Christianity v. fundamentalism

William Crawley | 10:21 UK time, Thursday, 16 April 2009

Andrew Sullivan is probably the most influential blogger in America. He says his next task is to "turn Christianity against the fundamentalists".

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 11:27am on 16 Apr 2009, nobledeebee wrote:
Andrew is a fascinating charactor. He does not like the fundies because of their "certainty" and "their desire to control other peoples lives". Yet he claims to belong to a religious denomination that exhibits both these features.
He is an active gay, hardly a popular role with any Christian group and anathema to most of them.He might as well claim vegetarianism and lunch at Macdonalds every day.
I read his online debate with Sam Harris where Andrew tried valiantly to square all these circles but failed miserably and I could'nt help feeling that deep down he knows that he cannot keep on reconciling his feelings with his stated beliefs in God/Religion.He is essentially a Humanist and I think that eventually he will discover that is the world view he is most comfortable with.

Complain about this comment
2. At 11:32am on 16 Apr 2009, nobledeebee wrote:
This is not a facetious question, but are you gay Will? I only ask because it is so relevant to many of the ethical questions that arise on this blog.
If you don't wish to answer this question, thats perfectly understanable and I will not ask it again.

Complain about this comment
3. At 4:20pm on 16 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
Now, don't just make hints ND, just say what you really mean (-;

Complain about this comment
4. At 4:38pm on 16 Apr 2009, John Wright wrote:

I agree Sullivan is fascinating. It's only on a superficial level that his beliefs seem to be contradictory; I identify with much of his out-of-the-pigeonhole thinking, and just because he doesn't fit neatly within a label doesn't mean he doesn't make sense (in fact it's an asset). Yes, markets are flawed, but they're the best system in theory and in practice and they should be as free as possible. On many of these things we concur. He's also a role model as far as taking the initiative in new media; I'm sure William would agree.

Complain about this comment
5. At 5:19pm on 16 Apr 2009, pastorphilip wrote:
From the views he expresses, the description 'conservative Christian' doesen't seem to fit.

If he can reject the clear teaching of Scripture so lightly, in what sense is he a 'conservative Christian'?

Complain about this comment
6. At 7:08pm on 16 Apr 2009, U11831742 wrote:
Just because Sullivan is gay, some here think every article about him must be gay-themed. Typical steroryping. Sullivan is an important social commentator in politics, society and religion, and he deserves to be taken more seriously.

Complain about this comment
7. At 10:56pm on 16 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Nobledee, I too have wondered why W&T consistently posts on homosexual matters in comparison to any other one issue.

////////////////////////

Can we define "Christianity" and "fundamentalism" here?

Contemporary liberals consistently rail at beliefs which are nothing more than traditional orthodox Christianity, blasting them as "fundamentalist".

Christian fundamentalis is an American development from the start of the last century.

Some of its characteristics are that it rejects wholesale academic study and social action, for example. Typically it is also teetotal and KJV only, and with strong sympathies with theocracy and a withdrawal from the "secular" world.

But may branches of Christian faith have lots of "certainty" without holding to any of these values in this manner.

Dont self-indentifying "evangelical" or "conservative" Christians hold that "certainty" is a real part of their faiths too?

Are we really now so post-modern and so "tolerant" that is officially sinful to be "certain" about something?

Hogwash.

In reality, what you have here are savvy liberals trying to marginalise traditional and orthodox Christian views by smearing them as "fundamentalist".

Complete nonsense.

I have raised the point on W&T several times before, to no avail.

I think it is rather sloppy thinking, especially considering the care we are taking here with the use of the term "absolutely".

;-)

Complain about this comment
8. At 11:39pm on 16 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

nobledeebee

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of your question at all.

OT

I know this could be a bit of a hornet's nest I'm opening, but what exactly is it you are certain about, and how can you be sure?

I'm sure not certain about me.

Complain about this comment
9. At 00:17am on 17 Apr 2009, portwyne wrote:

Well said Peter! The question is presumptuous and utterly irrelevant.

As to certainty: I think that in Christ we see the fullness of the relevance of God to man perfectly embodied, I know that I am completed and complete in Him.

Complain about this comment
10. At 00:22am on 17 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Well, Mr Crawley, the bloodhounds are after you now.

They smell victory. The slightest indication you may give that you might be gay, and that includes not answering them, will be held against you. It will be proof to OT that this blog site is loaded.

Dont dare answer 'em one way or the other. It is irrelevant.

This thread is actually about Christianity versus fundamentalism, OT, but you're 'straight' in with the gay thing immediately.
Yet again.

Complain about this comment
11. At 11:13am on 17 Apr 2009, Bernards_Insight wrote:
I have to say, I think you go over the top with that, OT.

I don't see how this is a "homosexual" issue....Neither do I see a dominance of such issues on this blog.

Your repeated complaints that everything is about homosexuality do seem to compromise your integrity a little.

Complain about this comment
12. At 1:11pm on 17 Apr 2009, Dylan_Dog wrote:

Guys, its totally irrelevant what anyones sexual identity/preference is. Romejellybean is spot on.

Complain about this comment
13. At 1:36pm on 17 Apr 2009, nobledeebee wrote:
Hi folks, I seem to have opened a can of worms here which I did'nt mean to. I'd forgotten that there were people on the blog who have there own issues with other peoples sexuality. I don't have any, however, if a man like Andrew Sullivan claims to be a Roman Catholic, bearing in mind the churches clearly stated positions on human sexuality, then I think the fact that he is an active gay is very relevant. How could it not be? That is what prompted me to pop the question to William, nothing sinister, no hidden agendas, and I am quite satisfied if he does'nt want to answer it because outside of the religious issues involved it is totally his own business!

Complain about this comment
14. At 5:59pm on 17 Apr 2009, John Wright wrote:

pastorphilip asks "In what sense is" Andrew Sullivan "a conservative Christian?"

He's Christian by virtue of what he believes about God and Jesus Christ. He's conservative by virtue of his political views - low taxation, etc. And he's gay by virtue of being attracted to people of the same gender. I'm not sure any of those are contradictory, are they?

Complain about this comment
15. At 7:30pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

hmmm.

quite an amazingly animalistic reaction there. I wonder why?

It is all the more amazing because.... if you read my post again you will see that I did not comment ***AT ALL*** on the question raised by Nobledee about the sexuality of an individual.

I did not think it appropriate for me to comment on.

I simply commented on the dispportionate number of stories on this blog that have seuxality theme.

I am not the only person to have raised THIS question before on this blog.

An noticeably, the substantive issues i raised were completely ignored. Hmmm

But perhaps a more revealing question to discuss is....

Why did I get condemned for a questioned asked by Nobledee....... and Nobledee alone???

Anyone care to answer that question?

;-)

OT

Complain about this comment
16. At 7:38pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

BTW RJB

calm down.

the proof that the W&T blog is loaded is the in the proportion of entries that relate to sexuality.

no drama.

no frothing at the mouth.

no probing personal questions ( I didnt ask any).

statistics.

OT

Complain about this comment
17. At 7:40pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

BTW PM

I do get the sense you are quite nervous about discussing your views on sexuality.

Maybe I am completely wrong, perhaps you can clarify?

OT

Complain about this comment
18. At 8:10pm on 17 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

And, OT, I get the impression that you are quite determined to push me on the issue.

Now, what is it you need to know, and why do you need to know it?

Complain about this comment
19. At 8:20pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

PM...

are you determined to push me on what I am certain about?

seems strange coming from you, as you seem very certain about your faith, I mean that as a compliment.

I dont need to know anything - I was just asking if you were nervous about speaking your mind on the issue.

Complain about this comment
20. At 8:30pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

..sint it interesting that Nobledee is as far as you could get in his viewpoint compared to mine and yet objectively noticed the same thing about the sexuality bias on the W&T blog?

NDee - dont let them intimidate you, the stats dont lie you are quite right about the bias.

what you have here is a wave of politically correct thought policing attempting to bully you into silence.

how tolerant.

Complain about this comment
21. At 8:43pm on 17 Apr 2009, John Wright wrote:

OT, Ye Great Conspirator.

This blog reflects the interests of a man. That man is interested in some topics more than others. One of those topics is ethics, and one kind of ethics is sexual ethics. There is no greater mystery than that. In other words, the reason sexuality is discussed frequently on this blog is that the author of this blog is quite interested in sexual ethics!

What about that prompts you to allege some greater conspiracy, and what greater conspiracy are you alleging anyway?

Complain about this comment
22. At 8:47pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

John Wright

You are a funny chap.

You have written more about BBC bias than any other blogger on this site.

And its all recorded on your own blog!!

:-D

The BBC is funded with my money and I am entitled to comment on any flaws I perceive in it.

As a matter of record, it appears that half the English speaking world (?) have a similar view to you about its bias BTW.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bbc+bias&meta=&aq=f&oq=

OT

OT

Complain about this comment
23. At 9:04pm on 17 Apr 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Oh my FSM Orthodox-tradition/pb,

Every time you try to hold up sources in support of your narrow view it is so lacking in credibility. Links from AiG, quote mining, making up quotes out thin all, claiming peer reviewed scientific literature to support your views when all you have is some wikipedia links. And now a Google search for two words is supposed to count?!

Complain about this comment
24. At 9:07pm on 17 Apr 2009, John Wright wrote:

Oh I agree with you about the absurdity of describing the BBC as 'impartial'; it's left-wing, for sure.

But a BBC blog is just a blog, after all. It reflects the opinions of its author and I know Will doesn't come under any pressure from anyone at the Beeb about what he should blog about. He just blogs about what he's interested in, and I do too.

(BTW there are a lot of articles on sexuality on my own blog - check out this category for examples. Some of them even relate to homosexuality, but it isn't because I'm gay!)

Complain about this comment
25. At 9:08pm on 17 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

BTW, please do not direct any further comments to me about the sexuality of any individual;-

I have not, did not and will not be querying such information.

I was commenting on the apparent bias in this blog ref sexuality, which I understand is produced by a team and not an individual.

OT

Complain about this comment
26. At 9:51pm on 17 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

How do I answer this? To be honest it is this, my answer to you, which has and is causing me more of a dilemma than anything else I have written about.

First on certainty, I have no desire to push you on this at all, you raised the issue on this thread, and on the Religion 101 thread, saying 'certainty' is the new sin, referring us here, and then here you said, "Are we really now so post-modern and so "tolerant" that is officially sinful to be "certain" about something?" and making the point that 'fundamentalism' needs to be defined. In some ways I can agree with you, it certainly(!) seems to be the case that if something is to be dismissed as 'wrong' it is called 'fundamentalist'. It has become something of a catch all, a way of saying, "Whatever I am, I'm not that!'

I suppose what I could say is that in some way or another we're all 'fundamentalist' about something, of course it all depends on the way the word is being used.

You went on to suggest that there is a view that to be 'certain' is to be sinful, suggesting that, "self-identifying "evangelical" or "conservative" Christians hold that "certainty" is a real part of their faiths", and it was this latter point I was interested in, maybe I should have made that clearer, sorry. But on that point, it's not simply a matter of Christians being 'certain' and others 'tolerant', for the meaning of those words can be debated too.

For example am I certain about my faith, my ability to believe, no, we could discuss this, I do not consider this 'self-doubt' to be contradictory to biblical faith, indeed it could be that self-doubt is central to Christian faith. Am I certain of my repentance, no, my everyday attitudes alone would tell you or me that, we could discuss this. This is what I had in mind when I asked you about certainty in the context of Christianity. But no I have no wish to push you.

On the issue of me discussing sexuality though I'm just not sure why you've asked me, twice now. Last time, in the context of counseling I tried to explain that my reluctance to comment was related to my experience, or more precisely, my lack of experience of the counseling field. You appear however to have understood this as reluctance to discuss sexuality, no this is not the case.

Now you have asked me about it again on this thread, and I don't know why, all I said here was that I thought Nobledeebee asked an irrelevant question, I still think it's irrelevant. I mean, what has anyone's sexual identity got to do with any of us here, what, for that matter, has William's reasons for blogging about a particular topic got to do with any of us here, for example if he writes about something I'm not interested in I just ignore it, more to the point, most of my contributions are a response to other bloggers comments, not William's primarily.

OT my views on sexuality follow the traditional Christian family, husband, wife and hopefully kids, I've said this already, but I do not happen to think that anyone's sexual identity is a matter for me, it is their business and theirs alone. From my point of view Nobledeebee was out of line with his question, I said what I thought, and here's something else I think, even though I view sexuality in tradition Christian terms, I will not and do not allow another's sexuality orientation to affect how I treat them or speak of them. And frankly it seems to me that there are far too many Christians going out of their way to give the gay community a hard time. Just to be clear though I'm not accusing you of that.

Complain about this comment
27. At 01:59am on 18 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

I've read this thread over and over and I'm exasperrated, but not in a hostile way.

I am in no doubt that you are a Pharisee, a modern day one. I can discount your arguments, but for some reason, I cant discount you.

It struck me during Holy Week that there was a good Pharisee. A genuinely good man who was frightened but went to Jesus in the middle of the night.

I also thought of the Pharisee at the Synagogue whose prayer was - Thank you God that I'm not greedy and grasping like that tax collector over there.

The tax collector simply bowed his head and said - Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.

What I admire about homosexual men is that, for the most part, I have found them to have the attitude of the tax collector.

There are some horrible ones though.

I think you are a Pharisee, but maybe the type that would go to Jesus in the middle of the night - not a horrible one.
You certainly get ten out of ten for misguided effort in my book.

Complain about this comment
28. At 02:40am on 18 Apr 2009, Bernards_Insight wrote:
RJB...

I was going to be sarcastic and say "thanks very much for identifying the pharisee"

But come on...

We're all pharisee...but we try our best.

I don't think categorising people has any real value did in in the time of christ.

Faults are universal

Complain about this comment
29. At 02:42am on 18 Apr 2009, Bernards_Insight wrote:
Of course, that should read..." don't think categorising people has any real value ....nor did it in the time of Christ"

Complain about this comment
30. At 02:46am on 18 Apr 2009, Bernards_Insight wrote:
What I mean is...that it's easy to find faults... quite simply.

And, as you know, it really is

Complain about this comment
31. At 03:03am on 18 Apr 2009, Bernards_Insight wrote:
Although I'm realising that I'm replying to this thread without properly realising what kind of discussion has gone on...to be honest, I didn't read the whole way down.

OT...I don't see this particualr issue as being in any way related to homosexuality as it has a thesitic implication.

I honestly don't think that this blogger in question (although I'm not sure how many of us read his blog) raised issues particularly sexual...

I'm all for debating sexuality in a rational, moral, and even in a theistic framework...

I just don't think there's much value in making it an issue where the people concerned are resistant to such an issue. Depeche mode said it...people are people...so why should it be

Complain about this comment
32. At 09:05am on 18 Apr 2009, portwyne wrote:

Bernard, whatever you were on last night - I'll have some of that!

Interesting post RJB - I find myself, as JC would say, strangely drawn to OT. In a strictly philadelphian sense of-course - in the interest of clarity, no erotic charge whatsoever.

Complain about this comment
33. At 10:01am on 18 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

RJB

Pharisees, mmmm.

As I understand it each of us are either irreligious and running from God, or religious and running from God, if I'm right, I'd be in the latter category, the fact that I happen to tag myself 'religious' makes not a button of difference.

Complain about this comment
34. At 12:39pm on 18 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Hi again guys

I am sort of coming to the conclusion that I am failing to communicate my primary message here so I am going to change tack.

Please let me play the role of a young committed Christian man with SSA who has been following SS and W&T....

[curtain opens]

"Peter, RJB, Portwyne...

I am interested in your advice. I am a 19 year-old man who has asked Christ to be my Lord and Saviour some years ago by the Holy Spirit.

I have increasingly strong SSA urges and I am not sure what to do.

When I read the New Testament passages on the matter the plain reading seems to say that this sort of action is forbidden to me. I believe the bible is the word of God.

On the other hand I hear many church leaders and theological experts on SS & W&T who seem to say that this is a mistaken and out of date interpretation of these passages. They seem to say that SSA is natural and that this is the way that God has made me, that I should embrace it and be happy as a person.

"The traditional reading of the New Testament seems to say that acting out SSA will disqualify me from the kingdom of heaven. And there are also many Christians who say that they have got rid of their SSA removed and have gone on to have families.

"What should I do to keep right with God and live a life that is holy, loving and pleasing to him? I am so confused and I feel there are crucial issues at stake here for me but I don't know who to trust or which is the right path.

"What advice can you give?"

Sincerely
Benny

Complain about this comment
35. At 9:44pm on 18 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Most Saturdays in Belfast the youth leader walks passed the homeless on the street and gives them nothing. After a couple of lattes he purchases a copy of the latest, 'How to be a Cool and Groovy Disciple of Jesus' magazine. This magazine is published bi-weekly, it costs 4.95 a copy.

An elder's unmarried daughter bought condoms last week from the local chemist. Next week she is going on holiday with her boyfriend.

Mrs , a deacon's wife has tendency to gossip, she calls it the prayer list.

Mr , a 48 year old single man, who lifts the offering every week, spends most evenings reading 'top shelf' magazines.

A pastor of a medium sized congregation, say 350 people, is addicted to prescription drugs and it has led him to steal the odd 'blister strip' while completing his pastoral visits, indeed one particular church member tends to have slightly more regular visits than all the rest.

The co-ordinator of the 'Senior Fellowship' hasn't spoken to his wife in three weeks. Each evening when he comes home from work, he gives her the 'cold shoulder', eats his tea alone and refuses to help wash up.

Miss , sings in the praise band, she's pretty, she has an MA and she sings well, actually, she sings like an angel, but she's a nasty vindictive cow, everybody knows she is, but they smile anyway.

This Sunday they will all be offering one another a 'welcome' greeting in the pew, be taking communion, loving Jesus and dedicating themselves to the life and witness of the church.

Your thoughts.

Complain about this comment
36. At 1:22pm on 19 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:
Thanks Peter

You have obviously taken some trouble with your response but I am not sure of your point.

I would have been orderly to give some sort of directish answer, IMHO.

It would appear that you are suggesting that Benny and every other member of the congregation you mention is flawed and we should not single anyone out for "criticism".

If this is the case or it is similar, you are, again, totally missing my point.

My point is that the BBC's stated aim with our hard earned taxes is to "inform educate and entertain".

I am not in any way inviting anyone to offer any harsh judgement or criticism of Benny.

My point is that there is an obligation on SS & W&T to accurately "inform and educate" people on the causes of SSA and the effectiveness of methods which many people feel have helped them.

People in Benny's shoes deserve to be fully informed and not fed a lop sided view on such matters, I suggest.

I do not believe in "condemning" people corporately or individually because I believe the gospel is about both impressing the universal need of and universal offer of redemption.

If you feel unable to make a clear sound on this matter, I fully understand and respect this.

But I would ask if you are really comfortable to be seen to be arguing against those who do.

I suggest that SS nor W&T take a consistent editoral line in arguing that any of the other sins you list are not sins at all.

OT

Complain about this comment
37. At 3:21pm on 19 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

I answered your question the way I did precisely because I do not wish to single any one member of the church out from another and also because I thought you were getting at how we in the church might go about communicating with one another. 'Benny' in your scenario is quite clearly an evangelical christian, I responded within those terms. From my point of view it was a direct and necessary answer, and one which you appear to have pretty much understood.

It is now clear to me though that your concern is with the content of this web site, Sunday Sequence and the aims of the BBC. Well, OT, I guess that this is where you and I might have a different take on the subject. So how do I begin to explain this?

To begin with, and I had a similar conversation before Christmas with another contributer who is an atheist, I really don't think the BBC can win. Some think there's too much religion and that it should be a secular broadcaster for a secular state, others seem to think that there should be specifically religious/Christian broadcasting. As I said, if I come across something which doesn't interest me I ignore it, if I disagree sufficiently I complain, but to be honest there's not really much point in that.

Second and this is a more general point, but it is the basis of my view. I do not expect the State to take into account the views of the Church. I don't think the UK is a 'Christian' nation, in fact I don't much like the idea of a 'Christian Nation' at all; actually my view is that there is only one 'Christian Nation', and it is the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural 'nation' we call the church. Why would I expect the BBC to reflect this? In fact, when it comes to education and the BBC, surely the best the BBC can do is to reflect varying opinions. We live in a very diverse religious and non-religious UK and it is this very set of circumstances which has many arguing for a secular Britain.

The job of the church then is to reflect the Kingdom of Heaven (Kingdom of God, RJB!), to communicate in word and deed the gospel, not to hold the BBC to account, not to regret the loss of some kind of 'Christian' heritage, not to protest against those who are not Christians, not to write 'Christian laws' into the statute book, but, to paraphrase the apostle Peter, to live such good lives among non-believers that they take notice.

I don't think there is any obligation on the part of Sunday Sequence, W&T or the BBC to do the job of the church. We can of course put our own point of view, as you and I do, here, but if we don't like what they do, then we don't have to listen, we don't have to watch, we don't have to pay the license fee switching off our TV sets instead to go and do something less boring instead.

Complain about this comment
38. At 04:43am on 20 Apr 2009, Orville Eastland wrote:
Unfortunately,here in the US, a lot of people get their "church" from TV or radio. And, even more unfortunately, many of those try and bilk people out of their money. The BBC at least is free, if you pay the license fee.

Complain about this comment
39. At 10:16am on 20 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
My own hypotheses on why so many threads have been dedicated to homosexuality

1) Iris Robinson wouldn't shut up about it. Then journalists wouldn't shut up about Iris.

2) It's a big issue in the Anglican communion. And I think that Will and members of his team have an innate and immutable attraction to Anglicanism.

I think that there may be psycho-biological explanations for this attraction to the Anglican Communion. Or perhaps nurture is more important than nature.
Some of us may find it odd that others find highly intellectual sermons delivered in a monotone voice attractive. But the impulse for bells and smells cannot be controlled.

There is some evidence that Anglican tendencies can be reversed with electro-convulsive therapy. Or by reading a book by Rowan Williams.

GV

Complain about this comment
40. At 10:52am on 20 Apr 2009, jovialPTL wrote:
I don't know what the fuss is about. It seems strange to hear fundamentalist christians ranting that the media overdo their coverage of sex when those same fundamentalist are the ones who are obsessed with it. If religion programme talk about homosexuality maybe it's because churches are fighting about that all the time! It's a classic case of shooting the messenger if you blame things on the media. I wish my church had better things to talk about that would draw the media's interest but we lack a martin Luther king who leads a church into battle against injustice.

Complain about this comment
41. At 12:45pm on 20 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

I am interested in your advice. I am a 19 year-old man who has asked Christ to be my Lord and Saviour some years ago by the Holy Spirit.

I have increasingly strong urges to judge others and I'm not sure what to do. When I read the NT passages on the matter, the plain reading of the passages seems to say that this sort of behaviour is forbidden to me. I believe the Bible is the word of God.

I hear many church leaders and theological experts on SS and W&T who seem to be trying to say to me that I should not be focussing on the perceived faults of others and instead concentrate solely on leading a good life myself and leaving others to the wealth of God's tender mercy.

The traditional reading of the NT seems to say (over and over and over again) dont judge and you wont be judged and you will become a child of the light and you will enter the kingdom of God.

What should I do? Should I keep snatching at texts here and there and applying them to other people's lives, or should I take the whole thrust of Christs teaching and apply it to me?
Benny.

- Well, Benny, its not really your place to be judging anyone especially regarding their sexuality. Try not to do it. Would you also please leave homosexuals alone or at least celebrate their qualities now and again. Their contribution to the arts, for example, literature, society, justice, freedom etc.. If you dont, the chances are that the very thing you condemn in others might one day visit your own door. And then when it is your son or daughter (or grandson or grandaughter) who comes out as gay, you might begin to see how damaging and hurtful comments from righteous religious zealots can really be.

Benny went away very sad because no matter how many times people gently tried to dissuade him from judging others, he couldnt help it. He had asked Christ to be his Lord and Saviour and therefore had, subconsciously given himself permission to judge others, probably blissfully unaware that he was even doing it.

Complain about this comment
42. At 5:32pm on 20 Apr 2009, Electra2009 wrote:

RJB - once again you've hit the nail on the head :-)

Complain about this comment
43. At 8:12pm on 20 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

So Benny, and any actual readers out there who happen to be in a similar position, there you have it.

It would appear that we have reached the consensus that we are going to completely blank your existence out of our minds.

You are not entitled to expect "information and education" from the BBC about treatment which may actually help you with the SSA you reject in any balanced discussion on the matter. We know you might be in the very depths of despair, but we know best, we are going to give you one side of the story freely and ridicule and slander the other side which reflects traditional Christianity.

Anyone who responds to an honest request from you to help you escape from SSA is a judgemental fundamentalist. Even if they are professionals in their field aka Spitzer, Yarhouse and Jones, Masters and Johnston.

You have no right to form your own sexual identity; if you have SSA you are gay. Pipe down and accept it.

This is not a forum for free inquiry and discussion.

Furthermore you have no right to determine your own direction in any counselling that you might request on this matter, contrary to the NI Association for Mental Health and the WHO statement on unwanted SSA.

To discuss and objectivley identify sin in our society today is from henceforth "judgementalism".

We are to completely forget the actual context in which Christ used this phrase "judge not lest ye be judged".

The greek here actually means do not engage in destructive criticism.

But offering freedom of information to those people who desperately seek it to deal with a life dominating problem is henceforth to be classifed as destructive criticism.

Furthermore, people like Archibishop John Sentamu, Rev Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, John Stott and Lyndon Bowring (CARE), Pastor Niemoller are/were all fundamentalist theocrats who should know better than to opppose the privatisation of faith in Britain today, some of them having actually got involved in creating (gasp!) legislation.

The same goes for those rabid fundamentalist Christians who had the audacity to introduce free schooling and hospitals in Britain before anyone else. And that King Alfred was a total nutter too for basing our legal system on the bible. Honestly!

They were/are all far too certain about their faith if you ask me.

;-)

Lastly, we should all snip those irksome parts of our bibles out that spout nonsense like "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered"

And also that silly passage where Jesus insists on his disciples being "salt and light"

(now taking my tongue out of my cheek!)

;-)

OT

Complain about this comment
44. At 8:29pm on 20 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Ok, my hall of fame of prominent Christians should be concluded with the phrase should not have limited their actions to only Britian today as some are dead or were from outside Britain....

sorreee!

Another couple of passages I vote to remove from bibles;-

Ephesians 5
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.

I also voe that we cut these words from the Apostle Peter out of the New Testament. I mean, did nobody ever tell him the bible was all about toleranc and love?

1 Peter 3

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.

12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds[b] carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.[c]
Deceptions of False Teachers

18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped[d] from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”
///////////////////////////////

As for me, at this time I have to say that the Gospel of grace, love and redemption to all who accept it cannot be seperated from passages like this in the NT.

I dont believe I have ever offered any honest and sincere seeker anything other than the compassion and grace of Christ.

But I cannot in good conscience make it a matter of Christian principle to sit back and by default endorse and support the words of false teachers when they meet my ears.

All those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

OT

Complain about this comment
45. At 9:00pm on 20 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

I can think of loads of people who "call on the name of the Lord" and who might not be as "saved" as they think they are. No names mentioned.

Complain about this comment
46. At 10:10pm on 20 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

First this is long, but it includes some quotes from your post 43 for reference.

I'm sorry I offended you so much, that certainly was not my intention.

Let me try and pick up a few points which my help us both understand one another better.

(1) As will probably be clear from other threads I have a high view of the bible, as I have a high view of the church.

(2) Now let's consider 'Benny'.

You say

"It would appear that we have reached the consensus that we are going to completely blank your existence out of our minds."

No, not close, Benny's hope is in Jesus not the BBC.

"You are not entitled to expect 'information and education' from the BBC about treatment which may actually help you with the SSA you reject in any balanced discussion on the matter."

Correct, however, as a Christian, Benny can expect to find help in and from the church. I'm certainly not building my faith on anything the BBC says.

"We know you might be in the very depths of despair, but we know best, we are going to give you one side of the story freely and ridicule and slander the other side which reflects traditional Christianity."

Well it depends who the we is, as I said, I don't look to the BBC when I am in despair, I look to Jesus. And, I ridiculed no one.

"Anyone who responds to an honest request from you to help you escape from SSA is a judgmental fundamentalist."

I did not say that.

"Even if they are professionals in their field aka Spitzer, Yarhouse and Jones, Masters and Johnston."

I have made no mention of the counseling on offer and explained why, lots of times.

"To discuss and objectively identify sin in our society today is from henceforth 'judgmentalism' ".

Didn't say that either, but what I will say is that I find it sad that we Christians overlook the hypocrisy in the pew and in our own lives. According to my bible, it's not just the sexually immoral who will be outside the Kingdom. On that basis OT, I make no presumptions about my own salvation.

"some of them having actually got involved in creating (gasp!) legislation."

As I said OT, I didn't expect you to agree with my view of Christians in politics, most people don't, but I will say this, The Apostle Paul did not seek a place on the Roman Senate. To do so would have compromised him, instead Paul communicated the truth of an enduring Kingdom. Strangers and Aliens OT, Strangers and Aliens. Anyway why do you think Paul irritated Caesar so much?

"The same goes for those rabid fundamentalist Christians who had the audacity to introduce free schooling and hospitals in Britain before anyone else. And that King Alfred was a total nutter too for basing our legal system on the bible. Honestly!"

I fear you miss my point. To Christianize a society with Biblical Laws is not to pray, 'Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven', Jesus alone is the King, and first and foremost he reigns in the hearts (characters) of his people, I no longer confuse the two kingdoms. Building schools and hospitals was good but it didn't make Britain a 'Christian nation'. The concept of 'Christian nations' is idolatry.

"And also that silly passage where Jesus insists on his disciples being 'salt and light' "

It is my contention that we can best be salt and light when we are not encumbered with the laws of state. It is not 'God and Ulster' or any other nation, make your choice.

And post 44, I don't see that it has anything to do with any of my comments. If you are concerned that it does see point (1) above.

OT if you really want discuss this further then you are going to have to think through what you believe about the necessary process of change in the life of the ordinary faithful believer in the pew and how each of us are called to work out our salvation, for we are all sinners and it is the same gospel which we all need to hear, believers or not.

And, after all that I wasn't responding to the fictional 'Benny' I was responding to you and asking you to think through the issues more widely.

Peter

Complain about this comment
47. At 01:50am on 21 Apr 2009, portwyne wrote:

OT - now that I'm back I intend replying to Benny very soon.

Graham - I can see you're spoiling for a fight!!

Complain about this comment
48. At 10:14am on 21 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
Portwyne

PK has taken all the fun out of fighting.

No, this was just a bit of fun at Will's expense (my *bet* is that if he finds Anglicanism attractive). Not a serious critique of your Church.

But you'll remember I don't "get" Anglicanism, even the Evangelical variety. I can find attractive qualities in Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. The Anglican communion - agnostics and fundamentalists under one roof - confuses the life out of me.

It seems to be a way of life more than a set of doctrines to part of the communion, a set of doctrines rather than a way of life to another, and both to a different set. All in one organisational structure.

