Opinions on this article please?

[Sobornost]

My final instalment of personal reflection (promise!!!) is very recent. In fact it happened three weeks ago so that’s why it is fresh in my mind. It’s distressing in parts but I feel it may be useful.

I was teaching a charming and intelligent woman from South Africa how to use the Internet at an Inner City project I work on. Like me, she’s an Anglican –we both like Desmond Tutu very much, neither of us like Robert Mugabe, and apart from this we get on very well.

Unlike me she’s had a very hard life. She was born in Soweto during the Apartheid era – she received little or no education because of Apartheid policies – and she only survived the massacre in Soweto because her mother had the foresight to get out with her family days before the killing began. She still is dumfounded at how the Boers who called themselves Christians could shoot her people in the street as if culling animals. She’s a lovely woman and a brave one.

Well I was teaching her how to use hyperlinks and contents tabs etc. with the example of the BBC website (which I think is well designed). She obviously wanted to see the South African News so we went to the South Africa page –I hoped there would be something interesting regarding tourism in South Africa (or such like)because I actually do think learning should be relaxed and enjoyable as far as is possible.

However the lead story on the South African page for the day concerned the serious problem of rape and torture of lesbian women by male gangs in South Africa. My friend became very distressed – learning about the internet was over for the day and we needed to have a chat.

The first reason for her distress was obviously the cruelty of the story and the disturbing, deeply distressing images – but it transpired there was also some ‘cognitive dissonance’ going on in her. She told me that she had always understood that there are no gays or lesbians in Africa – so the story amazed her. Then after a little more conversation she told me that Aids was actually blamed on male homosexuals in the circles she moved in with a story circulating that it originally came from a man having sex with a monkey (here we have a persecution myth if ever there was one – I understand that there is some speculation by scientist that AIDS may have come from some sort of monkey ,but the speculation is that that the monkey transmitted it through scratching a human being without specifying the sexual orientation of the person - because this is unknown).

Well I had a long chat with my friend and she was amazingly open to new suggestion about how to understand all of the conflicting information she was trying to deal with; amazingly and wonderfully open in fact. I just reflect how lucky I am that whatever prejudices I have inherited are not informed by real suffering and the twisting up and distortion of genuine grievance.

Blessings

Dick

[Username1]

Dick (or should I call you Professor Sobornost?! - nice one Matt ), James, Bret

Some great contributions from all of you here recently. Most of all I’m really glad that you feel comfortable joining in the conversation, Bret. As Sass said earlier, your buy-in is vital to this thread. I hope and pray that other gay men and women might feel that they can join in too. And I also hope and pray that any brothers and sisters who do feel at the moment that they are duty bound to regard homosexuality as sinful also feel that they can express their views without fear of being shouted down.

I grew up in a church where homosexuality was condemned as sinful, although it was not much of a ‘live’ issue, and I guess I didn’t really question it too much. I didn’t have - or didn’t *think *I had - any gay friends as a youth, although one of my closest teenage friends came out as gay when he went to university. (Sadly I lost touch with him; haven’t seen him since.)

As Dick has alluded to, I exhibited the sort of casually homophobic behaviour common to most teenage boys. While I would never have dreamt of being violent or personally offensive towards a gay person, I can see with the benefit of hindsight that my attitude to gay people was ignorant, reactionary and, at times, offensive.

But when my brother came out as gay (20 odd years ago) everything changed. I knew immediately that there was something wrong with the received church wisdom that his life was somehow sinful. I just knew in my heart that it couldn’t be right that the brother I loved so dearly was committing a sin by expressing his love for his partner, as I did towards my wife.

