This post is part of a synchroblog sponsored by New Direction. Over 50 bloggers are simultaneously posting articles on June 24th on the topic of bridging the gap between the church and the gay community. Participants hail from a variety of persuasions. Check out the list of other bloggers at Bridging the Gap.
When I started blogging on June 30, 2005, I was not sure what to expect from readers. I was somewhat surprised to find that many of my readers and commenters were gay. Over time, it dawned on me that my views of gays were pretty narrow. I found that it was true what I taught in social psychology: people in a social group understand the diversity of their group but fail to appreciate the diversity of other groups. After almost 4 years of blogging on issues surrounding sexuality, I think I have a better understanding of the diversity in the gay community.
As such then, the blog has helped to bridge gaps I had in my knowledge and in my experience. Since then, as I have become more outspoken regarding what I perceive as shortcomings in my own social conservative community, I have welcomed the increasing dialogue that takes place here.
I have experienced discomfort and confusion directed my way as I have reoriented my focus. Some in my community now disregard my views because they seem too liberal and some in the gay community do not trust me. The “dislike mail” (not really hate mail) now comes from all sides. Such may be the consequence of bridge building.
And so, perhaps my brief contribution to the syncroblog (said with a robot-like accent) is to point out to would-be bridge builders that controversy goes with the territory. I have found that it is very important to have a network of church, friends and family that understand and support you. A supportive work environment which values academic freedom is a distinct plus as well.
So build on bridge builders. May the One who is the Bridge strengthen us and enlighten our path.
Yep…
@ David:
Would that be C.H. Spurgeon? Long ago, my greatgranmother gave me alittle devotional book by him. I still read it every day.
Yeah, tracking very nicely. It’s what I love about the Bible. If you approach it humbly, prayerfully, inquisitvely, open to the voice of the Spirit — it speaks. He speaks!
In reading commentaries, studying the works of skilled Biblical scholars, learning about history,language and context , discussing, debating — asking for the Holy Spirit to enlighten your understanding and motivated by a love for God and for his children — it comes alive.
Much can be deduced — and better yet, applied. Many things suddenly come into focus like never before! I remember the night I accepted Jesus, in January of 1971. I had been attending a Christian club on campus — trying to stir up some atheist trouble — trying to make these people think. 🙂
That night, a very bright and caring youth ministert opened the Bible to me and helped me deduce that there was a loving, intelligent, just and merciful God. And I could know him.
He gave me a small copy of “Good News For Modern Man”. I read the entire New Testament before morning. Had never really read the Bible before. I was captivated.
It was mind-blowing! I furiously underlined and highlighted passages — writing things in the margin like “Yes!’ and “Of course” and “Wow!” I also wrote things, like “i don’t get this” and “What?” — and even “I disagree!”
I have read the BIble now many times over in many different translations — and I still get the same feeling — and write the same things.
@ Michael,
“Our Founding Fathers” many or most, perhaps. I think Adams is a prominent exception to this, who later became a one-term president (replaced by Jefferson).
It is difficult to figure out which religious beliefs the Founding Father’s viewed as “dogma” and which they viewed as intrinsic principals to support a democratic, self-governing people.
“All men are created equal…and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights….” Is a spiritual and religious principal…
Somehow, however, the right of the person to own another person as property is maintained by this group of men who “worried about religious dogma”….as well as not championing a woman’s right to vote…or non-property owners to vote.
I make these arguments to redirect the frequent assertion that excluding religious values in the formation of our democracy was a good thing…it probably was in some circumstances; probably wasn’t in others.
@ Michael,
Thanks,
I cannot figure out how the whole indulgences thing got started, from a scriptural standpoint.
In that regard, I think Luther deduced through scripture that the Pope’s teaching was corrupt.
Luther’s conscience was strengthened by his reference to scripture…
Am I tracking this right?
No. But I think Calvin, Luther and reformed protestant teaching about “individual conscience before God” extends far beyond those issues. Seems to me our founding fathers had little patience for religious authorities dictating or legislating their dogma.
I am sorry if it seems that I give more importance to the second. I think we are to do both — and they are both very demanding indeed. I believe that #2 flows logically from #1.
If we truly love God as God — as Creator of us all — we will want to treat His other Children as we would want to be treated. It is not enough to love God. We must love, honor and respect Him — in large part by acting on the knowledge that the other person is His child, too. To do less is a violation of the first.
.
What I have callerd “arroagnce” in the past was the rather black/white manner in which you ststed your assertions and beliefs about Scripture — as though your interpetation — and only yours — was correct, self-evident, indisputable.
Now, I realize that you just believe very strongly, as I do. They were your assertions, not facts, as you pointed out. Like you, I believe in the “humility (that) begins with submission to the scriptures; and submission, thoughtfully, to biblical scholars who are extraordinarily trained.” I can and do see the need for humility in that.
