagnose’ sexual orientation in utero and use this as a reason to abort a fetus who is about to be ‘born that way.’ Think Down’s syndrome. We really need to seriously and carefully consider how we argue for or against something, because any argument, like the proverbial chickens, can come home to roost.
I just posted something, now in waiting, but I need to say this and then have to get busy with something else. The computer referenced Corbin. I did not. I referenced nobody. So when it pops up understand that it was not in reply to anybody–just my thoughts on the subject.
dee wrote:
Faint? Go into peals of hysterical laughter?
Actually, if he is anything like most men, he’ll probably say (in a wry tone), “Yeah, sure; but really, what IS going on in the blogging world”?
@ Hester:
For me it goes further.
I believe that the church has the right to enforce their belief in traditional marriage for those who are members of the church. However, as Christians we believe that the Holy Spirit enters the marriage to give us strength to live in a manner that is taught and the church also provides the support to live as taught. Why should I think those who see things differently than a particular church would agree to live in that fashion?
When Jesus was on this earth, some of the Romans lived in a manner that would allow behavior that was condemned by the Scriptures. Why didn’t Jesus go to war with the Roman culture? He didn’t spend his time condemning slavery, something we all abhor.
I think He was pointing us to a different time and place in which all things would be made right. The first and foremost mission was to reconcile us with God.
@ Ken:
More info? Because I don’t recall ever seeing any secularists argue that (and I haven’t only encountered American secularists, some of them are British too). The only people I’ve ever encountered who want to ignore, downplay and/or abolish the age of consent are conservative Christians. It’s actually pretty common in patriocentrist circles, esp. the extreme folks like Matthew Chapman and Vaughn Ohlman who argue for “youthful marriage.”
I mean, it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me to learn that some secularist somewhere has argued for this, but only because stupid ideas exist in all populations. The vast majority of non-Christians I’ve encountered, are WAY more concerned about consent than Christians.
Glad you disagree about that 10% and agree consent is important though. IMO leaving that 10% out makes consent completely irrelevant. Which it most certainly is not.
I’d also be curious to hear from other UK denizens here on this point, since you singled out the UK and I am not in the UK.
@ Bridget:
I just tried to correct your comment and managed to delete the whole thing. So, as long as I do not hit enter, your comment will remain as written. Coffee-I need coffee!!
Ken wrote:
Ken, I think you need to tighten up your reasoning. To say thus and such was the traditional Judeo-Christian sex ethic and say that that was identical to what you are calling the church’s traditional and biblical ethic is not accurate, and then to say that Jesus “reinstated” something (which would mean it had been done away with) does not all hold together.
The OT had and/or tolerated some sexual ethics which the church traditionally did not carry forward into the church sexual ethics. And the “traditional” church sexual ethics, if by that you mean the past two thousand years, was not limited to lifelong heterosexual pair bonding. And the affirmation now, for example, of birth control is really recent. Marriage has not been the sole centerpiece of traditional christian sexual ethics, for another example.
And Jesus never said that his teachings on divorce were a new thing. He said it had been so from the beginning but Moses had made exceptions because of man’s heart problems (and then he himself right then and there made exceptions.)
As to God does not change. Well, certainly that is so, but people sure change in how they read scripture and what they consider to be the will of God for humanity. And, unless I am mistaken, there have been changes in God’s relationships to man comparing the OT those under the law and the NT requirements for gentile converts.
Ok so here is my question about this topic that has been burning in my mind. You have people who are born with both female and male traits (rare I know) but morally and biblically how would it work of two of them were to get married. Or if you have a girl who was born with both traits and her parents decided to have surgery to only keep the female, discovers that she likes girls? How do we decide of a same sex relationship when there is serious ambiguity as to the gender of the person involved.
Beyond that it does make me wonder with so much gray area where the line ought to be drawn in terms of what is sinful and what is not. I would like to get some feedback on this question though. It’s been bugging me a bit because I’m not sure of the answers.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Thank you for your heartfelt comment!!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You open a whole new world to me, HUG!!!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I feel my mind about to explode on this Monday morning!
Josh wrote:
I will readily admit that I did not remember this verse in the Bible. I wonder if I just blocked it out! One thing is for sure. I am quickly waking up this morning!!
I can’t wait to tell my husband about this verse when he comes home tonight. Imagine the conversation: Me: I meditated on Scripture today. He: Really-what’s it about Me: Read it for yourself!
@ Corbin:
I am waiting for John Piper to tweet it out!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You nailed it!
Ken wrote:
Sorry, that doesn’t wash. There are parts of the Judeo-Christian sex ethic that are repugnant. The first is that women are not equal. Women are treated as property from the Ten Commandments onward. Women who fail to scream loud enough while being raped can be stoned to death. Moreover, there were men, including one man called “after God’s own heart” who were polygamists (that’d be David). So please don’t tell me that the Judeo-Christian sex ethic is all that. It’s not.
Beakerj wrote:
I would enter an order that imposed silence for the rest of my life. Either that or scream hysterically until they gave me IV something to put me out for a month or two.
Ken wrote:
Ken, I do not know. How much of what was once a heterosexual no-no in many evagelical churches is being, well not accepted, but easily forgiven. Whereas in the past, the person would have been condemned.
For example, my wife and
dee wrote:
I’ve heard about this stuff but I just didn’t want to know anything more about it. But then again, I’m of the opinion that wild animals are wild animals and should be treated as such and not used.
Ken wrote:
Can you give me a period in history when rampant immorality was not the order of the day. Even the 1950s, with mom and dad and the white picket fence, allowed for racism, substance abuse (valium usage was rampant), and the three martini lunch with a couple more in the evening. The rampant immorality was just hidden better. I prefer to have it all out on the table.
( my finger hit post too soon. )
For example, my wife and mother both attend SBC churches. ( 2 different ones)
In both churches there are female members who have multiple children without benefit of spouses. And there are many, many members with more than one divorces, with a mix of children when asked, even they have a problem explaining.
While the evangelical church may want and preach one life, one wife, something I believe, ( if something happened to MY Deb, I won’t marry again….perhaps because this one spoils me rotten, or, I just wouldn’t want to go through the courtship period again….)
Nancy wrote:
What I mean is Genesis sets the initial pattern of the ‘one flesh’ union. Subsequently to that, polygamy came in and was tolerated, and divorce as well, which was regulated as you say.
When I say Jesus reinstated Genesis 2, it was to say he excluded once again polygamy and divorce (let not man put asunder), and the combination in a sense of the two in remarriage after divorce – David Pawson designates this as ‘consecutive polygamy’ (this is not the place to worry about any exceptions, this is the rule). Now the Gentiles who became believers were not put under the old Mosaic Law, but they were to keep its sex ethic as a necessary thing by abstaining from immorality in Acts 15. An elder had to be the husband of one wife. The immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God, and the OT still defines what the word immoral means.
Would you agree that there has been a ‘standard’ ethic from the beginning, and despite some departure from it in the OT period, the NT carries on and reinforces the original ideal. In fact it is not the ideal, it is expected behaviour of NT disciples, and it is fair to designate this the Judeo-Christian tradition as there is far more continuity than discontinuity.
Perhaps it might be in order to restate the truth that Jesus came to save sinners, including the immoral, those who have messed up in this area, so none of these sins is unforgivable, but we don’t do anyone any favours by trying to make such behaviour less than the sin it is.
Nancy wrote:
I actually posited that question when SoulForce came to Wheaton College a number of years ago. The college chose my question as one to ask the panel. My question when like this:
Even if homosexuality is found to be genetic (and I do believe it will be found to be some sort of genetic predisposition), why does it make that a net good. Cancer, hemophilia, etc are genetic. Alcoholism may have some genetic links.
I really liked the answer given by the Soul Force leader who is a gay pastor and theologian-he said something to the effect that they do not emphasize the genetic component in the arguments for that reason.
if you read my series that I wrote after meeting with Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network, you will see that I am Side B in the debate-a position that Justin believes is perfectly acceptable.You can read it over at GCN.
https://www.gaychristian.net/sideb.php
However, God gave freedom to Adam and Eve in the Garden-knowing full well they were going to screw it up. If God was willing to give that freedom to his children, who am I to argue. I take CS Lewis’ position that there are two worlds-the secular and the church. He argued it for the sake of marriage but I believe it applies in a larger sense.
“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that… There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not (p.112).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
In my years of being an active Christian-pursuing my faith and observing people, I have come to a conclusion. I cannot force people to see my point of view unless they are part of my faith family. i can argue for the greater good for society but, in the end that usually fails. Even though society, in the past, has agreed that traditional marriage was *good,* divorce rates climbed and children born out of wedlock have skyrocketed. Unless our belief is founded on an understanding of God’s mores, everything will be called into question.