GV

Complain about this comment
49. At 5:48pm on 21 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Pete

Appreciate the conciliatory tone bro, I sense you have heard me in part.

If you have followed me at all on this topic you would find me repeatedly volunteering my own total sinfulness (including my sexuality) as a measure of the mercy we all need.

Neither do I presume my salvation for this very reason, just like you, as I have repeated numerous times on this blog. I dont think there is any self righteousness in me on this discussion, it is most certainly not my motivation. I am absolutely begging all my righteousness from Christ.
All mine is as filthy rags.

I dont understand why you seem to take my concerns as an attack on one community instead of a defence of another ie those who reject SSA and desperately want help. I'm puzzled??!! I have tried to be very clear about this.

It is quite clear to me that the GLB community at large have no interest in such services as Benny is interested in, why force the issue with them? I wouldnt. (For real people who are actually like Benny google;- Andy Comiskey, James Parker, Peter Ould, Mike Davidson from NI).

Are we really saying it is fine for them to hear this discussion in the church, but NOT on a blog like this?

Much of the last post you critiqued was picked up from other posters so dont take it all personally.

I dont for a second come from the "for God and Ulster" school of thought (LOL!!!) and I never bemoan loss of Christian heritage or nation.

My point, which I think you got, ref Sentamu, Luther King, Wilberforce, Bowring etc is that I agree that our focus is God and neighbours, not a theocracy. No contest.

In fact, I dont think I have ever really spoken much about legislation as an aim on any matter, it doesnt occupy my thoughts much, so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up.

I believe spiritual reality forms culture which forms legislation, in that order.

What I am really talking about is social engagement and the privatisation of faith. I dont honestly believe you conflate the privatisation of faith debate with theocracy or an abandonment of the great commission. If so it is suggestive of a straw man argument IMHO.

To my mind legislation generally reflects the spiritual condition of a nation it doesnt create it. But again, none of the posts I have written above are urging a campaign for any legislation. Can we be clear on this?

There is a vast difference between social engagement/ meaningful incarnational living and a campaign for theocracy, which I wouldnt want. But are we really saying that Wilberforce and Luther King were acting against the gospel by campaigning against slavery? Or were they actually living it out incarnationally???

Ironically, one of John Stott;s main criticisms of fundamentalism was that it blinkered many in the church to their responsibilities to engage practically with the world. He was quite right, within parameters of course.

In fact you might be surprised to hear that he has given me much of the foundations of my understanding of the issue of sexuality in a book on social issues and how Christians should see them. Hardly a self righteous theocratic fundamentalist, our Rev John Stott.

Perhaps Rev Stott needs to think through the ......necessary process of change in the life of the ordinary faithful believer in the pew and how each of us are called to work out our salvation, for we are all sinners and it is the same gospel which we all need to hear, believers or not....?

I work out mine with fear and trembling.... still!

However, when I mention the names of people above I really dont think you are going to tell me that these people were acting against the Spirit in their work. Remember John the Baptist telling Herodias that he should not have his brother's wife?

Are we REALLY saying that the church is only to evangelize and is not to have ANY sort of prophetic voice in society???

I would urge one word of caution; might Christian teachers' view on this matter change if it becomes a sacking offence for them to refuse to teach the modern liberal viewpoint on sexuality as a mandatory part of a lesson?

Might such teachers then become a little more interested in what political and legal support some parachurch orgs might be able to offer them. As David Pawson says, the lack of persecution in the UK is biblically abnormal and he expects real persecution will begin through laws on sexuality and gender discrimination (already begun).

Perhaps it is a bit like the idea of encouraging widows to be whole in the Lord, which you did not like much.

Perhaps persecuted teachers can be whole in the Lord too, but in the mean time they might suddenly find that they also like those passage that urges brother and sister to stand with them as though they themselves were suffering state persecution/jail.

;-)

We are all plastic in so many ways, I know.

See real example from the UK;-
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090212/teacher-scolds-girl-5-for-talking-about-jesus/

I respect that this is a debate you did not wish to enter fyi and perhaps it was wrong of me to drag you into it.

But I also have to ask you if there are such specific mandates in scripture to debate the subjects you do choose to debate here as there are directions not to debate the ones you dont.

sincerely
OT

PS RJB - it is my understanding that the greek for saved actually means "being saved" so please dont assume that I am presuming my own salvation.

Complain about this comment
50. At 7:15pm on 21 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

You pick a terrific example from Scripture in John the Baptist and King Herod's fight, to show why you give yourself permission to "correct"/condemn homosexuals.

John the Baptist. He has a title, a job, something which defines him. (Was also a prophet and apparently didnt have very good dress sense or a fussy palate.)

King Herod. Title.... Job.... defines him. (Along with being politician and enjoyed exotic dancers.)

The baptist criticizes the king for his affair. (He was actually criticizing him for far, far more than that.)

On these threads you have taken not one person, but thousands, defined them by their sexuality - not their titles or occupations or anything else - and condemned them. That is one reason I believe you are misguided.

Secondly, I'm convinced you indeed have a very acute awareness of your sinfulness (I would even add a very damaging awareness of it), with the exception of one major flaw -

The arrogance of assuming that you are called or indeed entitled to tell anyone how they should lead their private lives.

Your self description, if I can define you negatively for a moment, is poignant-

"my total sinfulness", "All mine is filthy rags", I work out my salvation with fear and trembling."

If that's what you think of yourself, what chance have the rest of us got with you?

Complain about this comment
51. At 7:29pm on 21 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

A shorter response!

On the point of state and social engagement I think we understand each other better.

Regarding attacks on communities.

Irrespective of what I think, the point might be that the gay community read Christian disagreement with their sexual identities as an attack. Here is where Christians need to be very careful. We simply cannot, and we do do this, we do it all the time, ignore our own sins while at the same time engaging in very public debates about other people, people who do not share our views. This is critical, again and again the church is seen as petty and judgmental because it ignores the honking great tree trunk in it's own eye while it nit-picks over the specks of dust in other lives. We cannot ignore this. If the church gets called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then we need to take those comments seriously.

In terms of Christian public servants, I heard David Pawson raise that issue 20 years ago. It was worth hearing BTW :-) And, I read the receptionist story at the time. I would hope that persecuted 'anybodys' would find solace, and practical help, in the church, but of course the church would have to figure out what being the church is before that could happen!

On the widows thing, I'm not sure what I was supposed to have 'not liked much', could you explain?

As for debating mandates in the bible, of course there aren't any, why would there be, I choose the debates I wish to be involved in, don't we all? We can't all debate everything.

Complain about this comment
52. At 11:24pm on 21 Apr 2009, portwyne wrote:

OT - your post # 34.

I promised you a reply to Benny - it has been a difficult response to write and, in the course of composition, I have modified my views as to whether or not a person of immutable evangelical conviction with SSA might not, considering the demerits of the other options, seek help to redirect that attraction. I am sure there is still much with you will disagree and I am far from sure about my own opinions in the latter part of the post, but thank you (I think!) for engendering the exercise.

-----------

Benny

I am very glad you decided to talk to someone - it is a very positive thing for you to have done. Society has changed a lot in the past few years and it is good that that change has enabled you to be open: for generations Christians with homosexual feelings have borne their burden in secret with many experiencing horrendous isolation and often overwhelming feelings of guilt and despair.

It would appear from your letter that you have grown up in a conservative evangelical fellowship with a high regard for a traditional understanding of Scripture. I myself feel that view of Scripture (and of God) is deeply flawed. I know a God of Love in whom you will find complete acceptance of yourself and every natural aspect of your being; you can be complete in Him - I would encourage you to seek Him.

I accept, however, your right to your understanding of Scripture - if you want to discuss the implications of my views for your situation I will be happy to do so - but for now let's stick with yours.

From your viewpoint then I think you are correct - the plain teaching of Scripture is certainly that homosexual practice is forbidden and that surrendering to lust for a person of the same gender is sinful. I recognise that we are all sinful but I understand that you don't want to be told that you're just in a particular variety of a common boat, you want to understand how to deal with the challenges and dilemmas your particular situation presents to you.

You do not need me to tell how difficult you must find things - physical urges left unmet come to dominate the consciousness and can pervade both waking life and dream-scape. I can understand why you might be attracted to a therapy which offers release from these constant internal conflicts. You are aware that there are practitioners who offer treatments aimed at redirecting your feelings of sexual attraction, focusing them on persons of the opposite gender; I believe it may be possible, in some cases, for such a redirection to take place. I would earnestly beg you, however, to think very, very carefully indeed before you embark on such a course.

My concerns are not just that the outcome is uncertain, the permanance not guaranteed, the nature and the full effects of the processes not well understood; they are not just that you are risking the happiness and self-esteem of another in an attempt to satisfy yourself and your own needs; pre-eminently I am concerned because such treatments cannot work in terms of delivering true happiness and fulfilment. They cannot work because they fly in the face of humanity's universal prime emotional need.

Every human being, unless in some sense psychopathic, has this core need: to be known for what they are, to be accepted for what they are, and, ultimately, to be loved for what they are. If we try to supress our self-identity our unconscious minds war against the betrayal and deception. In many and varied ways we each and every one of us proclaim the truth of our being against, if necessary, the sense of our words and actions.

The only authority I respect is that of the poet and artist, let me digress for a moment and ask you to listen to these words of Hopkins - it is a profound psychological insight expressed in a poem of the greatest beauty:

"Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves - goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying What I do is me: for that I came".

Benny, you cannot deny what is at your core and escape damage, you cannot change your essence and be happy. I plead with you - ask yourself if your understanding of God might not be wrong!

If you cannot contemplate revising the basis of your faith, and I accept that that is itself an emotionally dangerous undertaking, then you will need a great deal of support, love, care and affection from your fellow Christians for, as I think you must already realise, the path you are to tread will not be an easy one. The power and force of biological urges cannot be underestimated - many gay evangelicals, if they are unable to sublimate or redirect their desires, find themselves leading lives of either guilt or compromise, either self-loathing or the slow erosion of any meaningful Christian life.

You may have every intention of leading a celibate life but that is not an easy commitment. You may fail and need to experience forgiveness - I would venture to to suggest that, while they may be foreign to your tradition, you might find you path easier if supported in a structured way by a confessor and spiritual director as well as in the informal network of a number of open accepting and supportive Christian friends.

Perhaps, however, if you are completely open, and can find a woman who, knowing the whole situation, is willing to love you, a woman who is willing to accept an imperfect relationship, perhaps it might be worth attempting redirection therapy. True happiness is rare, perfect relationships are rare, maybe there is the prospect of at least as much happiness for you in this course as in the other options still available to you. In this situation Benny please be honest with yourself and those you love, do not attempt to decive yourself and you are less likely to deceive others. The torturous casuistry as to what does and does not constitute sex with which the unattached man excuses his lapses can all too easily, in any relationship, become a torturous casuistry as to what does or does not constitute betrayal.

I really hope you will come back to me and say "Tell me more about your vision of God, tell me more about what it means for me as a gay man to experience acceptance, validation and love in Him, tell me more about how I can be happy and fulfilled being me and being true to myself". If you cannot let me counsel you only this, whatever your path do not try to walk it alone.

Por

Complain about this comment
53. At 7:00pm on 22 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter

I am not disagreeing with the gay community about their identity. I fully respect their rights to self identify.

Your argument that I need to be careful in discussing their identity is therefore wholly misplaced.

You are still in denial about even acknowledging the existence of a community of people who reject their SSA.

These people do not identify themselves as gay or members of that community.

My core points are;-

* People who are distressed by their SSA should have the right to full information from both sides of the debate, ie whether or not people can actually change.

* People who are distressed by their SSA have the right to any reasonable mental health support they request. WHO and N.I.A.M.H fully endorse this.

Are you saying that now that I have gone into some detail about my own sinfulness that I am entitled to take part in such a discussion? I dont think you are at all. You really mean the opposite, I think. You really dont think anyone should raise these points in any discussion on this blog, it appears.

I have done this numerous times in such discussion previously on this blog ie explained my own falleness. I am quite open about it. it never matters a jot to my critics.

This debate always progresses as follows; I raise factual points/questions when W&T raises the subject of SSA; then my character is repeatedly attacked in every way possible. Generally nobody even attempts to address my objective questions or points. The end. This time is no different!!

;-)

Was David Pawson right or wrong? Please dont try and dismiss a serious point for people currently at risk of losing their jobs/livlihoods with a smile.

You raise the issues of being harsh judgemental and hypocritical once again.

I have demonstrated I am not being a hypocrite, or destructively critical (judgemental) and that I am emphasising hope and redemption for distressed people, not condemning people who are not interested.

I dont see therefore how these points pertain.

I will stand corrected but what I really think you mean is that I should not be discussing the issue of how SSA can be overcome AT ALL on this blog regardless of how I do it and how open I am about my own complete fallenness.

Only you could explain why.

I notice you have not affirmed a single word I have said but your actions have dovetailed completely with those who attack my integrity and understanding.

You have not raised a single word that any of them have questioned or even disargeed with even though you agree with my position.

Was I really guilty of the accusation of idolatry of nationalism, after all that? Was my understanding of Christian growth really flawed?

Was I really self-righteous??

Pete, perhaps it might be helpful if you began to understand that people who have left SSA behind and spoken openly about it in love and humility are frequently targetted with very nasty attacks. There is no such thing as n "unoffensive" way to discuss these matters.

////////////

Portwyne

Out of time for today, but thank you for the time you have taken.

My one point today is that the only authority you respect is of the artist and the poet. You then go on to say you think changing SSA is highly unlikely etc.

I dont think I can really debate someone who will not objectivley look at hard evidence which contrasts with their viewpoint;-

ie the lives and testimony of Andy Comiskey, Peter Ould, Mike Davidson, James Parker and research by Masters and Johnston, Yarhouse and Jones, Prof Spitzer.

sincerely

OT

PS I saw an out gay man at a social event in recent days. He was out on a limb and ignored by all around him. He was actually there as an openly gay man. Everyone knew this. I sat and ate with him and chatted about his life and life etc for ages. He was a real gent. We never discussed any of the issues above. I saw him as an outcast, through Christ's eyes and showed him unconditional love. I hope we will meet again. I could tell you other examples. I dont think it would really make any difference.

--------------
Truth without grace is brutality. Grace without truth is lies.

Complain about this comment
54. At 8:41pm on 22 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT (sorry but it's long again, I have lots of explaining to do please stick with it, and can you keep reminding yourself that as you read I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU!)

First up, I really don't know how to respond to statements like,

"Are you saying that now that I have gone into some detail about my own sinfulness that I am entitled to take part in such a discussion? I don't think you are at all. You really mean the opposite, I think. You really don't think anyone should raise these points in any discussion on this blog, it appears."

Where have I ever denied you the 'right' to participate in these discussions, never. Nor am I asking you to prove how sinful you are, we are misreading each other. All I have done is to say that I do not expect that a secular state, or an organisation like the BBC is going to put an evangelical christian case, and that if the church is going to speak of the the process of transformation in individual lives then it is wider, much wider than the gay issue. Simple statement, if someone like Benny doesn't see or hear, and in our churches we don't see or hear, others speaking of their own transformation, then if I were Benny I'd walk away. OT my point here is that we tolerate all sorts of sins, but the 'Bennys' of this world get it in the neck in the sense that they are the focus of public debate. I don't hear or see the church doing much anything to promote change in individual lives. There isn't for example a public debate about the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and I got it in the neck from PMS members for daring to suggest that maybe churches shouldn't be banks. We have lots of cliches, but when it really comes to being the community of God's people with all that that entails we don't get round to it much, we seem to prefer our meetings and programmes, maybe because we can hide behind them (remember, I am speaking generally). I have no problem with you raising the issues, but please accept my replies as being those which are important to me, I'm telling it as I see it, I am not denying you. OT, please! for goodness sake!

Second I have never, not ever, attacked your character, I have asked others to stop attacking you, I have stated quite straight forwardly that I am not against you, I speak generally of the evangelical church in NI as I see, there is nothing personal in this. But the sad truth is that the Evangelical church in NI often points fingers, and it usually points at sex issues. Sad. True. Unavoidable. Sorry.

Now your core points:

(1) "People who are distressed by their SSA should have the right to full information from both sides of the debate, i.e. whether or not people can actually change."

OK, but who are they going to get the information from? Your original point was that the BBC should supply it, my point again is that I do not expect them to do it. That is all I said. If you know 'Benny', tell him, if I meet 'Benny' I'll talk to him. If 'Benny' is part of a different church they should tell him, but my guess is that there are lots of 'Bennys' in lots of churches who won't say nothing cos the first response will be condemnation, again I speak generally.

?(2) "People who are distressed by their SSA have the right to any reasonable mental health support they request. WHO and N.I.A.M.H fully endorse this."

I have never denied a right to mental health support, what I said was that I personally won't comment on the specifics of mental health support because my previous limited experience of volunteer counseling training taught me my limits. I am not in a position to comment on the kind of support available because I don't know enough about it.

On David Pawson. Why did you think I dismissed your point, I smiled, it was a smile, it was not sarcasm. I have agreed with nearly everything I have ever heard David say. His preaching has taught me more about the bible than almost anyone else. I have heard hours of his work. Furthermore, I am a public servant, I am a teacher, I am one of the ones who could, if anti christian legislation came into being, loose their jobs. I am fully aware of the implications, I do not 'grin' at them. I have raised the issue in my own church lots of times.

Hypocrites.

I did not call you a hypocrite. I am speaking generally. I said, "If the church gets called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then we need to take those comments seriously." We do get called those things, I've got called those things on this blog. I did not say 'you, OT'.

Again I did not say you shouldn't discuss SSA, I said I didn't expect the BBC to do it.

You say,

"I notice you have not affirmed a single word I have said but your actions have dovetailed completely with those who attack my integrity and understanding."

OT I was debating a point with you, I was not attacking you, I hope you understand this now. I cannot be any clearer. And I was not responding to their arguments because I was responding to you because I thought we might be familiar with similar church traditions and could have a conversation.

OT you have written post 53 as if everything I have said was an attack on you, I am sorry you think that. Please do not take things so personally.

One more thing, I have known about the work of Andy Comiskey for about 20 years now, I know someone who travelled to the Sates years ago to be part of a similar programme, I am not against them, but here is a real problem I have, Portwyne in his advice said, "whatever your path do not try to walk it alone." (again, let me qualify this, I am not accusing you) but OT I see an awful lot of people with all sorts of problems in our churches walking very lonely paths because the church likes to discuss issues but it doesn't much like committing itself to people. That is the response I have been trying to make and we in the church need to put our own house in order, and this, in my view, is more important than any public debate including any and all of the words I have typed here.

Complain about this comment
55. At 9:38pm on 22 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Peter

I got a very similar lengthy response from OT in which he said that I had accused him of this, that and the next thing. (Including me accusing him of being gay for which, admittedly, he later apologised.) I never accused him of anything. I wondered then, why he took personally comments which were not aimed at him.

He has done exactly the same with you. I have read your previous posts closely and you do not infact say the things he accuses you of.

What does this say to you?

OT

You still dont get it. Were you 'discussing' gay issues when you continually quote scripture passages, the few there are, regarding homosexual sex? And, since you call yourself a Christian, what does Christ say about homosexuals? Not adulterers, homosexuals? Not people who inhabited Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuals?

Nothing that warrants the amount of time you spend on the subject thats for sure.

(And by the way, you do not simply comment on homosexuality when Wills does a piece about it. You go for it every time it is mentioned, even as an aside to the main piece.)

Lastly, did it ever strike you that the out-gay man might have been being kind to you, not the other way around? (And please, if you are a member of a church where a gay man is shunned so publicly, either, leave that church and shake the dust from your feet, or, do what you do on here, publicly condemn those people who behave in such an anti-Christian manner.)

I think its the point Peter is also trying to make about so many church people.

Complain about this comment
56. At 11:22pm on 22 Apr 2009, portwyne wrote:

OT - your post # 53.

Your response and its tone, while not what I was hoping, was not entirely unexpected. I do not think you read my post carefully - I venture to suggest that you should.

Complain about this comment
57. At 11:45pm on 22 Apr 2009, pastorphilip wrote:
RJB,

I think you need to understand that the teaching of the Bible, (and also of Jesus Himself,) on sexual matters is that it endorses marriage. Anything outside of that - including homsexuality - is forbidden.

Contemporary research confirms that one man with one woman for life is indeed the best way to go.

Complain about this comment
58. At 01:00am on 23 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Hi PP.

How was your day? Did you watch the football tonight? What is the weather like where you are?

No point in asking you or debating with you about anything else. lol.

Oh, for the record, Jesus didnt forbid anything.

And many cultures have found that polygamy suited their circumstances better than monogamy and..... your final statement in post 57, what utter nonsense. Which contemporary research? The world of nature would suggest quite the opposite.

Tell the truth, that last statement just sounded authorative so you just chucked it in. In fact, it would probably take you years to actually back that up.

I'll change my mind, I will debate with you, especially on family.

Jesus didnt emphasise the role of family, infact he split families up. He took fathers and husbands away from their families. He envisaged a human family where people of all walks of life became brothers and sisters. (Who is my mother, my brother and my sister? Those who hear the word of god and put it into practice.)

And what is that word? To condemn without end from our ivory pulpits people who commit perceived sexual transgressions ?

No, to love, forgive (70x7), never to judge and never to condemn. To treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

Forgiveness is a prerequisite of following Christ. He is the judge and he doesnt need you (or OT) to fill in for him. He's not on a day off. He requires you to lead the best life you can in the circumstances you find yourself, and others in the circumstances they find themselves. (The parable of the talents.)

Did you ever consider what Jesus was writing in the sand when the Pharisees wanted to murder the woman they "caught" in adultery?

Personally, I think he was writing a list of the sins of the Pharisees. Thats why none of them dared throw the first stone.

You have absolutely no right - according to Christ - to set yourself up in judgement over anyone. You do have the right to lead by example, a very different matter altogether.

Complain about this comment
59. At 1:59pm on 23 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
RJB

Philip certainly isn't on an ivory pulpit. And he has an exemplary testimony to my knowledge (never having met him).

I've been meaning to reply to you on the topic of sexuality. But a preliminary may be in order.

(i) Suppose "Benny" was in love with a female partner, Sue Bridehead. His soul mate, if you will. They've no children, but they're trying, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll be unsuccessful. Sue is looking forward to having children.
Now Benny becomes a Christian; Sue is a free-thinker, and can't see the morality or rationality of Benny's faith. But she loves and respects him nevertheless.
Then Benny reads the Bible on marriage, and becomes convinced that the *human authors* of the Biblical documents believed that sex should be reserved for marriage.
But Sue is a free-thinker who rejects marriage as a heterosexist, patriarchal institution. She holds this for rational reasons, in good conscience. She desperately wants to continue her relationship with Benny. But she wants children, and in any case she is not prepared to give up sexual relations, which she believes are an important part of her identity.
If Benny is not willing to continue having sex with Sue, their relationship will have to end. They feel fulfilled in their relationship, and there is an abundance of care, trust and affection.

Now, to be a faithful Christian, what should Benny do? Sacrifice the relationship? Or has he misread scripture? Or has he misunderstood the authority of Scripture?
GV

Complain about this comment
60. At 2:06pm on 23 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
That's not offered as a critique. I'm trying to sound out why you disagree with the Orthodox Christian position on homosexuality.
It's the last two questions that are important. Assume Benny believes that he must leave Sue to be faithfully Christian. If you answer that he's wrong it could be because (a) He has misread Scripture or (b) He has misunderstood the authority of the Bible. Or both.
If you think he is correct to leave Sue, then I can only assume that the Orthodox rejection of Homosexual relations is for reasons equivalent to (a).

GV

Complain about this comment
61. At 2:53pm on 23 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
Actually I think it was LSV that I said I'd reply to. But the point still stands.

Complain about this comment
62. At 3:24pm on 23 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
As for OTs proclivities

I think gay rights are such a sensitive issue as two groups feel under threat. Homosexuals believe that their rights are threatened by traditional religious communities. Traditional religious communities feel that their right to believe is under threat; not from homosexuals so much as a liberal secular elite. So everyone feels like a victim; so everyone can get a bit irate.

(Me included. My first post on this blog was an unwarranted attack on the big WC for being condescending. He sounded as if he *might* be *suggesting* that my beliefs *might* be wrong, or in need of adjusting.)

Now for a while after that (and some apologising on my part) we couldn't get off the topic on this blog. I think that was down to Lambeth and Iris Robinson. It could seem as if the BBC was pushing a secular, liberal agenda. And Fundamentlism is a reaction against secularisation.
So it could *seem* as if BBC Northern Ireland had a production team that was promoting the view that traditional sexual ethics should disappear. And that would threaten all *traditional* Christian ethical reasoning. So it is fear of aggressive secularisation that motivates OT to my mind, not fear of homosexuals.
For the record, I think Will's programme and posts do lean towards a more liberal viewpoint. But that's not the same as promoting one. I doubt we can entirely hide our convictions, and I doubt that we should. I think BBC NI is as fair as it can be. Given the shambles of the media in general, that's far from condemnation by faint praise.

Pretty much the opposite in fact.

GV

Complain about this comment
63. At 5:48pm on 23 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Graham

Appreciate your comments but in fact I am not at all motivated by fear (of a secular society).

I would say I get angry when I see desperate people being misled on this matter and I also have compassion for people who wish to overcome SSA. I fully respect the wishes of GLB who don't choose this path.

Peter M and RJB

My head is spinning now that you tell me that you have never attacked me in any way. It must all have been a bad dream. ;-)

All that talk of judgemental, self righteous, hypocrites who arrogantly presume their salvation and make an idol out of Christian heritage and have a flawed understanding of spritual growth of Christians... that was obviously a seperate discussion here on the same thread!

I could have saved myself so much time by just skipping over it.

;-)

RJB - Interesting how you turn my support for the formal representative of a GLB organisation into an attack on me. 10 out of 10.

Peter

Every point of objection you have raised to me you have later found we have agreed on. Yet still you challenge me.

You dont have to take a public position on this subject, but at the minute you are choosing one and it is to persistently undermine the reality of the gospel in helping desperate people overcome SSA, if that is the path they choose.

It is the one thing you cannot bring yourself to affirm.

OT

Complain about this comment
64. At 7:11pm on 23 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Here are some questions. We need to get this sorted, once and for all.

Do you accept that there is a difference between the following sentences.

"If church gets called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then we need to take those comments seriously."

Which I did say, and

If you are called harsh, judgmental and hypocritical then you need to take those comments seriously.

Which I did not say.

"Here is where Christians need to be very careful. We simply cannot, and we do do this, we do it all the time, ignore our own sins while at the same time engaging in very public debates about other people, people who do not share our views."

Which I did say, and

Here is where you need to be very careful. You simply cannot, and you do do this, you do it all the time, ignore your own sins while at the same time engaging in very public debates about other people, people who do not share your views.

Which I did not say.

"I'm sorry I offended you so much, that certainly was not my intention."

Which I did say, and

I'm not at all sorry I offended you, because that was my intention.

Which I did not say.

"...what I will say is that I find it sad that we Christians overlook the hypocrisy in the pew and in our own lives. According to my bible, it's not just the sexually immoral who will be outside the Kingdom. On that basis OT, I make no presumptions about my own salvation."

Which I did say, and

...what I will say is that I find it sad that you overlook the hypocrisy in the pew and in your own life. According to my bible, it's not just the sexually immoral who will be outside the Kingdom. On that basis OT, I make no presumptions about your salvation.

Which I did not say.

With this in mind can I ask again, do you accept that,

"I have never, not ever, attacked your character, I have asked others to stop attacking you, I have stated quite straight forwardly that I am not against you, (that) I speak generally of the evangelical church in NI as I see, there is nothing personal in this."

Do yo accept that a statement like

"As I said OT, I didn't expect you to agree with my view of Christians in politics, but I will say this, The Apostle Paul did not seek a place on the Roman Senate. To do so would have compromised him, instead Paul communicated the truth of an enduring Kingdom. Strangers and Aliens OT, Strangers and Aliens."

Is an argument not a personal attack? And that it was a response to your comments on King Alfred?

as is

"I fear you miss my point. To Christianize a society with Biblical Laws is not to pray, 'Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven', Jesus alone is the King, and first and foremost he reigns in the hearts (characters) of his people, I no longer confuse the two kingdoms.'

I am drawing a deliberate distinction that I think the church in NI should think through. It relates directly to those Christians in our society who think they can write 'christian' laws.

OT, you said "All that talk of judgemental, self righteous, hypocrites who arrogantly presume their salvation and make an idol out of Christian heritage and have a flawed understanding of spritual growth of Christians... that was obviously a seperate discussion here on the same thread!"

And my response: No it wasn't a separate discussion, but neither was it an attack on you. It was a response to the context in which 'Benny' will find himself. 'Benny' will find himself having to deal with Christians who are some of those things and who will not seek to understand him, who will not listen to him and I was trying to say, that in that context, in the context of a church where homosexuals become an easy finger pointing target, then the whole situation becomes more complex.

OT do you or do you not accept that you were not attacked by me?

You say, "Every point of objection you have raised to me you have later found we have agreed on. Yet still you challenge me."

First I am challenging a point of view, not you, second I am doing that partly to test my attitudes in the situation. I need to test my intentions my hypocrisy and so on, I include me in the sentences I write about the church, third I challenged some of your points of view because I just disagree with e.g. I see no need for the BBC to take your view on the subject. You know why I take this view.

I also put the points I did because I think the evangelical church needs to think through it's attitudes to homosexuals more clearly. Again I don't mean counselling organisations like the ones you mentioned, I mean the general everyday person in the pew.

You say I am, "persistently undermine (ing) the reality of the gospel in helping desperate people overcome SSA"

OT you're going to have to explain this one to me, especially when I said, "Benny's hope is in Jesus..." If Jesus isn't the gospel I don't know what is. Also reread this statement please, "Jesus alone is the King, and first and foremost he reigns in the hearts (characters) of his people"

And anyway as I have repeatedly said I am deliberately not commenting on the 'success' or otherwise of the counselling process.

At this stage I really don't see what else I can say except that I would ask you to stop reading what I say in a personal manner and that you read it holistically as a package in which all the statements fit together.

Regards

Peter

Complain about this comment
65. At 9:42pm on 23 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

I have thought of something else to say!

While saying that I realise that there are christians within the broad evangelical church who, by their own admission, struggle with SSA and who may as a result struggle with self loathing (which is a dreadful thing) and that these people need support, do you understand that I am also saying that the endless public debate regarding the matter, the isolating of these Christians and the finger pointing which does take place, while the church at large speaks little of it's own need of transformation is at best unfair and may actually do harm?

You also said to Graham, "I would say I get angry when I see desperate people being misled on this matter and I also have compassion for people who wish to overcome SSA."

In this context would it be reasonable to ask if you have owned or felt their desperation, their rejection? Have you sought to understand what it is like to walk in their shoes, to empathise, rather than simply sympathise or show compassion? And if you have, could you explain what you think this feels like?

