Revoice is a new organization composed of people who seek “to encourage, support, and empower gay, lesbian, and other same-sex attracted Christians so they can experience the life-giving character of the historic, Christian sexual ethic.” The group encourages same-sex attracted people to be open about their orientation in traditional church but to remain celibate.
Despite the emphasis on celibacy, they are open about their experiences and they reject efforts to change orientation. They also openly describe themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
Revoice has scheduled a conference in late July that has generated some controversy, especially among those restless reformed folk who brought us the Nashville Statement.
A quick critic of the conference has emerged in Owen Strachan. In a post at the Center for Public Theology, Strachan begins with a case study of a divorced couple who parted ways over the husband’s homosexuality. He suggests that Revoice will teach things that lead to such divorces. Strachan then offers his own answers which he claims lead to hope.
The Rest of Many Stories
Strachan tells us that a person dealing with same-sex attraction is “not a special case.” He adds that the “key to victory in this area” is “understanding this, and rejecting the now-common spirit of victimhood.” Strachan assures the reader that Jesus is bigger than “any attraction, any lust, any unbiblical identity. ”
Without contesting his theological rhetoric at this point, I think it is only fair to offer some contrasting vignettes to his story. In fact, I suspect Revoice has emerged because the approach that Strachan advocates hasn’t worked very well. This is the practical problem for those who criticize Revoice. Despite the theological precision, there is a long history of damage which cannot be denied.
Ex-Gay History
I have been researching and counseling same-sex attracted evangelicals since 1998. Initially, I defended reorientation therapy and ex-gay ministries. Yet, after much clinical experience and a reevaluation of the evidence, I changed my views. Here are just a few vignettes and points which should make Rev. Strachan reconsider his confident critique of Revoice. The men below once advocated an approach to victory over what they once considered sin which is very much like what Strachan wrote about in his critique of Revoice.
Michael Bussee
One of the founders of Exodus International, Michael Bussee and his eventual lover Gary Cooper left Exodus when they admitted to each other that they hadn’t changed orientation. They had been advised by their Christian ministry to believe God was giving them victory over their temptations but the victory never came.
John Paulk
The founder of Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out program, John Paulk was described by Christianity Today as the “poster boy” for the ex-gay movement. He was photographed in a gay bar while leading the movement and then after he left FOTF in 2003, he later divorced his wife Anne in 2013 and came out again as gay.
John Smid
John Smid was the director of Love in Action in Memphis TN, one of the flagship ministries of Exodus International. LIA was very much geared toward avoiding temptation, the appearance of evil, mortification of the flesh and generally following the kind of advice articulated by Strachen. However, sometime after Exodus closed down in 2013, Smid and his wife divorced and he later married a man.
Randy Thomas
Randy Thomas was for many years a leader in Exodus International and was Vice-President at the time it closed. Exodus rejected identity labels like gay or lesbian. While with Exodua, Thomas spoke to groups and exhorted them to victory over the flesh with slogans like “the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality but holiness.” Five years after the closing of Exodus, Randy is out as bisexual and in a same-sex relationship.
I could go on. There are many such stories. I also know people who manage to adhere to their traditional views. Some go along with Strachan’s views whereas more lean toward Revoice’s approach.
Get Real
Like so many from the Exodus International era, Strachan throws out theological language which sounds hopeful in theory but doesn’t work out so well in practice when applied to LGBT people. Comparing sexual orientation to greed or anger just shows how little one understands about the subject and the real people involved.
Strachan has every right to advocate for his theological understanding of sexual orientation. However, my objection is the rhetoric which promises victory, without defining what that means. When I read that Jesus is “bigger” than something, I think He is going to conquer it or take it away. When I read victory, I think actual winning.
Strachan then promises that his way is better than Revoice’s way. Reality and experience say otherwise. This is a real problem which he doesn’t confront. Maybe he doesn’t know enough GLBT people to know it is a problem. But it is definitely is a problem because in actual practice, real people infrequently get the results promised by the rhetoric used in the article.
Instead of criticizing his brothers and sisters, perhaps Strachan should work on making his own message a little clearer. Tell his readers that people rarely change and that there are just as many failures as he defines them using his method as use the others he dislikes. That would at least be more honest.
People who want to remain traditional in their actions have a hard enough time without being severely criticized by those who are, in many ways, ideologically similar. Indeed, it might be that exclusionary attitude that makes progressives look attractive.