Here is a conundrum.
Traditional marriage in the Scandinavian countries has declined dramatically. Most children are born our of wedlock, people live together outside of marriage and gay rights is accepted. No citizen lives in poverty. You should see their housing for low income folks. They live in buildings with other people who are paying for the apartments. They have cradle to grave health care. Free education. Mandatory long vacations. There are no panhandlers because those who have mental health issues are cared for in a humane way and no one is poor.
I spent three weeks in Sweden and Norway and my dear friends showed me everything for they have nothing to hide from me due to their friendship.
Interestingly, the thing that concerned my friend in returning to her home is that Christianity, although accepted, is not practiced in more than lip service on a wide scale. Those who believe in God as we understand the Bible has plummeted to about 9-10%.If one takes a look at their culture, one sees a great standard of living. In fact, the people in the countries often are at the top of the happiness scales.
(I am missing my Norwegian friend. She has just returned to her home after living here and being my dear friend for the last 11 years.)
In those countries, making a cultural argument for the faith is not tenable since the culture is pretty darn nice and many people are trying to move there (in spite of the cold.)
Instead,I believe that our most effective arguments lie outside of “making culture better”and run deep in our soul to our purpose in being created. In the end it is that God hole in our lives that continues to call out to us. That is something only His Spirit can fill.
To our readers
I am off to lunch to meet a reader who is visiting in this area. We love to visit with any reader who comes to the area!!! I will be out of pocket for a few hours. Deb is on vacation with her family. I apologize for any delay in approving comments.
I plan to continue to this discussion in a post later today in which I will discuss how Calvinista complementarianism is Owen Strachan’s solution to the gay issue. It ought to be a hot discussion!
@ Ken:
Actually, I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but this has been debated ad nauseum by everybody for a long time and there is no need to rehash the arguments themselves. I merely want to have included in this conversation that your statements are not universally accepted as factual within christianity. Anybody who is interested can search it out for themselves.
dee wrote:
You mean we live in a fallen world and I agree immorality has always existed.
I’m not trying to claim otherwise, but I would say things have got worse (in the West) as Christianity has retreated. To some extent there is a cause and effect here. Christianity is rejected because people want no restraint on their ethics in general, and sex in particular.
I’ve personally known people brought up in the 1950’s (from your side of the pond Eisenhower family era) who were abused as children, so I don’t have illusions that this is anything totally new. The world did not fall in 1968, but it did receive a new impetus to live out its fallenness.
mirele wrote:
i) 1 Cor 7 – 3 & 4
ii) You are surely not opposed to the presumption of innocence in criminal cases of which this is an illustration?
Hester wrote:
I’m going by a forum or two, life in general in the UK, reading newspapers and the BBC for my view on a section of the seculiarist population wanting a sexual free for all.
I wouldn’t claim this is scientific, but I try not to get everything from reading internet articles, informative as these can be (unless they are people sharing their ignorance 🙂 ).
Daisy wrote:
“Our Duty to The Party.”
dee wrote:
A Blast from the Past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN65nAkk20
dee wrote:
Good grief! What is wrong with you people? This isn’t a Christian discussion by any stretch of the imagination. Honestly, I have reached my limit of revulsion, and I didn’t even read all of the comments. What a great witness for Christ. Not.
dee wrote:
No worries. I just wanted to make sure Marsha’s good name wasn’t dragged into my foot stomping, hussy fit comment 🙂
Ken wrote:
No argument here Ken about what Jesus said of the perfect world before the fall. But then again, that perfect world no longer exists. We do the best we can with what we’ve got to work with in this imperfect world.
Doug wrote:
Well, it is christians discussing things. We can discuss issues or we can avoid issues, but those are the two choices. One great issue/ problem in christianity is the wide diversity of opinion about so many things, and I do mean differences between christian groups, not just individuals. One group’s statement of faith does not necessarily correlate with another group’s catechism. Not too long ago the primary approach to this was for each group to believe that some other group was just wrong and probably not even christian and we and only we are the true church and only our understandings and practices are the true way to do things and they would then refuse to even discuss it. There was a lot of dogmatic stating of how right one was, but no listening to what somebody else was saying. Now there is a lot of discussion between people of different groups and different backgrounds. Sometimes it gets messy, but I think it is long overdue and tremendously important. Everybody still thinks that they are correct, of course, but at least we are talking.
Nancy wrote:
Nancy wrote:
And don’t forget, Someone is listening to every idle word. And don’t forget that words wound, and in the process of “discussing issues” word can be as offensive as any other physical act. And don’t forget God’s admonition that what we say be edifying to the hearer, building up, and not tearing down.
There could have, at the very least, been a warning label put somewhere.
@ Doug:
I am trying to understand your outrage. What ia it that we should not we be talking about? Most of the discussion is about real issues that real people are dealing with. Many of us know people who are gay and want to understand their struggles in and out of the church. I don’t see what is so outrageous unless you just don’t want to deal with reality around you.
Bridget wrote:
Find your Bible and show me where Jesus, Paul, or one of the other writers discussed fill-in-the-blank with animals, and joked about it, with their followers.
Isn’t anyone aware of what Sunday this is? Isn’t anyone aware in the least regarding their own personal witness? Or their witness for Christ? Seriously? Is this what you want to be talking about, or meditating on?
Totally off topic, but I know many of you prayed for us a few weeks ago when our SBC called a new pastor who told us he would “change everything.”
He has been here about 6 weeks, preached about 4 or 5 of those, and we attended all but one.
It has become very clear he is following the 9Marks play book, including telling us that when he preaches it is God speaking to us, that he is God’s gift to this church, and that to disagree with him is to disagree with God. That is in addition to the totally off the wall unbiblical sermon on turning food stamps into cash in order to tithe them, etc that I mentioned on this forum already.
Yesterday has now become our last Sunday at that church. Since our other Baptist choices are YEC fundamentalists we plan to combine Nazarene SS with UMC worship.
Thank you for your prayers.
@ Doug:
Joking about sexual deviancy (bestiality) is not good. I agree on that. But deviancy is a real issue that needs discussed-my preference would be with a clinical tone but somebody else’s preference might be with a theological tone, but I really don’t see how ignoring something is helpful.
I am not sure if you are saying that christians should only discuss ‘christian’ things and if by that you mean some topic in the bible. If that is what you are saying then consider this, that there is some extremely plain talk in the bible about sex and sexuality, and ‘what the bible says’ is at the forefront of the discussion as to what the christian response to some current things in our culture should be.
As to some sort of warning or alert, if you have some suggestion along that line perhaps, but I don’t know what that would be. We sometimes do use a “trigger alert” for something that might be a trigger for somebody who had been abused especially as a child.
As to easter, well now that is a topic. I suppose for most christians easter is special. Never mind the dates are no doubt all wrong and such, it is nevertheless probably a good idea to have designated holy days. I grew up in a conservative religious traditions that insisted that we commemorate the resurrection ever sunday and said that easter should be nothing all that special. But to each his own about this, I am thinking.
But easter is special in a different way to me. My mother died under suspicious circumstances the wednesday after easter. She was both sick and depressed, the depression being at least partly due to the fact that she suffered in her marriage from some of the very issues we have been discussing. There is no proof that she terminated her own life, but I was there and it sure did look like she did. When I choose to decry that horror and injustice I fully intend for anybody and everybody to hear and take notice and stop some of the garbage that passes for christian thought in this area. My words are not ‘idle’ they are intended to confront and challenge.
Doug wrote:
For one, the great majority of commentors are not joking about anything in this discussion. Maybe you haven’t read the article and all the comments.
Second, a few people have written things that most of us wouldn’t. Does that warrant lumping everyone into the same boat?
Third, this isn’t a forum for Christians only. All comments are welcome, unless threatening or trollish.
Fourth, there are many things in the Bible that we don’t do any longer (such as cutting off hands, stoning, etc.). Are you of the mindset that we can only discuss and do/not do what is in the Bible? That would be a bit obsurd. Knowlege and language conventions have changed much in 2000 years. Besides, we wouldn’t be able to discuss electricity, computers, diabetes, mental illness, the Trinity, pedaphilia, race car driving, etc., etc.
Doug wrote:
It isn’t Sunday. I agree with what Nancy said about this.
I’m not meditating on beastiality just because it was mentioned in this thread. You are making some far out logical leaps, IMO.
Sin always justifies itself.