But when those “extraordinarliy trained” Biblical scholars disagree, or when an issue is not clear to us, we then must act in accordance with our own individual conscience before God. Actually, we should always do this. To do otherwise is unwise and dangerous.
@ Michael,
Do you know of any scriptural support for the Pope’s use of indulgences—to grant shorter stays in Purgatory for relatives?
It is one thing to tax citizens…it is quite another to pervert scripture to morally coerce contributions.
@ Michael,
If it seems I am being mysterious…that is not my intent…and if my vagueness has made you overwork in our discussion; that is not fair and I apologize.
I am trying to be forthright about a basic issue of humility…that you and I see from different directions.
You have framed it as arrogance in the past.
Humility begins with submission to the scriptures; submission, thoughtfully, to biblical scholars who are extraordinarily trained (which ones…from my Bible schools days they seem to go from Calvin, to Spurgeon, to JI Packer to Luther, apologists like Hanna and Schaeffer; subjectives such as Powell).
We can start with your 2 greatest commandments (you emphasize the second a great deal (the first is the most demanding: heart, soul and mind to love God).
We move from there to the Sermon on the Mount.
From there to Paul’s interpretation of the Law and Grace (Shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound?).
From there to the OT….
I think that is my framework…I hope this is clearer. Can you see the humility in this model? I Know you can see the potential for Pride and Arrogance.
If I understand you, the 2 commandments are central. And in the affairs of man the second is pre-eminent. I know you see the humility in this….can you see the potential for Pride and Arrogance?
Yes, I think they were. However, the idea of obeying one’s own conscience seems to have a much broader application. It is a concept very deeply imbedded in reformed protestantism, puritan, baptist, presbyterian, etc.
It does not miminize the authority of Scripture. It rejects the notion that any religious authority, heirarchy, exegete or scholar can “hold” a believer to any particular view of Scripture. Why does this concept seem to trouble you so much?
I am am cuiours, David. When you were “pursued heavily by the Children of God cult (or sect)…”, how did you decide what to believe?
How do you feel about the Westminster Confession? The Puritan concept of individual conscience? I take it that you prefer the intpretations of your preferred exegetes. Which ones would those be? Which denomination?
Probably not. The scholars all agreed. It was probably just the “most folks” who were confused.
I wonder if some of the “some” might have been some of the Biblical exegetes of His day?
Ok David. I give. I guess I am one of “most folks”. So, which Biblical scholars and which of their “interpretive demands” am I “held” to? Can you kindly provide a list? I get tired of thinking for myself.
Michael, I wasn’t ignoring this:
Who knows if the summer of 2009 will be known as the time when God made a soveign move over at Throckmorton’s blog and we had ourselves a little revival breaking out? It could happen.
Yes, to both these:
My point was that we need trained men (and yes, women also) of God to avail themselves of sound training to the best of their ability so that they can fully answer the call to expound on the Word truthfully and in such a way as to prepare our hearts for the Holy Spirit’s infilling and further edification. They are not to be “popes” or Pharisaic “scribes” with a lock on knowledge or God’s anointing. We must hold them accountable by knowing enough of the Scriptures ourselves. How else can we discern who are authentic and who are false teachers?
Learned and scholarly theologians have their place, and we should be studying and searching on our own, but it is primarily within the church that we take the Word in and let it out in an organized body of like-minded believers.
Make sense?
@ Michael,
“I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience.”
These words were spoken against the practice of Indulgences…correct?
Both your Luther and Calvin comments highlight their dependence on scripture…
During my early conversion I was pursued heavily by the Children of God cult (or sect)…I wondered why Moses David was so powerful and convincing and I wondered, how could parishioners protect themselves from deception?
I concluded that his power was in his perversion of scripture…Luther saw the same in the Pope…
Exegesis is very different than Pharisaical coercion or rigidity…it is a means of protecting ourselves and the vulnerable from using the authority of scripture deceptively.
Don’t get me wrong, Debbie. I do believe in spiritual gifts and I am all in favor of ” careful study and preparation”. I have deep admiration for the rigorous work and higher level of education of the exegetes — as opposed to just trusting any old Tom, Dick or Mary.
But it worries me a bit to think that I and “most folks” like me are “held to the interpretive demands of Biblical scholars…“. So many of them seem to disagree with each other!
In spite of their spiritual gifts, their admirable education, their knowledge fo Greek, Hebrew and Latin, and their remarkable ability to clearly sort out “direct, implied and subjective prohibitions” of scripture”, they still seem to have some trouble agreeing with each other. It might be easier to have someone who is the final authority on faith and morals.
When these very talented and devout people disagree, who then should I trust? I trust God. I trust Scripture. But which sholar do I trust? Whose interpretation? From which denominational perspective? Is there a list somewhere?
Not that know of. Until I find one, I will stick with the Lutheran, Puritan, Refomed, Presbyterian, Calvinistic princlple of “individual conscience before God”.
Martin Luther, not Calvin, this time.
