I'm fairly sure the church and ministers spoken of are them covered here: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/06/how-should-church-approach-homosexuality-christ-presbyterian-church-nashville-case
//The issue at hand centers on the actions of The pastor of a large and influential PCA church who decided to promote pro-homosexual ideology from the pulpit through a morally compromised young man seeking ordination as a teaching elder (TE, minister) in the PCA. This young man not only claims to be homosexually-attracted to men but is very firm in his unrepentant attitude regarding that attraction. His struggle is not with homosexual attraction itself. He embraces it. However, to be obedient to God as a homosexually-attracted man, he claims to remain celibate. The pastor and the Presbytery all agree that homosexual lusts and behaviors are sinful. However, they also agree that homosexual attractions (desires, thoughts and feelings) are not sinful. When the ministerial candidate was asked if he believes “his homosexual feelings, attractions, thoughts and desires are sinful,” he believes they are not and further upholds that homosexual attractions and God-given heterosexual attractions are morally equivalent:
“I believe my same-sex attractions are broken, but I do not believe they are sinful. It is not a sin for me to be attracted to another man, in the same way it is not sinful for you to be attracted to a woman.”//
What he seems to be saying is a) his attractions are broken and b) just experiencing those attractions is not sin. I think the parallel would be experiencing attraction to a woman who isn't your wife. That's different than the actual lusting.
Can we at least get clarification on the matter first? If the guy is saying his attractions are broken, that doesn't sound like someone who wants to get homosexual behavior accepted.
I posted over there: Making this much harder than it is. Opposite sex attraction that is not sin is a natural tendency, not acted upon unlawfully. Same sex attraction that is not acted upon is an unnatural tendency that is, as just noted, not acted upon unlawfully. What makes the one sin and the other not sin is the unnatural tendency. Now let’s not deny what we know so clearly from nature. It’s just a shame that the PCA can’t navigate through this little conundrum. But, my "comment is awaiting moderation."
I added over there, What everyone seems to me missing is the distinction between natural and unnatural tendencies. The desire or tendency to want shelter in a storm or food when hungry are natural and therefore the desires narrowly considered are not sin. Breaking and entering or steeling a loaf of bread entails sin. However, the very desire or tendency toward murder, beastiality or same sex attraction is always sinful given its deviant quality, regardless of whether the tendency comes to fulfillment.
The problem Geoff is that sound, biblical arguments don't always come easily from natural understanding. It takes a little thinking and effort to refute some of the lies of hell. But most Christians never learned to think hard, so what also happens is that Christians give up on their better instincts way too quickly because they haven't developed the skills to think a bit more critically. In the end they often check their properly basic instincts at the door because they can't reconcile them with a reasonable argument; they cave into the homosexual agenda. The other path is they make bad arguments to support true conclusions. Either way it's a mess. Unfortunately, the opinions of the sharpest guys I know don't matter to the ecclesiastical elite. No bitterness there. Just sayin, that's all.
Reformed Apologist, I was a bit concerned by the link above; but after reading Saul's response and rereading the OP I think some of the accusations were a bit exaggerated.
That being said, your distinction between natural and unnatural tendencies is generally helpful. It helps us understand the way things ought to be, which shows us how offset the way things are. At this point an objection usually arises about the use of natural theology instead of Scripture, but that isn't a legitimate objection because everyone in this conversation is operating from a Christian viewpoint.
Given all of this I do wonder what a legitimate way forward would be here. If the person in question were to recognize your distinction, and agree with them, we are still left with someone who has unnatural desires. They jumped the gun in skipping over the unnatural/natural distinction and going straight to the question of "where do people who have unnatural desires fit within the church?"
Let's say a professing Christian informs his elders that he is struggling or tempted with same-sex attraction. How should the elders respond
Some of their options include: (1) denying the existence of a Christian with unnatural desires (2) affirm the existence of a Christian with unnatural desires and tell them to keep it quiet because it is between them and the Lord. (3) '''''''', but don't tell him to "keep it quiet"
Sauls and co. have taken the option (4) Encouraging and asking the church to encourage, while making it a teachable moment.
It could be said in response to (4) (and has already been by the OP) that this is just caving to the homosexual agenda, providing a platform for this individual to shame other believers into accepting his homosexuality as not a sin. I think Sauls responded to that in his letter.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it isn't the Sauls' or the individual's intention to cater to the homosexual agenda. Instead, it would serve as an exemplar to other people who struggle with SSA, an invitation to come to Christ, and to repent, knowing that they have the fellowship of believers to help them , to remind them of the gospel, and encourage them to good works. It could lead into a train wreck, because it may head the way of catering to the homosexual agenda. However, does this potential threat necessarily invalidate (4)? I think the examples that Sauls gave was to show (despite what the OP suggested) that it doesn't.