Read the I Jacob Arminius blog today (or any day). He deals with the issues discussed in this posting better than anyone else I’ve read. jacobarminius.blogspot.com
@ Angelacfr:
I think it’s an excellent and a very important question – I’m starting to seriously research this myself too. (Also it’s not as rare as you might think – some scientists estimate that it could be as high as 1 in 100 births. Once all the statistics are analyzed it seems to wash out to about the same incidence as Down syndrome, which is not actually all that rare as syndromes go.) Unfortunately, though – and not be a downer here – you’ll quickly find out what I did: nobody is talking about this, nobody wants to, and if you bring it up around most Christians, you will completely freak them out and they will change the subject as fast as possible. 🙁
I’m reading Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex by Alice Dreger right now, which I’m finding really useful. It’s not a theology book, though, it’s an overview of medical literature on this topic from the 19th and early 20th centuries, and about the social forces at play behind the scenes.
This is an interesting examination of the potential legal interaction of intersexuality and (U.S.) same-sex marriage law:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html
And here’s the Intersex Society of North America for all the info you would ever want:
http://www.isna.org/
Godith wrote:
Thank you for posting this. It was very edifying and lovely.
Followup about the two year old who was found in the pond. The doctors have advised termination of life support. They tried all they could. The whole church is in tears.
Doug wrote:
How Righteous-sounding.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Hester wrote:
That is a pity. If anybody ought to be able to deal with the tough stuff surely christians ought to able to do so. And ought to do so.
A quote from Peter Marshall:
Too many christians are like deep sea divers encased in the suits designed for many fathoms deep, marching bravely to pull out plugs in bathtubs.
dee wrote:
“I try to make everyone’s day a bit more surreal.”
— Calvin & Hobbes
One of my old pastors used to say, “If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who gets hit yelps.” when he was criticized for what he said in a sermon. Face it. A lot of people here like to think of themselves as loving and inclusive, until someone comes along and objects to what they say.
But hey, what do I know? I am just an abuse survivor who happens to be a fundamentalist. I am used to being told to shut up.
Doug wrote:
Last guy to use that line on me was falsely accusing me of bestiality in an email harassment campaign.
Doug wrote:
Ahhh, a rejoinder from childhood, sort of like ‘your mother wears army boots’ which was also popular in my childhood and equally meaningless.
Actually, I don’t see any truth in your words. Nobody here is justifying sin.
Doug wrote:
For goodness sake, Doug, you just old us to shut up. I am sorry about your abuse but glad you survived. Hang around; you sound a lot like some of us. Except we are mostly not fundamentalists, but if you can get beyond that you might be glad you stayed. Or not. Your call of course.
@ Nancy:
I am so sorry to hear this. Continuing to pray, and shedding a few tears myself.
Doug, no one told you to shut up. No one. You did however suggest as much to others.
Being inclusive doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree. There are many different viewpoints represented here.
Nancy, I am so sorry. What a terrible loss.
Doug wrote:
What “sin” has been committed in the conversation? I really would like to know, since you now seem to consider the conversation sin.
@ Nancy:
That is heartbreaking.
@ Doug:
I think you sain, in one of your early comments, that you had not read the entire thread. If you do, you’ll see that the poster who raised the isdue of bestiality got quite a bit of pushback from many of us. I suspect most all of us wish nobody had gone there, but since they did, a number of us responded. The gist of some of those comments: it is morally and legally wrong. Some of here know a good deal about animal rescue, and some of us have adopted animals that were severely abused prior to ending up in rescue. We fully realize that this is no laughing matter. Unfortunately, this topic gets trotted out whenever some fundies/former fundies see discussions of sexual orientation and gay people.
It would be nice, just for a change, to be able to discuss sexual orientation in a civil manner, without commenters btinging up necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality. Unfortunately, that isn’t what happened, and we are all dealing with the fallout.
@ Doug:
I meant also to add the links on that blog specific to homosexuality, although the whole blog is fantastic:
http://jacobarminius.blogspot.com/search/label/Homosexuality
Godith wrote:
Yes, it is very good and very interesting. Thanks again.
Doug wrote:
No one told you to shut up. I did ask several questions in response to your statement. If you choose to address any of them we would then be having a bit of a conversation.
numo wrote:
Yeah, that would have been nice. Or, at some point to put up a warning label regarding the comments. At the very least.
@ Doug:
Doug, nobody told you to shut up. But this blog has commenters who come from many, many points of view. Expecting everyone to conform to the same views is neither realistic nor, imo, kind. It shuts down discussion in a heartbeat.
If that is offensive to you, then i am sorry, but it isn’t going to change. I am genuinely sorry for the abuse you suffered, and thjnk there are many resources here that can be of help. There is a place where the blog owners discuss the “rules of the road,” which should be readily accessible via the menu at the top of the page. I’d suggest taking a look at it, along with the *many* posts and discussions on abuse.
I told no one to “shut up”. Bringing up a scriptural reference regarding unwholesome communication often brings that response. Say what you want. But if you claim to be a Christ-follower, you have an obligation to honor Him with what you say, and consider how others might be impacted by your words.
If you are not a Christ-follower, then let it go in one ear and out the other.
Had there been a warning label / statement of some kind, I might not have objected publicly. Be careful you don’t become the thing you despise.
Ken wrote:
What about slavery and racism? So, as long as people mouthed the traditional values and owned slaves, sin was not so rampant?
@ Doug:
Doug, we have bern trying to tslk honestly, with you and others. My question (in my own mind) is why some people seem almost delighted to bring up all kinds of perverse behaviors whenever gay prople are mentioned.
numo wrote:
That.would.be.nice.
Doug wrote:
Wow! It must be hard walking out the door in the morning.
numo wrote:
Not directly, no.
But it is pretty obvious that people of certain theological persuasions are dismissed, by some, as unwanted.
But that’s not why I am here anyway, so it doesn’t really matter. As someone else said, whatever.
dee wrote:
I’ve broached the “we are more sinful now than then” topic with Ken in the past. I’ve not gotten much of a response.
@ Doug:
If you wish, give me your contact information and I will let you know when we are going to discuss subjects that you consider unwholesome. Also, please send me a list of those topics.
Whatever you do, do not read the post I am putting up later.
@ Ken:
For someone who says that there have never bern culture wars in the UK, you sure sound like one, frommover here.
How is serfdom in Europe consonant with xtianity, btw? How about Wat Tyler’s revolt and the way it was brutally put down by churvh/sstate? If the UK has always bern so wonderfully xtian, how to you explain the many injustices done to the poor and needy, from land enclosures to workhouses? Or was Dickens making up everything he wrote sbout?
@ numo:
You sure sound like a culture warrior from over here.
@ Bridget:
Yes, it would. 🙁
Doug wrote:
Perhaps you did not see the original comment. A reader commented that arguments for homosexuality could be made for bestiality. I found the comment somewhat offensive. However, in order to lighten the mood, some of us made a joke on the matter.
Doug wrote:
I sure am.
@ linda:
I am sorry.
@ Nancy:
I am so sorry.
@ Doug:
Always?
@ Nancy:
Oh no. I will pray for the family.
numo wrote:
I don’t know. Personally, I do not like it. One of the men I am building a relationship where I work is gay. I don’t care. What I DO care about is that he frequently makes comments about spending the weekend drunk and alone. I am hoping that someday he will trust me enough to talk about his pain, and that I will trust him enough to talk about mine and how faith in Christ has taken away most of that pain.
It’s not that the comments are unhelpful. But, there has to be a way to talk about these subjects without them degenerating into the perverse. If people don’t see it, I am sorry. But I see it, and I can’t be the only one.
One other thing. I have noticed a pattern here since I have been reading. If someone steps outside of the group narrative, they are shark bait. I know others have seen that too. I doubt that the sharks do tho.
Doug wrote:
To what truth are you referring?
Doug wrote:
There is nothing ‘unwholesome’ about discussing human needs, human pathology or the general human condition. There is something unwholesome about continually pretending that everything is really great for everybody and if not then looking for somebody to blame. We don’t pretend that here. Now, ridicule certainly is wrong, but I just checked and nobody actually ridiculed another human being. If you are upset that most of the commenters did not condemn homosexual persons to the extent that some do, well, the commenter above said it well that nothing here is going to change. We do not all agree with each other, and if that is not your cup of tea (and you can consider this the warning label for conversation that you said you wanted) then maybe you would not be happy here.
Doug wrote:
Unfortunately, many of today’s Christian pastors discuss both these questions and compare homosexuals to pedophiles and those who commit bestiality. Do some reading. You might find it interesting.