When David came out, he said possibly the saddest thing anyone’s ever said to me. He said, “John, I’m 22 and I’ve never been in love”. Because of course, for years he had hidden his sexuality, unsure of how he would be accepted into a Christian household, in a small provincial English market town. But from as young as he could remember being aware of his sexuality, he had known he was gay. (My wife, whose ‘gaydar’ - David himself uses that word jokingly for gay men’s instinctive ability to suss each other out - is far better tuned than mine, had my brother taped as gay from the moment she met him. But those of us who grew up with him didn’t. Ok, so I had left home by the team he was a teenager, being 7 years older, and didn’t hang out with David much then. But I wonder, was my ‘blindness’ a sign of my not ‘wanting’ to believe my brother was gay?)

But my Mum and Dad, God bless 'em, although they both struggled somewhat with *understanding *David being gay, accepted him and loved him just the same, as did myself and my other two brothers. (My Mum definitely found it harder to accept than my Dad or the rest or the family. Interestingly, I think that was partly to do with her more direct, almost inerrantist approach to scripture - something which is very germane to the points James raises. Plus I think she was saddened that David was almost certainly never going to give her a grandchild. The poor woman’s still waiting, now aged 70! My wife couldn’t have any more children after we got married, because of cancer; my eldest brother is a loner who doesn’t want kids, and David won’t be having a family either. That means all the pressure is on my youngest brother, who is now engaged to his fiancée! )

So while I knew in my heart that being gay wasn’t a sin, it took me quite a few years of research and reflection to understand that the Bible doesn’t say being a practising homosexual is a sin either. As James so wisely points out, for a lot of us, coming to believe in UR has involved coming to understand parts of the Bible differently. It’s a paradigm shift, a quantum leap if you like in hermeneutics.

And so, for me, is it with homosexuality. Centuries of wrong teaching, bad scholarship, oppression and prejudice dressed up as orthodoxy have created a climate where it can be difficult for an honest, Bible-believing Christian to reject the false doctrine of ECT in favour of Universalism. And centuries of wrong teaching, bad scholarship, oppression and prejudice dressed up as orthodoxy have created a climate where it can be difficult for an honest, Bible-believing Christian to reject homophobia and embrace gay men and women exactly as they do heterosexuals.

This doesn’t make such honest Christians bad or dishonest. I know. I used to be one.

Dick, I take on board what you say about the good Archbishop and the potential break-up of the Anglican communion. But personally I say, too bad. If the price that must be paid for true equality and fairness is a schism in the Anglican church, so be it.

All the best to everybody – and Sass, where are you? We miss you!

Shalom

Johnny

[Sobornost]

I think Sass might be no holiday - we all need a break from time to time.

That’s really moving story about your brother Johnny and told with truth- you can’t get much closer than that.

In defence of Rowan Willaims - yes Johnny I can see your point (but don’t be mad at me !!). I’m still thinking about this one myself (but Rowan is retiring now anyway). But I guess - although I blush to admit it - I do have some conservative with a small ‘c’ leanings (so you’ll have to be tolerant of ‘Professor Sobornost’ – you can call me what you like, most people do and sometimes it gets colourful!!! ). I can see why he wanted to move slowly and thoughtfully and prayerfully to avoid schism (but I reckon a schism is probably coming)

Bret thanks for listening to us and know we are friends. I’m always amazed at the stubborn patience of gay Christians in tolerating the rest of us. I remember a gay Christian once saying that there were actually Gay virtues – one of which is a certain very all embracing tolerance.

Blessings

Dick

[Sobornost]

I’ve read the original article properly now that Tim asks an opinion on at the beginning of this thread (hi Tim – hope you are still around).

A few things occur to me as a Brit

Its from the Huffington Post – so I guess this is sort of left leaning, liberal in opinion and readership (broadly). And the author identifies himself as one of the ‘Christian left’ (its not a label we use in the UK in a big way, but I think I broadly identify with the American Christina Left in a British sort of way). I’ve read Frank Schaeffer in the Huffington Post from time to time – and I really enjoy his stuff; he gives the Christina Right a human face even though he has come to disagree with it.