Complain about this comment
66. At 10:05pm on 23 Apr 2009, John Wright wrote:

Peter, much as I love OT, and much as I am fond of your good self, I must tell you that you are probably wasting your time to try and get OT to pay attention to the nuances of what you're saying. OT sees only the broad strokes, not the finer points. I've been chatting to him for 6 years on here now, and have largely abandoned this kind of conversation! That said, I wish you well. Maybe you can go beyond where I ran out of steam. :-)

Complain about this comment
67. At 09:46am on 24 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
OT
PeterM doesn't do personal attacks.

As for "fear" of secularism - I suppose "fear" is a poor term. I don't think you sit up nights hugging your knees and waiting for the AntiChrist's secret police to knock on the door!

But when your beliefs are continually (and supericially) critiqued by an elite it's easy to feel under siege. This issue does go to freedom of speech and thought - are we allowed to believe and express the belief that certain sexual practices are wrong? Even if some individuals find those beliefs offensive and threatening? Even if the same individuals can articulate *good reasons* for finding our beliefs offensive and threatening?
I've never detected a personal problem with *homosexual individuals* in your posts on this topic. I get the impression that it is the casual dismissal of traditional Christian Ethics that irks you. And I think you believe that the Sexual Revolution casued far more harm than good, so of course your beliefs are not incompatible with compassion. To a large degree I share these concerns.
My point was simply that traditional Christians can feel threatened by this debate as much as anyone else.
Take someone who has strong homosexual tendencies, but has decided to live a celibate lifestyle for religious reasons. That's an extraordinary sacrifice in a culture that puts a huge premium on sexual experience. Now if that person is continually told that their sacrifice is irrational they'll be offended. If they are told that sexual pleasure is a primary means of sexual fulfillment, and that we have a duty to seek feelings of personal fulfillment, they'll feel that their lifestyle choice is threatened. Then tell them that their beliefs are offensive and oppressive, and should not be expressed in public.

I've said before that the only way out of this mess is for society to accept that there will be a plurality of worldviews, and that no one worldview should actively seek to *dominate* public discourse. Generally, we hold enough in common to get along. Beyond that we need to be civil.

GV

Complain about this comment
68. At 2:33pm on 24 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

Peter has really said it all in his extensive post. You have taken most of what I said personally, slightly twisting my words to make them look like a personal attack on you.

However, I certainly would attack you personally when you express some of your views (supposedly derived from the Bible.)

In my experience, fundamentalists (those who take the bible literally) have done untold damage to vulnerable people. When such people eventually arrived at my door I would soon realise that they now had ten problems. The one they originally had AND the new ones created by their time with the fundamentalists.

If I was dealing with a man who was gay and who didnt want to be, the first thing I would do, in conscience, would be to make sure that he never got anywhere near someone who holds the views that you hold.

You may consider that a personal attack.

Complain about this comment
69. At 3:53pm on 24 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
RJB

Hmmm. You seem to be skipping by some of my comments. Maybe I'm off target, but I'm not sure you can be so certain that OT is so very wicked until you clarify why you believe that the Bible condones faithful homosexual relationships. And what do you say to the celibate homosexual who, in all conscience, cannot reconcile homosexual activity with his faith commitments. (There's at least on prominent evangelical writer in this camp.) Your view - that his sacrifice is unwarranted- is going to upset him.

I'm away for the weekend now. So I'll see everyone Monday.

GV

Complain about this comment
70. At 3:55pm on 24 Apr 2009, gveale wrote:
PS
The Traditional Christian Sexual Ethic is held by more than Fundies. Could be a bit of a straw man you're swiping at.

In any case, I think we need a better definition of Fundamentalist.

GV

Complain about this comment
71. At 4:30pm on 24 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

My apologies GV, at the end of your questions you say that they were directed at LSV. But I'll be happy to respond later this evening or over the weekend, (since you are away.)

Complain about this comment
72. At 6:05pm on 24 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT (My third response since you last comments, please read the others too.)

I shall try and move on.

Back somewhere in the distant past of posting you wrote a scenario regarding our fictional evangelical friend 'Benny' and asked for my advice. I sought to pause at that moment in order that we might consider the wider church in which 'Benny' might (I would say will) find himself. Whether or not we agree on this context now, I am not sure, but having tried to explain some of my wider concerns I shall attempt a more direct reply regarding 'Benny'.

For the sake of clarity here are my assumptions. 'Benny' is an evangelical Christian, he accepts biblical authority, he experiences a degree of confusion about what the church says about SSA, he is concerned about his own experiences of SSA and especially that it might ultimately separate him from God. This seems to summarize your post 34.

I shall write this by way of speaking to you, OT, and not 'Benny' which is what portwyne did.

My first aim in speaking with 'Benny' would be to attempt to listen to him, rather than offer him my advice. There are a couple of reasons for this, for example, that fact that I really don't know 'Benny' well, that I know nothing of his church or his experiences in church, furthermore, 'Benny' may need to hear himself speak, hear his concerns spoken 'out loud'. Without doing this I cannot assume that my 'advice' is what he needs to hear. (An aside, this notion of Christians giving advice to others, of Christians thinking that somehow we always have 'answers', is another one of the reasons why I hesitated to become further involved in volunteer counseling as I began to realise that it is a presumptuous position to hold.)

In order to help Benny think out loud, to help him hear himself and in order to help me understand him a little better it might be appropriate to ask him some questions; the rate however at which Benny will choose to answer these questions, in fact the rate at which he might be able to answer these questions is again an unknown and so it will be important to allow Benny to control the pace at which he answers and, ultimately, control the direction of any conversation. It is not, you understand, so much about Benny answering my questions as it is about Benny being encouraged in the process of conversation. Indeed if, as you say, Benny doesn't "know who to trust", then allowing time for trust to grow will be crucially important. However it might be worth reflecting on the possibility that in talking to me (or you) the only person 'Benny' is actually talking to is himself. Maybe 'Benny' needs to get to know 'Benny'!

The questions which one should ask are difficult to predict and will themselves be determined by careful listening to Benny, listening to his tone of voice for example, listening for key words he uses, listening for any false assumptions Benny has about himself, the church, or God, (and of course you will realise now that portwyne's understanding of God is different to ours!). However if I were asking questions I think I'd begin by asking Benny to talk about his everyday life, his hopes, dreams, hobbies, interests, stuff like that and I'd talk a bit about me too, in other words I'd seek to find some common ground.

All this of course raises a question for those who might wish to talk with (not to!) 'Benny', particularly those, who like me, may wish to demonstrate kindness, but who have no experience of in depth counseling. The question (questions, actually) are these, 'Am I in this for as long as 'Benny' needs? Am I clear that I am involved in this process for 'Benny' and not because of some need I have, or some point I need to make? Am I prepared to be misunderstood?' And so on. These questions must be asked because they are in contrast to the idea that I will somehow become 'Benny's' 'saviour' (I do not mean that in a spiritual sense, I mean rather that 'Benny' must not become dependent on me however helpful I am, nor must I 'boast' of my role in helping 'Benny')

Now, where next, well without actually speaking with 'Benny' I don't really know, but I think I would wish to reinforce portwyne's point which I have already picked up, which is, "whatever your path do not try to walk it alone." And this is why I spent so much time trying to ask you questions about the wider context of church. Christianity, in my view is a 'team sport', we are supposed to do stuff together, and by that I do not mean 'organize and attend a bundle of meetings'. I mean that we're supposed to learn to like each other, we're supposed to be some kind of functional community, some sort of friends or other, and so I shall finish again which the point I have been making all along only I shall do it by way of a question, 'Do you really think that 'Benny' will be encouraged in his journey if he sees around him people who are happy that he has recognised his 'sin', but who are unwilling to notice their own?'

Can you see too OT that such a process of conversation might be useful irrespective of the specific issue being discussed?

Complain about this comment
73. At 6:27pm on 24 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter

GV is quite right - you dont do personal attacks.

I apologise, I think they might be more correctly described as either objections and/or challenges.

I would like like to step back now and see what you guys make of GV's points from post 67 onwards.

I think he is making some very, very relevant points/questions in posts 67, 69, 70.

I would prefer to observe only until I see his points properly responded to.

In this way I think we can let the debate cool down a bit and remove me from it as a lightening rod, hopefully getting a bit closer to the real issues.

I will be back DV.

Shalom
OT

Complain about this comment
74. At 6:30pm on 24 Apr 2009, romejellybean wrote:

GV

Hope you enjoyed your weekend.

I do not accept the traditional christian view/teaching on homosexuality in the same way that I do not accept the traditional christian teaching on the earth being flat, the treatment of witches, slaves, women, the divorced and remarried, to name but a few.

My understanding of Christ is that he acted with tremendous compassion towards those who were deemed "sinners" by society/church.
I cannot find one example where Jesus gets angry at such a person, yet the gospels are filled with accounts of Christ "personally attacking" the Scribes and Pharisees, the self righteous, the rich, hypocrites, those who judge - especially those who lack compassion. He consistantly shows tremendous love and acceptance for the outcast, the ashamed, the oppressed, the sinner etc...

These things are self evident from the gospels, even if you read them literally.

The fundamentalism I have witnessed here on this site ignores the above points. And when they are pointed out, they are ignored again.

"I am a humble christian, I am aware of my own faults and failings, I am in no position to judge anyone. However, see those gay people......" is the way it goes.

I am asking the likes of OT and PP to try and get a sense of perspective. While I do not claim that homosexual sex is a virtue, neither do I believe it warrants the amount of attention certain people give it and the stigma they attach to such people.

If the "prominent evangelical writer" who is gay and celibate gets annoyed at me for seemingly making light of his sacrifice, he neednt be. He made a decision for himself, applied it to himself and lives it himself. I applaud him and hope that his example - namely that of applying his beliefs to himself, not to others - will be followed by christians everywhere.

Complain about this comment
75. At 8:05pm on 24 Apr 2009, portwyne wrote:

PeterM

I have thought it since you first mentioned that you had attended a volunteer counselling course and the attitude displayed in your post # 72 absolutely confirms it: your decision not to proceed in this area has deprived vulnerable Christians of, potentially, a very able source of support.

It is in no way a criticism (and believe me, like RJB, I would in no wise hesitate deliver one did I think it merited) it is rather an appeal that you should reconsider.

You might perhaps think of exploring those forms of therapy which are completely non-directional.

"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

Complain about this comment
76. At 4:31pm on 26 Apr 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

...still interested to hear feedback from Portwyne and Peter M on GV's comments from post 67 onwards....

...and GV's responses.

Peter M I aim to feedback on your posts this week... but I think we should think about GV's thoughts for a bit first...

OT

Complain about this comment
77. At 9:54pm on 26 Apr 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT you have asked for my response to Graham's comments to RJB

Graham began in post 59 with comments about 'Benny' and 'Sue', relating them to biblical authority and sexuality. First of all, as you know I fully accept biblical authority. Beyond that, my immediate response is that this 'dilemma' is more than just the 'sex' thing. For example even if Ben and Sue were to live apart for a few short weeks and married as quickly as possible, what then? The sex thing might be sorted, but what about their shared worldview? Will they grow apart anyway? What about hopes and aspirations for their children, I mean, will Sue want do the Sunday School run? And so it goes on. This, like the scenario of the prominent evangelical Graham describes also exists partly because of what he calls the, "huge premium (placed) on sexual fulfilment". We could go on raising examples like this, can a Christian husband or wife whose relationship has grown cold justify an affair, let us even assume that it is only a platonic one, yet deeply emotional, and so on.

The heart of the problem is our view of (sexuality and) the bible. Portwyne has already mentioned the 'the plain teaching of Scripture", I might add that divorcing in many/most contexts is also forbidden, as is sex outside of marriage. For the Christian wishing to live according to the bible these issues are difficult, sometimes they are almost impossible to live with.

What, for example, of a single man in his forties, fifties who is desperate for a wife and children yet has never married? What of his hopes for love, fulfillment, passion, companionship? Where will he fit in church, how does he dispel his anger? Will anyone even notice his problems? Don't we often, in our churches, adopt an approach which basically says, 'well as long as Benny ain't sleeping with Sue, OK', or 'as long as Benny doesn't marry a non christian, OK', my concern is about the wider implications of these decisions.

Of course, if one does not view the bible in these tradition ways there really isn't much of a problem, it comes down to consenting adults, problem solved. In this sense secular society has solved the problem and it's answer is this, 'everyone should be a free thinker'. Other sections of the church have solved the problem by affirming homosexuality, or remarrying divorcees. Although I wonder if the implications are any more clearly thought through, probably not. What for example are the support networks when relationships breakdown?

We however are discussing is a very particular problem, one which relates to a mismatch between our lives and the evangelical biblical worldview. I expect that in the evangelical/reformed tradition of the church it might described in the following terms, 'the church is counter cultural', the 'way' is often sacrificial, in fact we are called to 'leave all and follow him'. This is a view I have much sympathy with, but it is a bigger issue than sexuality. The concept of a counter cultural kingdom affects us all if we say we are biblical christians.

So, some concluding thoughts for now.

The way of Jesus is the way of grace and of the cross. (of course this is dreadfully easy to say)
Sexuality is not the only 'problem' christians face, nor is it the only sacrifice they might be called to make.
The problem is exacerbated in that some of the teaching of Jesus has been tamed by the church while sexuality has become a battle ground. In NI for example we have found it perfectly OK to hate our enemies, we found it OK to charge interest in the PMS, there is no concept of community sharing which was at the very heart of the church in book of Acts and so on.
None of us can walk the way of Christ alone hence our desperate need to better understand that we don't go to church, we are the church. Benny needs the church in addition to whatever other direction he is given.
We need to figure out what 'grace' actually is and how we communicate it to one another not just talk about it.
The church is a mess, but it is a glorious one!
Each of us have stories to tell, all of which fit in the Story of God.
The 'good news' isn't, "You're going to Hell".

I don't know if this answers your questions, but it is what I think. Actually, these last 'concluding thoughts', are also what I live and breath, they are what capture my imagination, they are what motivate me, they are what bother and disturb me, they are what I love. (and sometimes they are what I hate) :-)

Complain about this comment
78. At 2:31pm on 28 Apr 2009, righteousHolyknight wrote:
Hmmm.........

I wonder what Pastor Fred will say in reply to this. lol

Complain about this comment
79. At 12:05pm on 01 May 2009, gveale wrote:
It's quiet today. Too quiet.

Complain about this comment
80. At 9:31pm on 03 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:
My response to Peter Morrow

Peter I do very much get the gist of the many shortcomings of the church and how this hinders credible witness.

I also suspect my communication on this thread has been flawed in that I have acknowledged many of these issues previously and I guess to come extent I may have presumed you knew where I stood on them.

On the other hand... GV also read the same posts above and saw quite clearly that there was no condemnation of anyone in what I was writing...but rather I was offering a hand of hope.

Anyway...

If I were writing to "Benny" my post might go something like this;-

Dear Benny

I found my way to faith in Christ through an experience of God's unconditional love, an experience I expected and hoped to find in another regular human being. To me, being fully known and yet fully accepted by Christ was a breakthrough experience which completed me in many ways.

I found that Christ prompted/prompts me to discard things in my life which were obviously sinful and encouraged me to grow more like him (still lots to do!). To me he is the friend who knows the worst about me and yet still wants the best for me.

It has been clear to me since then that my sinful nature is real and powerful and will never fully go away in this life, always there to seek dominion over me.

But to me the gospel is "good news" that through Christ none of us need ever again be slaves to our sinful natures, to anything which would seek to dominate our lives and violate our consciences (that is not presume we will never sin, fail or fall though).

We can be set free to serve Christ, becoming the personalities and characters that he created us to be from before the foundations of the earth.

Who should Christians trust on the question of whether SSA is acceptable to God? I suggest that you must satisfy yourself what God's view is on this matter.

I believe a helpful guide is the peace of God; if you feel more and more uneasy about a path as you progress I suggest it is not of God. If you find an abiding peace which passes all understanding, I think that is a good sign.

Obviously, as a Christian, you should be familiar with the relevant passages of scripture throughout scripture on the creation, nature and purpose of marriage/sex and the boundaries that God has placed around them for our protection.

To me Christ died and rose again to redeem all people from their sin natures; prime ministers and paupers, black, Asian, white, gay and straight, doctors, lawyers, convicts, refuse technicians, paedophiles, tradesman, housewives and children.

In my opinion, all people earnestly attempting to follow Christ will have mortal battles with life dominating issues (sin). I think as Christians we need to be more honest with each other, ourselves and God about this, because I think this releases grace and healing to overcome such issues as we journey together. This was always meant to happen in an ongoing supportive and open group setting, I believe.

I believe life is much more messy than we are willing to admit (ie our failures) and that we need to give ourselves and others space, grace and full support in our battles. 99% of Christs earthly ministry was in the real world of blood sweat and tears, not in the controlled environment of religious events or programmes, DVDs etc.

In my opinion SSA is just one of many such foes that real believers will battle with. But contrary to common perceptions there are no third class strugglers in the kingdom of God. We are all fighting battles -or losing them- at any given time.

Other battles might be with substance dependence, sexual addiction of numerous sorts, in fact numberless type of compulsive behaviour, not to mention the key roots of pride, selfishness...and of course sins of omission!

A great book I read was "pursuing sexual wholeness" by Andy Comiskey. Although it starts as his testimony with SSA he makes the point, quite rightly, that the principals he discovered to deal with it are basically new testament discipleship. He says that in reality there is no difference between a Christian struggling with SSA and any other type of Christian. All are fighting the same battles with the same weapons.
I empathised as a person with his honesty about his hurts, failures and discouragement and his bids to live a holy life.

His life lessons apply to us all and he in fact believes that people from SSA backgrounds may be especially gifted leaders in the church in future because of what they have learned and experienced and how they can emphathise with others and lead by example. I couldnt disagree.

Many life controlling issues can stem from making an idol of ANYTHING in which we seek our peace and security ahead of Christ. Often we can seek to find our fulfilment, identity and joy in another person ahead of Christ.

In my experience this is building a house on foundations of sand which will eventually leaving both us and Christ weeping.

Obviously I come from a traditional orthodox view which would see SSA - like all other sexual practise outside of marriage between man and woman- as contrary to God's plans for us and our lives and therefore leading us towards pain.

No matter where God would have placed boundary lines around humanity, human nature means a part of us will always rebel at his boundaries he, even though it is for our own safety.

In other words, I believe it is our hidden, rebelling attitude to God himself and his laws rather than the detail of any specific law that really poses us problems. wherever his laws would have fallen, part of us would always have rebelled against at least some of them, and in reality, striking out at God's very right to be God.

Should you decide this is broadly what you will believe I would suggest you take advice from someone who has fought and won many of the battles you will face and can offer you ongoing support (Andy Comiskey's organisation? Mike Davidson of Core Issues?).

If you feel it would be of interest, I would be glad to meet up some time for coffee etc. I am always encouraged to meet others who are keen to follow Christ and are also honest about the battles they are facing. It lets me know I am not alone in mine.

Kinds regards
OT

Complain about this comment
81. At 1:29pm on 04 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Thanks for the comments. I have written another reply to you, but have come to the conclusion that useless we were in a position to speak face to face all we will do is create more misunderstanding.

Ultimately I think that this is going to boil down to what we think the church is, how we understand the process of christian renewal and maybe even what we think faith is, but to try and discuss all that, at distance, on a blog is, I think, almost impossible.

I will say this though, my Christian world view is firmly within the Reformed tradition, I can relate to nearly all the language you used in post 80, I just think it's awfully easy to say and I think a lot of us are kidding ourselves about how spiritual we are. If the church was as honest as you suggest it should be in post 80 then all of us, Benny included, would find it a lot easier, I don't think it is that honest though, maybe that's why we're good at organising religious programmes!

Complain about this comment
82. At 9:23pm on 04 May 2009, portwyne wrote:

OT - on Graham's posts, I believe very strongly in free speech and would vigorously defend your right to voice your opinions in this forum as in any other you might chose. I do not believe that the giving of offence is any reason to silence or curb free expression by legislation or censorship. I would defend equally the right of others to rebut your arguments and to do so in as forthright a manner as they saw fit.

On your reply to Benny, there are, as PM pointed-out, underlying differences in aspects of our shared Christian faith: I do not believe in creation, I do not accept that our nature is shaped by God nor do I think that He has any will or expectation as to how we conduct our lives; I do not think "sin" is a particularly useful concept; I do not consider the Bible in any sense divinely inspired; I do not believe there is anything whatsoever wrong in experiencing SSA or in acting upon that attraction. I fully accept that these beliefs are not traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Those considerations aside, however, I have to commend your experience of the cleansing and completion we experience in Christ, your understanding of the need to be honest to God and the power that such an approach releases into our lives, your advocacy of progress in and through community, your acknowledgement of the range of need in society, and your personal willingness to engage with the individual in distress.

Complain about this comment
83. At 7:49pm on 05 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peace at any price peter m?

I thought I was very realy about my own failings.

There are groups in the church where you can find reality and honesty, if we really want it.

Thanks for a very generous response portwyen.

shalom

Complain about this comment
84. At 10:48pm on 05 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Your failings have nothing to do with this. I thought we were over that. Please.

What do you mean peace at any price?

Really OT, I'm beginning to think that you have it in for me rather than the other way round.

If there is an issue here can we please get to the bottom of it. Maybe you think I'm a liberal or something. Maybe you think I have an ulterior motive, at this stage I really don't know what to think anymore.

For goodness sake I said, "my Christian world view is firmly within the Reformed tradition, I can relate to nearly all the language you used in post 80"

What on earth is going on here?

Can you please understand that of utmost concern to me in all that the church is, is how we work out what we say we believe. Hence the need to discuss what the church is, what faith is what, for want of a better word, 'santification' is'

We are talking at cross purposes. I'm now creating misunderstanding by saying nothing? Can I 'win' (I don't mean I want to beat you in debate) here?

Please OT if you have an issue with me would you just state it then I can clarify things and we can move on.

Tell you what, against my better judgement let's further our discussion with this, you said "through Christ none of us need ever again be slaves to our sinful natures". Now I whole heartedly affirm the sentence, but what exactly do we in the church mean by this, what do you mean by this, how does Jesus, tomorrow morning, free me from my sinful nature, how do I overcome temptation, what does it feel like, what does it sound like, how does it work out in my life, your life and the life of church, what do we do, individually, or together, how will it happen. These are the specifics we need to discuss if 'Benny' or any of us are actually going to be transformed by the gospel.

I could go on, how will we abandon 'idols'?, what does it mean to be secure in Christ, is it an experience, a thought, a mantra, what does it mean to you? is it based on personal experiences, feelings, is it based on our earnestness in prayer.

My point of view, briefly, in a word, is that these things cannot happen outside of meaningful fellowship meaningful communication of the gospel in the church, we don't learn them in books, we don't overcome then in personal prayer alone, we don't change by daily bible reading, sorry we don't, not really. (at least I don't and I'm not going to pretend I do) And, for clarity I'm not saying you said any of that I'm trying to have a debate, clarify things!

Maybe it will help if I end by saying that in your last post there is much I agree with, in fact when I read it I couldn't really see what you were disagreeing with me about, but I'm also going to keep saying that whatever groups there are in the church, in general 'Benny' is going to be lonely. That concerns me.

Complain about this comment
85. At 10:57pm on 05 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

I also need to say that after all my clarifying and re-clarifying and explanations about not being personal towards you and the limits of my own experience and my wider concerns and the reasons why I do or do not want to comment on certain issues and my christian theological position and tradition, I am completely perplexed by your comments to me.

Honestly I don't know what to say anymore, what is it you want to hear?

Complain about this comment
86. At 01:51am on 06 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Peter
when you say you can relate to nearly all the language OT used in post 80, were you refering to the 7 battles, the 6 sin/sinfuls, the 4 fightings, the 3 fail/failures, the 2 rebels or the collection of struggles, foes, flaws, worst or falls?

Or was it the mention of slaves, violate, messy, blood, sweat and tears, weapons, contrary to God, and pain?

As a Catholic I was certainly used to this religious terrorism as a child. (With a few schizophrenia inducing 'God's unconditional love for us' thrown in.)

Benny, dont go for that coffee!! If you are a Christian, there are many, many other things you have to take into account other than just the Bible or Andy Comiskey's views.

If you search the Bible for "God's view" you will get a hundred different answers. If you listen to the fundamentalists, you'll get one answer - change and live a lie or you are doomed.(But, loads of cups of coffee!!)

It may also interest you to know, Benny, that in Scotland at the moment, a gay minister is being targeted by these so called Christians. A website trying to get him sacked from his Aberdeen church has been signed by over 5000 members of the Church of Scotland. (Not from his parishioners.)

I also hope that Will does a thread on this subject - again - and is not frightened off by OTs constant moaning about its regular appearance on this site.

Benny, you should know that OT is against people like you, against the subject of your sexuality appearing on anything to do with the BBC, that you must change or you will be an outcast who is to be pitied forever.

Many fundamentalist Christians will lecture you about sex. Dont listen to them (that's if you can hear them for the sound of their own bed springs rattling, whether they are married or not.)

Complain about this comment
87. At 6:46pm on 06 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Pete

First, sorry, I dont think that peace at any price comment was constructive at all.

I am more than happy to agree to disagree on any of these matters with you, if you wish to leave it where it is.

You say: "I will say this though, my Christian world view is firmly within the Reformed tradition, I can relate to nearly all the language you used in post 80, I just think it's awfully easy to say and I think a lot of us are kidding ourselves about how spiritual we are."

I respond, I dont think it requires spiritual perfection to offer the option of a hand of help to someone, if they should want it.

I honestly think a good start in spirituality is to realise how unspiritual we are. To me real spirituality is brokenness over how far short we fall from God's perfection.

I dont think I need to be an accomplished swimmer to offer to help a drowning man, if he should want such help.

I am not standing in condemndation of anyone at all, I simply know that Christ has made real changes in me that were needed and which I could not have done myself ( I am not suggesting you would notice a glow around my head BTW, I have allowed far too little change, I know).

You say: "You [OT] said "through Christ none of us need ever again be slaves to our sinful natures". Now I whole heartedly affirm the sentence, but what exactly do we in the church mean by this, what do you mean by this, how does Jesus, tomorrow morning, free me from my sinful nature, how do I overcome temptation, what does it feel like, what does it sound like, how does it work out in my life, your life and the life of church, what do we do, individually, or together, how will it happen?"

Peter, I sense frustration from you on these points which I empathise with.

Do I find this all easy to understand and work out in practise? No. Does anyone? I dont think so. Has anyone ever? I dont think so either. Will anyone ever? Not this side of eternity IMHO.

But I do know it makes a difference inside me - when I really want it to.

And I also know that you are, in reality, expressing frustration with foundational truths of mainstream Christian faith, not with me.

I too am frustrated by "the church".

I find the following activities help;

Prayer - talking to God about my life - and listening,
Confession - owning up when I have done wrong in thought or deed
Word - drinking in his word and asking him to help it make a difference inside me.
Corporate prayer and worship. My church is currently holding fervent personal and corporate prayer meetings which have certainly helped. I attend a regular home group where people encourage one another, discuss difficulties and ask for prayer from each other.

Will Benny be lonely. You bet.

That is life and the Christian faith on many occasions.

I have certainly experienced it.

Will he be any less lonely by embracing SSA Peter? Ultimately impossible.

Is it possible he can seek out and find genuine Christians who will fellowship with him in a supportive way. Absolutely. This is happening every day, certainly in N Ireland, that people with the deepest and most personal problems find love and support among Christians.

There are specialist support groups also - Core Issues in NI eg, Desert Stream.

I know that people get hurt in churches too, been there done that, but you seem to have a long list of reasons which would mitigate against either the church reaching out to Benny or to him accepting such help.

It does seem strange, IMHO.

RJB

It sort of goes back to the start, but you are confusing the issue here by your use of the word "fundamentalism".

This was an American movenment which is only about 100 years old.

But as Portwyne repeats in his last post, embracing SSA is not Orthodox Christianity ie never has been.

Using the term fundamentalism like this simply tries to marginalise mainstream, traditional teaching as "extreme" when it is normal Christian teaching and always has been.

I should have said, Comiskey pointed out that the core of what he learned was that his real task was to be focussed on Christ, not sexuality and that this was real discipleship......for everyone!

What standards do you think we should abide by, if any, in marriage and sexual relations? Does God have any firm standards? or can we each do as we please with God's blessing?

Do you believe in God and if so how do you get forgiveness for wrongs you have committed?

Do you believe that Christ was God and died to bring us into peace with God?

You seem to think that I would judge or patronise someone who could not rid themselves of SSA.

In no way. Never.

BTW, did it ever occur to you that William might post these threads because he is interested to hear a wide variety of views, including mine?

I repeat a helpful excerpt from CS Lewis on the subject of sexual sin, ie to empower readers, not to condemn. I have found it very encouraging perosnally;-

"...There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance of our will to overcome them.
Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult. It is easy to think that we want something when we do not really want it. A famous Christian long ago told us that when he was a young man he prayed constantly for chastity; but years later he realised that while his lips had been saying, "Oh Lord, make me chaste," his heart had been secretly adding, "But please don't do it just yet." This may happen in prayers for other virtues too; but there are three reasons why it is now specially difficult for us to desire-let alone to achieve-complete chastity.
In the first place our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the desires we are resisting are so "natural," so "healthy," and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a truth-the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is "normal" and "healthy," and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and "nature," but between Christian principle and other principles in the control of "nature." For "nature" (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards obeying the others.
In the second place, many people are deterred from seriously attempting Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible. But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper, one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.

We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help. Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help, or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure, ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, or truthfulness, or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.
Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about "repressions." It teaches us that "repressed" sex is dangerous. But "repressed" is here a technical term: it does not mean "suppressed" in the sense of "denied" or "resisted." A repressed desire or thought is one which has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form. Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all. When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire, he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else. They come to know their desires as Wellington knew Napoleon, or as Sherlock Holmes knew Moriarty; as a rat-catcher knows rats or a plumber knows about leaky pipes. Virtue-even attempted virtue-brings light; indulgence brings fog........."

Complain about this comment
88. At 6:49pm on 06 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter

....confused - are you really saying you have never experienced Christ's power over temptation and sin in your life?

Or are you saying you don't think I have explained the reality of it and how to acquire it adequately?

If so, I never thought I could in this environment.

I am simply acting as a sign post to people seeking help from other peopel better qualified to give it.

Shalom

Complain about this comment
89. At 7:01pm on 06 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter...

Perhaps you could explain to us how you find that Christ helps you overcome your sin nature and temptation?

I believe you have experienced this and can share it with others here.

I find a key issue is sowing and reaping.

If we pour junk into our minds and spirits regulalry ie from the media, from people, from books, through putting ourselves in the way of temptation, this is going to cause problems.

If we take care what fuel we put in, and deliberately pour in quality fuel, people, books and media into our minds, I believe we are moving towards victory.

Consistency over time and allowances for failure are required, as pointed out by CS Lewis, above.