Sauls and co. may not have handled this situation with the delicacy and precision it deserves, but someone has to. Which is why I think the OP presents no clear way forward.
I think that's really the heart of this which some here are not getting. They are so hyper-defensive about what's happened in churches that they aren't seeing what is going on. Others are trying to work out how to minister to Christians who still struggle with this but want to remain faithful.
Their slope is a tad too slippery in their minds. "They really want to push this agenda blah blah blah". And what I'm afraid they are communicating, not on purpose, to Christians who struggle with this is "don't open up with your struggles because we're going to shoot you."
The question at issue in this article isn't Christian outreach to homosexuals, but a homosexual candidate for ordination in the PCA. Penitent "Christian homosexuals" can be church members. The real issue is aspiring to leadership positions in the church. Why is Stephen Moss not content to be a layman?
Moreover, I question the assumption that people should "open up about their struggles". That reflects a generation raised on talk shows and social media where people spill their guts to perfect strangers. It doesn't occur to lots of young people that it's okay, and often preferable, to keep some things to yourself. We have a culture that erases the distinction between public and private. But there's no duty to make your life a fishbowl.
As far as struggling with homosexual impulses is concerned, what's the point of baring your soul? Nobody in church can wave a magic want and make that your impulses go away. There's nothing they can do about it except to offer ineffectual words of sympathy. They can't change that person's condition. So why bring it up in the first place?
//The question at issue in this article isn't Christian outreach to homosexuals, but a homosexual candidate for ordination in the PCA. Penitent "Christian homosexuals" can be church members. The real issue is aspiring to leadership positions in the church. Why is Stephen Moss not content to be a layman? //
I'm not seeing the presence of SSA as automatically disqualifying for elder.
//Moreover, I question the assumption that people should "open up about their struggles". That reflects a generation raised on talk shows and social media where people spill their guts to perfect strangers. It doesn't occur to lots of young people that it's okay, and often preferable, to keep some things to yourself. We have a culture that erases the distinction between public and private. But there's no duty to make your life a fishbowl.
As far as struggling with homosexual impulses is concerned, what's the point of baring your soul? Nobody in church can wave a magic want and make that your impulses go away. There's nothing they can do about it except to offer ineffectual words of sympathy. They can't change that person's condition. So why bring it up in the first place?//
Would this honestly be your advice for someone with depression? "Don't mention it to anyone." And being open with your struggles would not be the same thing as being a big, sloppy mess that overshares with absolutely everyone in the church.
Someone with SSA might get really lonely at points. They may need healthy relationships within the church. They may not have a family. If other people in the church have some awareness of that, they could integrate those members in better. That's just off the top of my head.
Maybe they have struggles we don't know about because we want them to be quiet and not know they are there.
"I'm not seeing the presence of SSA as automatically disqualifying for elder."
Yes, I get that. You have a blindspot on this issue.
Having "homosexual Christians" in positions of Christian leadership is asking for trouble. An invitation to create unnecessary problems. Like having homosexual Boy Scout leaders, or homosexual priests. There's no duty to put youth at gratuitous risk. Your priorities are skewed.
In addition, having "homosexual Christians" in positions of leadership will inexorably liberalize the denomination.
"Would this honestly be your advice for someone with depression? 'Don't mention it to anyone.'"
Talking about depression can be helpful. By contrast, if you struggle with homosexual impulses, talking to someone won't make the impulses go away. What does that accomplish?
"Someone with SSA might get really lonely at points. They may need healthy relationships within the church. They may not have a family. If other people in the church have some awareness of that, they could integrate those members in better."
I'm on record as saying penitent "homosexual Christians" should work towards heterosexual marriage.
"Maybe they have struggles we don't know about because we want them to be quiet and not know they are there."
There's nothing wrong with keeping some things to ourselves. There's no obligation or even wisdom about publicly confessing all the bad things we've done in the past. We've lost sight of Paul's admonition that it's disgraceful even to mention some misdeeds (Eph 5:12).
//Having "homosexual Christians" in positions of Christian leadership is asking for trouble. An invitation to create unnecessary problems. Like having homosexual Boy Scout leaders, or homosexual priests. There's no duty to put youth at gratuitous risk. Your priorities are skewed.//
I don't believe he is identifying themselves as "homosexual Christians" first of all. That's an important distinction because that normally signifies that he doesn't want his identity to be "gay" or "homosexual".