I now understand a few things about this thread that were unclear to me – like why the Christian Right has come up as a matter for discussion. The author of the article mentions a declaration that I was unaware of linking:

Anti-abortion views
The right to complete religious liberty
And anti gay partnerships sentiments

(So I guess that’s why abortion and gay rights have been implicitly linked – although I personally view these issues as separate).

I’m a Brit and we do things in our own way. I’ve always been sympathetic to the Catholic pro-life stance but I feel/know I have been ignorant in linking evangelical pro-life people with the Christian Right in the past in a too simplistic/prejudiced way. I know this I’ve recently entered into discussion with someone on this site who I respect enormously who is a pro-Life evangelical (the discussion has changed my view of abortion – there are a number of ways in which I am beginning to find easy pro-Choice rhetoric to be plain wrong, and I no longer identify American evangelical pro-choice opinion exclusively with the Religious right. And I’m still pondering this in conscience – and in the UK it is a conscience issue rather than a party political one; it is subject to individual conscience vote in Parliament and changes can only be affected by changing hearts and minds and not through political or religious lobbying).

One interesting thing that the article suggests from survey results is that many young American evangelicals are anti abortion, but affirming of gay relationships. I see this as promising if it’s true (I wouldn’t be surprised about a generational shift here).

‘The right to complete religious liberty’ could mean different things to different people. One thing I’d worry about is that some might take it to mean that the ‘religious’ were at liberty to re-criminalise gay relationships. I hope even for conservative Christians who have genuine scruples o f conscience due to sculpture and tradition this would not be seen as desirable (it’s very possible to have these scruples but still be compassionate to gay people and believe in their freedom as persons)

Blessings

Dick

[Bob_Wilson]

I found the report believable that young evangelicals are tending to be more critical of abortion than of faithful gay relationships. This is because it seems to me that there is a logic (including the nature of unselfish love) to finding that abortions are morally problematic and can involve overly convenient rationalization, but the rationale for judging gay Christians to be immoral is just not apparent to me when love is held as a supreme value.

[Sobornost]

Hi Bob -

I completely agree with your post (and admire you for being concise rather than a wind bag like me )

I know you are one of the board here and I’ve read your posts on many occasions - and love them; not only for their knowledge but also for their humanity and wisdom. Earlier in this thread a number of posts gave good links regarding new ways of reading scripture regarding what it is supposed to say about gay relationships. I’m not always convinced that we look at links when they are provided ( I got round to scanning the links given here today for the first time).
If we did have a discussion about the key texts about homosexuality in the Bible would you stick around? Your knowledge and wisdom would be much appreciated.

All very good wishes

Dick

[Bob_Wilson]

Dick,

I’m warmly grateful for the appreciation. I haven’t been terribly active on the board, but I have often read and resonated with many things that you have expressed. I’d be glad to consider exegetical arguments, though my sense is that strongly confident differences of interpretation remain on several of the key texts. I just got Arland Hultgren’s new Romans Commentary which has a large section addressing the wider Biblical issue in light of Romans’ first chapters. If I risked being transparent, my instinct, given what I have read, is that it’s true that Biblical writers probably couldn’t have imagined that they were addressing the modern concept of a Christian homosexual union. Yet my guess is that in their outlook they assumed that any homosexual activity was a perversion of proper morality. I’m afraid that I just see it in progressive revelation as akin to views of women or slaves as property, purity laws, etc, which strike me in light of Jesus’ emphasis as wrong-headed. Thus, while a few try to make a pragmatic case against homosexuality, I’m struck that most just appeal to revelatory authority, leaving most Christians with no answer to my question, as to what would make it reasonable to see a homosexual commitment as sinful in light of the values and priorities clarified in Jesus.

[Sobornost]

Dick,

Bob-

That’s absolutely wonderful (and I have need of a wisdom figure on this thread to keep me steady, if nothing else ).
Yes I completely resonate with you on seeing this issue in the light of progressive revelation (which I understand as our experience reflected on through reason and conscience; and this has to be part of ‘tradition’ now as it always has been in the past). I left ‘the Holy Spirit’ out of progressive revelation – but of course I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into new perceptions of Truth. However, as an Anglican I have reserve about using the words ‘Holy Spirit’ too freely because too greater confidence about direct inspiration can make a boy (or girl) proud and unable to see that others that differ as equally may guided in part by the Holy spirit. When I was a Quaker (which I still am at heart – but that’s another story) a similar reserve was employed regarding the leadings of the inward Light.