Oh, and David … don’t worry about the Liberty thing. It’s an institution with the same challenges, strengths and weaknesses they all have. I’ve seen some good products of an LU education (both undergrad and seminary) and some not-so-good ones. My own daughters have undergone meaningful transformations there. The old maxim, “you get out of it what you put into it,” applies.
Does the bible say to be lke the Bereans?
Yeah, Michael. It’s a big sandbox God’s kids play in.
Both your and David’s comments point to what I wish were more widely understood, or at least remembered.
God gives us different spiritual gifts — preaching, teaching, mercy, exhortation, etc. — so that we can be a properly functioning body. Our gifts are to be used seriously, for the building of the Kingdom. God meant for preachers to preach in accordance with His call — “constrained,” as Paul said, by that call. That takes careful study and preparation (and not copying and pasting sermons word for word from the Internet, as too many “preachers” do today). Paul was learned, and he was entrusted with a good deal of the New Testament. He also had a great transformation, which I take much comfort in. We have too great a cacophony of voices — books, ministry tools, false teachers and just plain fools — out there today trying to fill our spiritual void. And the sheep are gullible.
Peter was a fisherman, but God gave Him a wholly different kind of education, again, giving us laypeople called to ministry an example. His loving restoration by the risen Christ also gives the likes of me much hope. In short, it takes many kinds of people to do the work of the Kingdom. And, as we like to say in Freedom Ministry, God never wastes a wound.
But, regardless of our primary gifts, we all are to follow His two great commandments. If we love Him, we will seek Him and honor Him. If we love our neighbors, we will seek to edify and minister to them. That is the “law and the prophets.” Why is it so hard for us to see this simple truth?
I think a certain amount of bickering and disagreement is bound to happen in any “family,” of course. Because we’re also constrained by human nature (see Romans 7). We just need to seek to rise above that and forgive as we are forgiven when we fail.
I could go on, but that’s all I’ve got in me for now, and all you want to hear. 🙂 And I have work to do.
Something just struck me!
I wonder if all of the complexities involved in correct BIblical exegesis, (and the differing opinions held by the most devout and learned men of His day) might have been what led them to ask Jesus for clarification — as to which were the most important , the most basic moral laws?
It seems reasonable. What, with all of the discipline and intellectual acumen required to sort out “direct, implied and subjective prohibitions” of scripture, It is propbably a good thing that “most folks are held to the interpretive demands of Biblical scholars…“. I
Just imagine what would happen if people did their best to live out those two commandments — according to their own conscient before God. Without being “held to the interpretive demands of Biblical scholars,” we might end up with bickering amd schizms and different demoninationsand…
Hmmmm. A knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Studying. Trying to understand the context, taking into account history and culture. Translating that to 21st century culture…
Wow. That’s a lot of work. A lot of “filtering”, if you will. Not easy to understand. Complex. Not readily apparent to the general population.
With that in mind, I guess we should trust those folks who have been trained that way. Lord, knows they all agree on faith, morals, ethics, etc. At least the ones in traditional denominations.
Too bad we don’t have something more accessible to the general population — like the two great commandments or something…
@ Debbie,
Sorry about the Liberty University thing.
I wonder what the ratios are in Churches of parishioners who understand the rigorous work of pastoral training and teaching.
I think the secular world understands it even less…
My guess is that pastors who have studied Hebrew and Greek and Latin; and then sought to understand the context of the writing historically and culturally and then attempted to translate that to a 21st century culture…I don’t think more than 10-20% of parishioners get that….
I think maybe 5% of the general population gets it.
The overwhelming majority of pastors are trained this way…certainly one’s at traditional denominations.
Let’s shake it up. Here’s an old-fashioned “Altar Call” from Debbie and Michael:
Listen! God loves all His children. He loves you –and He sent His Son to die for your sins. He was dead, but He is risen! Behold, He stands at the door and knocks… Will you let Him into your heart today?
For anyone who has read this blog and who thinks there is anything more important than that question — open the door.
Yeah, that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it? God has done stranger things.
Thanks for the song, Michael. Awesome. It will carry me into a restful evening. Frankly, I came here a bit today because I knew it was a little well of fresh water I needed to drink from. I may be a bit loopy from the craziness I’ve been through this week (LOL), but my heart’s cry is genuine. I know from my history how God tends to work truth into me.
Amen, sister. You know what would be a trip? An ex-gay and an ex-ex-gay doing some street preaching together — passing out tracts like in the old days — leading gay people to Jesus — and leaving the “change” debate on the sidelines for a bit until we could lead a bunch of His SSA kids back home.
“You will know the truth and the truth will set you free,” is one of my favorites passages. Only I usually add silently, “…but first, it will make you miserable”. 🙂 You have been through a lot recently, Debbie. I know the feeling of ” very tired eyes and a brain that is like a stretched-out rubber band…”
Rest, Debbie, and God bless you.