Doug wrote:
What group narrative? I am the one who wrote the post .I am a single person. Since you read the post, why don’t you tell me what group narrative you are referring to. Also, we allow for dissenting opinions on this blog. Many blogs do not.
dee wrote:
Thanks for that warning, but I do not think your post is unwholesome. I just think the comments cross a line sometimes, and it’s not really recognized or acknowledged by the commenters. Maybe something could be done more proactively, to warn readers when the comments get kind of off color, if you know what I mean. I know your busy, so…
Here are 7 Bible verses which deal with bestiality. God saw fit to address this.
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Bestiality
dee wrote:
Well, kind of. I know you “allow them”, but the ones who do express “dissent” often get driven back into lurker status because they kind of get attacked, swarmed, whatever you want to call it. I have seen it here, and on other blogs / forums.
@ Doug:
Shark bait? That’s just not true, and as to the “narrative,” i would ask you to please tell me what it is? This is a sincere question; i am not being sarcastic.
I found the comments about animals, etc. extremely distasteful, but, as both Dee and i have pointed out, someon invariably drags in those “comparisons” whenever gay people are so much as mentioned. Here as much as anywhere else, unfortunately.
dee wrote:
Well, thanks for the suggestion, but I don’t think so. Many of today’s Christian Pastors aren’t worth listening to, regardless of the subject matter.
Doug wrote:
This blog does not market itself to Christian alone. We allow comments from those within and without the faith. We allow comments that insult us. We allow ourselves to be called names.
I am interested in what everyone has to say. I live in a world that is not one big Bible study. This blog reaches out to all of those people. And sometimes, things can get a bit weird. Once again, this subject came up because a very committed Christian attempted to compare gays to pedophiles and those who practice bestiality. A Christian-mind you.
And I thought it best to lighten the mood. Can you imagine how someone might feel if they are gay and practicing celibacy to hear themselves compared to such people? Good night!
@ dee:
Or just gay. It is cruel and deeply hurtful.
Nancy wrote:
Here is the narrative, and it didn’t take long to suggest that I might be happier elsewhere. Exactly what people like Driscoll said to people who challenged him. Be careful you don’t become the thing you condemn.
Doug wrote:
Maybe a few do. However, I believe that one can stand the courage of one’s convictions. For years, I studies the posts at ExChristians.Net and occasionally tried to comment on them. I was routinely pounced on.
However I stuck it out because I believed it to be worthwhile. I learned so much about responding to strong comments. Also, back then, I used a pseudonym. It doesn’t take much courage to continue to fight back when you are using a pseudonym.
Finally, we have our fair share of atheists, agnostics, and folks from other faith systems. There is a reason for that.
dee wrote:
I 100% agree. That is horrible.
And is it really that difficult for people to understand that what they say in the comment section of a blog might just be as offensive to someone else who wasn’t expecting it?
@ dee:
Well, thanks for the encouragement then. Sadly, Doug is my real name…
Doug wrote:
You are interpreting things through your own lens. I know Nancy. She is a kind and thoughtful person. She will often disagree with other commenters and does so well.
She said something kind to you. Since this blog is a bit different, she thought you might find it more comforting to find another blog that is more homogeneous in its readership. For example, there is a nice blog that discusses prayers and creeds. Another which looks at the meaning of hymns. A number of missionary groups have great blogs on their initiatives.
Suggesting that is not telling you to get lost. It is telling you that you might find other blogs more in line with your system and goals.
Doug wrote:
We are discussing issues on a blog, not preaching from a pulpit and expecting everyone to agree and do what we say. Not the same at all, Doug.
Doug wrote:
Do you know how many Dougs we have had on this blog? Off the top of my head, I can think of 12. I have no idea which Doug you might be and do not plan to ask or check it out.
dee wrote:
I don’t think you realize how condescending that sounds.
Point taken. See ya!
Doug wrote:
I don’t use a pseudonym either….how else will I become famous……if I could only figure out how to monetize it…….
Doug wrote:
Oh, my. Such difficulty communicating.
Probably the most divisive thing a conservative (as opposed to a fundamentalist. They are not the same thing.) can do is point that the arguments being given by many in the gay community are the same arguments being given by those in the pedo and bestial communities for what they do. For that matter, they are often the same arguments the straight adulterers, pornographers, and pimps and prostitutes use. That is simple fact.
Now, if that is offensive then maybe the gay community should target those communities to quit using their justifications for their actions.
It is always and without doubt offensive to ANYBODY, gay or straight, to be told that what we see as who we are or what we deeply desire to do is just plain over the top wrong. We all get offended. Just ask any alcoholic in recovery how they reacted before they hit bottom if anyone challenged their drinking.
So no, some of us will not hush up or go away from the wider social discussion even if we get banned from TWW or any other site for speaking the truth.
It isn’t up for consensus to decide matters of right and wrong. We have a pretty clearly set down set of rules for that from the Bible.
And some of us come from a nonCalvinist theological persuasion, that sees the possibility of redemption and serious heart change for all people, regardless of what their sin is. We would say God compassionately sees your pain, and offers you complete redemption. That might mean disordered sexual urges (gay or straight or whatever) actually will go away. It has happened. It might mean you will still have the urges but will also receive the self control not to act on them. It has happened.
Now, those could be said of any disordered desire, be it my near diabetic inordinate love of pecan pie with good vanilla ice cream, my son’s bipolar hypersexual desires, a hoarder’s desire for more stuff to hoard, a miser’s desire for more money, or whatever. God can take away that wrong desire, or God can simply give us the strength to obey without taking away the desire. In my book, that is the real path of sainthood.
And the simple fact of human nature is that most of us are offended by the suggestion we are slaves to that inordinate desire. Most of us don’t want to be delivered from that desire or to be enabled to refuse to fulfill it and yet go on and have a happy life. What we want is someone to validate our desire and encourage us to fulfill it.
We don’t want to hear we are “missing the mark.” We know that–we aren’t even aiming at the target. We want to hear that it doesn’t matter.
But it matters. It matters a whole lot. It matters, theologically speaking, a hell of a lot.
Doug wrote:
You can pick up your Crown of Martyrdom any time.
The one inscribed with “Blessed are Ye Who Are Persecuted for Righteousness’ Sake…”
Doug wrote:
Not so Doug. TWW is probably the most tolerant blog in all of Christendom. In my opinion, the human parade here has a diversity not found elsewhere. Most of us believe in the ‘live and let live’ credo. Question is, will you tolerate us?
@ Doug:
You twisted my words. I was trying to explain that Nancy or others were not being unkind when they suggested another blog for you to visit.
I did not mean that you should go away. I meant that people were trying to be kind to you, suggesting blogs on which you might feel more comfortable.
So, off you huff. Well, your huff is not dramatic since it is based on silliness.
linda wrote:
I swear this has been a strange day.
Who is kicking anyone off for having a different opinion? Why is that even as issue? I think our blog is the most open of Christian blogs. Look, I didn’t kick a guy off for calling me a minion of Satin (sic). I told him I only do wash and wear. Good night!
dee wrote:
I didn’t leave. I just thought you were done sp*anking me…
@ dee:
So we have a conservative Christian (Linda) bringing up issues that most of us don’t agree with on this isuse. And we have a fundamentalist (Doug) thinking that what the conservative brought up shouldn’t be talked about by Christians, especially on the day after Palm Sunday.
The rest of us seem to have been along for the ride trying to make sense of what the fundamentalist was acusing the conservative about.
Bridget wrote:
You missed the point.
@ Bridget:
My head is spinning.
Meanwhile, Doug didn’t engage most of us who tried to interact with him.
Bridget wrote:
LOL.
@ Nancy:
Oh that’s hard. Condolences to the family and their church community.
Doug wrote:
I did too. Please explain.
Doug wrote:
What is the point then? You want the comments sensored? Everyone on this site is guilty of some (undefined by you) sin because we are commenting on this thread that you are offended by? You are not making sense. Several of us have asked for clarification, but you don’t give any and then “you say I missed the point.”
@ Marsha:
We must be the blog idiots today 😉
Thanks for some assurance that I’m not loosing my mind!
Ken wrote:
Cough cough, I hope you’re not implying…
Marsha wrote:
Ok. I’ll try.
Words mean something. When people comment they should be aware that the words they use, and the ideas they convey, can be as damaging as the acts they are talking about. As a Bible believing Christian (I know, just ignore it) I believe there is a way for people to discuss sensitive topics such as this without resorting to language that is damaging to the hearer. Christians have a responsibility to guard the communication that comes out of their mouth, or on the screen in this case, that it is both honoring to their God and edifying to the hearer. That is not to advocate for censorship, but to advocate for more of an internal check prior to speaking.