I’ve no great experience in biblical exegesis – I just read the works of other people. However, the little I know is confirmed by what you say with experience: it does seem like there are confident arguments on both sides of the divide about the Bible and Homosexuality. (Actually I’ve seen some confident arguments on the pro-Gay side that strike me as almost as daft as some of the arguments from the other side– like John Spong’s breezy if well meaning assertion in his ‘Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism’ that St Paul was probably gay (for which I see no certain warrant – but think he was probably trying to shock people into thinking differently rather than trying to be an objective scholar).

The rest of this post is general rather than just for Bob -

As Universalists we are used to looking at confident exegetical arguments on both sides about eternal damnation; so it should not be difficult for all of us to take a look at the exegetical arguments about homosexuality too (as James/Corpselight writes on this thread- a very keen insight he has expressed before a number of times).

Also, as Universalists we have ceased to believe in a God motivated by wrath. I think this should give us freedom to differ and feel easier about differing on complex ethical matters – because those of us who are Universalists do all believe (at least in theory) that everyone is loved by God and destined to be with God (and therefore we should love God and love our neighbour as our self’ - and ‘the rest is commentary’. The ‘commentary is important – our God of love wants us, his children, to live creatively as free people in this good world. God has given us the freedom to differ on the commentary – without having to fearfully shore up our partial opinions with threats of hellfire against people of goodwill with different opinions.

And finally – I reckon it would be good to look at the key texts because some of these text are only half known and half understood even by Bible based Christians. Therefore they can exert an influence in promoting fear and prejudice. Just to understand honest differences of opinion is part of loving our neighbour and requires the effort to look at scripture carefully rather than react from the gut.

Back to Bob -

So let’s talk Bob – at our own time and pace. I’ll look at the story of Sodom for starters in my next post. (I’ll try not to make huge demands on your time – and am so delighted to be chatting).

All very good wishes

Dick

[Sobornost]

Just a coffee break digression before getting down to the nitty gritty

It’s for anyone adn everyone to skip or to read.

I’d just like to say something about the ‘Brit’ political perspective. We have limited space in the UK and this informs mainstream opinion quite a lot in my view. People of all shades of political and religious views just have to get along with each other, because they can;t get away fmor each other. Any whiff of a Religious Right (especially of the sectarian variety) makes those of us who comprehend it a bit frightened (because this would tear our small country to bits); and then we have to have a laugh . Middle aged buffers like me – with an interest in history – can take solace by remembering one piece of our history romantically; namely when Olive Cromwell dismissed a ‘sectarian Religious Right’ parliament here with –‘ Ye are a fractious crew… ye have sat here too long…ye have no more religion than my horse…ye have sold your country for a mess of pottage… remove the bauble!’ (‘the bauble’ being a contemptuous term for the mace in Parliament – ten symbol of Parliament’s authority that his lot had, in ‘good’ Oliver’s view, debased).

There are some really odd alliances in Britain on the gay issue. Peter Tatchell is a very brave gay activist – who has frequently got his head kicked in around the globe. His background is Pentecostal Christian – I’m not sure what his faith is now; but I’ve certainly seen him write about his childhood faith making him valiant for truth in later life. Now Peter Tatchell first came to prominence in the 1980’s as a Labour parliamentary candidate. I can’t imagine him begin a good politician because he wears his heart on his sleeve too much – but it was very wrong that he was smeared by our ‘nice party’ the Liberals at the time – by leak and innuendo -for being gay. And the candidate who beat him – a man how is a Conservative Evangelical in religion but Liberal in politics – has turned out to be a gay man himself.