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Come_Unto_Me/2242868
Michael, it’s obvious there are elements of our respective upbringings that give you and me a connection that defies explanation, and no doubt surprises us both. It’s just there, brother. Maybe the fact that we are the same age has a little to do with it, too. I’m not questioning it. I’ll let God take it where it leads. Hopefully, to a bridge of some kind.
I’ve read — through very tired eyes and a brain that is like a stretched-out rubber band right now — the most recent comments on the Barna survey thread. There is some deep thinking over there. It does occur to me that the discussion could be circular in the long run, but it’s good to get people thinking.
I think David understands the need for Christians to be better-versed in apologetics so we can make a defense of the faith and “test the spirits by the Spirit.” Many of us cannot recognize the errors that are being taught from our pulpits. I just don’t think Jesus would have said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free,” if it weren’t true.
It also calls to mind some teaching that comes out of Liberty University’s seminary (that was for you, David :)). Preaching of the Gospel is supposed to be an urgent plea to the unsaved that brings them to the threshold of the Holy Spirit’s influence and, hopefully, to conviction. Maybe that’s the easy part (in fact, it takes hard and diligent work to prepare a sermon). It’s what you do with them after they are saved and become part of your flock that can get dicey at times. I don’t envy pastors. Unity in the body has to have the divine push to work. And conviction can and should continue to come at any level along the path of sanctification.
For what it’s worth. …
Wow. Debbie. Wow. I am so sorry to hear about your recent trials, but they do strengthen us. (Lately, I have had about all the “strengthening” I can take! 🙂
I believe this, too. I believe God is doing something very special with His SSA kids. Something new.
Debbie, I feel like saying, “Praise the Lord!!!” But since I grew up Southern Baptist, it would be more like “puh- RAISE thuh Lor-ruhd!” (With a very stong “D” on the end.)
Would love to read the book on Calvin. The doctrine of “eternal security” is one I hold to very firmly. I know some believe it is a false doctrine — and we could get into a long debate about it.
Some say it gives you an “excuse to sin”. I think it does the opposite. If we truly grasp the value of His sacrifice for us, we have no excuse. I think it givesus no excuse but to live a life as pleasing to God as His Spirit gives us the strength to do. We are saved. Done. Now, we are to act like it.
Thanks, Timothy and Michael, for your kind thoughts. I was pretty wiped last night. Doing better this morning, but I still have to face a family reunion today that, as providence would have it, happens to fall the day after my uncle’s funeral. So, more emotion to come.
But I must say that going through this week and its three moving experiences — my uncle’s unexpected death, my counseling mentor’s diagnosis with ALS (Lou Gherig’s Disease) and the Bridging the Gap Synchroblog, have left me in deep contemplation and prayer. I truly believe God is moving through all these events. We are seeing something sovereign unfold. Kind of exciting and scary all at the same time. It messes with my head and those old, comfortable paradigms, but that’s as it should be. I find myself smiling about it all.
Michael, I wanted to tell you that I came across a great book about the life of John Calvin that I very much want to read. You got me thinking recently about Calvinism and how it plays out in our various denominations and beliefs. You spoke above of the assurance of salvation, and I grew up with that teaching. It was neat to listen yesterday to my mom and her remaining siblings share their appreciation of how my late grandparents and great aunt taught them how to accept Christ and what sin and salvation were all about at early ages. I’ve heard these stories for years, but they took on a new meaning yesterday as they were eulogizing the first of their generation to go home to be with the Lord.
I am impressed as never before that we must seek to be at peace and be about the work God has given each of us to do in this life. Our time here is so brief. I long to see the body of Christ — all of us — unified and of one accord on the things that really matter.
Sarah,
Thank you 🙂
@ Sarah:
I am sure there are. What do you think some of those myths are? Let me say that I believe that they (folks on the “other side” ) love Him too and are trying their best to live a life pleasing to Him — just as I am.
ONe difference: I don’t think they are in danger of losing their salvation for disagreeing with my position. Some on “the other side” think that gay Christians (like me) are in danger of losing ours.
That makes me sad, because I don’t believe that is not how we are saved. I never worry about a person’s eternal destiny once someone has accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. Never. He has them in the palm of HIs hand.
Wow! You got it! May God bless you! Thanks!
Debbie: You have my prayers and His promise: “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted…”
Thank you, Debbie.
The link is here
My condolences on your loss.
Actually, I think Timothy had some darn good things to say over at Box Turtle Bulletin yesterday, even tracking a bit with what Sarah says. I’m sorry for not including the link here. Maybe Timothy will. I’ve just come back from an emotionally draining day — a funeral of a close family member and big gathering afterward. Forgive me.
Hi Glenn — no this blog hasn’t been taken over my conservatives but perhaps conservatives are trying to bridge with liberals 🙂
Debbie — you are amazing thank you so much for sharing and for providing this information to me. I really appreciate that.