I realize that everyone, myself included first and foremost, does not do this perfectly. For that, there is grace. To raise the warning that the Scriptures have some good things to say about the words we use, and some warnings, is not to advocate for censorship or suppressing dissent. It is simply to call to mind, and to be mindful of the fact that being others oriented is the basis of good human relations.
Even people who do not believe in God, who are not sure, or who don’t care often practice good form when communicating online.
A long while ago, I participated in an online discussion about abuse. When the language became vulgar (by my standards) I mentioned something similar since the group in question was a “Christian” group with a mix of non-Christians. (Sorry, but they wern’t) The reaction was very similar to now. There were people who objected to being reminded of the Biblical Standard (and I am not talking about law here) and were even more abusive.
So the point is, the 10% or so that comments, who are self identified believers, ought to be aware that they have an audience of One who will hold them accountable, as He will me, for every idle word.
As we enter the Passover week, whether you celebrate it or not, it would do everyone well, imo, to think about what it is we Christians commemorate, and how that lines up with our commentary.
That said, I apologize if I offended, did not listen, or was abusive with my words. Every once in a while, I find the language used here offensive. Not in the posts, but in the comments section. And every once in a while I feel the need to say something.
I have tolerated a lot of fundy bashing in my reading here. I find it lowers the credibility of those who post those comments. maybe those who post in that way ought to think about that next time. Or not.
Hope that helps!
Doug wrote:
It would help if you would be specific as to who is “Fundy bashing” as you call it, and address the person who is doing it.
Is disagreeing with a Fundy position the same as Fundy bashing?
Ken wrote:
The pill was approved as a contraceptive in 1960. Roe v Wade was in 1973. But what happened in 1968?
Beakerj wrote:
What is he implying? Did something happen in your neck of the woods in 1968?
Doug wrote:
So you have determined that about 10% of commentors on this thread are Christians? It is interesting and disturbing that you have judged the salvation of everyone commenting and come to that conclusion.
Doug wrote:
Since you were addressing me and Marsha, I assume (from above) that you don’t believe that either of us are Christians. Wow. For the record, I don’t beleive that Marsha or I have said anything offensive.
@ Nancy:
Oh, student riots in France, and more bad things in Vietnam, and the assassinations of both RFK and Dr. King, and the Mexico City Olympics, and the debut of the Boeing 747…
And, apparently, the fall of Western civilization.
@ numo:
Also the Apollo 8 mission, and the 1st interracial kiss oon US TV (Kirk and Uhura, on Star Trek).
Loving v. VA was decided the year before, in 1967.
Seriously, i think Ken’s sounding like the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse arrived here in ’68.
@ Nancy:
beakerj was born…
dee wrote:
I thought it was just me. I found this entire set of comments sort of, well odd….I even messed up my last two comments, both in trying to convey my message and hitting the post button too soon with my little finger…. :/
@ Nancy:
And maybe those of us who watched the TV transmissions from the moon had our brains irradiated by cosmic rays and turned into insatiable sex werewolves.
It happens. 😉
@ K.D.:
“Sort of” is quite an understatement, actually. 😉
numo wrote:
That must be it Numes!! Watching the moon landing must have done it! Still not sure what the “it” is mind you 😉
@ linda:
linda, pretty much everybody here comes from “a nonCalvinist” perspective, which i am sure you know.
Unless the Deebs have secretly turned into minions of Al Mohler, or something.
As for people telling you to hush up, since when? And even if anyone had, i doubt it would stop you. You’ve noticed thst you get to comment, just like the rest of us, no?
@ Bridget:
Cosmic rays messed with our brains and turned us into insatiable sex werewolves (or something). 😉
@ Doug:
You do realize that the whole spectrum of denominations is covered by people who comment here, in that at least one regular is Catholic, several of us are Lutheran and Episopalian and… never mind.
@ Bridget:
Indeed, he has not.
@ numo:
Maybe that is what he means? Not fundamentalist = not Christian. I hadn’t thought of that. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and those who believe and put their trust in those events might beg to differ with Doug.
Doug wrote:
Then you might want to quit reading your Bible. Lots of slaying people with ass jaws, mass infanticide by drowning, tent pegs in skulls, Noah getting drunk and fooling around (is that a soft enough word for you?) with his daughters. A torturous crucifixion. The list is long…
numo wrote:
Yeah, I don’t identify as Christian, so I guess it must be “in one ear and out the other” for me. I know a few “Dougs”, and I was one once. I was pretty good at self-manufacturing what I thought was ‘joy’. Fortunately it was something I couldn’t sustain.
You know what they say about the sixties. If you can remember them you weren’t there.
dee wrote:
I hear you Dee, Scandimaniac here, but watching “Lilya 4-Ever” took the shine off pretty quickly.
@ Haitch:
Lot.
@ Haitch:
Yeah. Even though i have not seen that, the gilded exterior (no poverty, no sex trafficking, no drug problems etc.) is, shall we say, not exactly what’s shown in Scandinavian detective shows and mystery novels! Funny how most of the characters in those books and TV shows either or or were married, and had children while martied, and have (mostly) married adult children (if they’re old enough to have adult children). Two series, Forbrydelsen (the Danish original of The Killing) and Th Eagle actually have prominently featured church services, and a Lutheran pastor as an important character in one case (Forbrydelsen, season 2).
I
@ numo:
Note: most of the shows I’ve watched have been Danish, but some are Swedish.
At the chalet where i stayed at Swiss L’Abri, one of the workers was partly Lutheran, partly Pentecostal, while her husband was an ordained Lutheran minister. One of my fellow students was Pentecostal (all from Sweden).
Come to think of it, there were a LOT of Swedes, Norwegians and Finns there at the same time as me. All had been raised in churchgoing families, most were Lutheran. Swiss L’Abri historically had many, many young Scandinavians coming to study, though for some reason, very few were from Denmark.
There has been a Swedish L’Abri for about 30 years now, run by the minister i mentioned, along with his second wife. (Lisa, his 1st, died very young.)
@ numo:
Nor is the gilded exterior borne out in the Anders Breivik case.
Still, i agree that there *are* many good things in the Scandinavian countries, but they are not some kind of Utopia. They all have groups like the one Breivik was part of, where xtianity is wedded to hatred of Muslims, Jewish people and whoever else is seen as a “bad” person/group, albeit i don’t think these groups and political parties are any more xtian than the KKK.
numo wrote:
I own both, naturally ! Wallander has done similar I believe.
@ Bridget:
I’m guessing, but that’s my hunch. Even some more mainstream evangelicals do not view Catholics, Lutherans et. al. as xtians.
@ Haitch:
I have seen all 3 series of Forbrydelsen, but in that case bittorrent was my friend. (TThe US remake means that the original has never been shown here, and the DVDs are very expensive imports.) The Eagle, The Protectors, Annika Bengtsson and many others are available, though, via Netflix and other streaming services. The original Wallander is hard to find, due to the BBC remake, though.
numo wrote:
I think “Borgen” comes a little bit closer to showing more of the diversity challenges, or the “The Protectors” which has a female Muslim who belongs to the police bodyguard squad.
@ Haitch:
Is Fortitude airing in Oz? Sofie Grabol is in it, though it’s a UK-US coproduction. You *must* see it!
@ Haitch:
I love The Protectors for that reason, though haven’t yet seen The Bridge. (Another good show badly remade for US TV, so there are licensing problems.)
numo wrote:
I watched the Swedish Wallander on YouTube but it was a bit cat and mouse, as they got taken down all the time. BBC Wallander – argh. Give me Henning Mankell any time.
@ Haitch:
Borgen isn’t easy to find here, either.
@ Haitch:
British TV is either good or it isn’t. That one of the “isn’t” shows.
@ Haitch:
I also love how The Protectors – and some of the other shows -deal with serious moral/ethical/spiritual issues, and think The Protectors shows a wonderfully nuanced view of Muslims. I mean, the agent’s devout sister might wear hijab, but she’s an environmental activist, and so on.
numo wrote:
Yes, it’s on now, but I missed the first episode didn’t I, and it looks really good. I’ll buy it I think. I watched all of the first series of the Bridge on You Tube too, it’s brilliant, but I think it needs to go out with a disclaimer – no warm and fuzzy ending and in fact you will feel gut wrenched.
There is one exception to the “bad remake for US TV industry” (I consider them all really really bad)- and that is the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I think the Daniel Craig version is superior to the Swedish version. So how’s that for exceptions? A first time for everything…
@ Haitch:
And somemof might be surprised that we still are xtians – at least, that’s true for me. But i would probably upset many,people if i was more open about the ways in which my beliefs have changed, and are still changing.