Peter Tatchell was the leading light in a group called ‘Outrage’ who used to ‘out’ Church of England Clergymen who spoke hastily against homosexuality while being actively homosexual themselves ( I could see his point, but I was never happy with these tactics when I read about them – but he was young and a passion flower at the time). However, as a grown up mature man he is fast becoming a bit of a national treasure because of his integrity. His attempt to put Robert Mugabe under citizen’s arrest, for example, gained him wide respects even from the Conservative Right in this country. Even Norman Tebbit – a former minister of Margaret Thatcher’s who at one point seemed almost obsessed with bringing the subject of ‘sodomy’ into political interviews – has had a cordial dinner with him, and they liked each other.

At the moment Peter Tatchell is jointly running a campaign lobbying to protect the right to give offence in public. He is concerned that people can no longer speak freely about homosexuality. A child was cautioned for calling a police horse ‘gay’ recently. Elderly conservative Christians have been cautioned for picketing gay pride marches with banners declaring God’s judgement on gays. Gay activists have been banned from picketing Islamic Fundamentalist rallies that call for the death penalty for gay people. And Peter Tatchell is leading the charge in defence of giving offence with David Davis – a Conservative MP – and people from conservative Christian groups; what a very British alliance I say!.
When does offence turn into hate crime? – well that’s a subject worth pondering; but I applaud valiant Peter for raising the issue for our deliberation.

The reason for this digression is that obviously there are issues that more conservative Christians and more liberal ones may want to raise outside of the Biblical discussion here(I note the issue of the ’gay lifestyle’ came up earlier). Well if we do want to discuss this I hope we can do it after we’ve looked at scripture, tradition and homosexuality’ (otherwise everything will blend together in a confusing ‘blobbiness’).

And if, and when, we do discuss gay lifestyles, I hope it’s not done in an offensive manner nor directed at Bret - because it is so good to have a ‘non-heated discussion’ on this subject – absolutely excellent , and Bret is very brave and deserves our support, affection, and attention.

Blessings

Dick

[Bret_Belko]

Dick,

Thank you for the kind words, I do believe they come from your heart. I DO have a question for you (and I put myself in that same “middle-aged” category as YOU), just WHAT is the “gay lifestyle??” Guess I’m saying that my lifestyle, as some on this board can atest to, is no different than say yours. Of course, in any given sect or population, there are many, many lifestyles, so I ask this question becuase it “seems” to ME that by saying the “gay lifestyle,” I’m not sure what you or anyone else is referring to. As I’ve stated, there are so many variances in the way people live, even in religion. We have Jews, we have Islamics, we have Christians, etc., we have women, we have men, the list goes on ad infinitum. And within those sects, there ARE subsets who clearly think and act differently. Even on THIS board, an Universalist board, we can note that each of us comes from a different perspective. So the term “gay lifetstyle” can refer to the “militant” gays out there(I don’t personally identify with them), we have gays, like myself and my partner (who have been together for 19 years), we have the single gays looking for love (just like any other young person or old person for that matter), folks like me who have never been a gay “activist” and think that this activity is both detremental AND helpful, there are the gays one sees on TV which is very sensationalized, and as I have said earlier… one CAN find in any of the aforementioned groups (Islamics, Jews, Christians, white, black, and any nationality of course) BAD behavior. This is NOT unique to us and I do believe that someone said that MAYBE “we” as gays, having been marginalized all our lives, seem to protest “loudly and obnoxiously” so as to be heard. Now, that’s not me. I just as soon go to church (which I have been kicked out of for WHO I AM), live my life quietly, etc. Yes, I pray, I worship God, I pay tithe, I feed the hungry, etc. My life is pretty normal other than my physical decline. I hesitate here because I do NOT want to happen what happened once before on this board around THIS topic (guess I’m extremely sensitive for ALL of US here, we ALL have different views and I do not want to be the cause of pain and suffering nor do I want to get hurt myself by my fellows… it’s like walking on egg shells). So with that said, I already have said I was NOT going to participate in this conversation because I don’t feel the NEED to convince ANYONE that I am saved. Nor do I think it necessary for those who think I’m living in sin to HAVE to accept me. In AA we have a saying, “Live and let live.” Also they say, “Let go and let God.” So the Holy Spirit has some play in all of this. It’s not MY job to convince anyone of anything. I want to live and let live. God will take care of my “issues” however He sees fit AND I’m ok with that. The same goes for other folks… whether it’s pride, arrogance, being fat, depressed, lonely, sad, sick, hungry, etc., whatever the heck someone else’s story is, is just that. I pray that I CAN unconditionally love everyone with NO hesitation (after all, most of us DO believe that we ALL will be at His banquet table)… I won’t get into the topic of liking everyone!!! Think that’s been covered enough on another thread!

