Comments on: Willow Creek Church under the guns https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/08/12/willow-creek-church-under-the-guns/ A [retired] college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues Wed, 30 May 2018 23:08:34 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: Kyle https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/08/12/willow-creek-church-under-the-guns/#comment-95326 Wed, 30 May 2018 23:08:34 +0000 http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9867#comment-95326 whoops, delete that last line mentally in your mind 😉

]]> By: Kyle https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/08/12/willow-creek-church-under-the-guns/#comment-95322 Wed, 30 May 2018 23:08:33 +0000 http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9867#comment-95322 I certainly understand that unless we walk a certain path, we cannot pretend to fully understand it. Credibility to speak authoritatively and comprehensively on a certain path needs to be earned in some way, either by walking it or walking closely with someone who is walking it. And I certainly don’t think we should just flippantly “tell others how to live their lives” without knowing them and without having any sympathy with their situation
But at the same time, I don’t think it’s quite right to say that a religious leader must have firsthand experience on *everything* they speak of in order to speak on it with authority. Many of our struggles overlap in similarities, though they are all distinct and unique as well. What I am saying is, the similarity of our struggles gives us commonality, and we can then hold each other accountable (within a church family where there is agreement). That’s what we are supposed to be doing in the church, anyway: calling each other to faithfulness, whatever that means for each person, and even as our struggles are different. We are all struggling to live the costly obedience of the cross, after all. We can’t pretend to understand everything about the struggles of our brothers and sisters, but we are supposed to be there to speak truth in love to them.
For example, as a single man (religious leader or not) I understood how hard it was to remain sexually pure. If a married Christian friend of mine was thinking about cheating on his/her spouse, I think it would be my responsibility to hold that person accountable, even as I was yet unmarried. I would at least have to say something to them, exhort them, etc. Would my battle have been identical? No, but the basic dynamics of sin, temptation, and grace, are fundamentally the same for all persons in all situations.

]]> By: David Roberts https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/08/12/willow-creek-church-under-the-guns/#comment-95323 Wed, 30 May 2018 23:08:33 +0000 http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9867#comment-95323 The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful. The other issues all branch out from this. And as long as people who believe that it is their God given mandate to live their neighbor’s lives for them also hold that that view, this matter will go unresolved.
Phrases like “speak the truth in love” and “hold them accountable” may sound spiritually responsible in the abstract, but they almost always represent the imposition of all too human conditions on relationships.

]]> By: David Roberts https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/08/12/willow-creek-church-under-the-guns/#comment-95325 Wed, 30 May 2018 23:08:33 +0000 http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9867#comment-95325

Unfortunately, many traditionalists don’t agree with me.

I think you could probably nudge that to “most” don’t agree. If this issue were treated as other differences in interpretation are, I’m not sure there would be an issue for us to discuss.

]]> By: Kyle https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/08/12/willow-creek-church-under-the-guns/#comment-95324 Wed, 30 May 2018 23:08:33 +0000 http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=9867#comment-95324 David,
That is, of course, the core of the disagreement between affirming and non-affirming parties: is sexual activity between two members of the same sex sinful or not? (Even as a traditionalist, I wouldn’t say a loving same-sex relationship is sinful *in toto*, as if the love they express is all ‘sinful.’ The controversial issue is narrowed to the proper expression of sexual activity.) Each party is going to think the other is wrong or mistaken, that their side has stronger evidence on this issue, etc. It’s a morally controversial thing, which will necessarily lead to a fundamental disagreement between the two groups.
Please don’t misunderstand me, though: if someone doesn’t agree with the traditional ethic, I don’t believe it should be imposed on them. Only if they freely decide to live their lives this way, and join a church who is on the same page with that, would it be appropriate to call such persons to a life of discipleship defined in this way. I’m for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, many traditionalists don’t agree with me.

]]>