@ Haitch:
I could not deal with that 1st ep. of the Dragon Tattoo series (Scandi.), nor do i plan on revisiting it. There are some things that are just too disturbing for me, and that was definitely one of them.
Yeah, if you miseed ep. 1 of Fortitude, little that follows will make any sense. I am on the edge of my chair, waiting for the next ep. But i think the ending will be bleak.
@ Haitch:
Fortitude is well worth buying, imo, and i rarely buy TV shows. Maybe someday I’ll have legal copies of Forbrydelsen, though. That one i really loved, even with those truncated seasons 2 and 3.
linda wrote:
Linda, you failed to address my previous post concerning the difference between consent and lack thereof.
You seem to be saying that because the pedophiles, etc. claim that their justification is the same as the one that gays use, therefore pedophiles, etc. are the same as gays. Please understand that not only is injurious to gays, it is also injurious to survivors of child sex abuse.
Again, please clarify if you are saying that what happens between two consenting adults is the same as what happens between an adult and a child. Because if that is what you are saying, you are telling every child that was sexually abused that they are no different than a consenting adult and are, therefore, responsible for their “sin.” Is that what you are saying?
Bridget wrote:
@ Josh:
Josh, i think that’s true of any flavor of fundamentalism, whther religious, political, even artistic. (Back when i was in college, there was a raging batyle on over whether watercolor was a painting medium in its own right, or whether it was deeply inferior to oil and acrylic. The lengths some of the faculty in the anti-watercolor camp went to were outrageous and hurtful to the faculty members who taught ans specialized in w/c.)
@ numo:
Battle
mirele wrote:
we do read the OT differently. I don’t read that is prescriptive or God’s intention. I read it with the backdrop of a very pagan culture and Jews who had been living among pagans for centuries becoming slaves and taking on much of that worlds thinking before being rescued. Then God sort of meeting them where they were and trying to regain their focus and change that thinking. Later on they still begged for a king like the pagans had.
@ mirele:
That was just one link. I have been trying to read up on it from both sides but the hyperbole from the left has become ridiculous. I am a libertarian so I tend to see things differently and am with some others who think it is silly to expect everyone to think the same way about everything. That was supposed to be the beauty of our system. There is a sort of thinking out there that if you don’t go along with the media outrage then you want to kill all homosexuals or something. I am very uncomfortable with more and more laws, mandates, etc coming down the pike. I do wonder how much this new law would protect some Islamic practices some might find repugnant, too? There are many liberals trying to convince us that Islam is peaceful. While there are peaceful Muslims their religion is not and I have never understood why they don’t seem to mind how horrible Islam is to women? At least we can make a case for Christ and women.
If someone does not agree about the law and what many claim it will do, it does not mean they hate people. Ok? I have a dear cousin who is gay and married. Married in Boston when it became legal. We vacation with them quite a bit. They are dear to me.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
This is the argument CBMW made about women pastors. That it would automatically lead to ordaining homosexuals.
@ numo:
I forgot to mention alcoholism, which has historically been a serious (and ongoing) problem in Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Ken wrote:
You might consider they are not hidden as well and news travels faster? :o) But many things are much better. women can vote. Racial equality, etc. I would rather have what we have now than the state/church/Monarchy/magistrate system.
@ Marsha:
BWAHAHA! So true!
Lydia wrote:
In addition to those areas, even though there are still plenty of haters out there, acceptance of those who are non-heteronormative has come a long way even in the past two decades. While I have being white and a man in my favor, being “not a real man” would put me at higher risk had I been born even 10 to 20 years prior to when I was. Of course, trans* people are still much more likely to be discriminated against; they could easily be 20 to 50 years behind the LGB side in acceptance. Either way, I doubt any of us wants to go back in time even the smallest bit.
dee wrote:
Right. And yet, many seem to forget Jesus spent his time here dissing the “religious leaders” of his own tribe in public for their behavior NOT the Romans.
@ Josh:
Just curious. What do you mean when you say “discriminated against”? I don’t mean anything mean by this just want to know what it means in daily life.
Because one can talk to an overweight person and hear how they are treated, too. But they cannot prove they were denied a job because of it. I know of one mega that won’t allow anyone they consider 40 lbs overweight on stage. One of their worship people was fired over it. Churches can do that and get by with it, btw.
I once had a secretary with a debilitating disease that required her to be on steroids and she gained a ton. her life changed drastically because of how people treated her who had no idea it was medical.
@ Lydia:
I’m not the best one to ask, because I pass for straight and am not even the direct object of hate aimed at the L/G/B side, and I am less familiar with what types of discrimination trans* people face. But I believe my online trans* acquaintances when they say that things aren’t easy. This material might shed a little light on what they experience:
http://endtransdiscrimination.org/
@ Lydia:
Well, this isn’t a direct comparison, but here’s something that happened to a friend of mine. She’s not gay, but people usually think she’s a lesbian because she doesn’t have overly feminine features, wears her hair short, and tends to dress in masculine-ish clothes. Last year she was physically attacked outside a church by a 6yo boy because she looked gay to him. He was calling her a “man” and saying they didn’t want “gays” in their church as he punched her leg. (The church was a Calvary Chapel, but it was an AWANA night so the kid could have been from any number of churches locally.)
Now obviously the kid didn’t do any damage because he was only 6, and I’m sure his parents didn’t tell him to go around assaulting people who “look gay.” But clearly he processed something as “it’s okay to physically attack gay people to keep them out of your church.” So yeah, this stuff has real life side effects, probably more often than some would like to admit.
@ numo:
I once found a whole website dedicated to explaining why vibrato was evil and Richard Wagner ruined Western music. Never would have guessed there was such a thing as a “vibrato fundy”…but there is.
Hester wrote:
I had the misfortune as a teenager to experience by way of the illustrious projection screen and VHS player a series of messages by a certain Frank Garlock. Take your “vibrato fundy” and cross-pollinate that with a fundamentalist Christian, and that’d describe Frank Garlock.
One of his bugbears, as I recall, was “scooping,” or, as the rest of us would know it, the vocal glissando. Evidently, it was sensual and evil, along with almost every other facet of every piece of music written after 1950, as well as all the jazz and proto-rock & roll written before that time (so, basically, anything with African connections, which was totally not racist… not at all!).
@ Hester:
I believe it (unfortunately), though I’ve gotta say that i nearly threw the book across the room when i attempted to read Wagner’s “On Judaism and Music.” The only thing that stopped me – it belonged to my school’s library.
@ Josh:
Doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’m a percussionist. People who inveigh against music with African influence don’t know what they’re talking about, although what that has to do with glissandi, I’m not quite sure.
numo wrote:
Lemme guess, would the same profs. consider William Blake a hack?
@ Muff Potter:
Oh, probably! They would say his paintings are “tinted drawings,” which came up a *lot* re. English watercolorists in more general discussions (in the wider world, not just my undergrad department).
Doug wrote:
Lies hurt more. And the effect is often lifelong. (Something to ponder on your next MONDAY that feels like a Sunday to you).
numo wrote:
That’s very possible. They even brought back those thrice-cursed moon rocks. God only knows what that might have done. (Vampire kittens? The Zombie Pugs of Doom??) The mind boggles.
numo wrote:
This place is nothing if not fascinating as to how people react to what you write!
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.
I’m surprised you think I am into culture wars, as I am not absolutely certain what this means. I do think the church and its gospel does have something to say to the culture around it, but I don’t believe it prime job is to try to impose its morality (for example) on unbelievers if that is what a culture war is. The church can and should ensure its own members are not following the culture into its unrighteous and harmful ways, and of course has to minister to those who get messed up when they do this.
Any culture war influence can only come from American evangelical blogs, I’m afraid. I would tentatively suggest that American Christians ought to be grateful there are some Al Mohlers around sticking up for the rights of the unborn, for example, there is precious little of this happening in Europe.
Regarding 1968, this was the year of student revolt in Europe, and probably marked a decisive break with the war generation and the austerity they had to live with (and moan about). It is if you like a focal point in the changes in society throughout the sixties and beyond. I don’t understand why you asked how christianity and the ungodly evils that mark English history are compatible, as I have never claimed England was ever a ‘Christian country’. I do however think the gospel can restrain evil and has done so in English history (e.g. the Methodist revival), but God does hand over a society to moral and mental decay and disintegration if it rejects him Romans 1 style. I think that is happening today, and I can see this might give the impression that there used to be a golden era preceding it, but I don’t actually think that. Things have got relatively worse.