God is looking at our motives and "...will not judge us as though we had no difficulties to overcome..."

Shalom

Complain about this comment
90. At 7:33pm on 06 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

before I go Peter,

the overwhelming impression I get from you on this thread is that you are embarassed by the church addressing this subject, either because we are not intellectually or spiritually up to it.

I feel as though you are reluctant to explore it yourself but still appear determined to challenge every point made on accuracy, clarity or credibility, every step of the way.

It doesn't seem to add up to me.

Not attacking, articulating my perception and feeling....

You are saying that we have critical differences in how we see matters of faith, but I cant really see what you mean.

To me this is a pretty safe space for all sides of this discussion, there is no condemnation of anyone with SSA and no pressure on them to take part or stay.

It seems like an ideal place for people to be informed and discuss the matters IMHO.

I am therefore struggling to see the reason for the persistent objections you raise.

It would make more sense to me if you expended the same amount of energy to show how it should be done rather than to issue some objection or challenge to every post I make.

confused!

OT

Complain about this comment
91. At 8:09pm on 06 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
"there is no condemnation of anyone with SSA"

Come on OT, that is hypocricy even by your standards. Your christian views have made you the voice homophobia on this blog for years. There's examples from both your present poster identity as well as the pb/pbmild/originalpb identities you've run away from in embarrassment.

Complain about this comment
92. At 10:13pm on 06 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

To save long posts from here on in, one thing at a time. (in reverse order)

You said, "It would make more sense to me if you expended the same amount of energy to show how it should be done rather than to issue some objection or challenge to every post I make."

In terms of how it could be done, I have already said what I would say to 'Benny', of course it was only a starting point, but the underlying presumption is this, my view is that I will now try to listen to another person, another Christian, before I use evangelical language like, "God's unconditional love", " none of us need to be slaves to the sinful nature" and so on, because sometimes I'm not sure what I mean by these words or what the preacher means by these words, (and sometimes the preacher doesn't tell us what he means) so how can I be sure what Benny means by them?

We need to take small steps and we must understand each other, we must know what the words mean to us, and that takes time.

Second in terms of challenge, how can I understand what you mean if I don't question/challenge what you say, I am looking for clarity and meaning, that's what debate/conversation is. Of course I could just set out to find an agreed form of words, but what would that do for our understanding of one another, not much I suggest.

Third, to take an example away from the gay issue, I might point to some of what happens on this blog, and I'm as guilty as anyone. You know what I do here, I keep on defending traditional reformed christianity, but I have rarely ever asked Brian or Helio or PeterK, "Guys, what is it really bugs you about me, or Christianity?" In other words I don't listen enough, and we in the church need to listen more.

RJB I'll get back to you I want to see the Chelsea highlights.

Complain about this comment
93. At 11:23pm on 06 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello petermorrow,

"Guys, what is it really bugs you about me, or Christianity?"

I can't say that anything has ever bugged me about your style of posting. I was slightly astounded when OT accused you of personal attacks on another thread. I can't remember you being anything other than very civilized and patient in your posts. If I had any criticism in that area it might be that you are perhaps more trusting of people than some of them deserve.

If I find anythings to disagree with it would be in the message of your posts. I generally dislike christianity (or religion in general) being taken as a source for answers. That goes very much for answers about things in the tangible world (and that world may encompass quite a few more things than people suspect) where it is either wholly inadequate or there are at least far better sources available. My dislike also applies to things like e.g. morality, where the supposed word of god doesn't inspire only what I consider good behaviour but also some outright grotesque things. I would happily see it go altogether.

That means I don't like your world view. But I may also think a little of how John Wright described his experience in Saddleback. He said something like 'If everyone was like that, that would be great'. I'd rather see chrisianity be thrown onto the dung heap of history, but as long as there are people who follow it, it would be good thing if their behaviour mirrored your presence on the blog here. Apart from starting from a christian perspective, I can't see much wrong with it.

Complain about this comment
94. At 11:36pm on 06 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Ok Peter.

And if you happen to get filled with righteous indignation, (although I know you are not that type of guy), about the way Chelsea were defeated - God the English Press will be full of it tomorrow about cheating - maybe we can all reflect on a match a few years ago when Chelsea played Barcelona at Stamford Bridge and......... Chelsea poured tons and tons of sand on the park to stop Messi and his pals from actually playing. (They had the park fully returfed within a week of that game!!)

Seems match fixing is "widely spread!!"

Tonight was almost Biblical. "Vengeance is mine" sayeth the Lord.

And while the English newspapers will be filled with headers like "Jaime FIXED it!", I hope the Spanish headers read "GET TURFED, CHELSEA!"

OT

Give me any definition of 'fundamentalist' you like. You are one, however softly or harshly you care to define the word.

The world is no more than six thousand years old.... The only sex approved by God is in marriage.... Every word of the Bible must be obeyed.....

Not confused, certain!!

Complain about this comment
95. At 5:36pm on 07 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter M

Thanks for your reply.

I am wondering, perhaps the reason we appear to be in tension on the issue of sexuality is that you affirm same sex relations as perfectly acceptable to God.

I don't think I have ever seen you express any spiritual/biblical concern about same sex relations at any time throughour our discussion.

Perhaps this would explain why we appear to be misunderstanding each other???

If this is the case, it would be helpful if you made this clear.

I will still be glad to continue the discussion in a civil manner either way.

sincerely

OT

PS In ref to some other points;-

- I do see that the bible clearly forbids homosexual relations but my approach on the matter is not to focus on condemnation of those with SSA but rather to share my experience of Christ.

- I openly changed my username on this blog, the BBC apologised for problems with my account

Complain about this comment
96. At 7:13pm on 07 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

This thread,

My post 26 (last paragraph)

My post 77 (paragraph 2)

The Vermont Legalises Gay Marriage thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/vermont_legalises_gay_marriage.html

my post 58, my post 69 (second line)

I have also made my views know on other threads but shall not refer to them as I don't think you were involved in those discussions, and I dont presume that you have necessarily read them.

My response to RJB (to follow) might also explain some of my thoughts on the wider matter, and it is the wider matter I am trying to refer to.

Tell me this would ongoing statements from me about my views on traditional Christian marriage, affirming and reaffirming it in any way help 'Benny'? I just don't see the need to keep making the point.

Complain about this comment
97. At 7:48pm on 07 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

RJB (sorry!)

OT

David Wells, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, in his book Above All Earthly Powers, writes, in his concluding chapter, "It is only as the evangelical church begins to put it's own house in order, it's members begin to disentangle themselves from all those cultural habits which mitigate against a belief in truth, and begin to embody that truth in the way that the church actually lives, that postmodern skepticism might be overcome. Postmoderns want to see as well as hear, to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is being said. This is a valid and biblical demand. Faith, after all, is dead without works, and few sins are dealt with as harshly by Jesus as hypocrisy. What postmoderns want to see, and are entitled to see, is believing and being, talking and doing, all joined together in a seemless whole. This is the great challenge of the moment for the evangelical church."

I might add, the use of postmodern is a general cultural term (this is not specifically about postmodernists so much as it is about the evangelical church and what we have become) and that if 'Benny' does not see the church acting holistically in this way then it is hypocritical of the church to offer him advice. It is what I have been trying to say all along.

BTW I'm not accusing you of being hypocritical. (just to be clear)

I shall not quote any more professors!

Complain about this comment
98. At 8:14pm on 07 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

Romejellybean

I am not a Chelsea supporter. Whisper it quietly, I support M. United. Having said that I felt dreadfully sorry for Arsenal, the first two goals were just bad luck, anyone would be sick at conceding them, I didn't cheer (not much anyway) I did cheer loudly though on sight of the third goal!

You are correct, I am not full of righteous indignation, but that is only because I know, with all my heart, that I am always right and so never feel the need to be indignant!

In terms of OT's post 80, I am familiar with nearly all the language, including battle, sin, fail, rebel and so on, it is the language of the evangelical world, I am of the evangelical world.

Now here's the thing (and don't go off on one (!) please) I don't have a particular problem with the language or the concepts, although I do agree that some can use the terms as 'religious terrorism', and yes the 'God's love' bit is often an after thought.

But I do approach Christianity on the basis that it has something to do with redemption, a making of all things new. I also suppose that his might involve me changing in some way or another and that it might call me to confront some uncomfortable truths about myself, for example I'm a vengeful, and judgmental **** at times. Not good.

I'm not convinced either that God's love and the call to personal change are incompatible, Christian mystics, for example, of all sorts and denominations, have spoken of this for centuries.

My problem is basically this, there is a fair amount of finger pointing in Christianity, and a communication of a significant amount of guilt too, I have fired a fair bit of it around myself over the years but have learned that in the end this is just Phariseeism. In the end most of us finger point so we can feel better about ourselves, it isn't good.

I hope this helps to explain my point of view.

Complain about this comment
99. At 11:38pm on 07 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

PeterM

I wont go off on one lol. Although I'm not used to the evangelical lingo which I find extremely dualistic and I cannot understand the perseverance with old English translations of The Bible, from which such language is derived, I am very much aware that as Catholics, we are indebted to the Protestant churches for our understanding of the scriptures today.

I have absolutely no problem in debating issues with you as your arguments are reasoned and open to change, development and learning. I find your response to people like Benny, christian, compassionate, understanding and, you certainly dont appear to me to be looking down on the Bennys of this world from an ivory tower. I think Benny would be in safe hands with you for one reason - he would be on a level playing field and you would not be attempting to impose your beliefs on him.

OT, on the other hand comes across as condescending to the Bennys of this world, and just doesnt see it - genuinely doesnt see it. I would use the phrase 'sincere insincerity.'

I also abhor this notion which is embedded in concrete in OT that sex is wrong outside marriage. What a narrow, negative, destructive view that is. God speaks to us most powerfully through the people in our lives and often most powerfully in the person we choose as our partner. To dismiss all these people just because they didnt happen to choose to have some minister/priest/registrar pronounce them husband and wife, I find offensive. (It is irrelevant to me whether those two people happen to be of the same sex. They are who they are and are just as open to God's grace as anyone else.)

I once heard a woman sharing very courageously on the subject of sexuality at a weekend for young adults. She took the risk of describing a day when her daughter had been involved in a car accident. The woman described how eventually they left their daughter lying in intensive care and returned home. Herself and her husband fell into bed that night, their lives wrecked, their hearts broken. They clung to eachother in their grief and ended up making love.

Much to the laughter of the young people present, she went on to say that she actually felt that the Lord was present with them in that moment. (Laughter because of the comments about three in a bed!!) However, when she stopped smiling, she went on to teach that audience AND ME, something very important about the gift of sexuality and it had absolutely nothing to do with procreation. Two people brought every single aspect of who they were to eachother that night, in pain, terror, grief and the depths of what it is to be human. (Their daughter survived, by the way.)

Am I to believe that, that moment would be frowned upon by God had they not been married? (That's direceted at OT, by the way.)

Its for reasons such as this that I find OT's views condescending, narrow and damaging.

Complain about this comment
100. At 03:20am on 08 May 2009, John Wright wrote:
Great thread guys - and great resolution on some of the obstacles to the discussion. When I finally caught up tonight it gave me a good read. :-)

For the record I agree most with Portwyne, and Oul Peter Morrow isn't too far behind.

Complain about this comment
101. At 4:08pm on 08 May 2009, gveale wrote:
" Although I'm not used to the evangelical lingo which I find extremely dualistic..."

I could find it very helpful if you'd explain what you mean here. PM and I both worry that Evangelicals are so caught up in oir own enthusiasm that we don't explain (or understand) our own beliefs very well.

GV

Complain about this comment
102. At 5:49pm on 08 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

gv

It was with reference to OT's post, his response to 'Benny'. (And to many of his other posts.)

Everything seems to be light or dark, black or white, evil or good, all or nothing, etc..
No acknowledgement that actually life is very rarely like that. GREY would be good sometimes.

Benny can actually find 'wellness' and ultimately salvation (if such a thing exists) by acknowledging and living in the middle ground.

I also find OT's language humourous in another way. He often uses what I would consider archaic biblical language but sprinkles in modern parlance like 'same sex attraction', 'holistic' and, how was it he described bin men again, 'refuse technicians', I think. That tickles me.

I'm waiting for, "Jesus went forth unto Galilee to spend some quality time with his disciples."

Its almost as if I'm listening to some pretty extreme views at times made to look hip and trendy.

Bottom line, the very fact that someone actually believes that every word in the bible is true, that creation happened exactly the way (both ways) the bible describes it, that the world is only 6000 years old etc..
- contrary to all scientific, verifiable evidence - tells me that this person should not be listened to on anything, regardless of what language they use.

Complain about this comment
103. At 11:30am on 09 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter ref post 97

No need to apologise for quoting the prof, I found that pretty helpful in understanding where you are coming from...at least I think I did! - time will tell...;-)

By all means quote profs if you feel it is helpful.

Anyway, I think I must strongly agree with what David Wells is saying here.

- He cites James as saying that faith without works is dead
- People want to see Christians walking the walk in order to belive their talk

I also appreciate you pointing out that you are not accusing me of being a hypocrite, which is always a positive note to strike in a conversation with anyone ;-)

I think it might also be helpful to remind ourselves a key few points that we SEEM to agree on.

- That we all have a dark side to our natures
- That faith in Christ helps us overcome this
- That God created sex as a perfect gift, which was created to be enjoyed within the protective boundaries of marriage

Now, if I may come back to the Prof for a second, he says people want to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is being said.

Do you think this means that really, Christians should avoid posting sincerely held views / signposts in the event that others all to a lesser or greater extent strongly disagree with and reject these views?

If a forum dedicated to discussing a particular topic would see polarisation and aggression because a NT view is expressed without condemnation, should that view be withheld? for a time? until others are ready to hear it? Unless they are ready to hear it?

While I accept the reality and value of Wells' statement, is it completely biblical in all respects? Does the NT ONLY show Christians speaking to non-Christians about the gospel in the context of developed relationships? We have to be honest and say no.

I appreciate your honesty in volunteering the discrepancy in your approaches to other subjects you have debated on this blog in comparision to this particular subject. We are all human, all the leading characters of the bible have their flaws open for us to see, except Christ.

In what I have written, not written and how I have written here, I believe to a large extent I am alo open to scrutiny.

I guess maybe like a lot of us, perhaps the debate helps crystalise and develop your thinking. But what are the broader implications of Well's statement in our discussion?

I empathise with much of what you have said about the condition of the church at large (I am obviously part of that church). Do we need to refrain from this subject for debate until its house is put in order? Which church do we mean, geographically and theologically?

As this is primarily an NI based blog, should we say that until all believers in NI are near perfect we should refrain from being signposts for second chances in life to desperate people?

Is there a time and a place where you can point to when you think the church has had the credibility to speak on these matters?

Should ministries by people with SSA and for people with SSA suspend discussing this matter in public until the church sorts itself out?

Should we allow "highly spiritual" people only to speak on this matter while much of the church is in chaos, and how do we indentify them?

To what extent is the church of the New Testament any different to today, considering the legion rebukes and corrections that make up much of it? To what extent is some level of chaos normal and do Christians need to get on with reaching out to desperate people regardless?

Are there such people who are in a particular state at a given time whereby they oppose gracious debate on these matters against the will of God? If there are, do we need to understand this and graciously press on regardless?

Are these people possibly just hurting so badly that we need to start at a different level, or do we need to graciously leave them to God for a time while we press on reaching out?

And if the church is so corrupt, should we simply stop debating ALL subjects with people who disagree with us until we put our house in order? Or should we only allow ourselves to debate "safe" topics like the existence of God, the inspiration of scriptures and literal typeinterpratations of Genesis 1 & 2 as I know Peter M and I both enjoy doing (no criticism meant).

I am not giving trick questions. I appreciate we have differing viewpoints. I am not convinced that either one is "wrong".

It appears you may agree with this at least to some extent.

RJB

I'm not so sure that PM and myself are so far apart as you perceive, but I will allow PM to correct me of course.

eg If I have got him right he is agreeing that the created boundaries for sex are within marriage but he is not going any further in this context and time, ie to express this in terms which oppose any other form of sex because he feels he wants to build relationship first here with you.

He does seem to be saying he want to listen as a priority to where you are coming from and your experiences, to relate to you as a real person.

He does seem to be saying he is not presuming to know everything about sex, your life, God or the bible and that he wishes to be open to all you are, your hurts fears anger hopes and dreams.

He does seem to be saying he will communicate with you, in language and at a time which is appropriate to his relationship with you.

But he has not acutally offered in any form, that I can see, to compromise on his belief that God created sex for within the protective bounds of marriage.

I am not chipping that in at this point as a dig that I was right after all. I commend his attitude and insights, if I have got them right!

But I am not ncessarily certain that means there should not be a place for a frank and gracious discussion here about the very matter this thread was created to discuss. That would seem a bit daft to me anyway.

Like the sex in your story, not necessarily black and white?

To put that story in context in my view.... would God "frown" on that sex, if the couple had not been married... well...

your question seems to suggest my view of God is one that is always looking for an opportunity to frown.... I dont think that is biblical at all. Neither do I think sex is first for procreation... it was clearly to unite Adam and Eve emotionally in exactly the manner you describe for this couple.

If my daughter was living with a man and they had a daughter and she was in intensive care and then I heard my daughter tell this story about her sex life... I guess I would think.... I am glad you have a man that cares about you... I am devastated my grandaughter is in intensive care....I want to protect and care for all three of you.

I guess I would have already made it clear to my daughter long before the accident that statistically cohabiting with a man will only last on average 4 years and that in the long run I feel this will harm all three of them.... but as an adult she would have the right to live her life as she chooses (the freedom and the responsibility that goes with it) and I'd
still accept and love all three of them as my own family.

I apologise that in my own spiritual poverty and ability I may have communicated to you a God to you who is always frowning!

I have to go now and do some love with my own family...

peace!

OT

PS RJB - I dont know where you got the idea that I said the world is only 6000 years old. IMHO this is such a complex subject that is just beyond me that I dont think I could ever make such a claim.
BTW I think Peter M and I have pretty similar views on the first few chapters of genesis.

Complain about this comment
104. At 11:44am on 09 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

RJB - just to clarify, I am far from convinced by the scientific arguments of those who would date the earth at c6000 years. That is not to say they are wrong, IMO, its just that, maths and science are not my strong areas, the scientific side of it seem so vast I dont think I can grasp all the variables. Most of the Dakwins disciples are similarly uninformed, I suggest, but cant admit it!

Complain about this comment
105. At 11:55am on 09 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Also RJB

If it helps, I dont believe that God ncessarily has the same standard of behaviour for Christians and non-Christians.

If non-Christians cohabit and have children and want nothing do with God or religion I dont think God likes this because he wants to protect people and have stable homes. But I do think he respects their consistency about the matter.

Should non-Christians follow Christian standards? Big topic.

In short I guess I believe we should by word and deed persudade others of the value of doing so, western culture in its roots has done just this I believe.

Common Law in Britain was based on Exodus by King Alfred.

A version of the 10 commandments;-

Dont steal / murder / committ adultery / bear false witness /

Do take a day off work every week (keep sabbath) / honour your mother and father

Dont be so keen to gather material goods that you forget to enjoy your lot (ie dont covet )

Dont bow down to statues as though they were the God that made you

Dont blaspheme God but rather praise him.

You can see the thrust of the logical legacy these guidlines have for society, I imagine.

peace
OT

Complain about this comment
106. At 12:28pm on 09 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Oh dear, OT,

"PS RJB - I dont know where you got the idea that I said the world is only 6000 years old. IMHO this is such a complex subject that is just beyond me that I dont think I could ever make such a claim."

Your claim of modesty hasn't previously kept you from shamelessly rolling out just about every Answers in Genesis lie they have (and they have many). Long-time posters will remember your 'Oh, but so few labs can do radiometric dating, it can't be reliable', your idiocy of claiming faster than light travel to explain light from billions of light years reaching us, quoting top AiG science figleaf Andrew Snelling, etc. All in support of a 6000 year old earth. Just like your persistent refusal to read any info to the contrary that was patiently held up to you time and time again by many posters, but which you shunned because you know deep down how wrong (and disingenuous) you are.

Face it OT, your attempts to divorce yourself from your previous 'PB' identity isn't working. Long-time posters here know what a fundamentalist YEC you are, Pastor B.

Complain about this comment
107. At 2:41pm on 09 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT, hi

I trust that you will read this in the manner which it is written, civil, respectful communication; continued explanations that I am not accusing you of something in my posts are only hindering our debate.

I hope you are now beginning to understand why I sought to direct the debate regarding 'Benny' the way I did. Let me try to develop this thinking a little further.

I have quoted David Wells, you have arrived at a conclusion of what you think he is saying, now, not so fast!

First of all I would like you to consider dropping language like 'walking the walk'. I would also like you to consider that he is not just saying 'faith without works is dead', so that we might nod and agree with his biblical language, he is, rather, I suggest, asking us to think through the implications of these words being true. So, how might we do that? Here is a suggestion.

Make a decision to go along to church some Sunday morning, maybe your own church, maybe another one, and instead of participating in the service of worship (whatever form that takes) attend as an observer and ask yourself, what am I seeing here, what is going on? Try to unfasten and remove from yourself any evangelical assumptions you have, try to pretend you do not understand the lingo, the doctrine, the form and style and so on, and ask yourself, what, if I were an unbeliever, with little or no understanding of God or the church, am I being told, what am I seeing demonstrated here and ask yourself if it would, in any way, be informative to such a person. Then, when you have done that ask yourself what it tells you, a believer. Dig into the language and practice a little and ask yourself what the actual substance of the message and proceedings is.

Now let's go a little further. You have picked up on the comment, "people want to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is being said", and again have made some assumptions about what he means and I suggest that this could be happening because you are reading the words within a popular evangelical cultural framework, a number of years ago I would have done the same thing. (we all read with some kind of tinted spectacles!) However I do not think that Wells is primarily speaking of how we might go about relating to non-Christians, this is not an evangelism technique, a form of 'friendship evangelism' for example, rather he is speaking of a mis-match between what the church says and what the church is. Let me put it this way, when I hear him speaking of authenticity, I hear him saying, quite simply, that what people see of the church doesn't ring true.

You see OT, from my point of view it's a not a matter of asking, as you have done, "Do we need to refrain from this subject for debate until its house is put in order?" rather it is that an inauthentic church looses the right to be heard by unbelievers, in fact OT, honestly, most of them arent listening anymore, because we (according to general public perception) have brought ourselves into disrepute.

I shall quote Wells again, "There is no human perfection in this world and there are no golden ages in the life of the church. The are simply moments when the church is either less authentic or more authentic. We, today, are rapidly descending into serious inauthenticity."

Complain about this comment
108. At 3:29pm on 09 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:
Peter

The Church moved into in-authenticity years ago. And views such as OT's were 90% responsible for it.

I've commended you on your "Christianity." i.e. your patience with OT. The 10% responsible for the Church's in-authenticity these days, I believe, comes down to people like yourself. You wine and dine OT, you stroke him.

A part of Christianity is surely to say it as it is. Why not stop skipping and dancing around OT - you surely know by now that he is impenetrable - and say exactly what you think.

Your best and most honest posts have been the ones where you just let your heart talk. Stop protecting OT.

Complain about this comment
109. At 5:49pm on 09 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

RomeJB

Hello!

The Reformed Christianity from which I have been hewn is of the non-conformist brand, think heathered hillside, fife and drum. As the Ulster poet W.R. Rodgers wrote,

"...Mine were not born with silver spoons in gob,
Nor would they thank you for the gift of tongues;
The dry riposte, the bitter repartee's
The Northman's bite and portion, his deep sup
Is silence; though still within his shell,
He holds the old sea-roar and surge
Of rhetoric and Holy Writ..."

And do you see when people start making recommendations about what I should and shouldn't do...

:-)

Complain about this comment
110. At 7:27pm on 09 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Mmmmm, Peter. What powerful imagery.

Not the poem, the other parts of the post.

Firstly, a man who is "non-conformist" and who has been "hewn."
Secondly, a man who "makes recommendations."

Sounds a bit like a parish.

Complain about this comment
111. At 7:39pm on 09 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

RJB

Don't get me wrong, non-conformists do a lot of conforming, it's just that we reserve the right to say no whenever it suits us or, perhaps, just for the sake of it, and then change our minds.

In other words, we're awkward buggers.!

Complain about this comment
112. At 10:01pm on 09 May 2009, portwyne wrote:

I must just crawl out of my hole to confess that I quite like OT and often enjoy reading his posts. If I may appropriate some Evangelical language 'he dares to be a Daniel, he dares to stand alone'. Respect!

It must be appreciated, of-course, that I have a looser understanding of what is meant by truth than some other posters on this blog. On the Horus thread one rather naively speaks of the existence of little green men on the moon as being something that is either true or false. I would not see it that way. If Joe Blogg's reality includes a moon populated by small green people then so it is - the only question is how can I relate to that reality and how do we communicate.

I think OT has an historically respectable and perfectly valid understanding of Christianity. It is one, of-course, with which I disagree vehemently but good on ye OT for sticking to your guns and good on ye RJB for your challenge!

I know Graham doesn't get it but the reason I'm an Anglican (apart from up-bringing) is that we have no silly hang-ups about truth. I am a very solid and accepted Anglican. RJB you would be very welcome in the communion - and so too would you OT.

Complain about this comment
113. At 11:46am on 10 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

I hope you are right, Portwyne, there is a chaplaincy post going at an Anglican University at the moment and I intend to apply for it!!! Lol.

Complain about this comment
114. At 4:13pm on 11 May 2009, gveale wrote:
RJB

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose that I might reply, in defence of the traditional view of marriage, that I discern a strange sort of dualism in liberal Christian critiques of the Biblical Ethic.
One is a dualism that separates the procreative role of human sexuality from the "relational" value of sexual partnership. And there is a dualism that separates the privacy of sexual relationships from their public role. That is, my neighbour(society)depends on good families. These depend on good male/female relationships.
And then of course there is the physical delight of sex, which doesn't depend on a good relationship. Now I see the physical delight as having a role within a marriage. Within that context, it often needs no other purpose than, physically, it feels good. And at other times it emotionally feels good, and of course it can be used simply to make new life. My difference with the Roman Catholic ethic is that it seems to evaluate the sexual relationship as a series of discrete acts of intercourse. I think the couple are a "one flesh" whole. It is the whole relationship that should be evaluated. So responsible use of contraception is permissable, etc.

Anyway, I digress. I suppose one concern would be that I can't see any reason for having sex for the sensations on the liberal view. If we can separate the relational and procreational purposes of human sexuality, why can we not separate the physical pleasure from the realtional role. It sounds less romantic, sure, but so what? As long as no one gets hurt, we're in the grey zone.
In the context of a one-night stand, why couldn't one partner say "the Lord was present with them in that moment" in that they experienced the goodness of the creation?
Now you mention a married couple who exerienced God in their love-making. I don't really know what that means, and I suspect that they don't either. If one partner had been incapable of making love would God have been absent? Was the love-making essential to the Religious Experience? Again, a danger in liberal Christian Sexual ethics (I paint with a very broad brush, apologies) is that sex and romance become objects of worship. Or at least religious contemplation. I don't think sex needs that sort of justification. Sex creates life, that creates the opportunity for love.
You ask "Am I to believe that, that moment would be frowned upon by God had they not been married?" and you state
"I also abhor this notion which is embedded in concrete in OT that sex is wrong outside marriage. What a narrow, negative, destructive view that is. God speaks to us most powerfully through the people in our lives and often most powerfully in the person we choose as our partner. To dismiss all these people just because they didnt happen to choose to have some minister/priest/registrar pronounce them husband and wife, I find offensive. (It is irrelevant to me whether those two people happen to be of the same sex. They are who they are and are just as open to God's grace as anyone else)."
Strong words, but as Bernard would say, Fairy Nuff. It's an emotive topic. Perhaps I can say why I profoundly disagree.

(i) I don't agree that God speaks to us most powerfully through people. At least not necessarily. And even if he did, a sexual relationship is hardly necessary. Although, you could have the basis for a very popular movement there (-;
(ii) To be embedded in the Old Testament doesn't make a viewpoint irrational. We need to ask what are the Old Testaments reasons for the view?
(iii) To say that procreation is part of God's reason for creating sexuality is not to say that *every sexual act* must be procreative in intent. Rather, a person can merely hold that *every sexual relationship* should be open to the gift of new life. As love is necessary to raise a new life we cannot separate off the relational and procreative purposes of sexuality. They are part of a seamless whole.
(iv) (a) The language of love is commitment and promise. (b)Parents have duties to their children. (c) And fruitful, stable sexual relationships have a public role.
So it seems perfectly sensible to require public commitment and promises, and a public honouring of your beloved, before a couple commence on a relationship that can bring new life. The status of the priest or registrar is not of first importance. What is important is that the law and the community respect and honour your public commitment, and that you repsect and honour your partner enough to commit to them before your whole community.
(v) Suppose the couple you mentioned had been siblings. Or parent and child.Or suppose it had been a threesome. Or foursome or---.
Now I'm certainly not trying to trivialise your position. But the point is that at *some stage* you will have to introduce norms other than the quality of the relationship. And that most of the norms we typically use (even in our enlightened age) are based on what is appropriate for conceiving or nurturing children.
(vi) Does God "frown" on fornication? Yes, I imagine that he does if his Son's comments are anything to go by. Does he frown on every aspect of an unmarried couples relationship? Other than the fact that they are not married? I can't see why acts of friendship, sacrifice and commitment cease to be real goods. Nor does marriage excuse a lack of sacrifice and friendhip. But does any of this imply that God does not intend marriage as the context for sexual relationships? I can't see how.
(vii) The danger is that by separating the procreational and relational goods we idolise our sexual relationships, and we instrumentalise reproduction.
We tend to idolise the relationship as we need a justification of sexual fidelity that goes beyond the good of creating and nurturing family. So the couples sexual partnership is meant to "image god", or fulfill romantic longing. These are high expectations, and if they are not met, ending the relationship becomes a prerogative. Maybe even a duty if we have need to realise our potential.
We tend to instrumentalise reproduction in that it ceases to be a "given" but rather a "choice". It is no longer part of our nature to seek a partner to create new life with. Instead this becomes a choice to be justified.
The overall result is a significant increase in family breakdown.

There are lots of qualifications that I need to add here, but hopefully that gives you the gist of my position; thatnks for the patience if you've made it this far.

G Veale

Complain about this comment
115. At 6:47pm on 11 May 2009, portwyne wrote:

RJB - the best of luck/every blessing* in your application. I rather think the university and its students would be fortunate to have you! My old college chaplain used to say his role was "to be and not to do: to blossom as a rose on a dunghill" - I suspect your agenda goes beyond blossoming.

* delete according to preference

Complain about this comment
116. At 7:17pm on 11 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Thanks GV. I'll comment on some of the points you make with which I find difficulty.

But, in the interests of, and taking the risk of, being honest with you, I'll open up a bit about where I'm coming from.

I suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a clergyman when I was 11. Two years later, it happened again with another clergyman. I buried the memory, told no-one and coped as best I could growing up. My year mates didnt escape. Three killed themselves in their mid twenties, three others attempted suicide.