I would like for everybody to read the article written by the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi about John Paulk, but I think it could also apply to Michael Bussee, John Smid, and Randy Thomas, in terms of similar behavior patterns:
https://www.josephnicolosi.com/my-old-friend-john-paulk/?fbclid=IwAR1EOpIZUX2_0c_Sq4FDEb3yHyqwCh9vwTLZGpFKD9V8ZVdl_kifWA3ROO0
Regardless of what anybody thinks of SOCE, it is important to note that both Dr. Throckmorton and Dr. Nicolosi see Exodus and other exgay ministries as problematic, in terms of them setting high expectations which creates emotional issues for many vulnerable people when they are not being met, especially “change.” In this article, Nicolosi, also blames Exodus et al for what happened to John Paulk. I can see that Reverend Strachan is following the same pattern of setting expectations, from which I can deduce could also leave many people heartbroken.
Nicolosi was not candid in all of his work about this topic. Privately and in his NARTH speeches he encourages complete change. Check out this post /2012/07/27/emails-contradict-dr-nicolosis-conflicting-claims-of-cure/. Nicolosi was supremely confident in his abilities and methods. That confidence was misplaced.
Nicolosi gave me false hope and a belief in something that wasn’t real. I wasted an enormous part of my life because of him. His treatment plan for LGB is the same as GID treatment. Well, it cured my gender dysphoria just fine, but it didn’t do squat for my same-sex attraction, which is still my dominant attraction most of the time.
You are much more diplomat than I am. They are scammers selling false hopes and thriving upon the misery of struggling people.
Quite simply, “Victory” means no more of that nasty homo-sex of which Evangelicals so disapprove.
Sure, a person can have same-sex attraction. But act on it, so that others are aware of it? Nope.
Strachan wrote: “In this text (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), Paul explicitly addresses both partners in a homosexual coupling, identifying their behavior as evil.”
Only if you interpret it in such a way as to privilege yourself at the expense of “the other.”
Reading Strachan’s article…he’s really lazy, isn’t he? Here he is, barely recycling the same old racist arguments against a multi-ethnic minority group. Is Romans 1:22-27 really applicable to people who affirm the reality, dignity and integrity of an oppressed worldwide minority group? Or, would it instead apply to people like Strachan who use the religion of the status quo and pseudo-intellectualism to affirm the unearned power and privilege of the oppressor?
LGBT+ Evangelicals can have difficult decisions to make, but the demand to “change” your gender relationship orientation should be rejected out of hand.
Fwiw I know at least two people who formerly identified as gay who are now in heterosexual marriages and are and have ostensibly been happy for years. Possibly relevant: both are women. Unfortunately I don’t know them well enough to ask if they still experience same-sex attraction. Possibly so.
I also know such people, and yes women seem to experience this more than men. However, this issue for me isn’t what some people are able to do. It is what ministries say all people can do if they just do what they’re told to do. All the examples in my post tried to do what Strachan exhorted but it didn’t help them or lead to the victory implied.
Mentioned only because of this section: “…they reject efforts to change orientation…”
My guess is that most of them aren’t opposed to orientation change per se but rather to “silver bullet” programs that purport to effect that change through some sort of 12-step program or systematized prayer process.
Nate Collins, at least, is married (to a woman) and has been open about the fact that he still occasionally experiences same-sex attraction. I suspect he would not object to a full orientation change if God were to miraculously deliver him from S.S.A.
It might be possible that these women had more bisexual inclinations than they forethought, but this is a big “might”.
Maybe I am out of place to post here. I won’t be going to the Revoice conference because I simply can’t afford to. But I am one of those celibate gay guys.
The thing is that there really is no where for people like us.
On the one hand, frankly, conservative churches that share our views on marriage and sexuality let us come to church but pretty much block most of us from actually taking part in the life of the congregation. For my part, I was once asked to lead a youth Bible study. The pastor, knowing I was gay, initially agreed anyway. But then, a week before the class was supposed to start, changed his mind. With a sudden change just before the class was supposed to start and no explanation from the pastor (only a few members of the congregation knew I was gay at that point) rumors started that he feared I might molest kids. So I get really weird looks from parents in the congregation and feel very uncomfortable. I still go but I make sure I get to church 5 minutes late and leave after I have stayed just long enough at coffee afterwards to make my mother feel comfortable. That way I don’t have to deal with interacting with people who think I might hurt their kids. I would change churches except I grew up in that church and actually agree with the theology.