So in closing, just what are WE referring to when we talk about the “gay lifestyle?”

Blessings to ALL you participants on this very touchy subject. I pray we ALL can find our own way and bring love and joy to each other and NOT be a thorn in each other’s side. I myself, would rather disappear than cause ANYONE any grief around this issue. So again, blessings to you all, sincerely!!!

Bret

[Bret_Belko]

Just a FYI, RuthJ wrote an excellent article on “The Sin of Sodom,” I believe it’s under the General Theology section. But I’m not quite sure. Ruth, IF you read this and I’m not correct on where that article is, would you please help me out here and direct folks to it??? It’s well worth your time in reading it! She did a fine job in writing it and it must have taken her many hours to compose. I applaud you Ruth!!

Blessings again,
Bret

[Sobornost]

Bret - and I really don’t think there is such a thing as ‘the gay lifestyle’; it just saw that it came up as an issue earlier in the thread and I wanted to park it to look at the Bible first and then look at the myths about ‘gay lifestyle’ afterwards. The gay men I’ve known have all been completely different - and my closest gay friend was, for example, theologically conservative - far more so than me - and completely romantic and almost chivalric in his view of love (hopelesly so actually - although he was very down to earth in every other way).

But I think we need to look at myths to dispel them. In dispelling myths I think its always good to see where they come from, and why the fears are there with a steady nerve. Then you can get somewhere with people who are undecided.

Funnily enough this afternoon I’ve been having a cup of coffee with a couple of very macho blokes - one Greek the other Palestinian - and thought I’d test out the issues of gay partnerships with them - and they were all over the shop, jumping from one issue to another, mixing up nature and nurture debates, transsexuals, transvestites, gay men, sex offenders, rapists all in a blob of pathological fear. The Palestinian chap kept poking me in the chest and banging on about how in Iran the regime spends lots of money on sex change operations out of compassion. I said yes and they also kill actively gay men with impunity- and got another poke in the chest. I’d heard about this before - the industrial scale of sex change operations in Iran. It made me think that one of the most primitive fears that gay relationships can raise in majority straight society is that they don’t fit into clearly defined categories of the way things ‘normally’ are – that’s the way they are for the majority crudely defined without proper distinctions. Hence they are deemed ‘unclean’ and ‘taboo’ and ‘the gay lifestyle’ is a rather convenient category for labelling this taboo. From what I know this way of carving up the world is also behind taboos about eating certain animals in the Torah - for example crabs are neither fish nor land animals; they just don’t fit properly. So yes I see your concern with me having used this label - but trust me that I want to question it.

Last time the issue of gay relationships got an airing on site I noted a similar level of fear and stereotyping here - so I just thought it best to take the discussion one issue at a time, without sidelining any issues of fear and misunderstanding that we well know people have, but considering them at a measured pace.

You may be right that although I am sincere I still haven’t comepltely worked through all of my own ignorance and prejudices; that could well be the case - but I am open to listening and learning’ We all have prejudices in some way - and I was impressed by James Alison the gay Catholic who always acknowledges that he too given the wrong circumstances could be a member of a lynch mob.