Did you know that in the 14th Century there were complaints in England that youth were undisciplined and work-shy, and that men were wearing their hair long? Nothing new under the sun.
@ Hester:
That is creepy. How often does that happen, I wonder? I know it is very common for kids to be cruel over weight issues even without hearing derogatory things about it at home.
@ numo:
To old school IFBs, it’s the “Jungle Beat.” Now, most just call everything other than hymns “rock”, but every now and then you’ll find a knowledgeable pastor who knows about hip hop. They’re catching up. Slowly, but they are.
numo wrote:
I am not a musician, but this information may be part of the picture concerning african rhythms and drums.
When I was in Africa I was staying with a missionary family who worked with one particularly non-westerniized “bush” tribe. These people had a tonal language with five tones and utilized “talking drums.” The drums were constructed in such a way that they were held between the arm and the torso and pressure from the arm would tighten (or not) the drum head thus enabling them to reproduce the five verbal tones of their language. Thus they could reproduce both the rhythms and the tones of spoken language. The drums could actually ‘talk’ in this way. It was not music, as such, but rather language, at least what they demonstrated to us was. These drums were used in the priestess ceremony which I witnessed and in which people called upon the spirits to select the new priestess. Witchcraft? Shaminism? Satanic? Pick a term.
Perhaps somebody found a way to market this as purely music with no prior connotations? I have no idea. Nor am I saying that all african drums were used this way. But I can see where the idea of careful with african drums would be an issue. And, frankly, I would have an issue with it until this matter was cleared up.
Nancy wrote:
Dear Nancy, I happened in 1968 🙂
numo wrote:
No, it was the Deros shining their Telaug Rays up from inside the Hollow Earth.
Bridget wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhSc8qVMjKM
Nancy wrote:
Here in the US, a lot of things just seemed to go south all at once around ’68. Tet Offensive in Vietnam, big race riots in major cities (Detroit never recovered), assassinations of MLK & RFK, and counterculture reaching critical mass and ushering in The Sixties(TM).
Like everything reached critical mass all at once and BOOM! Years ago, one blogger put it as “1968 – the year Sauron finally got The Ring.”
@ Nancy:
Nancy, i play a certain style of W. African percussion (found in Guinea, Mali and a few other countries), so… Just because certain drums are used in ceremonies like the one you witnessed does *not* mean that that is the only use for those instruments. The same is true of “talking” drums used by people who literally speak a tonal language (and many languages in W. Africa are tonal, i.e., shifts in pitch and accent make for differences in usage and meaning. Chinese is also a tonal language).
Now, insofar as what you saw and where you were:
1. I’m betting you were in Nigeria, or Ghana, or possibly Toyo, Benin, a part of Senegal or a part of Sierra Leone, though i might be guessing wrong.
2. My guess is partly based on the fact that *many* people from Nigeria, Ghana, Togo and Benin were enslaved and sent to the Americas, or were sent through on of the infamous slave ports in those countries. At any rate, many of the African and African -derived religions practiced in the Wedtern hemisphere come from those places; ditto for Congo and what is now Angola. Religions from Nigeria, Benin and Togo tend to be dominant, however.
3. West Africa is home to many different, highly developed forms of percussion ensembles and percusdion instruments. Thid is also true of parts of Central Africa, but otherwise, there are large parts of the continent that do not have highly developed music for percussion ensembles or instrumentd. They have tended to focus on other instruments. There is highly developed tonal pervusdion (mmeaning, played with instruments that Westerners recognize as “mmelody” instruments) in parts of Zimbabwe and Mozambique, but those instruments are not drums. Some of the music is overtly religious, while lots of it isn’t – also true of West and Central Africa.
4. There are all the old, bad asdociations of drums/ppercusdion with racial and ethnic stereotypes, with “pprimitivism” (“JJungle drums were madly beating,” etc.) and with sex and… noise. Most of us (mme included!) have to learn to listen to and appreciate non-Western music for what it is, and African pervussion music is no exception.
5. Just because certain instruments are used to help induce what wnthtopologists refer to as “possesdion trances” (like what you saw) does not mean that we can or should jump to the conclusion thwt those instruments are *always* used for that purpose. Besides, pepple playing electric guitars, or even just dinging into a mike, have bern known to cause screaming frenzies in sudiences of teen gitls over here. Do you think that means that either vocal music a la Frank Sinatra or all music using electric or acoustic guitars is automatically “evil” and should therefore be viewed with suspicion, if not altogether forbidden? (I realize thst some people have been shouting “yes” to that for a long time, but i brought it in in order to mske a comparison, and because i think people from outside our society could see those things and think “HHmm… some kind of religious rite is going on. Look at all those girls screaming and fainting and having to be carried out of the auditorium” and so on.)
6. The use of most African musical instruments – especially drums – was suppressed in North America, by those who held enslaved people. This wasn’t posdible in the Caribbean and mostmof Latin Ametica, if only because Africans/people of direct African ancestry tended to outnumber the white colonists’ population, often by huge numbers. Besides, people are inventive – in Cuba and Peru, folks began to use wooden packing crates as drums, and hoe blades are a commonplace in the Caribbean, as a substitute for hand-fforged metal bells. Here in the US, one of the few Africsn survivald is… the bsnjo, which vomes from a variety of different-but-similar plucked string instruments that were brought here from W. Africa.
OK, this is a VERY long reply, and ptobably way more info. than strictly necessary, but it’s something i love and have spent years learning sbout – and will likely continue to kerp on learning about. Theremis definitely a double whammy from many white Southern funfiex who fear and hate music that is either made by blavk folks or originates with them, and ftom within many sectors of black evangelicalism, where guitars, the blues, R&B and any kind of dance music styles are literally viewed as “the devil’s music.” Which makes things that much more complicated re. rantings about vocal glissandi (aas in black gospel music), guitars and all that jazz.
@ numo:
Apologies for all the typos in my previous reply! Touchscreen keyboards are tricky for bad typists like me.
dee wrote:
And TWW regularly watchblogs two more Dougs: Doug Phillips ESQUIRE (“I did not know her in the Biblical sense”) and Doug Wilson (“Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”).
Outside of here, I know two more Dougs: my stepbrother (a quiet pharmacist) and a gamer buddy (now a mailman) with a loud sharp voice.
And then there’s the old Nickelodeon series, whose Daydream Disaster asides WERE pretty accurate.
@ numo:
I am not on a crusade against all percussion instruments obviously. If I were I would have said do. But I willI tell you what I do think. I think that secular music is one thing and that not necessarily everything that is music can be used for or classified as worship. I think we have been way too ready to haul everything into the church for a number of reasons. I was listening to a lecture series by a fellow who taught at the SF Conservatory about the history of church music (a lecture series from the teaching company, now called the great courses). This was a couple of decades ago at least, and he discussed the development of the philosophy of church music. I find myself thinking that we have tended to ignore what the music itself says about man and god and how the music itself impacts human thinking (today we would say the brain). When I say we, I don’t think I mean the anglicans as far as I can tell, but I sure do mean the local SBC mega. Anyhow, I don’t plan to join any movement about this, but I am glad that my kids’ church does not do some of what is going on now. I am thinking that a concert or a street carnival is one thing but a mass is something else.
@ Nancy:
That would be will, not willlll. And I don’t have an excuse.
@ Nancy:
It isn’t a question of marketing, but of common usage in W. Africa vs. specialized usage, as in the ceremony you mention. As for music that mimics dpeech, that isn’t confined to W. Africa, though it has certainly been developed to a great art in some regions. Perdian classical music is closely related to poetry (Iran is renowned for it, especially mystical poetry written in the early centuries of Islam), and much Persian clasdical music literally follows the rhythms of speech. There is an incredibly sophisticated form of vocal percussion used by some South Indian clasdical musicians… and so on. It is called konnakol, and there are some excellent (aand jaw-dropping) performance videos available on the internet. There is a similar practice in North Indian classical music, though it is not identical.
One last point – a lot of things have happened in West Sfrica since Europeans began thr slave trade back in the late 1400s. That includes all kinds of cultural changes and developments that people who survived the Middle Passage knew nothing about. Add to that the fact thst people from all over W. and Central Africa were thrown together over here, and… entirely new styles of music developed, blending various types of African music with the music of the dominant culture.
@ Nancy:
I would have to disagree, but i think we can leave it at that. But i suspect that if highly developed percussion music had ever come into being in Western Europe, it would be part of our services, as it is in many entirely orthodox W. African churches.
@ numo:
In other words, music is music. It isn’t “clean” or “unclean” in and of itself, nor are genres. A lot of black church folks back in the 90s were adamantly against gospel rap, but then, the gospel choirs that are the norm today were though to be “the devil’s music” by the great-grandparents of many of the people who protested against gospel rap and hip-hop.