I don’t feel at home among LGBT people and allies either. Even though I would vote for gay marriage if it had not already been decided by the courts and support career and housing protections for LGBT people, the fact remains that I chose celibacy because I just can’t accept the hermeneutics that would make the Bible approve of gay marriage. So my decision is not just a personal option but is based on what I do believe the Bible says. And that fact alone means that many LGBT people seem to see me as an enemy no matter how much I respect their own decision to marry or seek a companion.
I did not fit in Exodus, though I attended, when it was active because for the last 20 years or so I had stopped seeking orientation change. I had tried several methods (including behavior modification in high school – a practice I, unfortunately, took to extremes leaving razor scars on my arms). But none of them had worked. So Exodus provided some fellowship but most of it left me feeling blah because it was all aimed at something I no longer was working toward.
I don’t think those who are organizing Revoice are trying to dial back gay marriage. I hope not. I saw too many of my friends bullied when I was a kid. Thankfully, although most other students knew I was gay, I did not experience too much trauma. But one friend was bullied to the point he ran away at 16. Another tried to kill himself at 18. And still another succeed in killing himself in his 20s. I think that life and health are often more important than theological purity. So if gay marriage saves some kids today who might otherwise have ended up like my friends, I am all for it.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I still choose celibacy and do so on the grounds that I believe the Bible doesn’t really leave me any other option.
From what I can see, Revoice is saying we need someplace safe too. We are stuck between the churches who, in the words of Strachan himself, count us unqualified to even teach VBS, and LGBT people who sees us as the enemy even when we are not pushing them to accept our view of morality. It is a position we can’t get out of without sacrificing something that is essential to ourselves. So we would kind of like someplace where we can have friends and even talk about our experiences without getting jumped for “not finding our identity in Christ” or scolded for not being support enough of the LGBT experience.
I think this is what Revoice is aiming at. I hope so.
This is your right, and you are being honest about both who you are and how you have decided to live your life. You deserve much better than your church is giving you. There are safer spaces which still provide the doctrinal foundation with which you feel comfortable and the maturity not to make such bizarre assumptions. Unfortunately, you may have to go find them elsewhere.
Good luck and definitely continue to participate here if you like. You aren’t out of place.
I am sorry that you have experienced that kind of unfairness in church. People like you are my personal heroes because you pursue Jesus despite the failure of Christians to treat you with the same respect they would treat anyone else who is fighting a daily battle to remain faithful. Which would be, uh, all of us.
Beautifully said…thank you!
I have a friend who was physically removed from a church for disclosing his same sex attraction. Despite that, he was persistent in seeking out a church that would walk with him, and he followed Jesus no matter how poorly he was treated. And he won. He is secure in his faith and happy.
Thank you for sharing that…heartbreaking and yet he sounds like a great person who has chosen Jesus no matter what. May we all learn from this example…thanks again.
Thank you Matt…my experience mirrors your in many ways. Glad I am not alone…
I’m sorry to hear you experience rejection from both gay and Christian communities. It makes me wonder if those gay people who saw you as the enemy were secular. As for the situation in your church, I think it shows that all people, even those who are faithful Christians, are all sinners and we tend to do hurtful things to each other, even unintentionally. That influences us to search for communities that are more “fit” to our imperfect natures. I wish you all the best in finding yourself at a place where you can serve God and enrich peoples’ lives around you to the best of your abilities.
Maybe I am out of place to post here. I won’t be going to the Revoice conference because I simply can’t afford to. But I am one of those celibate gay guys.
The thing is that there really is no where for people like us.
On the one hand, frankly, conservative churches that share our views on marriage and sexuality let us come to church but pretty much block most of us from actually taking part in the life of the congregation. For my part, I was once asked to lead a youth Bible study. The pastor, knowing I was gay, initially agreed anyway. But then, a week before the class was supposed to start, changed his mind. With a sudden change just before the class was supposed to start and no explanation from the pastor (only a few members of the congregation knew I was gay at that point) rumors started that he feared I might molest kids. So I get really weird looks from parents in the congregation and feel very uncomfortable. I still go but I make sure I get to church 5 minutes late and leave after I have stayed just long enough at coffee afterwards to make my mother feel comfortable. That way I don’t have to deal with interacting with people who think I might hurt their kids. I would change churches except I grew up in that church and actually agree with the theology.