Michael — one thing I’m really learning is the fact that Gay Christians know and love Jesus Christ just as much as I do and I could find myself in the ranks of Gay Christian (Side B) folk and discussing on the topic of what the bible teaches in regards to homosexuality. You are right, there are those myths out there but I just kindly suggest that perhaps there are myths spreading about people on the other side of the coin so to speak and I for one would like to be able to dispell some of those myths and misconceptions about people like myself and I too could go on and on. I guess apart of this bridging the gap is to work towards discoverying what those myths are but perhaps maybe too along with the myths are differences in beliefs and convictions on what the bible says in regards to homosexuality.
Sarah,
I think that is all determined on whether we believe that our directive is internal or external. Did God call for us to live by his direction, or did He call us to tell others how to live?
If we direct our ministry to those who share our calling then there is never conflict.
Consider, if you will, a monastery. No one ever objects to a monastery.
And I think a big part of that is because a monastery speaks to the calling of those who are monks. But they seldom express that others should be monks in order to please God or that non-monks are evil or deceived or vile or cursed.
To the extent that ex-gay groups serve those who feel called to join, I think few gay folk have problems. If one says, “I believe that it is sinful for me to…” I’ve found few who complain.
The problem arises when one says, “I believe that it is sinful for you to…” especially if it is followed by, “therefore, public policy should be…”
The other issue arises when claims are made that do not hold up to close inspection. If one claims healing from homosexuality, I think most folk would not have problems. But if such a claim is made it needs to a) be true, and b) not be used as a tool against others.
Sadly, one finds that too often such claims of miraculous healing are accompanied by “and He wants to heal you too!!” And too often such claims end up in scandal. And too often such claims are used as political or social weapons.
I think, Sarah, that these contribute to the difficulties in building bridges.
And affiliation with Exodus comes with a lot of baggage. There’s history of false claims and scandals. There’s history (still current) of anti-gay political activism. And there is a VERY VERY strong history of public condemnation of gay people.
Many individual ex-gays are able to walk in community with gays – including some who participate here. They are able to have the same friendships that they might have with others whom they consider to be outside God’s perfect will and feel no need to condemn or demonize or deceive. Some are even able to find that God’s direction for their life may not be the same as His direction for others.
The problem, as I see it, is that Exodus itself does not embody this grace. An Exodus affiliated ministry would have to work harder to bridge the gap in order to overcome the actions and history of Exodus.
But if that work is done, I see no reason why you would not be accorded the same respect as that which you give.
(ps. if you are serious about bridging the gap, it may be best to avoid such language as “militant gay folks” or such accusations as “hated by people in the Gay Rights movement”. That tends to tear down bridges.)
Here are some myths about gay Christians:
(1) They are not really Christians
(2) They are not really saved.
(3) They don’t believe in the truth of scripture
(4) They won’t admit that gay sex is sometimes sinful.
(5) They believe a “watered-down” version of the gospel.
I could go on. You get the picture.
Good for you, Debbie. Keep in ming that gay Christians do the same.
Jayhuck
I was really worried it didn’t 🙂
Warren,
I haven’t taken a look over here in a long time, but when I did, I actually thought for a minute that your blog had been taken over by a liberal somehow.
I’m sure we still don’t see eye to eye, but I appreciate that you haven’t hardened your heart and have come to truly see this issue as a Christian.
Thank you, and may God bless you in your bridge building!
Evan,
Makes sense!
Valid question, Sarah. It appears Andrew Marin, of the Marin Foundation, is making some inroads. He is an evangelical who holds to conservative doctrines, but is sometimes associated with the emergent movement. Brian McLaren wrote the foreword to Marin’s book, Love Is an Orientation, and he is definitely seen as emergent. So, is Marin walking a fine line as an evangelical, or one who has a conservative view of Scripture? That remains to be seen.
As to the other specifics you wonder about:
I guess I am a test case of sorts. I have a ministry of my own and my church-sponsored SSA recovery group is affiliated with Exodus. I have had false and simplistic things said about me. Yet, onward I go, seeking to give a message of hope and redemption, while holding to the time-honored truth of Scripture. Time will tell how effective my efforts, along with those of others similarly motivated, will be.
I will have to say that I believe it is only Christ who can truly bridge the gap. We will only succeed to the extent that we are reflecting him.
Jayhuck
I used the term in a general sense. There’s no point in splitting hairs over this. Basically, I wanted to show how tricky is to look for reasons to support a political reality of today with interpretations of narratives from the past (including this debate on “eunuchs”, but there are many others). If you think about the debate on whether there are human instincts or not, I’m aware of it, but it wasn’t on mind when I wrote the comments.
Sarah,
Your story is not common, but I have heard of people cycling through those labels like you have:
Gay, Ex-gay, Ex-Ex Gay, Ex-Ex-Ex Gay – it all gets sort of confusing at a certain point.