‘Twas ever thus, i believe. 😉
@ Nancy:
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has been using percussion instruments in their liturgies for many, many centuries. There is also highly decorous dance involved.
I think this is about different cultures, tastes and “it depends.” And there are good, tasteful ways to do things, as well as bad ways to do them. But i do think younger people deserve a break here, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong with services that focus on using contemporary music. Would i wznt them to be the only game in town? No! But in my case, they’re not, so…
@ numo:
Speaking of culture and church (liturgical dance) when I was in africa they told me this story of a few years prior. The equivalent of the ladies of the church group at one little church ‘out in the bush’ wanted to perform at a service, and so the missionary said sure go for it without looking into the details. So the ladies processed (danced) down the center aisle-naked from the waist up. The missionaries may still be telling that story for all I know. They assured me that this would not have happened in the city. I am sure it would not.
But at one point they did have an outdoor community festival with dancing in the street-which was a whole lot like clogging. I got out there and tried to do it with them, but I just cannot dance just from the knees down. Well, I can’t dance any way you look at it, but we won’t mention that.
@ Nancy:
What country were you in ? This is all pretty fascinating to me.
@ Nancy:
Well… to the pure, all things are pure, no? These women offended Western sensibilities, but I’m equally certain that they didn’t do anything that was considered indecent out where they lived.
Am sure you’re right about urban areas, which would definitely be more Westernized.
@ numo:
No comment. I don’t think I should tell names and tales both. It just would not be right I think.
@ Nancy:
Not even the country? Sorry, that doesn’t make sense to me, but i don’t want to make you uncomfortable. None of the things you described seem unusual or out of the ordinary to me, but then, the kind of ceremony you witnessed is a frequent occurrence in the US, in all places where there are large groups of Cuban, Haitian and Brazilian immigrant communities. Not all of these ceremonies are public, but they are definitely common knowledge.
I am mainly interested in the talking drums. Sound like a Yoruba ceremony, possibly, and it was public or else you were invited to attend. If public, it will be talked about openly where you were, so i am a bit confounded by your reluctance. (FFwiw, i have a very old friend whose folks were SBC missionaries in Nigeria and Zimbabwe, back in the 60s and 70s. They were sent out from a church in Nashville, and did medical and jack of all trades work. My friend grew up in both countries.)
I have a question related to the original topic. I am trying to work through my feelings on the whole issue of same sex relationships in a Christian context. I started but was not able to finish reading through the conversations on this blog, and I will do it when my life calms down (IF it calms down!) My question is, does anyone know of any good books or other material (videos, blogs, etc.) that deal with this topic and can be a guide in me developing thoughtful views and responses to others. My Dad is very ill and I have been spending more time with family. My family is awesome, but they have more liberal views than I do, and I also have at least one person who is gay and one transgendered person in my extended family. It is often difficult for me to know what to say in conversations.
@ Former CLC’er:
I’m sorry to hear about your dad. 🙁
Two books that I’ve read from two different perspectives are Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill, which takes a view along the lines of Dee’s view in this post, and Torn by Justin Lee, which focuses more on broad issues, but does briefly put forward an argument for accepting monogamous, life-long relationships between two men or two women.
For more detailed coverage of the latter perspective, I’ve had James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality recommended to me, but haven’t had time to read it yet. From what I’ve heard, Matthew Vines’ book presents the same arguments in a simplified fashion, so I’d probably go directly to Brownson’s if you’re looking to dig in deep.
Those books cover the positions of celibacy vs. marriage. I don’t have any books to recommend from a so-called ex-gay position. That is the position that says that people’s attractions can change, which coming from the organizations that push it, inevitably turns into “people must experience change in their attractions, or they’re not really saved/sanctified/whatever.” I tried to read one such book that came into the local library, but had to stop before I threw it across the room and damaged it. There’s just no evidence to support those claims, and plenty of destruction in the wake of the groups that tried for decades – and failed miserably – to help people become straight.
In terms of other resources, there’s “The Great Debate” here:
http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.php
There are a number of recordings of presentations on Youtube. Here’s one, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMW43vdyTCU
@ Josh:
Thanks for your suggestions. Did you know I reviewed Torn and had the opportunity to sit down with Justin Lee for 2 hours.I love that guy!
@ dee:
Yep! I remembered reading that series here, and you also mentioned Justin in this post. See, sometimes I do pay attention. 😉
@ Josh:
I am so glad that you are ere. you add so much to the conversation.
I hope this isn’t a stupid question…but how would a homosexual marriage consisting of a homosexual female and homosexual male be viewed? I ask because I knew such a couple. My husband and I met them in church and we got along very well so I invited them to our home for dinner. We didn’t know they were both gay and during the course of the evening, they confessed they worried that my husband and I might be living in the same type of arrangement and that we may have ulterior motives in our invitation.
When we assure them that we just liked them and wanted to fellowship with them, they were greatly relieved and we all got a good laugh about that. But I felt sad that there was apprehension on their part just getting invited to dinner by other believers.
Any thoughts?
@ Victorious:
Beats me. Did you see my comment on Gram3? She returned from a trip and then became ill and is still recuperating.
@ dee:
I didn’t see it. Thanks so much, Dee! She was so active for so long and then nothing so I wondered if she was ok. I’ll say a prayer for her recovery.
@Former CLC’er
Former CLC’er wrote:
I have a copy of A Time to Embrace, by William Stacy Johnson. I’ve loaned it to several people, strangers included. You’re welcome to borrow it if you so desire. Being the parent of a gay child and a person of faith, I found it to be the most reasoned and balanced book on the topic. Here a link to the book and the author. http://williamstacyjohnson.com/a-time-to-embrace/ (Dee, feel free to give my email address to Former CLC’er. Thanks.)
@ numo:
Btw, i totally understand that you want to keep things confidential, and apologize for bugging you.
Whwt you might not be aware of is that there is tons of accurate info. on many African and African-derived religious practices poste by practitioners. Including vids.
Don’t know if youve ever bern in a black Pentecostal service where 1 or more people “fell out,” but from my own experience, I’d have to say that it’s likely *very* similar, in many ways, to what you saw. Some things really are just cultural, not supernatural, and are learned responses and customs.
numo wrote:
When I was in med school, and our university hospital was actually an old style general hospital, one of the first things they taught us was how to establish a diagnosis on somebody who is brought in with the chief complaint of fell out. Fell out in the ER is not anything like ‘slain in the spirit’ among the pentecostals. And neither one looks like a trance or a seizure or a stoke. I am not going down this path. Maybe there is something on line about it–I have no idea.
I don’t know how we got into this conversation at this time, but I am moving on because evidently I should never have gone down this path here in the first place. I will be glad to discuss other things, but this is over.
@ Nancy:
Numo: go over to the open discussion site. I think I have figured out how this discussion got off the track.
@ Victorious:
When a straight spouse is married to an opposite-gendered non-straight spouse, that’s often called a “mixed-orientation marriage.” I think such an arrangement could be categorized under that term as well, if the couple involved wished to do so.
@ Nancy:
“FEll out” does not mean “slain in the Spirit” in black churches, though.
@ Nancy:
thanks – i posted some thoughts in response.
We all need friends, of both genders. That is such a basic truth that it shouldn’t even need saying; but in our current theological and emotional climate, it does. And in the past, I don’t see a big deal ever being made out of whether a friendship was “spiritual” or “other.” Until very recently in human history, if there was attraction between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, it was never assumed to be sexual unless it became obviously sexual. When did we become afraid of this natural attraction that almost always has nothing to do with sex?
And–another basic truth that shouldn’t need saying but does–we all experience sexual attraction; that’s the way God made us. To say that we should never experience it except for the person we married denies this basic reality and places intolerable burdens on folks whose only “sin” is having natural human drives.
Therefore, I too support “Spiritual Friendship.”
@ jochanaan:
Loved your comment!
speaking from personal experience and being HIV+ i refuse to tell other christians about it, doesn’t matter how close they are i will not do it! apart from my family i have only told 3 people 1 close friend who just poof dissapeared and an old pastor and his wife who stuck with me through everything until he went home, just too much judgement without knowing the truth. what really kills me about this whole thing is that i am not even gay quite heterosexual actually, i just trusted a woman years before i found out was and in retrospect…well you get the idea, so i have been forced to choose a celabate life though it isn’t where my heart is but it is the remarks and comments from my own family no less that make me lose heart and want to quit.
@ NotARealPerson:
My goodness, I am so sorry for your hurt 🙁