I'm not sure about your church, but it's standard operating procedure in mine that no adult is left alone with children period. That's for the protection of the adult's reputation and the church's, let alone protection for the kids.
//Talking about depression can be helpful. By contrast, if you struggle with homosexual impulses, talking to someone won't make the impulses go away. What does that accomplish?//
You are lacking empathy here. Imagine this scenario. "Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
//I'm on record as saying penitent "homosexual Christians" should work towards heterosexual marriage.//
That does happen. What about the people who aren't there yet? What about the people who never get heterosexual desires? Is the goal heterosexuality or holiness?
//There's nothing wrong with keeping some things to ourselves. There's no obligation or even wisdom about publicly confessing all the bad things we've done in the past. We've lost sight of Paul's admonition that it's disgraceful even to mention some misdeeds (Eph 5:12).//
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "I'm experiencing these attractions" to some people (not everyone) falls more under the category "bear each other's burdens".
"I don't believe he is identifying themselves as "homosexual Christians" first of all. That's an important distinction because that normally signifies that he doesn't want his identity to be "gay" or "homosexual"."
"Same-sex attraction" is a euphemism for homosexual attraction. If a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then he's either homosexual or bisexual. And in this context we're not talking about bisexuals.
"I'm not sure about your church, but it's standard operating procedure in mine that no adult is left alone with children period."
i) How does that work in Christians schools? It's never one teacher with students in the classroom?
ii) Moreover, that overlooks the obvious gambit of getting acquainted with people in church, scoping out the prospects, then arranging a rendezvous outside of church–which has never been easier in the age of cellphones and social media.
"You are lacking empathy here. Imagine this scenario. 'Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely.' 'Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?'"
Imagine this scenario. "Hi my name is Bob. I'm single. I'm quite lonely. I got the hots for your wife." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
i) To begin with, a single, whether straight or gay, will always feel like a fifth wheel around couples, or couples with kids. It's an awkward situation.
ii) I don't relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions"–any more than I relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I'm attracted to prostitutes, teenage girls, and married women."
We've raised a generation that draws no distinction between friends, strangers, and passing acquaintances. No distinction between public and private. People who intentionally live in a fishbowl.
Maybe they equate "transparency" with "authenticity". But it's foolish. The product of a pop culture that's addicted to gossip.
Discretion is a neglected virtue. We should avoid saying everything we think and feel.
Cont. "What about the people who aren't there yet? What about the people who never get heterosexual desires? Is the goal heterosexuality or holiness?"
i) In modern western culture, romantic love is a necessary or often sufficient condition of marriage. I think that's ideal, but it's not a prerequisite for marriage.
In modern western culture, you fall in love with someone, then marry them. Although there's nothing wrong with that, it can happen in reverse. Back when people had a more pragmatic view of marriage, it wasn't uncommon to fall in love, or come to love their spouse, after they got married. We've lost sight of that.
There may well be homosexuals who are homosexual because they've never given themselves the chance to learn how to love a person of the opposite sex. They haven't put themselves in that situation.
ii) There's a distinction between loving your spouse and falling in love. You have older couples where the passion is gone, yet the love may be much deeper.
iii) At the risk of being crass, men are designed to find sexual intercourse physically enjoyable. That's the case whether they are straight or gay.
Likewise, even a homosexual ought to find sexual intercourse more enjoyable than the homosexual alternatives because male and female bodies were designed for that.
iv) Again, at the risk of being crass, men can enjoy sex with women they don't love. Take prostitution. One-night stands. The college hook-up culture.
My point is not to condone that. I'm simply making the obvious point that love and sexual pleasure are separable.
Conversely, men can love women they aren't attracted to. Mothers, grandmothers, sisters, a favorite aunt, a sweet old lady.
In principle, a homosexual man could learn to love a woman he's not attracted to. Moreover, he can enjoy sexual intercourse with a woman he's not attracted to.
v) Finally, that raises the question of whether marriage itself can have a normalizing effect on homosexuals, if they bring commitment to the marriage. It may not "cure" them, but it may change them. In principle, they can get a lot out of heterosexual marriage. The experience may bring a degree of healing.
We might compare that to victims of sexual abuse. Marriage doesn't erase the bad memories, but it can contribute to emotional healing.
"Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
It's instructive to see the unspoken assumption that controls your scenario. Let's consider some alternate scenarios:
"Hi my name is Bob. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
"Hi my name is Bob. I'm single. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
Why do you presume it's necessary for Bob to explain why he's lonely? He can just say he's lonely. Or if he does give a reason, he can say he's single.
It isn't necessary to volunteer information about his sexuality. Straight people can be lonely too.
"Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely."