You just have to trust my good faith on this - I won’t let you down. I may seem to be taking a conservative stance here sometimes - but actually I’ just trying to look at what the fears of conservatives of good faith might be. That may sometimes annoy you - but Johnny will biff me if I really start sounding prudish and straight laced, and I know you will too.

I’ll have a careful look at Ruth’s article - I’ve got some thoughts on the story of Sodom from a wonderful book I once read on the ‘forbidden’ stories of the Bible named ‘The Harlot by the side of the Road’. If I have any other insights gleaned from this book I’ll add these to what Ruth has already said.

I’ve been invited out tonight so I’ll come back to this thread tomorrow.

Tell me if you have an misgivings and of course I’ll change tack - you should have the last word here.

Peace and blessings

Dick

[Bret_Belko]

ooooooooh Dick, CLEARLY I did a very, very poor job in asking my question! I, by NO means, was coming after YOU, no way no how. That would be MY fault that I was not clear. I understand completely where you were coming from and obviously did a poor job at communicating that. I humbly apologize. My curiousity just got the best of me as I was truly wondering what “the gay lifestyle” is… nothing more nothing less. There was NO hidden agenda my friend and I’m afraid by reading your response, I put you on the defensive. NOT my intention at all Professor!! So forgive my lack of clarity here?? My best friend in the whole world (straight, married with kids, an Universalist, etc.) have had this discussion before (around the term gay lifestyle, he knows I don’t like it, but what else does one really call it?) and sometimes we just have to sit back and laugh at ourselves!! Lets face if Prof, in the straight world, there are “swingers,” a religion who used to support polygymay, open relationships, folks who live together with “benefits,” the list goes on and on, so my small point and question is merely how do WE bunch everyone of a population into a “lifestyle?” That is a serious question, but in reality, NOT a very important one in my opinion, so maybe I should have not said anything at all because it’s not that big of a deal in reality. I was NOT, repeat, was NOT coming down on you in any fashion. Truly. And if I came across like that, I am terribly sorry. I like reading your stuff, it’s heartfelt and thought provoking to me. And I usually don’t throw insults “hidden” in my public messages, I MAY take up something that sounds offensive to me in a Private Message, but NEVER on a public forum. Just not my style is all. I don’t want to humiliate or embarass anyone… Love God first and your neighbor as yourself. So I don’t like it when I’m publicly taken to task or humliated, thus I try my hardest not to do it that to others.

So, I was merely asking a small question to see what you might think “our”/my lifestyle is? No hidden agenda or condemnation whatsoever, honest injun! So no worries Prof, you have nothing to worry about. You speak from your heart and it appears (loud and clear actually) that you ARE open to a polite and kind discussion. I believe that or I wouldn’t be responding to you. Again, no worries man, I just didn’t do a very satisfying job of explaining myself. My fault.

So, many blessings to you Prof and thank you for the conversation.

Bret P.S. One more HUGE thing… I KNOW “YOU won’t let me down,” AND I DO trust you!!!

[Sobornost]

Oh Bret - you are a real card!!! It’s so nice of you to consider my feelings and with such good humour!!! I just have a big mouth - hence the method acting drama this afternoon from which the prodding still smarts But I hate offending anyone or making anyone feel uncomfortable. I have mused before that this combintaion of characteristics in one person is a heavy burden to bear. St Teresa of Avila once berated God with chutzpah whne her baggage train was washed away ni a storm crying - 'If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them! (and I sometimes feel this about the mix in my character )

Och well I guess I’m especially sensitive to you becuase you’ve made yoursefl vulnerable - perhaps that’s an Enlgish thing. I’ll chillax wiht you now and count you a friend on the level!

And you are absolutely right about ‘hetrosexual lifestyles’ - even in the Bible its not only polygamy; its conubinage, surrogacy, and even incest (with Lot and his daughters)!!! And I’m never suprised by what I hear about people - and especially ‘the righteous’ can be shockers from time to time

Blessings from

The Prof.