My story is one from gay, to ex-gay (but never embracing the term because I always disliked it), back to gay – who knows if I’ll go on to be ex-ex gay then ex-ex-ex gay or not –
LOL – boy, if I didn’t like the term before…. let’s just hope I don’t cycle anymore than I have to 🙂
You are welcome btw 🙂
them = the term
Evan,
Would you mind defining “instincts” for me in the way you used them above?
Thanks 🙂
Jayhuck,
Actually, the irony of it all is with my own testimony is this …
1 — I was in the closet
2 — then at age 14 I began to believe change was possible and that belief was
affirmed when I heard the founders of Love Won Out share their testimony
the Oprah Winfrey show. I really did surrender my life to Jesus Christ but
I was still in the closet and facing this alone but truly believed change was
possible.
3 — Then that belief was challenged.
4 — I went from being gay to ex-gay and then back to gay
( but still in the closet and never shared this with my church )
5 — Then I came back around and re-surrendered my life to Jesus and came
full circle to believing the conservative view of scripture.
( That was me with an ex-ex-ex-gay testimony)
6 — Now, I settle for Post – Gay because it resonates best with me and I don’t
have to add in all the ex- ex – ex’s in there.
So, what about Post-Post-Gay? 🙂
Jayhuck … I appreciated your comment very much and you make a lot of sense.
A few more thoughts on this situation of interpretation.
One major error in interpretation is to filter past sexuality/gender status based on present freedom (to define oneself). We now have different hierarchies in thought, social relationing, even perception. In ancient societies, status was conferred by the order already established in society. No one created their own status, based on equal opportunity, and personal motivation was a luxury for the powerful and wealthy. So to speak, no one asked any child born into the world: how do you envisage your life, being happy, fulfilling some dream, etc. Girls were sent to the monastery or were married by paternal decision, some boys had their testicles removed so they could get a high-rank job at the royal court (a status). It was a rawer reality, by today’s standards.
People have much more freedom today; so much they don’t know what to do with their instincts. A few hundred years ago people were fighting for the right to vote, now they are fighting for the right to express a range of instincts, which have become the truth, according to empirical science. And the cool thing is that anything can be used from the past, it doesn’t matter what and how it’s pasted, as long as it gets the job done. The arguments for setting up a political order to allow for the expression of instincts are drawn from the past, like a collage, to try to build a reality in which anyone’s parti pris is instinctual. It’s cool because I think anyone is aware that it’s impossible to build an order based on instincts, no matter what evolutionary biologists would argue (too large populations). This is what Nietzsche called “dreaming with the eyes open”, that is, having traditions still provide this need for order, while people become increasingly aware of the historically determined nature of these traditions. Or, to use the example from this discussion, using the historically determined concept of “eunuch” to interpret something about the possible status of homosexuals in the past, in order to derive something politically relevant for the social order today. It’s like building today’s social order based on interpretations of narratives from the past and knowing it at the same time. This is the “cool thing” about this situation, that the motivation comes from instincts and interpretations of narratives are used (read: manipulated) to help instincts find their legitimate expression.
If one asks me, this is a gap that needs a lot of bridging. (:))
PS .I wanted to make this comment to reply also to a few comments made by David Blakeslee on another topic, that addressed this issue of the “natural man.” As I see it, it’s not a question of values vs instincts, it’s a question of how can these narratives resist and maintain cohesion under such attacks from empirical-based perspectives motivated by instincts.
These are very rich topics. Education reflects politics, impacts exercise of instincts, some degree of order provides enough security to allow for some degree of disorder, but what “minorities” win can lose if the general matrix is compromised.
PPS. This has almost nothing to do with synchroblogging and a lot to do with bridge building.
Sarah,
Part of bridging the gap involves humility. This is something that I think is difficult for ALL of us. What about the Post-Post Gay movement 😉 (just kidding)
Bridging the gap involves being humble enough to accept that the other person is a human being and worthy of respect and being heard –
We don’t have to agree on issues.
However, it’s just not that simple. I have just barely touched the surface on my views and convictions and have listened to many people on Side A and wonder if they’d give me the same respect if I were Side B and involved with the Post-Gay movement if you will.
I wonder if I had a ministry that was an Exodus member ministry if I’d still be able to bridge the gap? I wonder if I had a ministry that provided people an alternative to homosexuality and still be able to bridge the gap? I wonder if I could still boldly proclaim that there is healing and freedom in Christ from homosexuality and still ‘bridge the gap’?
I might be ‘bridging the gap’ right now but that’s because I am same gendered attracted experiencing only a little change so far and so to some respect people can confuse me as being Side A but if I were the director if you will of an ex-gay ministry picketed by militant gay folks and hated by people in the Gay Rights movement with false things being said about me i.e trying to ‘make somebody straight’ or ‘converting the gay to straight’ … I wonder if I’d still be able to bridge the gap?