I'm sorry but this is, quite frankly, just plain creepy. I wondered if perhaps I had a slight quibble over the way the hypothetical is being worded, but it is clear that 'Bob' is assaulting the recipient with information you do not just introduce right off the bat upon meeting fellow church goers/members. It is information you perhaps divulge over the course of time upon establishing relationships/friendships. It is information you take more readily to the pastor or an elder. It is information you put to prayer; perhaps you will be prayed for in prayer meeting/Bible study.
To suggest an instant assault on church members with this information is utterly selfish and, dare I say, indicative of the culture surrounding homosexuality and 'LGBT' in general.
//"Same-sex attraction" is a euphemism for homosexual attraction. If a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then he's either homosexual or bisexual. And in this context we're not talking about bisexuals.//
It's used by Christians who don't want to identify as gay or homosexual because that puts those particular desires at the center of their identity. They don't want to do that. But they use "same sex attracted" or some variant thereof because it is pertinent to talk about what they are going through.
//ii) I don't relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions"–any more than I relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I'm attracted to prostitutes, teenage girls, and married women."
We've raised a generation that draws no distinction between friends, strangers, and passing acquaintances. No distinction between public and private. People who intentionally live in a fishbowl.
Maybe they equate "transparency" with "authenticity". But it's foolish. The product of a pop culture that's addicted to gossip.//
You might be over-reacting to a different problem. Some people over share so Christians who struggle with same sex attraction should just be quiet and struggle without anyone able to help them.
//Why do you presume it's necessary for Bob to explain why he's lonely? He can just say he's lonely. Or if he does give a reason, he can say he's single.
It isn't necessary to volunteer information about his sexuality. Straight people can be lonely too.//
The point is that if we have an understanding of what's going on with the person, we'll have a better ability to minister to the person. Does absolutely everyone need to know the person's particular burdens? No. Could it be helpful if a few people do? Yes.
//That's because you are taking the quote too literally//
Pardon me, Geoff, but I am taking the quote as literally as the scenario suggests. If you'd had in mind a more conservative approach then sure that would have been conveyed in your scenario.
"It's used by Christians who don't want to identify as gay or homosexual because that puts those particular desires at the center of their identity. They don't want to do that."
There's a problem with hyphenated Christians based on some besetting sin.
"But they use 'same sex attracted' or some variant thereof because it is pertinent to talk about what they are going through."
That's only pertinent based on your obstinate assumption that it's always a virtue to talk about what we are going through. What about talking to God? He's the only person who actually has the power to change people or change certain situations.
"You might be over-reacting to a different problem."
And you might be conforming to a gossip culture.
"Some people over share so Christians who struggle with same sex attraction should just be quiet and struggle without anyone able to help them."
You have this peculiar, unexamined, unquestionable assumption that straight parishioners can somehow help homosexuals in their struggle. Straight parishioners are powerless to solve the problem. They can't change homosexuals.
In principle there's something that penitent "homosexual Christians" can do for themselves, and that's to work towards heterosexual marriage. That will change their situation.
To a great extent it's no different than lonely (straight) singles. In general, the solution to that problem is to get married.
I'd add that your comments have strayed far from the OP. The question at issue wasn't ministering to homosexuals, but homosexuals in ministry. Two very different things.
Steve, your comments are easily worthy of separate blog posts. I resonate with all you've said.
Regarding this snippet: I'm on record as saying penitent "homosexual Christians" should work towards heterosexual marriage.
I give a special category of amen. I wrestled long with that consideration. "Work towards" really gets to the heart of the counsel. It's not an overnight arrival, but I've become increasingly convinced it should be the goal. As I learned long ago from Jay Adams in a counseling book (his treatment of Ephesians 4)... if we put off without putting on, it will be temporary. Yet if we put on without putting off, it'll be hypocritical. What should one who struggles in this area put on? Ideally marriage, if God should provide. I'd never recommend it - not for a moment, but I'd have to say I believe it would be "better" if they had heterosexual lusts. Again, speaking in terms of lesser evils.
I posted my last post before those recent two of yours. Really useful stuff. Very insightful and instructive. Wisdom and understanding is a beautiful thing to behold. Thank you, praise God.
I should be surprised but I'm not. Disgusted, yes, but not surprised.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly sure the church and ministers spoken of are them covered here: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/06/how-should-church-approach-homosexuality-christ-presbyterian-church-nashville-case
ReplyDeleteThe article is one of a series.
I frankly would like more information here.