I don’t feel at home among LGBT people and allies either. Even though I would vote for gay marriage if it had not already been decided by the courts and support career and housing protections for LGBT people, the fact remains that I chose celibacy because I just can’t accept the hermeneutics that would make the Bible approve of gay marriage. So my decision is not just a personal option but is based on what I do believe the Bible says. And that fact alone means that many LGBT people seem to see me as an enemy no matter how much I respect their own decision to marry or seek a companion.
I did not fit in Exodus, though I attended, when it was active because for the last 20 years or so I had stopped seeking orientation change. I had tried several methods (including behavior modification in high school – a practice I, unfortunately, took to extremes leaving razor scars on my arms). But none of them had worked. So Exodus provided some fellowship but most of it left me feeling blah because it was all aimed at something I no longer was working toward.
I don’t think those who are organizing Revoice are trying to dial back gay marriage. I hope not. I saw too many of my friends bullied when I was a kid. Thankfully, although most other students knew I was gay, I did not experience too much trauma. But one friend was bullied to the point he ran away at 16. Another tried to kill himself at 18. And still another succeed in killing himself in his 20s. I think that life and health are often more important than theological purity. So if gay marriage saves some kids today who might otherwise have ended up like my friends, I am all for it.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I still choose celibacy and do so on the grounds that I believe the Bible doesn’t really leave me any other option.
From what I can see, Revoice is saying we need someplace safe too. We are stuck between the churches who, in the words of Strachan himself, count us unqualified to even teach VBS, and LGBT people who sees us as the enemy even when we are not pushing them to accept our view of morality. It is a position we can’t get out of without sacrificing something that is essential to ourselves. So we would kind of like someplace where we can have friends and even talk about our experiences without getting jumped for “not finding our identity in Christ” or scolded for not being support enough of the LGBT experience.
I think this is what Revoice is aiming at. I hope so.
Matt – Thanks for sharing your experience. Yes, I think Revoice is aiming to help in the space where you live.
I believe the correct spelling of Owen’s last name is Strachan.
Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected all the instances I found. If I missed anything. please let me know.
Speaking of ex-gays, this sounds an awful lot like Michael Glatze, don’t you think?
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/03/blind-item-8_11.html?m=1
I can’t imagine the former ‘ex-gay’ leaders you mentioned are supportive of the Revoice position either. These men are now all out gay men who probably do not support the “Side B” position of celibacy or mixed-orientation marriage which seem as untenable as ‘ex-gay’ treatment. Revoice seems to be yet another attempt to re-brand the ‘ex-gay’ movement.
No, that is true about those leaders. However, even the APA recognizes that celibacy is an acceptable counseling goal for evangelicals who believe they shouldn’t engage in gay relationships.
You imply that Warren holds his view on celibacy because of the APA position. He did not say that, rather he said “even the APA recognizes…” You again try to impugn his character with false innuendo. Why?
I may be wrong, but I think Dr. T held to that goal before the APA did. In fact, I think his work had some influence on the APA adopting it.
Yes, that’s true. You’ve been around this issue awhile if you are aware of the events leading up to the 2009 APA report.
I have followed you for awhile and luckily, history is printed in the New York Times..
I have a question about your part in that history Warren. Originally, the APA was going to release a resolution similar to the 2009 one, back in 1998. There was push back from groups like NARTH saying that the science was inconclusive and SOCE shouldn’t be banned. So the APA modified the resolution (and basically told the SOCE proponents to get them the evidence on the efficacy of their treatments). 10 years later when they produced on research in support of such treatments, the APA revised the 1998 resolution.
My question to you Warren is, were you part of the group in 1998 claiming they just needed more time to show the efficacy of SOCE?
That was not your point. Not close. No cigar.
Well that is certainly one bizarre take on things…
There is an important distinction between ‘caving on the authority of the scripture’ and ‘choosing not to permit a guy named Robert on the internet to interpret the scripture for me’. There are many Christian traditions. Unsurprisingly, there are just as many interpretations of the scripture. Not all interpret it as you choose to.
They may be laughed off by you, but millions of other Christians believe otherwise. There are many churches that do not interpret the scripture as you choose to, and this very site has many who post routinely on that topic.
You are not the arbiter of who is right or wrong in their interpretation. I follow Jesus, not Robert on the Internet.