All of this came back to haunt me with a vengeance in my mid thirties when something triggered it all off. I went public. One of the perpetrators is now dead, the other was jailed for what he did to us all those years ago - but it is yesterday to me (and to God knows how many others.)

I was accused of betrayal, being a loose cannon, treachery etc.. etc.. I have long since forgiven those men for what they did to me. I am not in the position to forgive them for what they did to others. These pitiful men were products of their time, victims themselves of a church which refused to address sexuality, sexual needs and desires, where their immature sexual drives were acted out on us. I pity them now.

However, with all the knowledge and insight we now have into this type of behaviour, my church has absolutely refused to learn a lesson. Seemingly intelligent people have done their level best to attack and discredit the victims, to cover up and to walk by on the other side.
I am finding it so difficult to forgive these people and that hurts me to the core and causes me so much pain because I believe that forgiveness was and is the only prerequisite of Jesus to his followers.

I now see my church heading back down the path, under the present Pope, where all this wickedness had the opportunity to bloom in the first place.

Now, I have no idea, GV, what your past experiences were with regard to this. If nothing like this happened to you, I'm happy for you. However, I would ask you to try and put yourself in my shoes.... then re-read your last post, (and many of OT's posts) from where I'm sitting.

The way I see it, and I do accept that I'm looking at the subject of sexuality and religion from a very particular position, I resent deeply a religious person lecturing or opining on the do's and dont's of sex between consenting adults when they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say on the horrors which have been taking place in churches over the last decades - and not just in my church. (Check back on threads when Will has introduced the subject - not a peep from anyone on here!! Yet cries of bias and loaded threads when homosexuality is mentioned.)

When the subject of sexual education of our young people in schools is brought up, these same right wing, reactionary fundamentalists rage against the very teachers who would create an ethos where abuse could be stopped, where young people would be empowered to recognise and acknowledge sexuality for its goodness and its, at times, exploitative nature. They would be given the chance that we were not given.

Now your particular points.

1)In my life, I learned about God's love through people. Not through recitation of the Bible, nor from sermons. People moved me in the most lasting ways, their lives as sacred as any scripture.

11)We need to acknowledge and state quite clearly which parts of the Bible are irrational and especially those parts which are irrelevant or even damaging in today's society.

111)A personal viewpoint here, non-procreative sex is not the serious matter in God's eyes that so many religious people harp on about endlessly. So a person has pleasure with another in the sack, with no strings attached, no commitment. I'm not saying its a virtue, but stoning them to death?!! (or today's equivalent?) To me, Jesus got far angrier about other matters.

1v) I agree. Marriage/family is a matter of public/societal concern. So keep religion away from it. Jesus spoke about dividing families, he considered families as a far broader thing than we do. Wouldnt it be an incredible society where we cared about all children as we would our own, all old people as our mums and dads? Instead we focus on sex.

v)Let society judge what the norms are - not the church.

vi)Of course Jesus would frown on fornication. According to everything I've read he would abhor all forms of cheating, deception, exploitation, hurt, bullying etc.. My issue is that the church comes across as arrogantly preaching that love, fidelity etc.. are only to be found in marriage. They have already made a moral judgement and condemnation on all other relationships, as has been done time and again on these threads.

vii) Although I realise that you know you are going into very complex issues here, I still dont see why marriage has to be religiosized. If society marries two people instead of a church, are the couple more likely to split up? Obviously, there are far more complex reasons as to why couples break up.

In conclusion for the moment I would simply state that, for me personally, its going to take a lot of convincing in order for me to listen to anything religious people have to say about sexuality. In my experience, they really dont have the moral highground on the subject any more, if indeed they ever did.

I do realise, GV, this is a highly subjective viewpoint.

Complain about this comment
117. At 7:50pm on 11 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Thanks Peter M

I have to suspend any further response to your last posts because you appear to have avoided all the difficult questions which you provoked me to pose.
If I may distill my questions in a slightly tongue in cheek manner in order to make my point, please, I hope you will not take offence;-

"So, when William Crawley puts up threads which have an editorial line inviting debate on Christian perspectives on homosexuality,
everyone is permitted to express their views EXCEPT for those aspiring to a traditional biblical outlook.
The reason for this is because Peter Morrow considers that to do so would be unbiblical and thus forbids it.
In the meantime, Peter Morrow says it is acceptable for him to engage in full blooded debate with non-Christians on this same blog on
any other controversial topic which he chooses. But he would wish to emphasise that nobody may engage in such debates
on the subject of homosexuality when invited to do so by the blog editor, because this would only harm the credibility of the church.
If anyone is curious as to which topics traditional Christians may or may not debate on this blog, the guidance is that if you watch which subjects Peter Morrow feels comfortable debating, those and only those are the ones you have permission to debate."
(At this point I have to repeat that on this very blog very recently, William applauded a Catholic Bishop for being forthright in his position on homosexuality).

Peter, dont take offence now, I said it was tongue in cheek, but I had to get your attention somehow. You did completely avoid an entire slew of related questions in my last post and chose to make an "easy" reply instead.
I wouldnt prompt you for your opinion if I didn't think it worth hearing, if that is any consolation!
;-)

Rome Jelly Bean

You are an intelligent guy. So it is as clear to you as it is to me, that Peter Morrow actually believes like I do that the bible plainly forbids homosexual practise, as it does adultery, incest, fornication, mental adultery and bestiality etc. (I suggest we both also believe that experiencing the Fatherhood of God has a habit of putting true focus into our lives and loosening our interest in sin. But of course Peter will say it in a much cooler manner than I can ;-) ).

In significant but not exclusive part, a good part of the tension between Peter Morrow and I is about whether it is currently morally right to openly repeat what we both believe the bible says about homosexual practise.

So I am quite amused that you are so certain that he is your friend and I am your enemy???

Some people would much rather their friends were reasonably frank with them, subject to a little bit of kindness and grace of course.

Can you accept someone who substantially agrees with me on homosexuality, as your friend, just so long as you think they will never mention it in front of you?

Portwyne, ahhh Portwyne

Your post is a delicious irony that seems to repeat itself so often in life; support often comes from the quarter you least expect it while those you might expect support from can prove quite hostile.
You quite probably have more grace than all us "orthodox" Christians on this thread put together.
Having said that, if I only have "an historically respectable and perfectly valid understanding of Christianity" that really isnt enough is it?
Really we should be aiming for the obvious character and love of Christ.
Anyway, I cant claim any credit for being "daring".
You see, I know this guy who is renowned for setting his face like flint. Actually he is one of my heroes and I guess it has just rubbed off somewhat.
So I have to tip my hat to him for leading the way. We mustnt forget that we actually have Christians being crucified for their faith in some parts of the world in recent times. I think it is quite abnormal to have the freedom for such a debate.
As and when the persecution arrives, perhaps WC and PM and RJB and myself and you could all find ourselves washing each others' feet in some underground church and really practising the love which the risen Christ asked his followers to show to one another!

;-)
We are just kidding around here!
Shalom (Peace and wholeness)
OT

Complain about this comment
118. At 9:05pm on 11 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

What you and Peter agree and disagree on hasnt really been of interest to me. You seem to be desperate to have another voice to back yours on the subject of homosexuality, and you keep repeating how you and Peter agree on this subject. You + Peter + The Bible = God's will.

My view is that you are wrong. (No surprise there.) What does Jesus say about specifically, homosexuality? I asked you this before and got no reply from you.

The Church of Scotland Minister who is presently being persecuted for his sexuality by the religious right - would you vote yes or no to his appointment to a parish? The answer is, you would vote no.

Some sinners are acceptable to you, some are not. You have done the one thing which Jesus continually asks us not to do. You have judged, over and over again on this and other threads. As far as I can see, Peter hasnt. That's the fundamental difference between you both.

Complain about this comment
119. At 11:22pm on 11 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT, OK

Tongue in cheek, no I don't mind, no problem, but I'll tell you what I do mind and this isn't tongue in cheek, I mind you telling me what you think I am or am not obliged to answer. Honestly OT I really don't think you actually know what I am trying to do here. So let me state it as clearly as possible, but before I do, I really don't like having to be blunt. RomeJellyBean thinks I'm trying to protect you, he thinks I'm going easy, I didn't think I was, you think I'm avoiding the issue, you think I have a list of subjects we should or should not discuss, nonsense! OT, apart form the fact that I am simply making the points I wish to make, in terms of the actual content of my posts I am asking you to think again. I am asking you, an insider, to think like an outsider. I am confronting the popular view of the church (note, the church) relating to the gay community because I think that sections of the church have 'demonised' them. Why do I ask this question, (and I could do it about all sorts of subjects in Christendom) I do it because I am a church insider, but I know what it is to be isolated, to be left out, to be excluded because I refuse to conform, I know what it is to be treated with 'evangelical' suspicion, and it is narrow, mean and disheartening. Now before you accuse me of another attack, I am not speaking of you personally. However, what staggers me is that you can speak so openly about your sin, about your experience of the unconditional love of God and yet at the very same time fail to grasp that when we discuss issues like this we are speaking of real people, real lives, real hurt. When people like Benny read discussions like this they're not thinking, "Oh, interesting discussion" and agree or disagree or get all hot under the collar, they are thinking of the real, painful, hurtful circumstances of their own lives and I WILL NOT, on a public forum, run the risk of causing any further unnecessary hurt because I happen to have a particular view of christian marriage. This is different from debating Brian or Helio about the existence of God because that is not a personal issue. Bear in mind too that I have criticised the PMS, 'revival' and other aspects of the church, why, cos I think it is important.

Now, your questions. You seem to need direct answers. OK, back to your post 103

Do I think that,"Christians should avoid posting sincerely held views / signposts", OT the question mesmerises me, why would I think that, what makes you think I'm saying that? There is no connection between my comments and that question. However the answer is no!

"should (a) view be withheld? for a time? until others are ready to hear it? Unless they are ready to hear it?" Didn't imply that either. My answer, no. My second answer, but I'm not going to keep harping on about it.

"Does the NT ONLY show Christians speaking to non-Christians about the gospel in the context of developed relationships?" Obviously no. But you misunderstand me and Wells. Its another unrelated question.

"Do we need to refrain from this subject for debate until its house is put in order?" Well, OT in many ways yes. Because saying one thing and doing another is lying. Did you read my explanation of I was saying about the church in post 107 second last paragraph?

"Which church do we mean, geographically and theologically?" OT what sort of a question is that? What will a question like that achieve?

"Are there such people who are in a particular state at a given time whereby they oppose gracious debate on these matters against the will of God? If there are, do we need to understand this and graciously press on regardless?" OT this question sums up what you don't get about me. So let me be crystal clear. The unbelieving world IS SICK TO DEATH of the church being little more than a debate raising club, you know why, because the church, always spots everybody else's sin. Do we need to press on regardless? NO, we should love people instead. How far does your love for the gay community extend? Does it extend BEYOND debate? Do you know Benny? Then stop talking about him and go talk to him. If you are talking to Benny, then listen carefully and come back here and tell us what you have heard.

"should we simply stop debating ALL subjects with people who disagree with us until we put our house in order?" Actually, you know what, the more I debate things on here, the more I come to the conclusion that yep, maybe we should all just shut up until we know how to love others without talking about it. And before you speak of the church being prophetic, what makes you think we have the ability to be prophetic? Prophets sometimes live in the most unlikely of places. Anyway read my post 107 last paragraph again.

Now post 117

"everyone is permitted to express their views EXCEPT for those aspiring to a traditional biblical outlook." OT, I have a traditional biblical outlook, how many times do I need to say it. Graham has a traditional biblical outlook. THAT IS NOT THE POINT I AM MAKING. Would you please clue in to the point I am making.

"nobody may engage in such debates on the subject of homosexuality when invited to do so by the blog editor, because this would only harm the credibility of the church." OT we have ALREADY LOST CREDIBILITY.

And note this, THIS THREAD IS NOT ACTUALLY ABOUT homosexuality, it's called Christianity versus Fundamentalism, the writer of the linked article might be gay but this thread is about something else.

"an 'easy' reply instead." If you think my recent comments from D. Wells amount to easy replies, then I have only wasted my time.

You say to RJB, "a good part of the tension between Peter Morrow and I is about whether it is currently morally right to openly repeat what we both believe the bible says about homosexual practise." Nope. OT why do you feel the need to go on about it? I'm not saying you me or other can't or shouldn't talk about this or other issues, I'm saying that some in the church deliberately use the gay issue so they can point at 'sinners' and say I'm not as bad as that.

And now I'm going to get really blunt, the 'christians' who do that, are going to hell.

Complain about this comment
120. At 2:00pm on 12 May 2009, gveale wrote:
RJB

Thank you very much for the personal and thoughtful reply. I find it very beneficial to exchange viewpoints in this way. I'm a RE teacher, and of course the danger is that I only present my understanding and experience of Religion to my classes. SO it is vital that I understand other views as best I can, and that I represent those views accurately.
On a personal note, I have never been sexually abused, but I have worked very closely with those who have.For a variety of reasons, that I am unable to go into, I found those experiences so disturbing that I am unable to continue that kind of work. So to have been a direct victim of such evil must be an unspeakable horror. To go on living after such horrors is an act of courage.

Now I was completely unaware of your personal circumstances. So I have kept my posts confined to the intellectual integrity of the Ethic that I hold to. I have tried to keep my comments as abstract and as impersonal as possible precisely because I am in no position to judge, and I will not give out pastoral advice. (When my children have raised their children, then I'll give pastoral advice. There are too many youngsters in the church with nothing more than a half-brained counselling course under their belt telling others how to negotiate life). I did not mean to sound callous, but I was aware that I was open to that charge. So I haope that clears up the *tone* of my post. I have not been reading OTs comments, so I can't really comment on his remarks. I have been very interested in your take (and LSVs)on a few issues. So I've been reading your posts.

But to be clear, I am simply trying to explain what reasons I can offer for the ethic I believe in. To try to illuminate where I'm coming from, and establish that it's not based on a few texts in Leviticus. I'm not trying to convert you to my cause, or anything like that. (I think we take different very different views on the authority of scripture and tradition, and how God reveals himself, so agreement here was not likely in any case.)
And maybe I should be clear that I don't want laws or policies that impose my beliefs on others. I believe in the right to your own opinion under your own roof. People of good conscience can disagree profoundly on these matters, and still get along quite amiably.

In reply then to your substantive points
1) I don't know of any hard evidence that the "sexual repression" of a bygone age led individuals to sexually abuse children, and I do know of some evidence (from the USA) to the contrary. To your credit you are more understanding and forgiving than someone who has not suffered the abuse.
But I agree that traditional attitudes kept clerical sexual abuse hidden. As did the worst kind of corruption and a deference to traditional authority figures. So I think we agree that traditional attitudes were, in part, dangerous. Those are important concerns, and a point well made. We should not blithely wish that the clock could be turned back to a more innocent age. Turns out that it wasn't all that innocent.
2) I believe that abandoning the *central aspects* of the traditional sexual ethic (TSE) have been profoundly damaging, and I deal with those consequences day and daily.
3) I agree that the "legalistic" imposition of the rules of the TSE was also damaging, and partly explains why it was overturned.
4) Non-procreative sex is not my focus - I'm concerned about *sexual relationships* that divorce themselves completely from the creative power of sexuality. I think this ignores a gift from God, his intention from sexuality, and focuses so much on the relational goods of sex that we expect too much from our sexual and romantic relationships. So I'm against a dualism that believes the procreative and relational goods (and private and public aspects)- of sexual relationships can and should be divorced.
5) I'm not sure that your comments about Jesus and forniction cohere with your other points. Maybe you can clarify what you mean?
6) I agree that marriage isn't a sacrament, and that a *Church Wedding* is not necessary for a marriage to be a marriage. It is only natural that Christians would want to involve God in a life changing moment. But it is the public exchange of vows that seems essential, and cross culturally this takes many forms.
7) I agree that there are worse sins than sexual sin. Sins of pride, and religious pride in particular. I don't think that it is pride to believe that TSE is true. It is pride to believe that you have met TSE's standards as understood by Scriptures. These standards include not coveting another persons relationships, or wanting someone as a sexual possession, or imagining how nice it might be to abandon the TSE for a short time with the right woman.
8) I'm not sure what you mean by "Church". Do you mean the Church as a cultural authority? Or that a Church should not set standards for it's own members (assuming that membership is a choice, and not a cultural given).

That's all a bit clinical and impersonal. But that's because I just want to outline my position, and understand yours, without being "preachy". I hope that I have amended for any offence that I have caused.
I find your posts very helpful, and hope that we can continue to exchange posts.

Graham Veale
Armagh

Complain about this comment
121. At 2:25pm on 12 May 2009, gveale wrote:
OT

Like I've said, I haven't followed your exchange with PM in detail. But my tuppence ha'pennies worth is:

If someone suggests that my viewpoint on any controversial issue, marriage or euthanasia for example, is unbiblical or irrational, then I have a duty to face the audience and speak directly.
One danger, as I've encountered on this thread, is that what you say is not what the other person hears. As soon as someone is hurt, they stop listening (to RJBs great credit he kept listening). And singling out the issue of homosexuality, as against all the other sexual practices prevalent in our culture, can seem like oppression.
I look at it this way. Evangelicals in the Church of England could tolerate Bishops who deny the fundamentals of the Gospel.Including the existence of a personal God! But Bishops who endorse gay marriage - well, that's a bridge too far! Now how does that seem to a homosexual?
So if we want to make headway in Evangelism we need to be very circumspect when approaching this subject in the public forum. We need to be civil. As an example, terms like "abomination" (to take Iris' at her best) don't help anyone.

G Veale

Complain about this comment
122. At 2:30pm on 12 May 2009, gveale wrote:
One more point. RJB seems much more consistent than conservative Christians who want to endorse gay marriage in that he wants to relax the rules for heterosexuals also. So homosexuals are not a "special case". They follow the same rules as anyone else.
Whereas conservative revisionists who want tradidtional marriage for heterosexuals, and something analogous for homosexuals, so seem to be saying that special rules apply to homosexuals. That does seem to single homosexuality out. One does have to ask why? It also seems completely inconsistent.
So there is more thought in RJBs position than some conservative revisionists who want to have their cake and eat it.
GV

Complain about this comment
123. At 2:34pm on 12 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hi Graham,

"Like I've said, I haven't followed your exchange with PM in detail."

No need to spend your time reading all of it probably, just post 117 would give you a pretty clear idea already.:(

Complain about this comment
124. At 6:23pm on 12 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:
Sorry RJB

I have to apologise to you.

In post 116 you took a very courageous step when you opened up about some very personal and horrific abuse inflicted on you.

In post 117 I posted comments which appeared to totally ignore the step that you took and brush it aside, with some humour included!

The reason for this was that I had written post 117 on Saturday offline.

I had checked the website about an hour before you posted your experience and there had been no comments for a day or two.

When I finally got round to posting my response I was pressed for time and did not have time to properly scrutinize the thread and thus missed your updated comments.

The result was that I missed your very personal story.

I dont wish to engage in any further debate today, but rather reflect on your comments since then, by way of an apology.

If there is anything else you wish to say to me personally or on the subject generally I will be only too glad to listen.

OT

Complain about this comment
125. At 09:12am on 13 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:
G Veale

I wasnt accusing you of insensitivity, by the way, and especially so as you are a teacher - you'll know only too well the myriad of issues involved surrounding 'damaged' kids. I was simply trying to point out that from my perspective, when I hear some religious opinions on sexuality, the 'raca' within me rages. Its kinda like I'm sitting listening to some people intellectualising and spiritualising and I'm crying out "Wait, you are missing the point here. I'm starving to death and your discussing what icing we should have on our tea cakes." For the record, your posts on the subject are thoughtful and sensitive, even although we would disagree in our outlooks. And, importantly, I've never got the impression that you are trying to impose your beliefs on anyone.

Again to explain my distrust of, for want of a better word, right wing or orthodox clergy/religious people, it was these type of people who did these things to us. It was these people who covered up when they knew what was going on. They created and sustained the ethos where it was able to happen.

I have vivid memories of Holy Week and the priest standing at the pulpit describing the awful humiliation of Jesus being stripped of his garments before the crucifixion - He was stripping us!! Then he asked us to reflect on the searing pain as Jesus was whipped - he was beating us with a cane til we were bruised. (He broke a bone in one guys hand.)

It still makes me gag when the memory of it comes back. The utter hypocrisy of it all. How easy it was to seperate the spiritual and the real.

So I approach the scriptures much more cautiously as a result.

Now the nub of the matter to me is what the scriptures say, but most importantly what they MEAN.

I've said this on other threads, but no one seemed to take it up. When Jesus spoke about fornication, his comments were aimed at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who were willing to stone an adulteress to death - while excusing themselves for their own adultery because they had a writ of dismissal. It is absolutely clear that the issue which angers him is the attitude of the Pharisees, not the adultery of the woman.

Of course adultery is wrong, but why? Its wrong because of the hurt and pain it inflicts, because it is exploitative, selfish, uncaring etc... Not because it is a sexual act.

Two adults meet. They have no partners, no dependants etc.. They end up having sex. They take physical pleasure, even comfort in each other.
The Jesus I believe in has other more pressing matters to concern him than what this couple have done.

Two adults meet. They do have partners, they have families. They jump into bed. Whether they are found out or not, their offense is surely different from the first couple. This would sadden the Jesus I believe in.

A clergyman has sex with a married woman. On the following Sunday he lambasts those who commit fornication, or who are homosexual. My Jesus would hurl abuse at such a man.He would be enraged at his wickedness.

A Christian often finds himself masturbating. He is fully aware of his sexual urges, but he is ashamed of himself. He often criticises others who break what he sees as the sexual laws "God" has given in the Bible. I think my Jesus, while not casting this one into Hell, would certainly deliver a boot up the jacksie to him.

A true reading of the Gospel plus a smidgin of common sense would help everyone. If we are going to give such a prominent position to the Old Testament on this issue, we are going nowhere. What is the mind of Christ on all of this, not the OT or St Paul, Christ. If we focussed on that, harsh and cruel judgements would be a thing of the past and a much needed step in the right direction for all churches. Hypocrisy, double standards and corruption would be given their rightful place at the top of the pyramid of sins. As I once heard an older man humourously stating to a big breasted woman (a friend of his) "Aw c'moan, Maggie, its just a bit of skin!!" I've wanted to shout that out a few times listening to clergymen shouting at people from pulpits!!

OT

I may disagree with you vehemently on your use of scripture but I dont think you are an ogre. I took it for granted that you had not read my post when you submitted yours. A part of my intention of 'opening up' was a last ditched plea to you to try and put yourself in other people's shoes, then listen to yourself. I also realise that, that is no easy thing to do.

Complain about this comment
126. At 1:51pm on 13 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello people,

I haven't posted much in this discussion, but I have followed most of it. One thing that strikes me is the strong responses when people feel their ideas are being condemned, and the bending over backward of others to state that that was not their intention. That makes me wonder: is it possible to carry that too far? Are actions like those that rjb described (my deepest sympathy btw for having had to go through that) not there to be condemned, strongly and publicly? Not speaking out there means letting people get away with it. In the same way that not speaking out against reprehensible ideas gives the field entirely to those voicing those reprehensible ideas. I don't have such strong reluctance to criticize or condemn what I think is wrong, but even if you do feel that that is wrong, are there not plenty of situations where speaking out and condemning peoples actions or ideas is the lesser of two evils?

Complain about this comment
127. At 1:59pm on 13 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

PeterKlaver

Post 108.

Complain about this comment
128. At 2:06pm on 13 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
rjb,

good point, your post 108 a few days ago had slipped from my mind. What I said in post 126 certainly does not apply to it.

Complain about this comment
129. At 5:02pm on 13 May 2009, gveale wrote:
PK

Now there's something else we agree on.

RJB

Yes, Religious Pride (RP)is worse than what the Church would call Concupiscence. Jesus only seen the former as a barrier to the Kingdom. (And for Biblical types, isn't it interesting that RP, not desire, led to the "Blasphemy of the Spirit" incident.) I think you pointed that out very effectively, and I'll need to think about that prayerfully.

Two questions.
A) What's the secular equivalent of RP?
B) What's the evangelical equivalent? (I think Peter M has gone a long way to answering this already.)

GV

Complain about this comment
130. At 5:28pm on 13 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello Graham,

"Now there's something else we agree on. "

Does that apply to post 126 or 128?

If it was to 126 (if not, ignore) then how much value do you attach to 'Do not not pass judgement on other people, lest ....'

"What's the secular equivalent of RP?"

Not sure. Maybe there was a small bit of it on Pharyngula a while ago. Ken Hams Creation museum (a 27 million dollar waste to promote the insanity of YECism and call certain branches of scientists nazis) had planned a joint ticket with the Cincinnati Zoo. PZ Myers encouraged his readers to write in protest to the zoo, they did, the deal was killed. Myers didn't hide his satisfaction at the outcome:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/victory_in_cincinnati.php

"The Creation Museum link has now gone dead. Our triumph is complete."

Maybe that constitutes a bit of secular pride, mixed with glee?

Complain about this comment
131. At 7:38pm on 13 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

GV

What is the secular equivalent (SE lol) of RP (religious pride)?

A difficult one.

Lets put your question another way. Does religion have a monopoly on hypocrisy?

Reflecting on that I'll put out another NT quote with which I disagree - "The truth I have now come to realise is that God does not have favourites...." I believe he does.

The poor, the sick, the grieving, the disposessed, the merciful, the vulnerable, and so on. Jesus certainly had favourites.

I dont think our money grabbing politicians are on his Christmas card list at the moment. Neither are war mongers, people of violence, people who misuse secular power, greedy people and many rich people, people who cause harm to others. The question is, are such people culpable if they have no particular religious thematization?

The answer seems to be there in the parable of judgement day. But when did we see you sick or imprisoned, hungry etc... We have never even heard of you!! - You did it to them, therefore, you did it to me!
Culpable ignorance.

The reason I believe that Jesus reserved special anger for the religious hypocrite is that they often give a very false image of who the Father is and how loving he is. How would we feel if someone talked nonsense about our mother or father?

Jesus didnt tell the story of the Prodigal Son to 'everyone.' He told it, in exasperation I think, to the Pharisees. (Just as he told them, and not everyone, his thoughts on fornication.) He makes the character of the prodigal someone who would be abhorrent to the Pharisees - breaking Jewish religious laws (eats pig food), familial laws (leaves his family in the lurch), drunkenness, debauchery, etc..
Yet even then, the Father takes him back, and gladly takes him back. Goes out to meet him, kisses him tenderly. This is a forceful attack on the Pharisaic image of God.

The difference between the religious and the secular hypocrite is that the secular hypocrite isnt telling lies about God.

Your question is a good one and I'll give further thought to it and get back to you. The football is calling!!

Complain about this comment
132. At 7:54pm on 13 May 2009, gveale wrote:
So is PK's example of secular pride related to learning, RJBs related to hypocrisy, and both attached to political power of some kind?

This is very interesting.

The warning about judgment scares me. I'll get back to this in the morning.

GV

Complain about this comment
133. At 10:15pm on 13 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OK, interesting turn today, but I suppose that this in essence is where we must have been going all along.

Can I ask for a bit of clarification first though.

PK

I'm not sure I know what you're saying about speaking out. I most certainly agree we should speak out on certain issues, often this, for me, will be about what I see in the church I am part of and love. Unfortunately we (Christians) are judgmental, and it is my view that of all people we should be the least judgmental and proud, it is the very antithesis of what we call the 'good news'. In terms of taking offence I think some of the things we have been seeking to do is to try and emphasise that we are not making personal accusations, beyond that many of the things said have been important to say.

RJB

You reference to the story of the prodigal son is for me absolutely on the money (I think though I prefer the term Prodigal [as in lavish, wasteful] God). If anything it seems that Jesus was going out of his way to goad the Pharisees, and the whole concept of what the Pharisees were doing, or thought they were doing and why Jesus was so angry with them, is an incredibly interesting subject; I think it most certainly involves hypocrisy and pride but may also go beyond that to include the idea that in Israel the Pharisees were those who should have been communicating the truth about God, but weren't. They should have been saying welcome, but somewhere along the line they began to equate their adherence to religious form with acceptability by God. It's a bit like Reformed Christians saying that we are 'saved by faith', and me wanting to shout from the rooftops, "NO, NO, NO, not faith, GRACE." Somehow evangelicals think they are accepted because they believe, but that just more box ticking and more pride, at least it is in my view. Yes the Pharisees were telling lies about God, and I for one am a recovering Pharisee.

I do, RJB, think I would like to pursue your thoughts on favouritism and forgiveness, but wish to tread carefully, maybe we'll do it one step at a time.

On secular hypocrisy and pride, yes I think yours and PK's examples are good, and of course we find it distasteful, for the Christian though, those who are supposed to speak of forgiveness, those who are supposed to have understood that they are forgiven, but who, in the end, hide their sins beneath ritual and religion while condemning others, the most staggering description must be from Jesus recorded in Matthew 23, "Woe to you Pharisees, you hypocrites. You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Summer mission team anyone! :-)

Complain about this comment
134. At 2:53pm on 14 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello petermorrow,

"Unfortunately we (Christians) are judgmental, and it is my view that of all people we should be the least judgmental and proud, it is the very antithesis of what we call the 'good news'."

I think that captures what I was on about. Being judgmental may often be unpleasant, and is always to be avoided if the judgment is not well founded. But what about cases where there is plenty of room for criticism or outright condemnation? You say you do speak out in some cases. And if your criticisms are well-founded, then why not, why would you be hesitant to do so? Criticism, if properly channeled, is a step on the way to improvement. I would be more worried about whether a criticism is correct than I would be about uttering it. So I would propose changing

'Don't pass judgment on other people lest......'

into

'Don't be hesitant to speak out, but think carefully before doing so.'

Complain about this comment
135. At 12:42pm on 15 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Guys

I have just read this thread from the start to reflect on my attitude and comments. If you are interested, and thanks for all the effort put in so far, then read on.

If you have some paint to watch drying, that might be a good option. Or you might want to read it over a week :)

Possibly the most humungous post in the history of W&T...!

The first thing I noticed re-reading this thread is that my first few comments were detached, cold comments and confrontational. Not good at all.

I also noticed that I pushed PM for his views on sexuality, I can't remember why, it now seems awkward and forced, I also apologized for it.

PM said he had doubts and was not always certain, and although I never said it, I do too, on many issues. Though not actually about Christ himself. No secret.

Bernard said to me to debate homosexuality, but not in a way as to make people resistant, which I didnt absorb. He has an important point.

Someone asked is the biggest problem in the church not that we need a real leader to fight real injustice. Looking back, I am left thinking, well yes, in fact we need lots of such leaders. But this blog formally aims to be a forum for controversial discussion, frequently setting sexuality and religion together on the agenda. I dont think it unreasonable to have a civil debate about sexuality in that context.