ReplyDelete//The issue at hand centers on the actions of The pastor of a large and influential PCA church who decided to promote pro-homosexual ideology from the pulpit through a morally compromised young man seeking ordination as a teaching elder (TE, minister) in the PCA. This young man not only claims to be homosexually-attracted to men but is very firm in his unrepentant attitude regarding that attraction. His struggle is not with homosexual attraction itself. He embraces it. However, to be obedient to God as a homosexually-attracted man, he claims to remain celibate. The pastor and the Presbytery all agree that homosexual lusts and behaviors are sinful. However, they also agree that homosexual attractions (desires, thoughts and feelings) are not sinful. When the ministerial candidate was asked if he believes “his homosexual feelings, attractions, thoughts and desires are sinful,” he believes they are not and further upholds that homosexual attractions and God-given heterosexual attractions are morally equivalent:
“I believe my same-sex attractions are broken, but I do not believe they are sinful. It is not a sin for me to be attracted to another man, in the same way it is not sinful for you to be attracted to a woman.”//
What he seems to be saying is a) his attractions are broken and b) just experiencing those attractions is not sin. I think the parallel would be experiencing attraction to a woman who isn't your wife. That's different than the actual lusting.
Can we at least get clarification on the matter first? If the guy is saying his attractions are broken, that doesn't sound like someone who wants to get homosexual behavior accepted.
So here would be their response: http://scottsauls.com/2016/09/06/open-letter-to-a-public-critic/
ReplyDeleteI posted over there: Making this much harder than it is. Opposite sex attraction that is not sin is a natural tendency, not acted upon unlawfully. Same sex attraction that is not acted upon is an unnatural tendency that is, as just noted, not acted upon unlawfully. What makes the one sin and the other not sin is the unnatural tendency. Now let’s not deny what we know so clearly from nature. It’s just a shame that the PCA can’t navigate through this little conundrum. But, my "comment is awaiting moderation."
ReplyDeleteI added over there,
ReplyDeleteWhat everyone seems to me missing is the distinction between natural and unnatural tendencies. The desire or tendency to want shelter in a storm or food when hungry are natural and therefore the desires narrowly considered are not sin. Breaking and entering or steeling a loaf of bread entails sin. However, the very desire or tendency toward murder, beastiality or same sex attraction is always sinful given its deviant quality, regardless of whether the tendency comes to fulfillment.
The problem Geoff is that sound, biblical arguments don't always come easily from natural understanding. It takes a little thinking and effort to refute some of the lies of hell. But most Christians never learned to think hard, so what also happens is that Christians give up on their better instincts way too quickly because they haven't developed the skills to think a bit more critically. In the end they often check their properly basic instincts at the door because they can't reconcile them with a reasonable argument; they cave into the homosexual agenda. The other path is they make bad arguments to support true conclusions. Either way it's a mess. Unfortunately, the opinions of the sharpest guys I know don't matter to the ecclesiastical elite. No bitterness there. Just sayin, that's all.
ReplyDeleteReformed Apologist, I was a bit concerned by the link above; but after reading Saul's response and rereading the OP I think some of the accusations were a bit exaggerated.
DeleteThat being said, your distinction between natural and unnatural tendencies is generally helpful. It helps us understand the way things ought to be, which shows us how offset the way things are. At this point an objection usually arises about the use of natural theology instead of Scripture, but that isn't a legitimate objection because everyone in this conversation is operating from a Christian viewpoint.
Given all of this I do wonder what a legitimate way forward would be here. If the person in question were to recognize your distinction, and agree with them, we are still left with someone who has unnatural desires. They jumped the gun in skipping over the unnatural/natural distinction and going straight to the question of "where do people who have unnatural desires fit within the church?"
Let's say a professing Christian informs his elders that he is struggling or tempted with same-sex attraction. How should the elders respond
Some of their options include:
(1) denying the existence of a Christian with unnatural desires
(2) affirm the existence of a Christian with unnatural desires and tell them to keep it quiet because it is between them and the Lord.
(3) '''''''', but don't tell him to "keep it quiet"
Sauls and co. have taken the option
(4) Encouraging and asking the church to encourage, while making it a teachable moment.
It could be said in response to (4) (and has already been by the OP) that this is just caving to the homosexual agenda, providing a platform for this individual to shame other believers into accepting his homosexuality as not a sin. I think Sauls responded to that in his letter.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it isn't the Sauls' or the individual's intention to cater to the homosexual agenda. Instead, it would serve as an exemplar to other people who struggle with SSA, an invitation to come to Christ, and to repent, knowing that they have the fellowship of believers to help them , to remind them of the gospel, and encourage them to good works. It could lead into a train wreck, because it may head the way of catering to the homosexual agenda. However, does this potential threat necessarily invalidate (4)? I think the examples that Sauls gave was to show (despite what the OP suggested) that it doesn't.