At what point did popular start indicating correct in churches?
I would rather follow the Man in the Moon than Robert on the Internet.
Skyrocketing open racism these days as well. Maybe there is something to conservative views and hatred of others. I mean it’s not like the bible wasn’t used to justify slavery and non race mixin’, right?
Not really. I don’t recall the Epicurean or Stoic or Quaker, writings supporting those ideas.
I don’t know that I would talk about laughing anything off stage when you believe that, Adam and Eve were real people and there was a real Noah’s Ark. The biblical authority of any subject is irrelevant outside the Christian cult.
But please entertain us on the authority of a Frenchman from the 16th century.
Like we haven’t heard you play your greatest hits until the needle has worn down?
For the goddess’s sake, Robert, the man is a psychologist and a member of the APA who has made important contributions to it. When I fly as a passenger, I’m counting on a member of the APA (Allied Pilots Association) to fly according to their rules and assume that she’s not referring to Scriptures as her authority or trying to land on Mt. Sinai.
As I said before, Dr. T contributed to the APA’s awareness of good patient outcomes. How you can make that into Scripture abandonment and a cave-in shows how far you will go to get your own way, no matter how misguided or benighted that way is. Isn’t humility and a willingness to learn a virtue in your tribe?
Christian psychologist does not equal Nouthetic counselor – that is your opinion, not fact. Actually, most everything in your comment is your own personal opinion, which you have made clear a billion times or so. At some point you need to just agree to disagree and get past it. If you can’t do that, then perhaps you should reconsider if this is a good place for you to participate. The only other option is to admit you basically want to be a troll.
I think you already know that is an absurd statement, just as absurd as saying a Christian MD must follow scripture above the AMA or their medical training. However, I’m curious, what happens when scripture is wrong, or simply silent on the issue in question?
What you are asking of Warren really is nouthetic counseling.
When one claims to be a Christian psychologist, he’s responsible also to address issues of sin from a Christian perspective, especially if he’s going to weigh in moral issues, their treatment, etc. Warren isn’t doing that.
What you’re asking is for a social scientist to ignore evidence in favor of one interpretation (that you happen to endorse without question) from the Bible that was written 2,000 (?) years ago in a different language, context and time and by different authors, but none of them Jesus himself. You insist that you are right, and there’s no way you can be wrong, despite evidence. Furthermore, you claim that even if the evidence is true, it should be ignored in favor of the Scripture as you see it.
You’re a force of 1, Robert, and I don’t see you gaining any adherents. In that case, maybe find another cause on another blog and accept that Dr. T isn’t going to change for you. Nor should he.
Also, Robert, you’re the one claiming gay is a moral issue. Most people see it as a science issue – even Christians. Whether you think they’re real Christians or not is irrelevant.
This really is only relevant to you. Nobody besides yourself really cares what you are willing to accept. Things are how they are regardless of your acceptance. It just isn’t about you.
And to your last point, people aren’t replying to you because they expect to change your mind. They are replying to you because for many of us, leaving nonsense and often defamatory statements, along with fake authority to interpret God is something that should be replied to.
You really do need to stop making false statements, Robert. Warren gave his input as part of the process. The APA and the DSM are vital to his profession. Two or more times now you have tried to denigrate what should otherwise be seen as a positive contribution even by your own standards. Each time you are corrected you move to a new insult.
Warren, just like anyone else, has the right to be the kind of Christian his conscience and understanding of God dictate, regardless of your opinion of him or your view of the requirements of scripture. You are not God nor His spokesman, nor Warren’s father confessor. You may see the Church as a place for nice, Robert shaped cookie-cutter people all walking in lockstep, but others don’t. The descriptor is not licensed through you, but you are so angry with him that it’s the best you can do.
Your behavior is atrocious. You are the best living example of a clanging cymbal I’ve ever seen. If you can’t govern yourself better than you have, I strongly suggest you take a break and try to learn how to have a discussion with others outside your own bubble. As it is, you make no legitimate contribution to the discussion, on the contrary, you detract from it, repeating misinformation over and over.
So. Focused. On. Gay. Sex.
It’s….just hanging out there…for all to see…
Points 1-3 are just nonsense and more dogma – I’m sure God will be singularly impressed with the opinions which you attribute to Him.
I don’t know about “many other things” but your actions are beginning to make me wonder if I shouldn’t change my position on the whole demon thing.