I also notice this phrase coming up time and again - judge not lest ye be judged. I dont really think anyone here really understands what it means. It means not to set out to destroy people with criticism. It means not to hem people in with no hope of escape and crush them to death with condemnation. Hand on heart, I dont think anyone can ever show me where I have done this. On the contrary. I believe in a God of real hope and one who taught us to forgive, as RJB rightly said, 70x7 times! But I dont believe in a God of unholiness.

Then I noticed the passage I quoted from Apostle Peter about false teachers. My point then was not to use the language to condemn anyone, but rather to try to show that the nice and easy "love" bits in the bible can't really be taken out on their own. I know RJB disagrees with me on this and I fully respect that. Now I see the text in the context of the debate may have come across simply as harsh.

I also noted that despite repeated comments, NOWHERE can I see that "condemned homosexuals" on this thread, or any other for that matter. Can anyone show me the most offensive posting I have made for me to reflect on?

I also noted that it seems hard for me to win - if I confess my sins I am self hating, if I don't I am self righteous.

I was also struck by the time and effort everyone put into writing to Benny - and the lack of effort I put into appreciating that. Especially from Portwyne.

Then I have asked myself, why CANT we have a civil discussion about Christianity vs Fundamentism as expressed by a gay rights campaigner (titled on the top link above as "Thinking. Out. Loud.") on a thread designed to do so? The article used the word gay about 35 times BTW and posters there and at the top of this thread correctly spotted that sexuality is the a/the dominanting theme in the piece.

I noted that Portwyne rightly criticized my tone on one post.

Then I noted that I tried to push PM into taking a position he was not comfortable with, wrongly.

Yes, PM, I do believe I have empathized with Gay people. Some of the things I have picked up are;- loneliness, emptiness, despair, hopelessness, anger. Not by any means exclusively at Christians either. I see these factors outside NI in contexts where there is very little religious influence and humanism dominates. I'm not stereotyping by the way. I also reckon I could easily have been gay and had many of the factors active in my life, btw. I feel.

I strongly emphathised with this line from GV (who is now surprising civil with me considering some of the clashes we have had before);-) ".......when your beliefs are continually (and superficially) critiqued by an elite it's easy to feel under siege. This issue does go to freedom of speech and thought - are we allowed to believe and express the belief that certain sexual practices are wrong? Even if some individuals find those beliefs offensive and threatening? Even if the same individuals can articulate *good reasons* for finding our beliefs offensive and threatening?"

For me personally, this is probably a key question that I still have on this thread, and I am not convinced by the answers that have been given to it. That is not saying I have closed my mind to answers, nor that I am certain about my position, BTW. But I am not anywhere near convinced.

I also note this comment from GV: "No one worldview should seek to dominate public discourse. we need to be civil."
I also strongly agree with this, and I think this was really GV's diplomatic answer to his own question. I seems that few here would agree with him.

He also said to RJB: "Maybe I'm off target, but I'm not sure you can be so certain that OT is so very wicked until you clarify why you believe that the Bible condones faithful homosexual relationships."

I think this is a fair point in the debate again, though of course, I am selectively quoting now, obviously.

PM asked: 'Do you really think that 'Benny' will be encouraged in his journey if he sees around him people who are happy that he has recognised his 'sin', but who are unwilling to notice their own?'

I dont know if I saw this at the time, but I think such an attitude would be scandalous, and predictable in many quarters, no doubt.

PM also said that - listening to Benny and giving him community is very key to his welfare, and I have noted how much I agree with him, and how I didnt say so at the time.

I have also penned this question now;- Christ is full of compassion for the outcast - but who is full of compassion for Christians with SSA who reject it? They are airbrushed away. They are outcasts too.

PM asked me if I knew Benny and to come back and report what he feels. I do know Benny. I know a number of Bennys. One feels at peace with God and is happy now. He has not rid himself of SSA. He is very hurt and angered by people who tell him to embrace his SSA and that to do otherwise is an illness. He is hurt by suggestions that any attempt to change it is dangerous and against all scientific evidence. He knows different. He has a good support network of Christians. I only met him recently and intend to stay in touch. I have never given him advice but I have listened to him at length.

RJB caricatured me thus; "I am a humble christian, I am aware of my own faults and failings, I am in no position to judge anyone. However, see those gay people......".

RJB this is so misrepresentative of anything I have ever said and my motives that it makes it very difficult to hear anything important that you have to say to me. Have I done the same thing to you perhaps?

RJB said he was asking "the likes of OT and PP to try and get a sense of perspective. While I do not claim that homosexual sex is a virtue, neither do I believe it warrants the amount of attention certain people give it and the stigma they attach to such people."

This is a very fair point. The problem is that there are massive double standards going on here. SS and W&T continually churn out pieces challenging orthodox views on sexuality, giving platforms to radicals and then allowing a counterpoint in as an afterthought, literally. And when we are invited to discuss and debate the matter (W&T has actually used the music from the Rocky film on Radio Ulster trails to promote itself) then the people who want to civilly defend and promote an orthodox view have "lost perspective and/or are obsessed". Its so weird, I mean SS has, it seems, at least one pro-homosexuality article every week, IMO, while so rarely mentioning the poor, the oppressed, the outcasts, that Christ cared so much for, PLEASE NOTE RJB.
Is it unbalanced of SS and W&T to carry frequently articles on homosexuality and yet rarely anything on the poor, outcasts, oppressed? I wont mention any of the time and effort I have given to people who fit this description BTW.

If you look at a recent piece on W&T about poverty in the developed world, I applauded Will and begged him to do more, as everyone loved it. I have yet so see one. So who exactly has lost perspective, and is sex obsessed? I respect the BBC has the right and the authority to do this, but it has also invited me to comment on the matter. John Wright said W&T has an "interest" in sexuality subject but me, I've just "lost perspective!" Tilt!

Perhaps we need to ask if we are also wearing the world's spectacles over the evangelical ones PM?? (I never use that word Evangelical BTW. I never heard Jesus say it. I think so many real Christians have never heard of it. I think it is a problematic label that invites flawed spectacles from the very outset).

I noted PM saying: "The problem is exacerbated in that some of the teaching of Jesus has been tamed by the church while sexuality has become a battle ground. In NI for example we have found it perfectly OK to hate our enemies, we found it OK to charge interest in the PMS, there is no concept of community."
I agree with all of this 100 %. But I dont agree that this means blog threads about faith and sexuality are off bounds to civil Christians who wish to discuss such matters. AND I fully respect PM's view is very different. AND I am open to changing my mind.

I also notice PM's comments;- The 'good news' isn't, "You're going to Hell".

Again of course I concur. PM was not directing this at me of course, but just for the record, I dont know if I have ever mentioned the H word on this blog. I have never once looked at someone and thought they were going there. More normal for me would be I would look at someone and think 'God created you in his image to be with him forever in Paradise and your potential in Christ is astounding."

I noted this comment from PM: "Thanks for the comments. I have written another reply to you, but have come to the conclusion that unless we were in a position to speak face to face all we will do is create more misunderstanding."

I think that is exactly what has happened. I have been impressed by PM's patience with me and I know I have misheard him quite a bit. I dont agree with everything he has said, but I have grown through listening to him and I respect him. Lots.

note where I said: "I am wondering, perhaps the reason we appear to be in tension on the issue of sexuality is that you affirm same sex relations as perfectly acceptable to God."

This is a nonsense question for me to have asked. PMs position was clear.

RJB said: "I also abhor this notion which is embedded in concrete in OT that sex is wrong outside marriage. What a narrow, negative, destructive view that is. God speaks to us most powerfully through the people in our lives and often most powerfully in the person we choose as our partner. To dismiss all these people just because they didnt happen to choose to have some minister/priest/registrar pronounce them husband and wife, I find offensive. (It is irrelevant to me whether those two people happen to be of the same sex. They are who they are and are just as open to God's grace as anyone else.)"

RJB could we differentiate between two things here perhaps. I think for the most part when I am talking about sex on this thread I am thinking about God's perspective on sex. I feel that when you are talking about sex you are thinking about sex, Pharisees and Jesus and the people who horrifically abused you. I fully respect that.
I do believe God "gets" your big picture on sex and respects integrity, grace and compassion in people who feel no interest in God. Absolutely. I also agree that God speaks very powerfully through the people in our lives, regardless of their religious convictions.
In no way would I "dismiss all these people" just because they didnt choose a religious wedding. You say you find this offensive, and so would I, if it were my view. I dont think a religious ritual is required for a marriage at all. But as I understand it, marriage has very largely come to us from Judaeo-Christian tradition, which is something quite different.

I feel you are projecting extreme views onto me, but I appreciate and respect the fact that you say that you identify me with the people who subjected you to such horrific abuse.

But I do worry very much when two people get into all the "commitments" of marriage without any of the "commitments" of marriage. When people give their very heart sould and body to another individual who has never even given thought to any real commitment to the other person..... one person may feel/hope it is for life... the other doesnt....it breaks up a year or two later....one person is left VERY deeply damaged. I have seen it up close and very personal. It hurts big time and it is not God's design for relationahips, IMO.

I get the impression that cohabitation is now frequently like extended courtship, with no real ties. There is no normal expectation to consider or discuss commitment. Children are their long-term welfare are frequently incidental if not accidental. Is this order or confusion? Does this promote security in people or pain?

IMO marriage is the perfect ideal and any other use of sex results in pain and confusion. That is so very different to saying that God hates you if you masturbate.

The same risk applies in one night stands. I just think it is all like taking an Aston Martin and raking it around an off road track. It feels like great fun but you have sort of missed the point and eventually there is going to be pain. I find it easier to think of holiness like this in terms of what God's plan is for us .....and our right to muck it up. Rather than a huge man in white with a big stick who says; Find out what those children are doing AND MAKE THEM STOP!!!

Did you realise that if you read Adams words in Hebrew after he saw Eve (naked) for the first time it was an expression of ecstatic pleasure and joy?

Other pain from sex outside marriage are the legion of STDs, some of them which cannot be stopped by condoms (transferred through skin not covered by latex). Many cannot be cured. Then there is the often resulting infertility and pain of childlessness.... the deep, deep pain of abortion ( a friend once confided her story to me about a secret abortion and she was racked with guilt and pain)...... the pain of children growing up without a permenant father figure to guide and discipline them.

I know for a fact that the typical profile for burglars in NI are young rootless men who have never had a loving home life and cant indentify with their elderly victims as real people as a result;- please do not tell me I should not bring this up in a discussion on the rights and wrongs of sex outside the ideal of a lifelong commitment between two adults to provide a stable and loving home.

I have worked and lived in an estate with young people where this was a very real problem. We all know people who have turned out well rounded despite this hurdles, of course, though I think other people have often compensated for their lack of a father, eg teachers, uncles, grandfathers, etc. RJB alluded to the importance of this network, but it is a safety net IMO and does not compensate for letting go of the trapeze.

GV said: "One danger, as I've encountered on this thread, is that what you say is not what the other person hears. As soon as someone is hurt, they stop listening (to RJBs great credit he kept listening). And singling out the issue of homosexuality, as against all the other sexual practices prevalent in our culture, can seem like oppression."

Quite right. BTW, I also feel hurt too.

Again, I confess I have not heard well, ref many posts. But on the point of oppressesion, again I think this is double standards. If W&T repeatedly invites people for "controversial and lively" discussion on homosexuality, why should we be surprised if that is what happens? If W&T repeatedly singles homosexuality out on its own for debate then why isnt W&T criticised? Should we just condemn the person who sincerely expresses a contrary view to W&T? Do we respect the persons and views of those with whom we disagree? Do *I*?????
I have of course, in my letter to Benny spelt out very clearly that I see that his sexual sin is no different to mine.

RJB said: "The way I see it, and I do accept that I'm looking at the subject of sexuality and religion from a very particular position, I resent deeply a religious person lecturing or opining on the do's and dont's of sex between consenting adults when they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say on the horrors which have been taking place in churches over the last decades - and not just in my church. (Check back on threads when Will has introduced the subject - not a peep from anyone on here!! Yet cries of bias and loaded threads when homosexuality is mentioned.)"

RJB, the reason I never posted on this was because I dont have the time to post on every topic and also because it appears that the vast majority of people agree with you on this. So what is there to debate? I know you have been persecuted for truth telling and it sounds horrendous. I hope you arent going to twist this back into a knife for me, I say this to support you; I have taken vigorous and persistent action against this evil you speak of, (and not in private!) and got a strong response. I'm saying no more.

Again, I respect the fact you identify me with your abusers. I dont defend myself. I accept your pain and viewpoint and will digest the implications over time. BTW, I have had two close relatives commit suicide and one very close family member sexually abused. I'm not saying I have suffered like you, I haven't, but I want you to know I am human too.

Another point I have noticed is about who Jesus is. Who is he? I feel we have agreed that Jesus is simply the guy who put it up the religious hypocrites (ie, literally "actors" who weren't honest about their own sin) and that Jesus cared for the poor, lame, oppressed and outcasts. Guys, this is all completely true, but is it really the whole picture?
I know RJB rejects much of the bible, which I dont have a problem with at all. But from my perspective I really had to stretch in order to grasp how much bigger Jesus is than that.
In my view He is God, one with God the Father and God the Spirit. This means he actually created the universe. I believe he despaired when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. He killed countless evil people in Noah's flood, He killed countless evil people using early Israel ie people into child sacrifice, animal sex abuse, incest, sex with demons, devil worship (all there in the early books of the bible).
He said disturbing things like;-
"Unless you repent you will all likewise perish"
"Enter in at the narrow gate, for the way that leads to destruction is wide and many go down that way. But the path to life is narrow and only a few people find it."
In fact, he bemoaned the fact that almost all his followers eventually left him, including all the poor, ill and outcasts, he cared for. He then asked Peter if he was going to leave him too.
Have you read the righteous wrathful judgement that Christ (God) pours out upon the earth in the book of revelation? Have you read Gods anger at mans sin in that book? I wouldnt quote it AT anyone, but it is there and it is very real.
Do we need to think again about the Jesus we think we know, both in terms of his overwhelming compassion and his holiness? I am not suggesting my view is perfect.

He did not say he was going to die and rise again to do away with oppression of the weak and destroy religious hypocrites.... and to redistribute the wealth of nations. He died to cancel out the hold and effects of this thing called "sin".
Now we may all have different perspectives on what "sin" is but if we are serious about Jesus I think we had better get a handle on a much bigger Jesus than the anti-Pharisee pro-poor Jesus. He is much bigger than that IMO.

I am not imposing my view of Jesus on anyone. I am inviting you to build an accurate view of him with me. Correct me where I am wrong or incomplete. CS Lewis said Aslan was a good lion but not a tame one!

Ref unconditional love;- Yes PM, what an overused cliche. sorry.
Can I make a stab at it in plain english? I love my son to death and always will, no matter what. Does that mean I dont discipline him or give him secure and safe boundaries? Of course not. Is a father ever justified in getting angry with his child for their wilful disobedience/harm to themselves and others? Of course he is. Has he stopped his love without conditions for his child while he is angry? Of course he hasnt.
What happens if the son persists in rebelling and hurting himself and others, and ends up in court on serious crime charges? If guilty, a good father may agree he must be punished for his crimes. He doesnt stop loving his son in the slightest. But he knows his son must pay the penalty. If the son persists in his direction he will completely ruin and waste his life and devastate all those around him. He has put himself beyond the help of anyone and has brought just penalties upon himself. His father is inconsolable but his son wouldn't accept help. He father still loves his son without conditions.
The old Christian chestnut has the father magically being given the chance to serve time for his son and his son walking free, totally undeservedly. And that is a picture, as we know, of grace (unmerited help). We can take the illustration further, as you will know; the son must accept the gift from his father; and when he does, ideally the son feels compelled to use his second chance to turn his life around and go in the opposite direction (repentance). The we can see Gods unmerited favour salvage lives and restore the lost and wasted years.

I am not saying everyone has to follow a process like a production line. But I question if you are on the right track if you find yourself seriously object to this line of thought.

PM said: "...what staggers me is that you can speak so openly about your sin, about your experience of the unconditional love of God and yet at the very same time fail to grasp that when we discuss issues like this we are speaking of real people, real lives, real hurt. When people like Benny read discussions like this they're not thinking, "Oh, interesting discussion" and agree or disagree or get all hot under the collar, they are thinking of the real, painful, hurtful circumstances of their own lives and I WILL NOT, on a public forum, run the risk of causing any further unnecessary hurt because I happen to have a particular view of christian marriage....Do you know Benny? Then stop talking about him and go talk to him. If you are talking to Benny, then listen carefully and come back here and tell us what you have heard."

I have addressed my comments above on the Benny I do know. He is annoyed by the editorial line of the BBC on homosexuality. He has told me. This doesnt mean your comments arent valid, they are, big time. But my actual experience with Benny has validity too. I know another "Benny" who has married and started a family and has amazing grace and compassion when speaking about his life. He encourages other gay people to be out and proud and real not to fear, while sharing his experience of Christ at the same time. He suffers significant attacks for being open and honest BTW. He condemns nobody. Neither do I. We offer a message of hope. A hope of freedom from guilt and self condemnation and a clear conscience. That is real good news and it is not theory and piffle.

I have known/do know quite a few gay people. Can I speak positively without being lashed for it? Like RJB, on the whole I have found them well above average in the likeability stakes. I normally find them sensitive, genuine and fun to be with. And that compares very well with many church goers, without question, IMO.

Four people have told me their very personal stories, three of them featuring violent attacks on their persons and/or homes. I have taken a public stand for three to vigorously protest at such attacks. In another case, a work colleague was being continuously subjected to "humorous homophobic bullying and I was the only person, a very junior person I might add, to continuously protest. I didnt do enough, but it was a complex situation. Nobody else batted an eyelid.

One key assumption on which RJB and I greatly differ, I think is about "sin". I appreciate the complexities of who this word conjures up in your mind and heart, ie your abusers. I appreciate that you indentify me with them. But please bear with me because I think it is the root of much of our disagreement.

To me sin is the tendency to veer off target from our conscience, our good intentions and to repeatedly fail in living up to our own moral standards. I feel concern when many religious experts give the strong impression that this isnt an issue at all. That you can commit legion anti-NT offences in God's eyes and so long as your motive is good and you love people, God doesn't mind. This is not the Jesus of the gospels, at all. Just read his teaching on lust/mental adultery. That set the standard so high that every church member in the land is failed for heaven and must plead for Gods grace to live a holy thought life.

The problem for me is that the abuse of this term sin by your abusers does not remove its reality in our lives. I am not trying to suggest you know nothing of this, I dont know you at all really. And I am humbled by your forgiveness for your abusers and your courage to seek justice.
Its just that I know from personal experience that in God's eyes we can be made right very quickly in this regard (sin). Because of the cross, I cant really explain it, but I do know it works, we can stand before God clean, as though we have never done any wrong. Then the process of God actually growing our characters into the mould of Christ himself begins, is a much more messy and slow affair. But it works, in my experience. And that is good news that is too good not to share, IMO.

I am not preaching AT you, but I am asking you to hear where I am coming from.

PM, you say the church has no credibility at all to speak on this issue but I am not so sure. Christians are frequently asked to air their views on such matters in the media. And in fact there are constituencies of both gay people and those who have but reject SSA who wholly embrace the traditional Christian view on sexuality. For example, commentator Matthew Parris and out pro-gay man who fully accepts the bible does not bless homosexual practise. I also read a prominent gay activist recently saying that while he thought Iris Robinson was a dinosaur regarding her views, he strongly defended her right to express them. In his view gay folk should remember what it was like when they were muzzled. So it is not as black and white as you might think, I suggest, PM, to suggest there is no credibility for expressing such views.

I am happy to disagree with you civilly on this matter, I dont seen any need to fall out over it. In my view even if the church had zero credibility altogether there is still a very good argument for it to engage publicly and make a proactive case for the biblical view of sex.

I mention it again, another reason I think the sexuality issue is important is because I perceive it is the ideological battering ram which is being used to destroy Christian values, to question what GV calls the traditional sexual ethic, to cast doubt on the credibility of the entire traditional Christian faith and the bible.

This does not mean that we are depending on political campaigns or laws to safeguard our security. Were not. This does not mean we can stop living as model citizens and then some. We cant. This does not mean we can ignore our inner integrity and personal relationship with God and those we live with daily. We cant, as you have so ably articulated. But it does mean, IMO, that in a blog which designs threads to discuss such matters Christians can assume that it should not be a social offence to politely discuss such matters, IMO. I have no problem with you disagreeing if you give me room to do the same.

Here is the dictionary definition of hypocrite BTW;-
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Can anyone here convict me of either of these things? I dont believe so but I only believe I have Christs power in my life and his forgiveness to thank for that. That is really good news, and I cant claim any credit for it myself. That is sort of core to my entire argument, because I believe this good news of cleansing and freedom is freely available to all.
I do think you can accuse me of having used a harsh insensitive tone on occasions. I think you can also challenge me as to how much I love you compared to how much Christ does. But if you are just going to talk about hypocritical judgemental fundamentalists, it is largely meaningless and irrelevant IMO, because I just cant see it, and I will find it very difficult to hear anything important you have to say.

Reference outsiders in the church PM, where do I start. I have actually put several years work into dealing directly with a major element of this in NI. In my own church I get depressed and frustrated about this very issue. Very much so. I could go on. And yet I have to guard against surrendering to cynicism because in my own church so many people from non church backgrounds are flooding in and finding community and fellowship and faith. And the largest proportion of them are under 30 ie not so easily fooled by pretence and religion.

Back to Bennys. I also know another gay man who recently confided in me his mounting anger over Iris ongoing comments last year. The paedophiles comment really did it for him. I fully understand. I have never and could never use the language and tone that Iris used on this matter.
Yet I know there will be people reading this who will still assume that I should still have no right to say the things I am saying here and how I am saying, while others on this thread clearly do and should. It goes back to what GV said about no one view being allowed to dominate IMO.

Heres one for Peter Klaver. Peter Im not going to argue with you but indeed I have never found any YEC arguments on radiometric dating convincing. I wont say it again. There is no point if you are just repeatedly going to call me a liar.
I have certainly tested these views on you to destruction, but they didnt convince me in that process. I am not saying they are wrong, just that I dont think the arguments are solid. Maybe that is just because they are beyond me. BTW I dont believe God spends much time thinking about the evolution vs ID debate.
Even in a literal reading of the bible, creationism is a tiny fraction of the overall text. Thats not saying I think it is unimportant, I am just talking context. For me, I found it important to discuss the matter at length to get a handle on the full breadth of the matter. Done and dusted. But I DO think it matters to God how we use what knowledge we have about evolution or creationism. Do we handle it honestly? Do we exaggerate our certainty based on evidence? Are we selective with evidence? Do we use our knowledge to insult, hurt, patronise and seek power and control? Without question creationists do all of these. I will leave you to speak for evolutionists. Of course, as PM says, Christians are often even more wrong in how they speak about homosexuality. I know you are just insulting me for having a different viewpoint on this. There is not really anywhere to go after that sort of reaction. Ok, your choice.
I have absolutely no problem fully accepting Christians who believe in evolution BTW eg CS Lewis. I have my convictions on evolution but that is all they are.

For anyone who took the trouble to read, thanks.

OT

Complain about this comment
136. At 5:03pm on 15 May 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have scanned it once and should like to read it with more care before I get back to you again. My first impression is that at least we are all capable of some worthwhile interaction on this blog and that on it's own is good.

Thank you

Peter

Complain about this comment
137. At 6:46pm on 15 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
(I think the server swallowed my post, ignore if it appears after all)

OT, I read part of your post up to where you asked where you had been offensive. On a fairly recent thread you spoke of something like a

'tidal wave of filth'

in connection to homosexuality. On older threads (under your previous 'pb' identity) there is loads more hateful bigotry from you, but the 'tidal wave of filth' comment is what springs to mind from more recent comments. Hard not to read that as condemnation.

Complain about this comment
138. At 6:48pm on 15 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Better to link to the post itself perhaps. It wasn't just a 'tidal wave of filth' but of lies too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/jeremy_marks_and_the_exgay_mov.html#P76244650

Complain about this comment
139. At 12:54pm on 19 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Thanks Peter K - I knew I could rely on you!

;-)

You took my challenge in my last post above when I said this;-

I also notice this phrase coming up time and again - judge not lest ye be judged. I dont really think anyone here really understands what it means. It means not to set out to destroy people with criticism. It means not to hem people in with no hope of escape and crush them to death with condemnation. Hand on heart, I dont think anyone can ever show me where I have done this. On the contrary. I believe in a God of real hope and one who taught us to forgive, as RJB rightly said, 70x7 times! But I dont believe in a God of unholiness.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////

And then you referred me back to recent comments I made on the same subject on a different thread;-

To me I think that a life dominated by the thought or act of illict sex is in fact idolatry and I think it is a major challenge to every Christian today, me included, whether or not they have same sex attraction.

The problem with this is not simply that God has forbidden such a life and he is coming to punish us for being evil.

The problem is that according to Romans 1 we all know better in our conscience and we know in our heart of hearts that God has a much better life for us to live which we are turning our backs on.

when we put thoughts about illicit sex first in our lives before our Father God it makes him angry because he has so much more for us.

And doesnt God have every right to be angry with us if he sacrificed his innocent son to set us free from such sin and we trample him underfoot?

I am not preaching as someone pretending to be pure as snow. I battle my sinful nature every day.

But I am not going to lie down and die under this tidal wave of lies and filth.

////////////////////

PK - I am really at a loss to see any contradiction between these two statements. Certainly the use of the term filth could create a barrier in open dialogue I dont contest. You will note my point was by no means singling out those who practise homosexuality for exclusive attention, I was pointing at myself too. Furthermore my comments were in no way crushing people to death but rather pointing to the Messiah.

Funny how we are so comfortable using that term as shorthand for what it means but so uncomfortable in accepting its true meaning.

Regards for now
OT

PS PK, what would be the main thing stopping you from joining a nice church like Peter Morrows, if it were filled with thesitic evolutionists?
Just curious? Would be interested in a thoughtful answer rather than a clever one, but its your call!.

Complain about this comment
140. At 3:39pm on 19 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Aaaah I have it now. We really are allowed to judge after all!!

Judging is only not allowed when its really vicious, callous and hateful.
When it is merely hurtful, insensitive and just a weeny bit hypocritical, it aint so bad after all. So Jesus was really wasting his time when he went to such lengths on so many occasions to point it out to us.

I'll try and apply the same criterion in future and distinguish between people who are just a wee bit homosexual and the other tidal waves of filth who are really, really homosexual.

Thanks for the clarification OT.

Complain about this comment
141. At 10:38am on 20 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:
RJB

I went back last night and looked again at the passage on judging and reviewed it from the start. Have I really got it all right, I asked myself? I'm still reviewing it.

I would like to affirm things you have said;-

I agree that love is a higher priority than church discipline and doctrine - 1 Cor 13.

I agree that God is a God of mercy; if he told us to forgive 70x7 times how much more will he forgive us?

I agree that God made sex as a good gift for man to enjoy.

I agree with sex education and "abuse proofing" for children.

I abhor the abuse and betrayal you have suffered by religious leaders.

I agree that spiritual leaders who have suffered mighty struggles can be very well placed to minister to other broken people.

I agree there is much insensivity and hypocrisy among church members and leaders, especially regarding homosexuality.

I agree that Jesus got most angry with religious leaders who lorded it over ordinary people for power and profit.

I agree that Jesus did not specifically single out homosexuality for attention.

I agree that he was/is particularly concerned for the poor, lame, outcasts and oppressed, all of who are made in his image.

I agree that most of the gay people I have met have been very agreeable people, pleasant, fun, genuine.

I like Ian McKellan as an actor and Graham Norton.

I dont believe it is a sin to "be gay".

I agree that spiritual pride is a much graver sin than any sexual sin.

I agree that leading members of the gay community may be used by God to speak truth to churches and church leaders.

I dont believe that any Christian can live a life free from sin.

I believe that any Christian may at any time fall into grave sin.

I do believe that God understands and accepts that we may and will sin.

I note that many people held up in the bible as examples committed major sexual sins;

- David, a famous, glamorous evangelist of his day, had an affair with Bathsheba and then murdered her husband in order to cover it up. He also had a harem.

- Solomon, famed for his wisdom, built a massive harem and was corrupted by the pagan religion of his wives, scripture says.

- Samson, a judge of Israel, had a weakness for women and slept with prostitutes

- Judah, a forbear of Christ who gave Christ the title "The Lion of the tribe of Judah" had sex with a woman posing as a prostitute.

- Rahab was a prostitute who is included in the geneology of Christ.

- Christ saved a women from stoning for adultery ( I dont know why the man wasnt there too, she didnt do it on her own!).

- Christ commended an "unclean" woman who was an outcast from her community, for washing his feet with her tears and hair.

- Christ offered spiritual water of life to the woman at the well who was a serial man collector.

- fyi I personally dont have a problem with gay pride parades, GLB groups, or gay people in my church or living next door to me, or being friends with them on a social basis. No problem at all.

- I dont believe I have the right or knowledge to presume to sum up the righteousness of anybody as though I were God.

- I have no doubt people who considered themselves gay in this life will be in heaven.

- I dont presume that I will be in heaven.

I know you have been deeply hurt and feel very passionate about this matter.

I am happy to have an honest conversation with you and hope you will continue.

OT

Complain about this comment
142. At 10:42am on 20 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

also ...missed the bit you mentioned about how Christ said the man who felt he was too much a sinner to come into the temple was justified by crying out to God for mercy in comparison to those who went to the temple but were not sincere.

You are spot on that doubtless this still applies today to us and our churches, imo.

Complain about this comment
143. At 10:51am on 20 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

I know you didnt make all these points but I'm adding another;-

I know there are many many people who find homosexual feelings appearing within them as they grow up and it is not something they ever sought or chose and not something they could "turn off" or walk away from.

One gay man said something like; why would we wake up one morning and decide to choose all the discrimination and disadvantages and pain of being gay?

Without doubt that must be a very difficult path to walk and it is not one I have had to tread.

Complain about this comment
144. At 11:12am on 20 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

one last point for today RJB...I have a backround in trade unionism and strongly support Obama's foriegn policy and his committment to the poorest people in his country.

Complain about this comment
145. At 12:28pm on 20 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

If you genuinely believe all these things, then it doesnt come across on so many of your posts in the past.

And if you genuinely believe all these things then I will withdraw my accusation that you are a Pharisee (something which, incidentally, I've just accused you of again on another thread!!)

By the way, I cant stand Graham Norton. He's a crap presenter and couldnt lace Jonathon Ross's boots. Lol!

Complain about this comment
146. At 12:44pm on 20 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

I didnt say Norton was a good presenter, I just said I liked him!

;-)

Looks like you will have to withdraw your accusation that I am a pharisee then!

;-)

LOL!

I think that is the first time you have ever laughed WITH me.

Glad I got your attention! Please dont stop listening.

The reason I wrote all of these things is because I realise thay have not come across, I have felt they did, but realised they didnt.

My perception is that this blog is a debate about issues, not people. I think that is fair comment.

I have presumed that people would not presume things about me which they obviously have. We are all human.