Sarah,
I may be overly optimistic, but I think you are already starting to see that respect in the creation of the Synchroblog! So many writers and posters from different backgrounds, different faith traditions and beliefs, actually making an effort to find common ground and figure out how to talk to each other.
I think if we can find some common ground, and agree to disagree on on the rest of the stuff, we’ll have come a long way. If we can agree not to create legislation that is going to prevent others from having equal rights (that goes for both sides) – I believe we will have made an important difference 🙂
Sarah,
I hope it’s my English not making sense, and not me. 🙂
But feel free to ask me, if you have any question.
Interestingly, Jesus discussed eunuchs as well.
In speaking about marriage, his disciples suggested that because divorce and remarriage are adultery then it’s better not to marry at all. Jesus replied
It is clear that Jesus was defining “eunuch” to be something like “those who don’t marry, ie don’t engage sexually with women” and that his definition included more than those who were castrated. Beyond that, this passage remains a bit of a mystery.
Evan — all I can say is that was an interesting read … interesting because much of what you’re saying makes sense not all of it but most of it.
@Timothy Kincaid
If the Bagoa guy you mentioned had a sexual relation with Alexander, if he was the real-deal eunuch, he was probably passive and lacked motivation. I think there is a similar type in Indians’ Kama Sutra, where their “eunuch” correspondent (hijra) was the only type of man allowed to perform oral sex on another man. They were something like high-ranking servants.
@all involved in the eunuch dispute,
Eunuchs and eunuchs …are not the same. 🙂
I think originally the term technically referred to castrated men, who were in charge of some things that put them dangerously close to rulers. They kept a watch on a sultan’s harem, were confided in by them, they helped rulers with their daily private habits. It was too dangerous to entrust men who could have any motivation of their own, or women. Castration, if done early has major endocrinal effects. Basically, these men were depleted of testosterone, which made them develop like genetic males but with female characteristics (high-pitched voice, lack of abundent body hair, low aggressiveness, low sexual motivation, etc). I doubt it had anything to do with “sexual orientation” (huh? what is that, an Ottoman Turk would have said). It’s possible that the term was extended to men who were effeminate and/or lacked procreative drive, because that was part of the eunuch condition. But I doubt that castrated eunuchs were sexually involved with anyone of any sex, because that was the reason to castrate them, in the first place: to deprive them of the motivation to have sex with a ruler’s women or to attack them in their sleep. In the Ottoman empire, fratricide was the rule of accession to the throne: when the father died, the son who eliminated all his brothers first got the power. Eunuchs were the best to be trusted to watch the sultan, because they were motivationally neutralised men. It’s also possible that being effeminate and less aggressive made them look or act very similar to homosexuals, which might have caused people to use the term interchangeably.
But it’s surprising what role these very few special people from the past are supposed to play today in some interpretations motivated by sexual politics. Assuming that attraction to one’s same gender is present in the population as a continuous reality, the political existence of a separate sexual identity would somehow be vindicated by the existence of a small number of eunuchs and their particular status in ancient texts. It’s a rather weird extrapolation, from a historical point of view, because the category “modern gays” would by far outnumber that of “ancient eunuchs.” Modern-day transsexuals would be a better approximation in numbers and biological state, in my opinion.
Anyway, it’s also weird that some would translate another historical reality from the past into present-day, far more complicated, social dynamics, and based on that shape a political modern type of identity built on sexuality. I mean, what is the purpose, to conform to a social reality from the past according to how it’s interpreted today through the lens of personal freedom, the modern obsession of sex, individual social status, etc? It’s a big stretch. It’s like trying to create a mouse out of a man. It’s a different situation.
That is unlikely to have been the understanding of the author of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, if this person had a classical education. If the author was Luke, as is most often believed, then his birth and education in Greek culture was likley to have familiarized him with the story of Bagoas.
Bagoas was a Persian eunuch who was a lover of Darius III. After the death of Darius, Bagoas was given to Alexander the Great as a “beloved”. In a story remoniscent of that of Esther,
Plutarch also wrote about Bagoas and his relationship with Alexander.
Well thank you all for your comments at least .. perhaps I might have a better idea of where the blogger was going with that comment. I was trying to be respectful of the person and not identify who the blogger was that compared homosexuals to the eunuch. In the context of the whole of scriptures the comparison is still flawed .. in my opinion.. at least if we’re taking a look at one’s behavior over and above the circumstances that one might face.
I came out of a more Transgendered Identity. I live a celibate life and this might be the choice I make for life … maybe not because I do believe that I am on a healing journey and would argue that some change is change.
The eunuch maybe has had a choice for oral sex and maybe the eunuch also would be attracted to the same gender but not sure if everyone of the eunuchs would have engaged in that behavior. But I’d like to take a closer look at the context of that particular story. The eunuch in my understanding was unable to be sexually involved with people.