Sauls and co. may not have handled this situation with the delicacy and precision it deserves, but someone has to. Which is why I think the OP presents no clear way forward.
by the "OP" I mean the person who wrote "What do you think?"
DeleteI think that's really the heart of this which some here are not getting. They are so hyper-defensive about what's happened in churches that they aren't seeing what is going on. Others are trying to work out how to minister to Christians who still struggle with this but want to remain faithful.
DeleteTheir slope is a tad too slippery in their minds. "They really want to push this agenda blah blah blah". And what I'm afraid they are communicating, not on purpose, to Christians who struggle with this is "don't open up with your struggles because we're going to shoot you."
The question at issue in this article isn't Christian outreach to homosexuals, but a homosexual candidate for ordination in the PCA. Penitent "Christian homosexuals" can be church members. The real issue is aspiring to leadership positions in the church. Why is Stephen Moss not content to be a layman?
DeleteMoreover, I question the assumption that people should "open up about their struggles". That reflects a generation raised on talk shows and social media where people spill their guts to perfect strangers. It doesn't occur to lots of young people that it's okay, and often preferable, to keep some things to yourself. We have a culture that erases the distinction between public and private. But there's no duty to make your life a fishbowl.
As far as struggling with homosexual impulses is concerned, what's the point of baring your soul? Nobody in church can wave a magic want and make that your impulses go away. There's nothing they can do about it except to offer ineffectual words of sympathy. They can't change that person's condition. So why bring it up in the first place?
This is a problem with an evangelical tradition that overemphasizes the value of giving personal testimonies.
Delete//The question at issue in this article isn't Christian outreach to homosexuals, but a homosexual candidate for ordination in the PCA. Penitent "Christian homosexuals" can be church members. The real issue is aspiring to leadership positions in the church. Why is Stephen Moss not content to be a layman? //
DeleteI'm not seeing the presence of SSA as automatically disqualifying for elder.
//Moreover, I question the assumption that people should "open up about their struggles". That reflects a generation raised on talk shows and social media where people spill their guts to perfect strangers. It doesn't occur to lots of young people that it's okay, and often preferable, to keep some things to yourself. We have a culture that erases the distinction between public and private. But there's no duty to make your life a fishbowl.
As far as struggling with homosexual impulses is concerned, what's the point of baring your soul? Nobody in church can wave a magic want and make that your impulses go away. There's nothing they can do about it except to offer ineffectual words of sympathy. They can't change that person's condition. So why bring it up in the first place?//
Would this honestly be your advice for someone with depression? "Don't mention it to anyone." And being open with your struggles would not be the same thing as being a big, sloppy mess that overshares with absolutely everyone in the church.
Someone with SSA might get really lonely at points. They may need healthy relationships within the church. They may not have a family. If other people in the church have some awareness of that, they could integrate those members in better. That's just off the top of my head.
Maybe they have struggles we don't know about because we want them to be quiet and not know they are there.
"I'm not seeing the presence of SSA as automatically disqualifying for elder."
DeleteYes, I get that. You have a blindspot on this issue.
Having "homosexual Christians" in positions of Christian leadership is asking for trouble. An invitation to create unnecessary problems. Like having homosexual Boy Scout leaders, or homosexual priests. There's no duty to put youth at gratuitous risk. Your priorities are skewed.
In addition, having "homosexual Christians" in positions of leadership will inexorably liberalize the denomination.
"Would this honestly be your advice for someone with depression? 'Don't mention it to anyone.'"
Talking about depression can be helpful. By contrast, if you struggle with homosexual impulses, talking to someone won't make the impulses go away. What does that accomplish?
"Someone with SSA might get really lonely at points. They may need healthy relationships within the church. They may not have a family. If other people in the church have some awareness of that, they could integrate those members in better."
I'm on record as saying penitent "homosexual Christians" should work towards heterosexual marriage.
"Maybe they have struggles we don't know about because we want them to be quiet and not know they are there."
There's nothing wrong with keeping some things to ourselves. There's no obligation or even wisdom about publicly confessing all the bad things we've done in the past. We've lost sight of Paul's admonition that it's disgraceful even to mention some misdeeds (Eph 5:12).
//Having "homosexual Christians" in positions of Christian leadership is asking for trouble. An invitation to create unnecessary problems. Like having homosexual Boy Scout leaders, or homosexual priests. There's no duty to put youth at gratuitous risk. Your priorities are skewed.//
DeleteI don't believe he is identifying themselves as "homosexual Christians" first of all. That's an important distinction because that normally signifies that he doesn't want his identity to be "gay" or "homosexual".