I have debated the issue pertinent to the thread but I realise you see the people first and the issues second. I would agree that is God's perspective in the big picture.

You will note I have not surrendered any of my core beliefs nor have I asked you to surrender any of yours, but I am pleased you are able to see me more like a human being than a religious tyrant!

Peace!

OT

Complain about this comment
147. At 11:16am on 21 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

RJB

Was just thinking about you this morning and the news all over the papers about the abuse investigations. I guess you might be having a v difficult day today with painful memories? Not presuming to read your mind but many other people in similar situations have said this today.

May I continue with our conversation?

At this point I would like to note that what I have done in my last few posts is to look at your arguments and position through the prism of the mercy, grace, patience and compassion of God. Thank God he has those qualities in abundance!

But I dont think we can really stop there if we are serious about trying to understand God's attitude on any matter, whatever it is.

What other aspects of this discussion need to be acknowledged if we are also to look at it through the prisom of God's holiness, truth and yes, even God's anger?

I think that if you put the list of statements I made above to many of the people you consider "fundamentalists" you might be surprised how many of them can tick each box that I have done, if you gave them the freedom to list of further statements later to put them in context.

It might be a surprising excercise for people on both sides. Part of the reason you never knew these things about me was because you never asked me about them.

Another illuminating excercise might be if you affirmed everything you possibly could about those you feel most hostile to on this blog. Is it possible that they too might then feel enabled to come out and acknowledge the valid points they feel you are making, but which they feel too threatened to acknowledge?

Peace.

OT

Complain about this comment
148. At 12:07pm on 22 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Ok, so I said I would review the scripture on judge not lest you be judged.

Here is the passage in Matt 7, amplified bible;-

Matthew 7
1DO NOT judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves.
2For just as you judge and criticize and condemn others, you will be judged and criticized and condemned, and in accordance with the measure you [use to] deal out to others, it will be dealt out again to you.
3Why do you [a]stare from without at the [b]very small particle that is in your brother's eye but do not become aware of and consider the beam [c]of timber that is in your own eye?
4Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam [d]of timber in your own eye?
5You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother's eye.
6Do not give that which is holy (the sacred thing) to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before hogs, lest they trample upon them with their feet and turn and tear you in pieces.

The two most important laws, Christ said, are to love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself; obviously Christianity was never meant to programme people to be constantly on the look out for people or things to criticize and condemn.

This passage is taken from the sermon on the mount, in which Christ also warned his followers to avoid anger, adulterous thoughts, divorce (excepting for adultery) etc.

In the chapter after this passage above he also warns his followers to be on the look out for false prophets. Obviously he was asking them to make a judgement as to who false prophets are.

This passage says that if you remove the sin in your own life you will be well placed to help others with their sin.... ie it does not urge us to ignore sin.

It also warns against throwing pearls of God's wisdom to people who are hostile to God and his ways. Put it another way, if you have no interest in being a Christian, God not expect that you will have any interest in following his word, he expects that you will ignore it. And he does not call on Christians to engage in such activity.

If I am a policeman and I see someone being mugged, it is not judgemental of me to intervene; if you are an employer and you find someone stealing you are not judgemental to address it.

If Christians see blatant sin in their church they have an obligation to intervene, but the motive and attitude are key.

But as I said above, it is nobody's place to presume to make a final pronouncement on an individual, sitting on the throne of God and presuming to know every secret fact that bears upon their life, every secret struggle, every motive, the extent of their desire to follow God etc.

That is something very different to recognising blatant sin in a church and addressing it.

One is dealing with sin in love, the other is presuming to make a final judgement and complete condemnation of an indvidual.

Complain about this comment
149. At 12:09pm on 22 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Paul wrote to the Corinthians about just such a matter, and he actually rebukes them for being proud of their tolerance to blatant sexual sin in their midst; but his eye is always on the redemption of the people concerned;-

1 Corinthians 5
1 I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among yousomething that even pagans dont do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.[a] 2 You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.
3 Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit.[b] And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church.[c] I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. 5 Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed[d] and he himself[e] will be saved on the day the Lord[f] returns.
6 Your boasting about this is terrible. Dont you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us.[g] 8 So let us celebrate the festival, not with the old bread[h] of wickedness and evil, but with the new bread[i] of sincerity and truth.
9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasnt talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer[j] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Dont even eat with such people.
12 It isnt my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, You must remove the evil person from among you.[k]

Complain about this comment
150. At 12:12pm on 22 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Just to emphasise the point from the passage in Matt 7, I am extracting this quote from Paul in the passage above.

Paul says;-

"It isnt my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning."

Complain about this comment
151. At 12:14pm on 22 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

sorry, of course Paul in the context of 1 Cor 5 is not calling on the church to utterly condemn the individual, but rather to take a tough love approach in order to save him.

RJB, sorry to mention this last, hope you are doing ok in the midst of the current media storm about abuse etc.

Hope to hear from you soon.

OT

Complain about this comment
152. At 1:47pm on 22 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

I was actually dealing with the latest headlines fairly well until I read someone's post on another thread.

I'm not really in a place to carry out the task you ask me to, at the moment. However, can I direct you to a book called, "The Pyjama Parade." In its pages you will find the answers to all your questions about my attitude to subjects like The Wrath of God, God's judgement, our place as moral gaurdians, etc.. etc..

Complain about this comment
153. At 4:37pm on 24 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello OT,

I tend to read rjb's post 140 as saying that your post 139 smells of hypocrisy. I can't be sure if that is what he is saying. But if it is, then I fully agree with him. Adjusting the meaning of the verb 'to condemn' so that your actions don't fall within it is hypocritical. Face it, part of your christianity is being an unpleasant, hateful homophobe and there is no shortage of condemnation in your posts. Bigots for Jesus could make you an honorary member of their club.

"PS PK, what would be the main thing stopping you from joining a nice church like Peter Morrows, if it were filled with thesitic evolutionists?"

The lack of rational foundation for what is preached there. Petermorrow certainly is a far better ambassador for christianity that you could ever be. But just because he voices his christian views in a very kind, patient, friendly manner, and without resorting to YEC lies and other literalist follies as you do, that doesn't make the things at the core of his views that much more acceptable to me. I appreciate his posts, he seems like a very pleasant person to me. But pleasant christians don't make christianity good.

Complain about this comment
154. At 11:31am on 30 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:
Hi PK

You seem to be a little behind the discussion, RJB and I have reached a reasonable friendly place, as you can see.

Am I judging murderers when I condemn the practise of murder?

Am I judging thieves when I condemn the practise of theft?

Am I judging alcholohics when I condemn drunkenness?

It would be unfair to leave it just there. I believe the Christian message is that of a second chance and power to change to live pleasing to God.

Just because people dislike some of my posts does that mean they are wrong? In the end most people deserted Christ and called for his crucifixation in the gospels. Do we judge truth on democracy?

You accuse me of judging and you have accused of lies here for years, without evidence??

You follow a man who says faith is a mental illness?

I dont suggest the tone of some of my posts has been negative and annoyed at times, but my rule, there for all to see, is that I play the ball not the man.

You seem equally happy to play either, and perhaps take most pleasure in playing the man.

But go ahead, repost the most offensive and also the most dishonest thing I have ever said to YOU here.

To be honest I think your major issues are really with the religious upbringing you hated so much and with which I would not defend.

After that you hate me so much, I think, because I have successfully challenged you on several occasions on your home turf, ie science.

So dont go into all sorts of bling alleys, lets see my biggest lie and my most ofensive post to you....

Come on pete, face reality here...

Complain about this comment
155. At 11:35am on 30 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

RJB

You said in a post a week or two that you though Christ would say something to a gay man, should he meet him in a gospel scenario.

I would like to say I would not see that meeting as being confrontational, with regards the type of gay people you have mainly referred to.

I would see it very much in the vein of the woman at the well. I hope you take it in the manner that was offered.

I see many gay people that I believe have wounded spirits, please dont see that as a patronising comment. Many non-gays have too of course, but I see that as frequently the central issue in the discussion on homosexuality.

I dont believe I understand the story of every gay person, we are all unique. Based on the consensus I see at present. I dont believe that God can offer heterosexuality to all people from gay backgrounds.

I dont understand it all, I dont pretend to. But I am keen to understand more and I have an open mind, which stays open better when I am not abused with aggressive labels.

Hope you're keeping well.

OT

Complain about this comment
156. At 11:37am on 30 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

correction; change the statement, I dont believe God can offer heterosexuality to every person to; I believe many sincere gay people have genuinely sought God to become heterosexual and have failed, and I dont understand why.

Complain about this comment
157. At 11:52am on 30 May 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

correction for PK

I know the tone of some of my posts has been negative and annoyed at times, sorry.

I would change them if I could. but my rule, there for all to see, is that I play the ball not the man and I stick pretty well to it....

Complain about this comment
158. At 12:15pm on 30 May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello PastorB, you wrote

"You accuse me of judging and you have accused of lies here for years, without evidence??"

"But go ahead, repost the most offensive and also the most dishonest thing I have ever said to YOU here."

That's not an easy one for me OT/PB/etc. The list of your lies is so long and stretches over years now, that it would take extensive re-reading for me to pick out the single worst example. But I'll list a few of the bad ones that I've come across and remember from the top of my head. The worst one might well be among those.

There was your ludicrous desperate anti-evolution line on QM: "quantum science is increasingly challenging scientific assumptions, including those underpinning evolution."

There was your 100% fabricated quote from prof. Prum. You actually sank to the depth of citing a quote from a professor in evolutionary biology about a supposed lack of fossils when the quote was entirely made up. In your anti-evolution desperation you quoted someone in a paper when what you quoted was simply not in that paper. 100% fabrication.

Quote-mining Darwin about the likelyhood of the eye having come about by evolution.

Your ludicrous assertions about radiometric dating being a rare thing, being carried out in very few labs, when it is actually a mainstream method that has yielded a vast and almost fully coherent body of evidence for an old earth.

Your claim of there being no intermediate feather fossils, when Tony Jackson and others went out of there way to look up examples. But for two and a half years you have refused to read any of it and stuck to your denial lie.

Claiming that faster than light travel is possible to explain light from billions of years away reaching us.

This is what springs to my mind right now. Sufficient enough I think to support my claim that you post blatant lies in support of your fundie YEC flavour of christianity.

"After that you hate me so much, I think, because I have successfully challenged you on several occasions on your home turf, ie science."

I don't remember any of that. I've listed 7 examples of you lying for jesus. Maybe you could list 7 examples where you successfully challenged me on science?

greets,
Peter

Complain about this comment
159. At 11:38am on 31 May 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT you ask me to "affirm everything I possibly could about those I am most hostile to on this blog."

The people I have been most hostile to, and I have no way of knowing if it is just one person or various people as I'm being led to believe that some people are using more than one pseudonym on here, would be the following:

- People who use more than one pseudonym and dont own up to it, giving the impression that their beliefs/opinions are held by many when in fact, it is just the same person using a different name. Such a person would be no more than a liar and a cheat. On a point of principle, I would not affirm anything in such a person.

- People who corrupt the Gospel and use it to attack 'perceived' sinners. Such a person would be very arrogant in my opinion and rather than affirming him, I would do my best to discredit him and place myself firmly at the side of the 'sinner.'

- People who take the Bible literally and who take pleasure in applying it to others while conveniently ignoring major biblical commands in their own lives. For example, Christ's teaching on judging. If I perceived a person to be judgemental and harsh to others, I would like to think that I would be more worried about affirming the person who is being judged harshly because they would probably be very broken already and could do with a friend who would not kick them while they're down.

- People who insist on believing in the biblical story of creation, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary. Such a person would be making my religion look ridiculous. I wouldnt affirm them.

- People who claim that they are speaking for God and then make statements which exclude, condemn, stigmatise and humiliate people I see as good people. I would not let such people enjoy my affirmation.

- There are loads of people I would affirm on here, Portwyne, Petermorrow, PKleaver, GVeale, CongregationalJ, Brendan FOConnor, LSV, etc.. I constantly find in their postings a healthy questioning, a basic belief in the goodness of people (especially those who are often rejected by the Church), an empathy for those who suffer, a compassion for fellow men and woman, a belief that mercy comes before sacrifice, love before the law, a morality which is not prudential, a willingness to face facts, a consistency in their arguments and I sense that these are all decent human beings.

Hope that answers your question.

Complain about this comment
160. At 11:32am on 06 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

So. Christianity vs Fundamentalism.

The thread started with a gent who is a US gay rights campaigner and blogger, vowing that his next aim was to get rid of certainty in the Christian faith.

We have covered quite a bit of ground since then with some points and questions which I personally thought were positively thought provoking.

I think I could potentially support our campaigner on several points.

John Sentamu has rebuked those Anglicans who with great certainty brand homosexuals as the root of all evil in the world today, who dehumanise and demonize them and exclude them from churches.

He says his mother always told him not to point a finger at someone because you always have three fingers pointing back.

And yet Sentamu has also drawn ire from many quarters for maintaining that homosexual practise (not people) -inside the church- should be viewed and treated no differently than those who practise of fornication or adultery (which many churches are quite comfortable overlooking, of course).

Christs teaching on mental adultery (it equals actual adultery) also stops the mouths of every one of us who would take pleasure in condemning a brother or sister we would like to single out as sexual sinners. We are certainly all in the same boat.

CS Lewis was right. The centre of Christian morality is not sex and the love of condemning others is mush worse, the worst of all sin in fact ie spiritual pride. Sentamu was also right biblically speaking, adultery fornication and homosexual practise still need to be viewed as sin inside the church, but in their proper proportion and context. 1 Cor 5.

RJB has brought out some crucial points about how the Word became flesh lived out the biblical doctrines when he came into contact with people engaged in sexual sin. The woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the woman who washed Christ's feet. His compassionate and direct approach did not ignore the sin but went stright into redemption mode. That was/is his mission.

Yes that word sin. I appreciate that some people here have experienced it being misused as psychological terrorism. Others think its use it much too theologically exclusive for ordinary people to understand and that we should verbally flog those who mention it.

I dont think anyone on a self billed controversial religion and ethics blog -where we are all invited to express our views- really has much problem understanding this word. In fact I think it is generally understood pretty well in the world today.

I recall RJB here noting how many posters would not critique Roman Catholicism because they were afraid of being given an offensive label. That is the only subject that such fears attach themselves to on this blog, IMO.

You will remember that Christ also commended Nathanial and John the Baptist for plain speaking. That is not to excuse persistant brute ignorance of course, but I dont necessarily think it a virtue to hide your true beliefs for fear, as often happens on this blog regarding evolution, sexuality etc. These are not the heart of Christian morality either.

BTW RJB, it is hard to know where you are exactly coming from on this debate. It is not clear that you allow anyone at all the chance to actually disagree with you on whether the practise of homosexuality is any more acceptable to God than adultery or fornication, without personalyll abusing them.

You actually appear to defend adultery and fornication, which is your right of course. You have gone alot further than defending people who are broken over their sin and strongly defended those who defiantly parade it in public. 1 Cor 5. Is it just broken self confessed sinners you unconditionally defend - or do you have any reservations about those who defiantly parade their sin in public? I am not asking you to harshly single anyone out to judge them, but the NT does not ignore sin either, just like Sentamu.

Speaking of the world today, Sentamu has been widely praised for attacking the privatisation of faith (-thus winning him BBC W&T person of the year). Others may disagree with him and I fully respect that. But if we are all forbidden from respectfully discussing society splitting subjects even on a blog explicitly dedicated to controversial religious debate, well. Then I will proceed, if alone. ( It never crossed my mind that such a respectful discussion would give anyone a licence to excuse us from helping the poor, befriending 'lepers', stopping gossiping, guarding what goes into our minds, or welcoming gay people as human beings made in the image of God; no, not for a second.)

Well, everyone in the church is sinning therefore we should not take a public position on any type of sin, nor how to extricate ourselves from them???

In my opinion ( I dont claim to speak for God ;-)) we cant ignore sin if we are discussing the Christian faith. It is the elephant in the room. It is there at the start of the bible (regardless of how you read it) and the way I see it, every chapter afterwards has been a love story of God pursuing man to rescue him from it. In the last chapter God completes his perfect rescue plan, IMO.

Without understanding sin, the old and new covenants, God's rescue plans of the Passover lamb and the cross are totally meaningless. As is the resurrection, imo. And I also suggest we will fail to understand man and achieve the peace God means for us if we refuse to discuss, understand sin and how to deal with it.

That is not to suggest our identity should be sinner. I suggest for Christians those who identify as gay, straight or struggling with SSA our primary focus and identity should be Christ, his cleansing from sin, his mercy, his peace, his healing, his community/kingdom.

I would also challenge the certainty that many gay people can simply stop being gay, and that therapy and/or faith can achieve this without fail. I dont fully understand the subject but I believe I have heard from sincere Christians who wished to be free from homosexual feelings and couldnt. I have also heard from those who wished to change and did. I am certain that we should strive to understand these issues, when so many people are suicidal because they feel trapped and hopeless. Personally I feel a moratorium on free speech, research, listening and discussion in this area is therefore cruel and a denial of academic freedom and freedom of speech due to political correctness. I believe some gay people who wish to change are having that right sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, by those who claim to defend them. It matters not what I think, but these dear people have rights to self determination on so many levels, which nobody should deny them. Yes let the ad hominems rain down, I wont back down under them, but I will listen to mature discussion.

None of us can pretend that a discussion on deep emotional and spiritual issues and related sexual brokenness has nothing to do with us, ie that would be spiritual pride once again IMO.

I am also certain that we shouldnt impose pejorative labels on people which they find offensive. RJB, Peter K, PM - are you welcoming of such labels being applied to me and you and the gay community and Christians in general (is faith a mental illness PK? Can we apply that to other groups in this debate too then?) Do you want us all to apply the same standards in this? Or are you more mature and listening as well as speaking? I say play the ball, not the man.

Ref your last post RJB, I am certain that we shouldnt rush to assume the worst of people on the thinnest of evidence RJB, and without asking our victim if they would like to defend themselves first (is guilty until proven innocent really your approach to life? You have already seriously misjudged me once and I am not inclined to continue defending myself. Your attitude on this will determine your own destiny, not mine.

More generally, William, I am certain that if anyone takes great pleasure in embarrassing people in public they are certainly not acting in love or humility, regardless how intellectual they think you are. Perhaps it is sooner symptomatic of someone with deep insecurities. Perhaps it is even more important to beware people who despise the one book?

I am also very certain that Christ does not weep and cry over how many people in the world are creationists or evolutionists.

I am certain, as I was at the start of this discussion, that we all can and do sin and that the limits of Gods forgiveness massively outweighs human concepts, though is ultimately not without limits.

I am certain my understanding of all these subjects is limited and flawed. I am certain I will have offended someone reading this. I am certain that was never my intention.

I am certain I will not be intimidated from respectfully expressing my views when asked, discussing issues, not people.

I am certain I am open to listen and learn from others. I am certain that you are made in the image of God, with dignity and worth by that very fact and loved of God. I am certain that I am too.

I am certainly thankful to those who have taken part in this discussion.

With certainty
OT

Complain about this comment
161. At 11:49am on 06 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

OK Peter K

in brief , and in complete harmony with evolution;-

The more imaginative corners of theorhetical science verge into unproven theories that go beyond our current understanding of nature; they are supernatural.

But formal science today baulks at the idea of any proto-hypothesis which suggests that God may have been the first cause of the universe, acutally created life to kickstart evolution, created and keeps stable scientific laws and keeps the universe and earth constant enough for life to flourish.

From the dawn of history science never had a problem living comfortably with the supernatural.

The scientific revolution came from the worship of Christ; as Kepler said: "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".

Dakwins says "belief in God is a mental illness".

Which one will be most honoured in 100 years?

Only in the past 100-150 years did the enlightenment really clamp down on science and insist that any expression of God had to be eliminated from it; that is a modern ideology but is opposite to historical science.

SJ Gould said half of his colleagues were theistic evolutionists; may we speculate that half the scientists in the world today still informally accept the God hypothesis for the cause, design and stability of all that allows and upholds life?

All that is completely in harmony with evolutionary thought. The problem is you swing your science around using ideology to try and kill God.

As for radiometric dating I fully agree it is mainstream. My objections previously were that the certainty of its conclusions are often abused and mispresented by people who want to use it as a religious weapon. A senior academic in this field in NI recently completely affirmed this point to me.

In other words, you are not an expert in radiometric dating and have you ever actually met someone who is an actual professional doing this work?
In that respect there are not that many of these people around, so it is easy to mispresent their work.

And in saying all that, I once again make clear that I don't believe the YEC version of radiometric dating, just in case there was any confusion.

But I would say I believe in some form of intelligent design/creationism, like about 50% of the UK, according to a recent survey. And I do think the bible itself tends to point towards a young earth.

Unlike many scholars on this blog, I am not embarassed to say so.

As for Prum, the quote I used in good faith. It was not in the paper concerned word for word, so far as I could see.

But it was completely in line with the rest of the paper. In other words, despite being a world authority on the evolution of features he admitted that his expertise was 99.999% based on speculation as he had no actual evidence.

I hope you can demonstrate your security in your world view by not launching a tirade of ad hominemns Pete!

Play the ball or the man??

Peace!

OT

Complain about this comment
162. At 2:29pm on 06 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

If you dont know where I'm coming from in this debate, (which I doubt is true) I'll spell it out..... again.

I make no judgement on homosexuals, people who have committed fornication, or any other traditional 'targets' of the religiously self-righteous. Not up to me to judge. In fact, I've read time and time again in the Bible what judgement shall befall me should I decide to judge.

What have I accused you of this time OT? I seem to remember you accusing me of accusing you of being a homosexual. You later reread my post and apologised when you realised that I had accused you no such thing.

What personal attacks? I have never used phrases like "tidal waves of filth" etc.. Most of my comments tend to be flippant, especially if the subject is something which is not really important to me.

However, if you wish to make statements which are hurtful to people, arrogant, sweeping, hateful, and anti-Christian, you can certainly expect "personal" attacks from me, as I've said before.

You still havent got it, OT. You still defend your right to judge, you still feel it is your right to point out to the rest of humanity who is the sinner and who is not, according to God. "There is an elephant in the room" - sin. Let Christ deal with the elephant.

Complain about this comment
163. At 2:09pm on 07 Jun 2009, Edwin Droom wrote:
RJB
Read 1 Corinthians 5, and let us know what you think this means, if not that the church has not just the right but a responsibility to deal with sexual immorality?

Main point,

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you."
So we don't get to judge those outside the church - that, God reserves to himself. Within the church, it is the responsibility of the church to judge and, if the person doesn't repent, to expel them.

You say OT doesn't get it, but on this point, I think this teaching is pretty clear, and that it is you who hasn't got the principle. Now, I don't have time to check all posts, so I will add that this should all be done in love, and I don't stand by any vicious personal attacks, or singling out a particular sexual sin as somehow more disgusting, unless the Bible does so.

Complain about this comment
164. At 3:03pm on 07 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Edwin

"So we dont get to judge those outside the church."

So we dont get to........ sounds a bit like your missing out on a pleasure.

You should check all posts, Edwin, you'd have found out that I dont give the Bible the same clout as you do. Not the Old Testament, nor St Paul. I'll focus on what Jesus had to say.

Do not judge and you wont be judged seemed to be a regular theme for him. He also seemed to get pretty miffed at those who took it upon themselves to judge others, especially those who consider themselves righteous. (I think you used the word "we" above.)

Infact, Jesus put such an emphasis on it that I actually find St Paul, at times, missed the point. Could that be possible?!!

Wish you'd put the same energy into 'including' as you seem to put into "expulsion."

Complain about this comment
165. At 4:23pm on 07 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

RJB

I do get your point about judging.

It is not to be a hobby of the church and it often is, without question.

At the top right hand of this blog it says;-

"BBC Northern Ireland presenter William Crawley discusses the often controversial political, religious and ethical ISSUES of the day."

I did make the statement about the tidal wave of filth; I was, from memory speaking, about both homosexual practise (not people), the general lax attitude towards sex as a casual toy and my own struggles to keep pure in such a society. At no point did I point the finger at any one individual or group of people, bar myself.

I do see how gay people may take this very personally.

Yet I have to point out, I think I have been very careful to always tallk about homosexual practise as distinct from homosexual people.

Please do not think I have closed my mind to understand other perspectives/attitudes. I believe there is plenty of room to do this without sacrificing any traditional doctrine.

Is there is a way in which I can express a traditional Christian view of the issues of sex and sexuality on relevant threads on this blog without offending you?

I mean this as a serious question. If there is I would like to try and do so.

Is John Sentamu really such a heretic on this matter in God's eyes, displaying as he does a pretty balanced view on the matter, imo?

What I HEAR from you is that any person who makes an explicit statement which affirms that the bible says about same gender sex, fornication and adultery (physical and mental) will be attacked by you for doing so.

Does this disqualify even those who would do so with grace, humility and compassion first and foremost in their mind?

Are you allowing anyone the freedom to affirm the traditional Christian view on this matter in a respectful manner?

You can come across as affirming that nobody has the moral freedom to repeat even Christ's doctrinal teaching of sex here, no matter the context and grace and humility it is done with.

I really struggle to know if you allow people to hold a traditional view on this at all, subject to humility and compassion.

I am certainly interested to know if there is a way to dialogue with you while maintaining respect.

regards
ot

At one point did you did apologise and withdraw an accusation that I was a pharisee.

I am still the same person.

Complain about this comment
166. At 4:28pm on 07 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

RJB

I know where you are coming from you see comments on homsexual practise as indivisble from homosexual people and many people do see it in this manner.

Are we agreed that both sides of the debate here for now should leave aside language the other side may find inflammatory??

OT

OT

Complain about this comment
167. At 5:49pm on 07 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

btw RJB

if you look where I mention the tidal wave of filth you will see I was discussing a very broad range of sins we are justifying now, not just homosexuality.

You will see that filth is a NT word also;-

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=filth&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no

OT

Complain about this comment
168. At 8:11pm on 07 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT

Whether you were refering to homosexuals, heterosexuals or bisexuals makes no difference. I think it is a terrible way to refer to anyone/group.

Complain about this comment
169. At 10:01pm on 07 Jun 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello OT,

You asked for examples where you had lied. I supplied 7 examples from the top of my head, all seven cases concerning you trying to defend your fundamentalist protestant young earth creationist flavour of christianity. The first half of your post about about the nature and history of science (apart from containing distortions etc of course, but I've addressed those often already, not going into that again) does nothing to counter my examples. In the second half of your post you reply to only two of the points I raised. Should I take your silence on the other five as admissions that they were indeed examples of your christianity making you lie? I can't imagine other christians being happy to see the faith that they also hold (thankfully, most in a different sub-flavour than yours) to once again being the catalyst for lies being told.

And it's no different for the two issues you did address. You did not agree that radiometric dating was a mainstream research method. You said there were very few labs that conducted such research. Your attempts to spin it by saying 'Have you met a professor who does that work?' is both disingenuous and it shows your lack of understanding of how science works. You apparently think that talking to a professor in a field of research is the only way to know about it. And yes, exactly contrary to what you say, you have held up the YEC version of geology a number of times on this blog, e.g. singing the praises of AiG's split-mind geologist Andrew Snelling a number of times.

And no matter how you try to spin your Prum quote fabrication, it was just that: a 100% fabricated quote. Your assertion that Prum said of himself that his expertise was 99.999% speculation is ridiculous even by your standards.

So as far as christianity being the engine that powers your lying concerned, it's a 7 out of 7 score. Christianity is the perfectly efficient source for dishonesty in you.

Complain about this comment
170. At 10:21pm on 07 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Peterklaver

I've been genuinely trying to work this out for weeks now. I cannot understand why people rooted in Christ would be so harsh in the way they talk about the people they decide are sinners? (And therefore distant from Christ.) (In their logic.)

I cannot understand why if I say what I really feel about them, they get brassed off and say that I'm being harsh with them. (I only said, "You are a Pharisee" I didnt say, "You are a tidal wave of Pharisees.")

If it is not nice to say something harsh to a Pharisee, surely it must not be nice to say something even harsher to a tidal wave of filth.

Peterklaver, am I lacking in Christ-like charity, or logic, or both?

Complain about this comment
171. At 10:55pm on 07 Jun 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello RJB,

I don't think you're lacking 'Christ-like charity' but I'm probably the wrong person to ask. As I've stated recently, I think not condemning peoples actions can be wrong too, tantamount to tolerating things that should not be tolerated. I'm not too worried about someone speaking out strongly, perhaps adding the condition that if someone finds out they've been wrong that they should be prepared to take back what they've said. And that can be difficult to do after making strong statements on things.

So if you ask me, I don't think you need to tone done or anything. In fact, a greater measure of 'self-correcting' of 'self-cleansing' ability within christianity might gain it a slightly higher appreciation from me (not that christianity is craving my appreciation anything, maybe the opposite).

Complain about this comment
172. At 11:39pm on 07 Jun 2009, Edwin Droom wrote:
"So we dont get to judge those outside the church."

"So we dont get to........ sounds a bit like your missing out on a pleasure."

Anyone who doesn't understand irony, this is a great example. Thanks for judging me, but no, I don't even particularly want to judge those in the church. As I am part of the church, though, I use we, and WE are commanded to do so. The immoral (all of us) get a chance to repent - it's only those who refuse to change their behaviour when called on it who are to be expelled, and even then, it is to be done out of love, to SAVE them from Hell (this isn't me making this up, this is what the passage about expelling the immoral brother says - in perfect keeping with the rest of the bible, where discipline is not harmful but for the good of the person disciplined). If you know Paul well enough to decide he is so out of step with Jesus, presumably you already know this and are being 'mischievous' to put it as kindly as I can.

However, the point you made was
"I've read time and time again in the Bible what judgement shall befall me should I decide to judge."
If you meant only, 'I've read again and again in 4 of the 66 books of the Bible, taken in isolation', I may have posted differently. In the Bible as a whole, which is what the Church bases their teaching on, Paul's teaching is pretty important.

So - now I know your thoughts on what the 'Bible' teaches - do you think that Jesus intended that Christians should oppose civil authorities when they judge? You seem to think that Jesus condemned any man judging another - should Christians not serve on juries, be judges, pay taxes to support the court system etc?

When I'm looking for a baby sitter, should I suspend judgement, as I am almost certainly just as sinful as the paedophile I might leave him with?

When my child gets older, am I allowed to judge his behaviour, and discipline him if necessary?

If my minister stands up in the pulpit and denies the holocaust, or suggests that we should all go out and stone Muslims, presumably I can't oppose him?

If my wife cheats on me, not only should I forgive her, but I have no right to condemn her in the first place? I mean, who am I to judge?

We are called to resist injustice and stand up for justice. How do we do that, if we're not allowed to make this judgement in the first place?