Living a life of celibacy isn’t sinful and accepting people well we have all sorts of scriptures where Jesus came up against the religious system of his day and was very controversial within the religious system by affirming and lifting up women, by touching the leper, by giving extravagantly and what Jesus did should challenge the church today…. but at the same time, to the woman caught in adultery of whom he did not stone and gave abundant grace he did say to her , “go and sin no more” he was filled with grace and truth, he affirmed and fulfilled the law. So … the question I still have is, how can I hold firm to my conservative views of scriptures and the testimony’s of many who say that healing and freedom in Christ from homosexuality is possible and still bridge the gap? Can I hold firm to my conservative view of scriptures as a person on Side B and while giving respect to people on Side A expect that the same respect would be returned in like manner?
Sarah,
With all due respect, you are trying to understand eunuchs from today’s perspective.
At the time of Phillip’s preaching, the eunuch and the homosexual were considered to be part of the same community – much in the same way that gays and transexuals are. And quite often eunuchs were sexual beings and engaged in sex with men. Eunuchs, like homosexuals, were banned from the Temple and were considered to be sexual outcasts.
You may not see comparison, but from the context of the time there would have been little social difference between Phillip’s eunuch and a homosexual man.
Norwegian Baptist minister, Ragnhild Schanke did a very detailed analysis of the concept of eunuch at the time of Christ and found that in addition to physically castrated men it also included men with no sexual intersest in women.
We cannot say if Phillip’s eunuch was homosexual in orientation. But we do know that he was in the same sexual, social, legal, and religious category. So McClaren’s eunuch analogy is exactly and directly to the point – if one chooses to allow context and history to be considered.
You’re both right, Sarah and Karen. I just read Brian’s blog. His eunuch analogy doesn’t work.
Warren: “I have experienced discomfort and confusion directed my way as I have reoriented my focus. Some in my community now disregard my views because they seem too liberal and some in the gay community do not trust me.”
I just want to say that from my perspective, anyone who Scott Lively distrusts cannot be all bad. I have read many WT articles on CrossWalk and Box Turtle over the past year or so and have grown to appreciate Warren for his integrity and honesty in seeking Truth where ever that might take one. Perhaps he has not reached the level of being an ally for the LGBT, but let no one discount him as a genuine friend.
The post Sarah is referring to (I am guessing) is Brian McClaren, and he does use the eunuch as an example of accepting gays or those with a different sexual identity into the church. I would have to agree that his use of the example of the eunuch seems a bit confused in some ways and not sure what his bottom line point is.
Sarah, I didn’t read that particular blog, but I would suppose the person was trying to speak of those who choose to remain celibate and serve Christ as “eunuchs for the Kingdom.” They can be either gay or straight.
Some people remain single by choice or circumstances (my aunt has been one of them), but rather than become bitter about not marrying, they live useful lives, even in the church. The apostle Paul said that he wished all men could be as he was (“married” to Christ, and unhindered by other connections), but he realized marriage was a big part of God’s plan.
I’m glad Warren (finally) made his Synchroblog contribution. It was a humbling experience to be a part of that yesterday. I think I should take this opportunity to thank him for this blog because it has also helped to expand my thinking in the relatively short time I’ve been participating.
I did not see myself as one of those potential bridge-builders until more recently. I know my greatest spiritual gift is exhortation, mostly to the Church. We need a lot of that, especially in the realm of how to lovingly respond to the gay community. We have screwed it up so badly. In fact, when Wendy Gritter first asked me to be a part of the Synchroblog, I envisioned some kind of big discussion between all the participants. I knew one of them was going to be Anthony Venn-Brown, and I told her I didn’t think I could handle that. But as a little more time went by, I realized it was exactly what I was supposed to do.
I was one of those who was challenged by Warren’s apparent shift to “the dark side.” LOL. Then I had my eyes opened. Ain’t that God something? Clearly, I still have a ways to go. But I am liking this adventure. I think I’ll let the Potter keep working on me. Maybe He can use this old cracked pot for something special.
$¥n¢hrøßløg
🙂
I think I’m really exhausted right now and can’t really post anything worth while to post and have to work some things out … but this whole project has created some questions for me.
Eg. One blogger spoke on the eunuch and compared the eunuch to somebody who’s sexual orientation is homosexual. I don’t see the comparison, I can’t see the comparison because they’re too isolated and too different to be compared with each other. First, the eunuch was castrated nearly right from birth and has no choice but to be non-sexually active. Being celibate is not sinful. Whereas homosexual behavior is. Sure, the person who comes out as being gay did not choose to be attracted to the same gender. I know because I have to work through these same issues myself and have to work through the conflict between my faith and sexual orientation but I can choose to live like the eunuch but the eunuch is the eunuch. The eunuch can’t have sex therefore cannot live a sexually immoral lifestyle. Where are the stories the same? Behavior is always a choice but circumstances may never be. So, I’m challenged but open minded enough to say I will always value my relationship with my friends, co-workers, and colleagues who are gay but we perhaps will always have to hash out these differences and my hope is in respect and in love.