I'm not sure about your church, but it's standard operating procedure in mine that no adult is left alone with children period. That's for the protection of the adult's reputation and the church's, let alone protection for the kids.
//Talking about depression can be helpful. By contrast, if you struggle with homosexual impulses, talking to someone won't make the impulses go away. What does that accomplish?//
You are lacking empathy here. Imagine this scenario. "Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
//I'm on record as saying penitent "homosexual Christians" should work towards heterosexual marriage.//
That does happen. What about the people who aren't there yet? What about the people who never get heterosexual desires? Is the goal heterosexuality or holiness?
//There's nothing wrong with keeping some things to ourselves. There's no obligation or even wisdom about publicly confessing all the bad things we've done in the past. We've lost sight of Paul's admonition that it's disgraceful even to mention some misdeeds (Eph 5:12).//
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "I'm experiencing these attractions" to some people (not everyone) falls more under the category "bear each other's burdens".
"I don't believe he is identifying themselves as "homosexual Christians" first of all. That's an important distinction because that normally signifies that he doesn't want his identity to be "gay" or "homosexual"."
Delete"Same-sex attraction" is a euphemism for homosexual attraction. If a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then he's either homosexual or bisexual. And in this context we're not talking about bisexuals.
"I'm not sure about your church, but it's standard operating procedure in mine that no adult is left alone with children period."
i) How does that work in Christians schools? It's never one teacher with students in the classroom?
ii) Moreover, that overlooks the obvious gambit of getting acquainted with people in church, scoping out the prospects, then arranging a rendezvous outside of church–which has never been easier in the age of cellphones and social media.
"You are lacking empathy here. Imagine this scenario. 'Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely.' 'Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?'"
Imagine this scenario. "Hi my name is Bob. I'm single. I'm quite lonely. I got the hots for your wife." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
i) To begin with, a single, whether straight or gay, will always feel like a fifth wheel around couples, or couples with kids. It's an awkward situation.
ii) I don't relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions"–any more than I relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I'm attracted to prostitutes, teenage girls, and married women."
We've raised a generation that draws no distinction between friends, strangers, and passing acquaintances. No distinction between public and private. People who intentionally live in a fishbowl.
Maybe they equate "transparency" with "authenticity". But it's foolish. The product of a pop culture that's addicted to gossip.
Discretion is a neglected virtue. We should avoid saying everything we think and feel.
Cont. "What about the people who aren't there yet? What about the people who never get heterosexual desires? Is the goal heterosexuality or holiness?"
Deletei) In modern western culture, romantic love is a necessary or often sufficient condition of marriage. I think that's ideal, but it's not a prerequisite for marriage.
In modern western culture, you fall in love with someone, then marry them. Although there's nothing wrong with that, it can happen in reverse. Back when people had a more pragmatic view of marriage, it wasn't uncommon to fall in love, or come to love their spouse, after they got married. We've lost sight of that.
There may well be homosexuals who are homosexual because they've never given themselves the chance to learn how to love a person of the opposite sex. They haven't put themselves in that situation.
ii) There's a distinction between loving your spouse and falling in love. You have older couples where the passion is gone, yet the love may be much deeper.
iii) At the risk of being crass, men are designed to find sexual intercourse physically enjoyable. That's the case whether they are straight or gay.
Likewise, even a homosexual ought to find sexual intercourse more enjoyable than the homosexual alternatives because male and female bodies were designed for that.
iv) Again, at the risk of being crass, men can enjoy sex with women they don't love. Take prostitution. One-night stands. The college hook-up culture.
My point is not to condone that. I'm simply making the obvious point that love and sexual pleasure are separable.
Conversely, men can love women they aren't attracted to. Mothers, grandmothers, sisters, a favorite aunt, a sweet old lady.
In principle, a homosexual man could learn to love a woman he's not attracted to. Moreover, he can enjoy sexual intercourse with a woman he's not attracted to.
v) Finally, that raises the question of whether marriage itself can have a normalizing effect on homosexuals, if they bring commitment to the marriage. It may not "cure" them, but it may change them. In principle, they can get a lot out of heterosexual marriage. The experience may bring a degree of healing.
We might compare that to victims of sexual abuse. Marriage doesn't erase the bad memories, but it can contribute to emotional healing.
"Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
DeleteIt's instructive to see the unspoken assumption that controls your scenario. Let's consider some alternate scenarios:
"Hi my name is Bob. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
"Hi my name is Bob. I'm single. I'm quite lonely." "Hey Bob. Why don't you come over for dinner every once in a while with my family?"
Why do you presume it's necessary for Bob to explain why he's lonely? He can just say he's lonely. Or if he does give a reason, he can say he's single.