Mind you, I see Jesus using the word 'judge' as a verb in a number of distinct passages (allowing for the same instances in different gospels). Most are about Jesus, or the Father, judging. The remainder are:-
1 - the one you mentioned
2 - Luke 12 - "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right" - arguably not pertinent to judging people. If it is, it is certainly not banning judging.
3-John 7 - "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
The Greek word in the first and third is the same - so, if your reading of 'judge not, lest ye be judged' is accurate, then Jesus says once, don't judge, and then once 'here's HOW to judge when you're doing it. Of course, since the first says not to judge hypocritically, it could be that both passages are effectively saying the same thing - deal with your own sin before judging others. If you have unrepentant sexual sin in your life, don't judge others for the same sin. If, for example, you are sleeping with someone outside of marriage while being an elder or teaching elder, you'd better excuse yourself from judging others (i.e. being in authority in the church) until you get this sorted. If someone in authority refuses to sort it when confronted with their sin, they should be excluded from this authority.

Anyway, where is this 'such an emphasis' that Jesus put on not judging? Should I look for another word, like the passage about "by their fruits shall you know them" (Matt 7) which seems to be another teaching on how to judge people based on their actions.

Complain about this comment
173. At 00:41am on 08 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

Edwin

Lol! That was such a good post. You use the word "judge" dozens of times there, and each time, it has a different meaning. Like "judging" who you are going to vote for. (I'd have used the word "choosing" or "deciding" or ...................)

And I love that bit about doing it for their own good. God, you are so compassionate. By their fruits shall you know them.

The fact that you have to go into the Bible, count how many times The Bible says this word, or that word, to come to a conclusion about how you should BE as a person is so sad.

One minute you have the church as being based on the Bible, the next minute you are talking about Christians following Christ. Are they the same thing?

I think - without having statistics readily at hand - that Jesus kinda tried to hint from afar, that we should be kind, rather than unkind, non-judgemental rather than judgemental (I think he would take it for granted that you would never judge your kids harshly), forgiving rather than unforgiving, accepting rather than rejecting, inclusive rather than exclusive.

Come on, Edwin, are you seriously trying to tell me that I'm arguing that if we stop a paedophile abusing a child we are judging? Is that what you think I'm arguing?

Anyway, why do you guys so hate being called Pharisees? Paul liked them... at first. They do loads of great things in all the other books in the Bible outside the gospels.

Complain about this comment
174. At 01:12am on 08 Jun 2009, Edwin Droom wrote:
"Come on, Edwin, are you seriously trying to tell me that I'm arguing that if we stop a paedophile abusing a child we are judging? Is that what you think I'm arguing?"

Well, I certainly think you're trying to say that's not what you're arguing. But by deciding he's wrong to do so, and by 'stopping' him - limiting his freedom in whatever way - you are both judging AND punishing him. I know you wish you weren't, but either it's OK to judge or it's not, you can't have it both ways. We only differ on which things are offences, not on whether it's OK to judge those offences once established. As I say, Christians are only to judge - in a church setting - others in the Church, and therefore what the Bible teaches is relevant to decide what is an offence.

"I think - without having statistics readily at hand - that Jesus kinda tried to hint..."
So, I post specifics on the gospels which contradict your take on what Jesus taught, and you say "I think" the opposite - though apparently he did it 'from afar'? He did teach kindness and forgiveness (seventy times seven, if your brother repents - though even Jesus himself doesn't promise to forgive unless there is repentance) etc, but that doesn't prove that he said not to judge, which is the point we were discussing. Tell you what, go back and have a look at what Jesus actually said, then we can talk about it. It seems a little one-sided with me posting facts and you coming back with opinions.

"Anyway, why do you guys so hate being called Pharisees? Paul liked them... at first. They do loads of great things in all the other books in the Bible outside the gospels."
I realise you will probably not have stats to hand, but which books were you thinking of? Pharisee is mentioned (in a quick search in biblegateway.com - I also don't have stats to hand, but it doesn't take long to check facts) in the Gospels, Acts, and once in Philippians. Since Philippians is in reference to Paul himself, it doesn't count. Acts is written by Luke, and has 4 passages.
The first also is in reference to Paul himself.
One is to Gamaliel, who basically hedged his bets, and only allowed the disciples to be flogged on no evidence.
One is where some Pharisees took Paul's side against the Sadducees, on learning that Paul was also once a Pharisee.
One is when, true to form, they insisted Gentiles be circumcised according to the law.

Again, which of the other books of the Bible were you referring to? Are we reading different Bibles?

"One minute you have the church as being based on the Bible, the next minute you are talking about Christians following Christ. Are they the same thing?"
Yep. In the beginning was the Word. Paul was an apostle of Christ, according to Luke, who wrote one of the gospels. But of course, you know that Orthodox Christianity generally accepts the Bible to be the basis of our lives, and the teaching on how we follow Christ, so again, your question appears to be rhetorical and facetious. Fair enough - let me know if you'd like me to answer these in future, if not I can just mark them R&F?

Complain about this comment
175. At 2:51pm on 08 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

I've beem through all of this with OT over the last two months so to save me having to write it all again, why dont you just check back on the discussions we've already had on this subject. Plenty of quotes from the Bible there for you to sweep over and ignore.

We're actually talking here about how literally the Bible should be taken. You are obviously arguing that it should all be taken exactly as it is translated. I am saying that, that argument is stupid.

You pick and choose which ones you'll have, and which ones, eh well we'll just leave that one. Do you pluck your eye out when it causes you to sin, chop your hand off? Nah didnt think so.

Do you clean your pots and pans in milk? Do you agree with Paul on slaves and women? Nah didnt think so either.

Your version of "judging" is totally different to mine. (As can be seen from your above post.) You and OT and Pastor P cling on desperately to your willingness and your right to exclude. "Do not judge and you will not be judged." Not - do not judge, if the person comes round to your way of thinking. DO NOT JUDGE. You dont know what is in the heart of a prostitute, a gay man.

How can you ever decide who is repentant and who isnt? Do you follow them into their bedrooms? And once you've decided that someone should be excluded for sexual transgressions, do you forgive yourself for masterbating, or looking at someone with sexual desire in your heart? How can you decide that you are so far above reproach that you are in a position to judge someone else's state of grace or lack of it.

For Pharisees, read church leaders who have a penchant for judging others. Page after page of the Gospels contain indictments of the Pharisees. But lets pick on the prostitute. Lets take splinters out of the eyes of others and ignore the plank in our own.

"There is nothing worse than people who persecute us for our own good. The robber barons cruelty has to sleep, his anger at least sometimes, is satiated But the person who persecutes us for our own good will do so without end, because he does it with the approval of his own conscience."

I'll post whatever I like, Edwin, and I'll be facetious if I like. Nobody is asking you to respond to any of my posts so if you have a problem with it, just dont respond.

You are happy with judging people you deem to be unrepentant sinners. I'm not. You'll face your judgement and I'll face mine.

Complain about this comment
176. At 4:18pm on 08 Jun 2009, Edwin Droom wrote:
You can of course be facetious any time you like - not sure why you thought me saying 'Fair enough' was me somehow trying to forbid it. What I said was, let me know when you're being serious, and actually want an answer.

So:- first you said that
"I also notice this phrase coming up time and again - judge not lest ye be judged."
I pointed out that, in fact, Paul teaches exactly the opposite.

Then you refined it to
"Jesus put such an emphasis on it that I actually find St Paul, at times, missed the point." and "I'll focus on what Jesus had to say.
Do not judge and you wont be judged seemed to be a regular theme for him."
I showed that Jesus is listed as having said it only once (I don't base my life on word counts, by the way, but a word count is a valid response to a claim of 'time and again' if the count is once in the entire bible). You haven't retracted that either - you return to ad hominem attack on me instead of admitting you got it wrong.

I'm not good enough to judge anyone. Neither is anyone in the church. However, Jesus (and Paul) made it clear that the Church is to do so, however much it hurts to do so, on his behalf, because it will rescue the person ultimately. You may not want to believe this, but it is what the Bible says - you may decide, based on a dozen posts I've made here, that I love to judge the immoral, that I consider myself above them, and that I am deliberately twisting the bible just to fit my desire to do so. That is your prerogative, you are free to judge me if you want to. As you say, you'll face your judgement and I'll face mine.

So, I am a nasty little man with a god complex who hates all gays and am better than others, a pharisee who loves to see people in Hell because it makes me feel better about myself. I'll stipulate to that, and a lot of other sins. If you'd like to actually DISCUSS anything, let me know.

Complain about this comment
177. At 4:23pm on 08 Jun 2009, gveale wrote:
Hmmm,
I've been thinking over the Sermon on the Mount. After my cranium stopped hurting, I tried to put the verse into it's context.

There are two Jewish texts that seem relevant.
Rabbi Hillel said "Do not judge your brother until you have come into his place."
Sirach says "Forgive your neighbour the wrong he has done; and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does anyone harbour anger against another, and expect healing from the Lord? If one has no mercy toward another like himself, can he seek pardon for his own sins?"

Those sentiments are repeated often in Matthew. From the parable of the Unforgiving Servant to the Lord's prayer, to the call to take the plank out of your eye, forgiveness (forgiveness as "making up" - in the sense of a restored relationship)is conditional on repentance, and repentance is conditional on forgiving others (forgiving in the sense of not harbouring anger against a person because they have done wrong, whether you've made up or not).
A lot of Jewish prayers called down Gods judgment on the unrighteous (eg.Psalm 109). Jesus is arguing - yeah, but you're unrighteous, so be careful what you wish for. And our unrighteousness (righteousness is a very Jewish concept, so I'm not using the term to be quaint) is revealed in our character, not in our actions. I may not be a murderer, but if I nurse pet revenge fantasies then I wish that I had someof the murderers power. Again with lust - it is not the passing thought, or noticing that an attractive woman is attractive that is criticised. It is deliberately enjoying lust that is in view. For then I wish that I could enjoy some of the pleasures of lechery. In both cases I inwardly affirm the values that I publically denounce. I may not value satiated lust as much as an adulterer. But I still value lust. So it is irrational and unjust to wnat God to condemn him. I'd be calling down condemnation on myself.
The other side of that is if I want mercy, I should want God to be merciful to others like me. So I acknowledge that the gap between me and the murderer is not as great as I'd like to think.
There is nothing in such a command that says that we should not believe that ceratin actions are wrong. In fact, the command not to judge others is based on recognition of faults in myself. If they're faults in me, they're faults in others too. There's nothing wrong in saying that certain things are wrong. Nor is there any problem with protecting my neighbour from wrongdoing. It's living as if I am a righteous man in a position to call down God's judgment in safety that is irrational and dangerous. What I can do is talk about forgiveness.

I don't know if any of that helps or leads us into a greater muddle.

GV

Complain about this comment
178. At 5:42pm on 08 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

The experience of God's unconditional love brings repentance. Not sanctions, stigmatizing, excluding or judging. You will "rescue" no one by pointing to their sin. And you seem to think that you and your ilk are the rescuers. This is really getting to what angers me about people who speak like you. Utter arrogance, combined with, "But I know that I'm a sinner." If you had any notion of your own unworthiness in the face of God's love, you would never open your mouth again about anyone else's sin.

And, Edwin, what did Christ mean when he said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."? Or should he have said, "This is going to hurt me more than it'll hurt you" and lobbed a boulder at her for her own good!!

And what did he mean when he said, "Tax collecters and prostitutes are making their way into the kingdom before you." He didnt mention repentant ones here. Wasnt he talking to people who think that they have the right to "correct" others.

Gveale, thanks for the info.

Complain about this comment
179. At 6:07pm on 08 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

though you might enjoy this pk;-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/swedish-pirate-party-gains-votes-in-european-elections-1699670.html

Complain about this comment
180. At 6:23pm on 08 Jun 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OK. I had planned joining the discussion again but after RJB's opening couple of lines in post 178, I have nothing left to say.

Listen guys, my fellow Protestant Christians, the real trouble is, he's right, and I'm not sure I like it any more than you do. We in the 'reformed' camp, we of the 5 solas, gotta work this one through, if we don't get the grace bit right, 'unconditional love', as RJB called it the whole house is going to collapse.

Complain about this comment
181. At 7:15pm on 08 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Peter Morrow

RJB is absolutely right, I agree.

But perhaps only as far as he goes!

I think he is right about how the church should relate to people. Please read posts 141-144 to see how far I agree with him in fact.

but he appears to be rejecting the clear NT teaching that God expects his love to bring Christians to live holy lives.

He has got very annoyed by people presenting any doubts at all about a divorced man living with his gay lover while being minister of a church. I dont question that the attitudes of many Christians on that subject may be antithetical to Christ's.

But is the correct response by Christ's standards to completely defend the minister's actions in all regards???

I have previously agreed with RJB, unconditional truth comes first and is paramount.

But I suggest that Sentamu's stand on this matter is nearer the WHOLE truth. see post 160.

I dont believe you can take selected verses about the life of Christ - even if many Christians are painfully ignoring them - and say this is only what Christianity it about. This is patently not true.

I suggest that RJB's important points would win more hearers if he put them into a complete biblical context.

The unconditional love of God does not endorse the practise of adultery or fornication, and RJB has persistantly defended these so far as I can understand. He has every right to do so, but he has obviously has a job convincing people this is part of real Christianity. It isnt.

He makes crucial points about compassion, self righteousness and judging - I agree.

But his worldview is based on very selective parts of the life of Christ and rejects the rest of the NT and OT entirely.

The points he is making really do need to be heard, without question, but the conclusion he appears to defend that God allows us to live promiscious will not go unchallenged.

There is a part of me which is guilty of every sin I have every discussed.

I take no pleasure in discussing the biblical perspective on sin.

But I believe there is a much bigger danger to us all in ignoring what the NT says on these matters. That is why I discuss them.

There has to be a place for affirming what orthodox Christian standards are, and there is most definitely a place for doing that objectively without personalising it and without a condemnatory spirit.

And of course the point of such a discussion - such as we are having - should be ultimately about restoration to God and freedom from guilt and sin. And I mean for all of us, myself included, not just Rev Rennie.

I am not confessing my sin nature as a clever get out clause to have a pop at gay people.

Biblically the fact of sin should fill us all with a Godly respect/fear. That is clearly a NT fact. I honestly wrestle with this issues personally and I can certainly say anyone who wants to brush them under the carpet is heading down a route that is heading away from the path of Christ. Otherwise why the cross?

I am not setting myself up as knowing it all, not by a long shot. But I think that we should acknowledge the truth of the points being made here by those we are arguing against. Both sides.

For myself this is not about looking for an opportunity to point the finger. Not at all.

I am part of a local church which is full of single mothers and divorcees, addicts etc that no other church wants. That is the way it should be. There is grace aplenty here in practise and I am privileged to be part of it.

But that is a very different thing to saying that sin is permissable and should even be celebrated, which is what RJB *seems* to be saying.

By all means clarify RJB if we have got you wrong.

If I have misunderstood I will be glad to be corrected, but I repeat, I think Sentamu has a much better grasp of the WHOLE Christian perspective on this issue, looking at historical Christian teaching and the entire bible itself.

Peace.

OT

PS Peter I aint no Protestant and aint reformed either!

Just for the record I am not reformed Protestant, at all.

Complain about this comment
182. At 9:07pm on 08 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:

OT
I have never defended the practice of fornication nor have I defended the practice of selfish, exploitative, anything goes, sex, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

I have said very little on that exact subject. I have, however, taken issue with people who have judged people for their sexuality, especially those who have labelled EVERYONE who has sex outwith marriage as sinners.

I do not reject the OT and parts of the NT entirely. I embrace them - when they are consistent with Christ's teaching.

I have consistently put my arguments within a biblical context e.g. explaining that the text about divorce was addressed to the Pharisees who would murder a woman while writing up writs of dismissal when they wanted rid of their own wives. It was not addressed to all of humanity.

I spoke of how jesus spoke the parable of the Prodigal to the Pharisees, painting the young man as breaking every rule in the Jewish sin book. How Jesus was desperately trying to break through their image of a cruel and exacting God.

I went to great lengths to rebut Pastor P's claim that the story of the woman caught in adultery was not about, "Go and sin no more." But was actually about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I have argued biblically all along, pointing to translation, the prevalent culture of the time, the spirit of the Gospel and the emphasis placed on certain things and the repetitive nature of Christ's teaching regarding judging, forgiving, loving, acting justly,etc...

You acuse me of being selective?

I have simply chosen to select the teaching of Jesus Christ - given that I try to be a Christian - over and above passages from the OT and NT which clearly are culturally conditioned and written from a certain world view which has very little to do with Christ.

Why the cross? Tell me OT was it gay men who put Jesus to death? Was it prostitutes? Was it the "sinners" who arent welcome in Churches who killed him? No, it was the church leaders, the Pharisees.

Surely, you have to see a parallel between the church then and the church now? If Jesus were physically among us now, who would he have something to fear from, sinners? I dont think so.

I also absolutely object to you claiming that I "seem to be saying" that "sin should be celebrated." That is very wrong of you, OT. You said that about me, I never ever once claimed that. Ever. I said, "I'm not saying that a sexual sin is a virtue, but eternal damnation for it?" A very different emphasis.

I also notice that the 'I' you speak about throughout the post suddenly turns into a royal 'We' in "if WE have got you wrong." Who is this 'we' OT?

Speaking honestly to you, I think you have indeed got me correctly all along, I think you fully realise exactly what I'm saying about who Jesus was/is, but the implications for you to embrace such a Jesus would mean that you would have to let go certain 'truths' in your own faith life.

If the man on the moon were to read only your last post, he would have RJB down as a hedonistic, orgy-loving, sex maniac. I think other bloggers may see a hot headedness in me at times, but few of them would agree with the picture you paint of me above, from what I have written.

Complain about this comment
183. At 9:07pm on 08 Jun 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
"I have previously agreed with RJB, unconditional truth comes first and is paramount."

RJB, when you hear OT of all people go on about truth being paramount, would you perhaps care to join me in laughing ourselves into cardiac arrest?

Complain about this comment
184. At 9:44pm on 08 Jun 2009, petermorrow wrote:

Well, it looks as if I've just been sucked in again!

OT, I don't agree with everything RJB says, (nor he with me) but the point he has is a very important point, so important to my mind that until the church at large grasps it and begins talking about grace more than it talks about anything else we are going to keep missing the point and end up as moralists. That is the reason why, from the outset on this thread, I have kept on flagging up the 'sins of the insiders' (for want of a better phrase)

In terms of disagreement for example I don't see eye to eye with RJB on his view of the bible but I will also say that I haven't read him defending adultery, (he has since stated he didn't), if he does promote this then I'd disagree with that too. But that is not really the point The point is, whether we like it or not, that the church, the evangelical church (not sure if you're happy with that label) has a reputation for judgementalism. That's just the way it is and there's no point in saying well my church isn't judgmental or thinking that somehow my church i.e. me, mine, petermorrow's is a nice church, (its not that nice BTW) because when people like you and I, people identified with evangelicalism, speak, others often hear judgementalism, we simply have to face this.

I'm not sure either that you can say (of RJB) that "he appears to be rejecting the clear NT teaching that God expects his love to bring Christians to live holy lives." After all he said, "The experience of God's unconditional love brings repentance."

OT (and I know this is going to sound extreme) there is no point in speaking of holiness until we have learned to speak of grace. Why? Because there is no other way to be holy. It's not that grace is a help, or an encouragement, it's either grace or nothing. And I happen to be of the opinion that we (church in general) don't speak much of grace.

Now let me say something else, again at the risk of being misunderstood, you say, "I am part of a local church which is full of single mothers and divorcees, addicts etc that no other church wants. That is the way it should be." You know OT, while I attend a mainstream Presbyterian church now, I was once part of a church like that too. I described it as a church of 'single parents, divorced, addicts, Protestants, Catholics, and so on', but here's the tricky thing (and I speak of me here, not you) I now think of that description and think,"ouch!", for I what was really saying was, "look at how 'righteous' me, is prepared to mix with 'sinners'!" Sad really.

OT, I'm not going to accuse you of being a Pharisee, but I can tell you how I can spot Phariseeism (defined as outward conformance to religious rules and an assumption of knowing the truth) so easily, I can spot it cos I am one. I'm a Pharisee mesmerised by grace and, and this is crucial, enraged by it at the same time. Half the trouble with our churches is that we are not enraged by the grace of Jesus, and that's a problem right there cos it means we still think there is merit in accepting it.

Again, I'm not going to accuse you of anything, but please, look at what I have said about me and ask yourself how much of our 'orthodox' churches and beliefs are reflected in what I have said.

Just one more thing. I don't give a monkey's about the labels like Reformed, or Protestant, or even 'Christian', I used the labels as a contrast with 'Roman Catholic' of which RJB is/was one.

OT whatever we call ourselves we need to realise this, we are the ones claiming to speak up for the truth and that in itself aligns us with the Pharisees.

Complain about this comment
185. At 6:58pm on 09 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Thanks Peter M, RJB

I never did hear back from you guys about the real life Benny I know BTW.

He is a Christian who has unwanted same sex attraction. He is also married with children.

He gets pretty annoyed when people tell him he has a mental illness ie internalised homophobia.

In other words he gets annoyed when people tell him that God's will is for him to embrace his homosexuality and live a gay lifestyle and that to do otherwise is a mental illness.

Complain about this comment
186. At 7:47pm on 09 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

Anyway guys

I guess there is alot of pride invested in this disucssion now, people backing into corners, feeling defensive and not willing to be seen to give an inch.

I have agreed with so much of what you have said.

I do think Christians should relate to unbelievers with grace. I think that is very clear.

Christians should not go around buttonholing people about the most sensitive issues they struggle with before God. Quite right.

But I think it is a big mistake to conflate this with forbidding any open and mature discussion on what constitutes NT holiness, which is a requirement on a very different group of people - believers inside the church.

And it is yet another big mistake to conflate a mature discussion on holiness and sexual sin with the practise of condeming individuals or groups and presuming to know their heart(s) in a way that only God can do. Two entirely different things.

We seem to have got to the stage in this discussion where any objective and respectful discussion of NT standards of holiness and sex issues is "an abomination".

And we seem to presume that any objective discussion about the *ISSUES* OF holiness and sexual sin is automatically a severe condemnation of the innermost hearts of individuals. This is utter nonsense.

If this was the case there would be no mention of sexual immorality or holiness in the NT because it would be a sin for teachers to teach it or for believers to talk about it and learn from it.

The church I am a member of holds orthodox NT standards of holiness regarding sex AND welcomes all the outcasts of society.

There is no confusion on this issue. Humility and grace do not drive out holiness but rather they help create and maintain it.

This is no self righteousness in belonging to such a church. On the contrary this is an illustration of the outworking of the doctrine of holiness in real life working out with grace among real people that God cares for.

This is how grace and holiness fit together. Holiness is not a condemnation of ordinary people and outcasts but the stature that God draws them to as his children.

Who nailed Jesus to the cross RJB? I did. I am just the ordinary type of person in the mob who called for his execution, I am no different.

A wiser man than I once said "Sometimes you can be so right that you are wrong".

It is also possible to make a vice out of any virtue.

I suggest that these two sayings could apply to either grace or holiness.

In Romans Paul makes the requirement of balance in this matter plain.

In once place he says;-

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

And he also makes the contrasting point here;-

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

To rightly challenge self righteousness and spiritual pride is one thing.

And RJB has done it very well.

To forbid a mature discussion, in its biblical context, about NT holiness requirements is quite another. It is just without any precendent in the history of any trinitarian denomination worldwide and also censoring mature discussion on huge portions of scripture.

RJB, if you read the gospels again you will actually see that the ordinary people tried to stone Jesus to death on several occasions because of the spiritual demands he was making of them.

Scripture says that "righteous" Lot was "vexed" by Sodom. The people of Sodom accused him of being judgemental!! as scripture records.

Christ is not simply the one dimensional pharisee hating figure you paint.

So much of what you say about him challenging the religious leaders of the day is absolutely right on target. And its application to today.

But it is simply not the whole picture.

If we are honest we must also come to terms with the real Christ who also;-

Affirmed the standards of the OT law (includuing sexual sin), while taking the OT penalities into their ultimate realm ie grace and forgiveness.

He is seen graciously cleansing and restoring people in sexual sin.

He affirmed the historical judgement of sodom and gomorrah, pointing out that those who reject him would face even more severe judgement.

He repeatedly issued very specific teaching about adultery and fornication; the greek term for fornication here being a blanket term for all sexual sin (straight and gay) which was also applied to Sodom in the book of Jude;-

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=fornication&t=KJV

Christ warned that few people would find the narrow road to salvation (will I be one of them? I dont know)

All his followers deserted him bar a few.

The people who cheered him as he entered Jerusalem jeered for his execution afterwards.

Christ did not just die on the cross to do away with self righteoussness, spiritual pride, bigotry and hatred of sexual sinners.

He died to do away with sin in all its forms.

I strongly affirm the main thrust of what both of you are saying.

It is important and true.

But young believers are clearly called to move on from milk and to start to eat meat.

Scripture says that "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord".

I dont like that verse much myself. Not at all.

It causes me soul searching, I can tell you.

Now if you both disagree, as I suspect you will, the solution is simple.

You will explain why there is so much teaching in the OT and NT, (including from Christ) about holiness generally and specifically in a sexual context.

And you will explain who is permitted to discuss it and when?

Your arguments about grace are accepted and affirmed completely.

But why so much talk about holiness and sexual purity in the bible?

Peace

OT

Complain about this comment
187. At 7:52pm on 09 Jun 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:

finally Peter M

I think by labelling reformed evangelical Protestants as guilty of judgementalism in this matter, you are, while in one way correct.

But in another way I am disturbed by your consistant hostility to any discussion of sexual holiness.

Because it is not just these groups of Christians that teach sexual holiness.

All authentic churches and denominations from Christ onwards have taught the same thing in this regards.

It is not just a bunch of modern fanatics who belive this.

Peace
OT

Complain about this comment
188. At 9:26pm on 09 Jun 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

I am not hostile to discussion of sexual holiness, where have I ever said anything like that? And no, I don't disagree that Jesus "died to do away with sin in all its forms", he did.

I explained in my last point why I have taken the line on this thread that I did, partly it is about me and my coming to terms with grace, party it is a general thing about the message much of the church sends out. That's all, but it's important.

I don't think that we can continue to blatantly sin and expect to say we follow God. Yes, Jesus, and the OT and the NT speak a lot about holiness, and yes it expects that we act in a holy manner I agree, I agree, I agree. I have said too on another thread, much to RJB's frustration, that if I were faced with the situation of gay clergy appointed to my own church that I'd have to walk away. Why? Because I disagree, but I would disagree at expense to myself rather than start a public campaign against an individual.

But there's something else going on here to and this is another risky thing to say. We are required by God to be holy, we are required to change, but I'm not and I don't change much. In fact there's lots of things about me, this Christian, that don't ring true, but in a way that's OK, because people are supposed to trust Jesus, not me, and I'm supposed to trust Jesus, not me. It's not me who is the holy one, it's Jesus. He is the only holy one and that is where my hope increasingly lies, it lies in his life, not mine, his commitment, not mine, his perfection, not mine. And that is not a dry doctrinal statement, it is an increasingly deep seated realisation that my holiness doesn't save me, and (deep breath) my sin doesn't damn me, he rescues me.

Grace is a funny thing, it's not always easy to see who's 'in the kingdom' and who's not. People aren't in because they are holy, people are 'in' because grace is magnanimous. And the really scary thing is that we can talk about holiness week in and week out and never change, indeed we can even become increasingly hopeless, but one hint of grace changes everything. And that's one reason I think the OT and NT speak so much of holiness, to help us realise that we are not and to remind us that Jesus is and the the only righteousness that counts is the righteousness of God.

Complain about this comment
189. At 9:54pm on 09 Jun 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Another thought. I obviously don't know the real life person you are talking about, you know him better, so I need to be careful, but could it be that one of the reasons this continues to be an issue for him is that people keep on talking about it. And could I say one more thing, I sounds to me (and I'm possible real wrong about this one) but it sounds like he feels a bit of a failure, it sounds like he has a poor view of himself and maybe, in view of Jesus (another risky statement coming up) somebody has to help him lighten up about this. In Christ, all is forgiven, if he is down on himself it will only destroy him.

Complain about this comment
190. At 7:07pm on 17 Jun 2009, petermorrow wrote:

OT

Where'd ya go? Is everything OK?

Complain about this comment
191. At 1:45pm on 18 Jun 2009, romejellybean wrote:
Peter
"Much to RJB's frustration" When? Where?

OT post #186

Bizarre from start to finish. Who is forbidding 'discussion' on NT morality. I and others are simply responding to points you make. No one is forbidding anything except the moderators. "An abomination" - what are you talking about, OT.

I have watched you twist and turn for months now, errecting criticisms of your points into "personal attacks" and now "abominations."

"Ordinary people" did not attempt to kill Jesus in my Bible. Pharisees and Temple goers did. Ordinary people actually sought him out to hear him speak or be healed.

I could go on but I'll just give you my conclusion. You wrote a creed a few weeks back and I responded that "IF" you genuinely believed these things then I would withdraw my accusation that you are a Pharisee. You then said, Well we're agreed, I'm not a Pharisee. You then went on to say that you have not moved from your core beliefs - thus totally demolishing your creed.

The bottom line is that you will not/never let go of your core belief that you and other members of the church CAN and WILL set yourselves up in judgement over others, using parts of the Bible to do so. You see it as your right and as a holy act on God's behalf. Until you genuinely let go of that arrogant stance you are and will remain, a Pharisee.

Complain about this comment
192. At 8:15pm on 25 Jun 2009, Dylan_Dog wrote:
Oh dear!

Been away for awhile and Blessed OT is just as fundamentalist and dishonest as ever!

Complain about this comment
193. At 8:22pm on 25 Jun 2009, Dylan_Dog wrote:
BTW PeterK

OT Did say about radiometric dating

"very few labs do it" and "very, very few people are qualified to do radiometric dating". From this thread...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html

As you well know PeterK OT has been asked to back this up many many times, which is weird when it would be so *simple* for OT! just name the labs and the "few" people! however OT can't because its lies-pure and simple lies! And the concurrent theme is that is is precisely OT's fundamentalist faith which has made him dishonest.

Regards

DD

Complain about this comment
194. At 4:31pm on 26 Jun 2009, petermorrow wrote:

RJB

Apologies I had entirely missed this question,

"Much to RJB's frustration" When? Where?

I became altogether distracted by a couple of other threads.

Maybe I misread you at the time, but when I made my comment in paragraph 3 of post 188, I was thinking of the first time I said this on the thread about the Church of Scotland Assembly, and your response at that time.

Peter

Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

Christianity v. fundamentalism

Comments

About this blog

Subscribe to Will & Testament

Will's Favourite Sites

BBC Northern Ireland Blogs

More from this blog...

Topical posts on this blog

Being Discussed Now

Archives

Categories

Latest contributors

bbc.co.uk navigation

BBC links

Christianity v. fundamentalism

Comments

About this blog

Subscribe to Will & Testament

Will's Favourite Sites

BBC Northern Ireland Blogs

More from this blog...

Topical posts on this blog

Being Discussed Now

Archives

Categories

Latest contributors

BBC iD

bbc.co.uk navigation

BBC links