Talk about a double standard. Are we to hold you to all the things said by so-called leaders in the Christian Church? Dan Savage (you’ve mentioned him before in this context) is not my leader and the “homosexual community” is as diverse as any other slice of the population. You are the one operating under a double standard.
Your obsession with this subject causes you to make nonsensical statements. You get careless because you are so unnerved by it.
Robert and company – You have had a pretty good say here but it is getting repetitive. I invite you to move on to another thread or some other aspect of this one. It seems like there is an impasse here and thrashing about isn’t changing anyone’s mind.
Celibacy and chastity have been part of Christian practice for millennia, and various methods of attaining chastity have been tried (and some found wanting) in that time. SOCE, if that’s what you’re talking about (I’m not sure), has only even existed for eighty years or so.
Where did I say Strachan advocated for reorientation therapy? I suspect he wouldn’t advocate anything outside of nouthetic/biblical counseling.
Where did I say Strachan defined victory as reorientation? That’s my problem with his advice. He doesn’t define it honestly. Like Exodus used to say change is possible but leave change undefined, Strachan and many others over the years promise victory, holiness, sin being put to death and so on. However, the attractions remain strong and very much alive no matter what many consumers of that advice do, pray or read.
Strachan is stepping into an area with a history. He should learn it. Promising victory to SSA Christians if they just follow orthodoxy is tried but not true, if true means it conveys any special advantage over what he criticizes. That was the point of my post. Go back and try again.
Your replies to Warren are dripping with personal contempt and anger. You (barely) try to disguise it with righteous indignation but it comes through quite strong just the same. It is telling and I have to ask, Robert, are you homosexual?
You *have* to ask?
If you mean my phrasing, it refers to my strong desire to know. For a long time Robert has made comments here and there that very much remind me of others I have talked with who channel their personal fight with homosexuality into forceful dogma and, at some stage, personal attacks on others who share their same belief system but suggest another way is valid.
Robert is following that pattern so frequently that, as I said, I have to ask if he is coming from that kind of personal experience. It would explain a great many things. It doesn’t have to be so for him to act like he does, but it is often a strong tell. Knowing this would put a much more human face on what otherwise often seems like droning dogma and petty potshots.
Was that worth your downvote 😉
“There are sinful desires and holy desires. All homosexual
desires are sinful. Some heterosexual desires are sinful, some
aren’t.”
There is a severe theological and pastoral problem with identifying “all homosexual desires as sinful because it does not distinguish between temptation and sin. Temptation, by its very nature involves desire. If desire were not part of the temptation it would not be a temptation. Christ Himself presents the distinction when he speaks of “looking at a woman in order to desire her. The Greek construction is pretty clear, He condemns an intentional desire, not an inadvertent one.
In our society, even our churches, we have glorified and almost deified heterosexual temptation. Our songs, movies and book are all about seeking and falling in love. But out churches condemn homosexual desire to the point that even temptation becomes sin.
Not only does this place the gay or lesbian kids emotionally outside the norm, theologically it separates them from God’s grace. Hebrews 4 says “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we
may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” But if a 14-year-old’s same sex attraction are all sinful then this verse takes on a darker cast for him: “If Christ did not sin, and my temptations themselves are sin, then Christ was not, in fact, tempted as I am.” Further, the author of Hebrews uses the fact of Christ’s temptation as the reason his readers can approach the throne of grace. But if a kid’s temptations are sin and Christ, therefore, was not tempted as he is, does that mean he also can not confidently approach God, assured of God’s love?
This is the message we are sending to our kids, “because same same sex attractions are outside the accepted norm of the Church, those who experience them are also outside of God’s grace.“
Happily married to a woman for more than ten years and have several children, if you must know. So not homosexual.
Laughed out loud. Several times.
Thank you for making it clear that you have always suffered only from other-sex attraction.
It’s funny because the statement in no way indicates your natural attraction. A friend of mine has been married for 40 years, has many grandchildren, and has been in the closet his whole life. No one in his immediate family has any idea he is gay, and he has fought depression his whole life over the issue (and often resolved it with drinking). I am one of probably three people who know this about him (and why its so hard for him to kick his many bad habits, he honestly does not care how long he lives given how miserable he secretly is). Outwardly he is one of the happiest people you’d meet.
I am not implying you are gay, but a lot of your statements on this site are common ones used by homosexuals trying to hide or resist their nature. It was a fair question in that context, and I don’t think it was asked with any malice.