It isn't necessary to volunteer information about his sexuality. Straight people can be lonely too.
"Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions. I'm quite lonely."
DeleteI'm sorry but this is, quite frankly, just plain creepy. I wondered if perhaps I had a slight quibble over the way the hypothetical is being worded, but it is clear that 'Bob' is assaulting the recipient with information you do not just introduce right off the bat upon meeting fellow church goers/members. It is information you perhaps divulge over the course of time upon establishing relationships/friendships. It is information you take more readily to the pastor or an elder. It is information you put to prayer; perhaps you will be prayed for in prayer meeting/Bible study.
To suggest an instant assault on church members with this information is utterly selfish and, dare I say, indicative of the culture surrounding homosexuality and 'LGBT' in general.
//"Same-sex attraction" is a euphemism for homosexual attraction. If a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then he's either homosexual or bisexual. And in this context we're not talking about bisexuals.//
DeleteIt's used by Christians who don't want to identify as gay or homosexual because that puts those particular desires at the center of their identity. They don't want to do that. But they use "same sex attracted" or some variant thereof because it is pertinent to talk about what they are going through.
//ii) I don't relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I have same-sex attractions"–any more than I relate to people who say "Hi my name is Bob. I'm attracted to prostitutes, teenage girls, and married women."
We've raised a generation that draws no distinction between friends, strangers, and passing acquaintances. No distinction between public and private. People who intentionally live in a fishbowl.
Maybe they equate "transparency" with "authenticity". But it's foolish. The product of a pop culture that's addicted to gossip.//
You might be over-reacting to a different problem. Some people over share so Christians who struggle with same sex attraction should just be quiet and struggle without anyone able to help them.
//Why do you presume it's necessary for Bob to explain why he's lonely? He can just say he's lonely. Or if he does give a reason, he can say he's single.
It isn't necessary to volunteer information about his sexuality. Straight people can be lonely too.//
The point is that if we have an understanding of what's going on with the person, we'll have a better ability to minister to the person. Does absolutely everyone need to know the person's particular burdens? No. Could it be helpful if a few people do? Yes.
//I'm sorry but this is, quite frankly, just plain creepy.//
DeleteThat's because you are taking the quote too literally.
Geoff,
Delete//That's because you are taking the quote too literally//
Pardon me, Geoff, but I am taking the quote as literally as the scenario suggests. If you'd had in mind a more conservative approach then sure that would have been conveyed in your scenario.
*surely
Delete"It's used by Christians who don't want to identify as gay or homosexual because that puts those particular desires at the center of their identity. They don't want to do that."
DeleteThere's a problem with hyphenated Christians based on some besetting sin.
"But they use 'same sex attracted' or some variant thereof because it is pertinent to talk about what they are going through."
That's only pertinent based on your obstinate assumption that it's always a virtue to talk about what we are going through. What about talking to God? He's the only person who actually has the power to change people or change certain situations.
"You might be over-reacting to a different problem."
And you might be conforming to a gossip culture.
"Some people over share so Christians who struggle with same sex attraction should just be quiet and struggle without anyone able to help them."
You have this peculiar, unexamined, unquestionable assumption that straight parishioners can somehow help homosexuals in their struggle. Straight parishioners are powerless to solve the problem. They can't change homosexuals.
In principle there's something that penitent "homosexual Christians" can do for themselves, and that's to work towards heterosexual marriage. That will change their situation.
To a great extent it's no different than lonely (straight) singles. In general, the solution to that problem is to get married.
I'd add that your comments have strayed far from the OP. The question at issue wasn't ministering to homosexuals, but homosexuals in ministry. Two very different things.
DeleteSteve, your comments are easily worthy of separate blog posts. I resonate with all you've said.
ReplyDeleteRegarding this snippet: I'm on record as saying penitent "homosexual Christians" should work towards heterosexual marriage.
I give a special category of amen. I wrestled long with that consideration. "Work towards" really gets to the heart of the counsel. It's not an overnight arrival, but I've become increasingly convinced it should be the goal. As I learned long ago from Jay Adams in a counseling book (his treatment of Ephesians 4)... if we put off without putting on, it will be temporary. Yet if we put on without putting off, it'll be hypocritical. What should one who struggles in this area put on? Ideally marriage, if God should provide. I'd never recommend it - not for a moment, but I'd have to say I believe it would be "better" if they had heterosexual lusts. Again, speaking in terms of lesser evils.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI posted my last post before those recent two of yours. Really useful stuff. Very insightful and instructive. Wisdom and understanding is a beautiful thing to behold. Thank you, praise God.