Comments on: The Scandal of the Evangelical Double Mind

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 22:08:41 +0000

In reply to Tom Van Dyke. Tom - I bet you are a blast at a party. However, Jesus loves you (as simple as that is).

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:23:25 +0000

On the issue of the origins of a person’s sexuality: the point is that some are ignoring the fact that credible studies do suggest a very real possibility of sexual orientation being something that is in a very real sense ‘intrinsic’ to a person. Getting ‘conclusive proof’ of this will not be easy.
Where some ‘conservatives’ seem to be ‘going wrong’ is that they discount this possibility and simply assert the ‘lifestyle choice’ line. This is what is, to many of us, so unacceptable. Truth is more important than some kind of ‘party line’.
If we are honest, we all like to have our opinions and gut feelings ‘validated’ by ‘science’. The important things is always to be mindful of this desire. That is the only honest approach.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:23:25 +0000

SGM – Thanks for those kind words…

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:23:25 +0000

Dr. Throckmorton,
While there have been some interesting studies done, is there a conclusive agreement within the scientific or medical or psychological arena as to the causation of orientation? I am not sure, however, it seems to me that these studies interst only people who have a bias and are looking for support of that bias. Those who are merely interested in something conclusive, do not pay too much attention to them and are waiting for a definitive and conclusive finding.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:47:30 +0000

The “mindful evangelicals” are not necessarily making “common cause” with “the secular, anti-evangelical left”; rather they are seeking to, as they see it, ‘get their house in order’.
Thx, Mr. Willmer. That was my first thought. But lately it hits me more as a circular firing squad. When the “mindful” evangelicals say something that doesn’t conform to MSNBC left/liberal orthodoxy, pls alert me. I’m not hearing it, I’m seeing it, I’m not feeling it. “Getting the evangelical house in order” types are becoming indistinguishable from the “freedom from religion” types who want to burn it down.
For practical purposes, the “mindful evangelicals” are indeed making “common cause” with “the secular, anti-evangelical left” so much that you can’t tell them apart.
[NB: I’m not an evangelical meself. I also think that on the whole they do a lousy job of articulating their POV. But with “friends” like theirs…]

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:03:12 +0000

http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=58228

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:30:41 +0000

Tom Van Dyke says:
February 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm
“You are not building credibility with them by going after Barton or NARTH. ”
No, Warren builds his credibility by citing reputable sources, not exaggerating or mis-representing the issues, and not avoiding questions about his claims. Btw, who is the “them” in your statement above.
“We do not know, and you cannot say, that orientation change is impossible.”
To my knowledge Warren has never said “orientation change is impossible.” Neither have I (nor do I think have any of the major posters on this blog). However, we can say that change in orientation from gay to straight is highly unlikely and there is no reliable evidence that therapy can cause that change.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:30:41 +0000

Warren, it was a passing point in a comments section. I was substantially correct, the law exists. I gather you’ve withdrawn your previous support of reparative therapy as its effectiveness is questionable, esp the work of that Nicolosi fellow. I have no idea of your position at this point so if you wish to be more forthcoming about it, that would be good.
In the meantime, there are no grounds to ban it, and the legislative opposition is clearly ideological, not scientific. Your [former?] side is on the run and its opponents are attempting to press their advantage. [This dynamic extends to gay marriage and other related issues.]
Reparative therapy seems to me more an evangelical thing; I have no dog in this fight. I defend it more on religious freedom grounds than thinking you can teach someone to like Brussels sprouts.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/01/false-hope-and-gay-conversion-therapy
“People do take up the “celibacy/singleness” approach, only to discard it later when the burden becomes too heavy, and we must not examine celibacy through rose-tinted glasses, either. But we should be much more hesitant to propose orientation change.
By promoting celibacy, we are simply promoting what the sexual ethic of the churches demands. But by promoting orientation change, we are promoting a shift far deeper, far more rooted in someone’s particular personhood. In pressing for this “extra mile,” we incur a certain moral connection to the result. If it succeeds, well and good. But if it does not, great damage can be done, and we can end up implicated.
It seems to me to be far more fruitful to simply promote chastity. Like any risky therapy, orientation change should be recommended only in strictly defined circumstances where success seems more likely or where a risky treatment is the only chance for hope. The path of celibacy, in the end, is really dependent on our struggles for Christian virtue, rather than struggles for a heterosexual functioning. As a goal, heterosexual functioning may remain elusive despite our best efforts, and is too often ephemeral even when it does seem to have been achieved for a season.”

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:25:43 +0000

“However,” Warren? That hurts my feelings. I’m a person too, I think.
Thanks for approving my comment and letting it be published on your blog. You’re very good that way.
There’s a very important question of orthodoxy vs. “liberalism” here. GK Chesterton vs. Barney.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:25:43 +0000

This is why Throckmorton is not an evangelical, or even a real Christian. If he were a Christian, and thus accepted that the Bible is the Word of God, then there would never be any tension.

Dan, I think this says more about your understanding of Christianity than it does Warren. There is no doubt that some Christians believe as you suggest — Biblical literalists for sure — but painting an entire demographic with the same brush is something I learned to loathe a long time ago.