[Sobornost]

And I’m a lousy speller if I don’t use spellcheck!!!

[Bob_Wilson]

Dick,

I received a unique email from my alma mater, Fuller Seminary, a leading U.S. evangelical seminary, that suggests evangelicals may not be able to dodge this controversy. First, thesemi.org/semi-the-black-issue, a terribly fascinating link to their student magazine in which the Provost (chief academic officer) and still a faculty member in the missions school, explains why he is affirming of his daughter’s lesbian union (plus a print of her own story). He admits that he can’t exegetically solve all the texts, but says he can’t see why it would be immoral, and that his daughter is far healthier now than under the traditional view.

Also a link to Fuller President, Dr. Richard Mouw’s talk to the school, by167w.bay167.mail.live.com/defa … 334bc&fv=1)
which I hear as trying to balance freedom for discussion of this issue, along with discouraging the undermining of the traditional conclusion! He dismisses the Leviticus text as not necessarily relevant, but thinks Romans is clear, and that Sodom clearly involves homosexual rape (while others are equally convinced the sin here is something else). It is amazing how bright scholars can be so equally sure of contrasting interpretations! Again, as above, I suspect that it is because biased paradigms are brought by both sides, and conclusions depend on which side of the tension which I suggested above they are each inclined to emphasize.

Grace be with you,

Bob

P.S. Dick and Bret, I think “gay lifestyle” is often employed as an indirect but pejorative way of referring to participating in gay sexual acts. But it is so unclear and implies false generalizations, such that I detest it as a useful term.

[sass]

Just a quick blurb on the term “Gay Lifestyle”: I do think it is slightly negative because the thrust behind the word “lifestyle” would imply CHOICE. As in a traditional Evangelical believing a gay person CHOOSES to live as a homosexual.

But, I’m still not getting into this!

Sass

[revdrew61]

Bob, Thanks for posting the Lingenfelter link. Excellent to see a Father’s compassion overruling his conservative theological training and instinct.

Great discussion everyone. Sorry I haven’t had time to join in. For what its worth, one of things which began to nudge me out of my previous conservative view of homosexuality was the realisation that we supporters of ‘the bible’s clear teaching’ often sounded more like the pharisees than like Jesus. Then when I got to know some gay christians I noticed that their lifestyle was in many significant ways more christlike than mine.

[Bret_Belko]

Dear Sass,

You ARE a bigger (not as in size , because, clearly that’s NOT the case) soul than I as I too, was going to do my best to stay out of THIS conversation. I have failed miserably! My hat is off to you as I clearly have not stuck to my word. However, I DO think you (due to your personal relationship with gays, and having a very dear friend die over this) have much to offer and bring to the table. I SHOULD, once again, follow your lead and stay off this topc as I am way to close to the situation and get hurt too easily, which is NOBODY else’s problem except mine. I am responsible for me, my words, AND my reactions. I don’t always do a very good job of staying objective and that is a real problem of MINE, and no one else’s!!! I DO respect your choices Sass and know that you will do what YOU feel is best and right for YOU. Hopefully, I can follw your lead in the future… that would be very helpful for me.

And Prof… YOU are a hoot and a real kick in the pants, ya know!!! Yes, we are on the same page and we can definitely consider ourselves on an even playing field, which in my book means that yes, we are friends and on the “level.” I too, have a terrible time without “spell check,” I really miss it on this board as my spelling is for crap!

So LOVE to you Sass, the Professor, Bob, Tim, Matt and whoever else I’ve forgotten to mention! Brain fade here!

I mean that in ALL sincerity and IF I need to qualify anything, send me an email and we will try to work it out… God willing.

Again, love to you all,
Bret

[Bret_Belko]

And you too, Rev!!! You’re a gem yourself, along with the rest of these dear people. Guess we’re ALL just trying to find our own way the best we can… So thanks again to ALL who have particpated in this difficult conversation. Y’all are very much appreciated!

Blessings,
Bret