To your last point, that LGBTQ movements reduce people to sexual desires, you have actually inverted their position. One of the core principles of the LGBTQ movement is that people are *not* about their sexual desires, that being LGBTQ is a statement of who they are, not who they have sex with, and much like with heterosexuals, their activities in the bedroom with consenting adults are in no way anyone’s business nor anyone’s conversation piece. What they want is to be treated as regular members of society without facing a series of social and legal barriers to living their life as humans. Nothing more, nothing less. The primary weapon used against them for centuries has *been* the sexualization of their attractions.
I could take this complaint more seriously if you were protesting just as much about all the heterosexual ‘lust’ constantly put in our faces via media, music, and public displays of affection. Seriously, by your description I would guess you view all human interaction to be lust driven and defined by its sexual interactions.
There are plenty of opportunities. Literally every day everywhere is a straight pride parade. From walking down the street holding hands, to kissing, to patting a butt, hetero-normative behavior is being ‘normalized’ daily all around us constantly. You called out gay pride events, but they are far less common than the scenarios I described, which I can stand on any street corner and see a dozen times an hour or more.
Great to hear! Sounds like you are fine with the vast majority of what occurs at the vast majority of pride parades beyond your general dislike of PDA’s! While it is true that some may act out beyond that, obviously that is also the case with heterosexuals in a number of settings and I join you in saying “get a room” to those who go too far in public.
Also in agreement! The same is true of Homo-normative behavior, so we are cool all around then.
No. Pride parades started as a reaction to religious conservative demands that gay people should huddle up in the closet and live lives of quiet shame — you know, so as not to “shove it in the face” (as you so eloquently say) of straight people.
Pride parades are the loudest, most direct, most forceful “NO!” you can imagine. They’re meant to push back and say that gay people have *just* as much of a right to be in the world as straight people do.
Got it? Not a “celebration of lust,” but a statement that — like a bumper sticker you might even have on your car! — “I will not submit.”
You were *so close* to answering your own question. If only you’d quoted me for one more sentence: “Pride parades are the loudest, most direct, most forceful “NO!” you can imagine.”
Once more, the parade’s message is: “I will live my life. I won’t hide it to make you more comfortable. I will not submit.” That message doesn’t get across if you’re submitting while you say it, which is why a meek, tame pride parade that catered to straight people’s comfort would be self-defeating — so yes, all the stuff you complain about *is in fact necessary* to make the point. Got it *this* time?
No, really: do you understand? I am asking you directly, person to person, whether you can see the logic of this. I’m not asking you to agree with or endorse it, but can you see that this behavior is driven by considerations other than “lust”?
I think this question is inappropriate. Even today there are many uncomfortable about their orientation, and I think putting someone on the spot like that is wrong.
I rarely do ask the question, and waited quite a long time to ask this time. However, I don’t think it is inappropriate. If he were, then we know he doesn’t consider homosexuality an orientation but just a temptation to sin like any other. This would make his response no more dire than admitting to any other temptation.
Secondly, he is anonymous – having the first name Robert, which could even be bogus, does not identify him. He is also using this account strictly for Warren’s blog. Again, he is anonymous.
Third, he could just lie (and may indeed have, I was taking a chance). The point is that, having spent around a decade debating with people in the space intersecting faith and homosexuality, including many, many ex-gays, you get a sense of how someone acts when they are externally using dogma and rigid theology as part of their own method of dealing with those feelings.
The arrogant and merciless comments Robert has made here make asking that question, at least for me, quite germane. It would have provided at least some humanity to his actions. It’s a serious question, but a legitimate one.
That question has been used a weapon to silence people for years. By the anti-gay crowd to attack people supporting the gay community and by gays to try to emasculate those who are anti-gay.
Further, if, as you insinuate, Robert was a closeted gay, attempting to force him to either out himself or to lie as you did doesn’t help him or anyone else.
It’s not an insinuation. It’s a question. Nothing more or less. If someone wants to express strong opinions on a topic, it is absolutely fair to ask for their qualifications or clarity on their position. Robert has repeatedly made strong statements about homosexuals, it is fair to ask where he is coming from, specifically. I would also add its a false dichotomy to state that he was put in a position to lie or out himself, he also could say nothing, or offer another response.
A related question is why Robert invests so much of his time and energy writing about homosexuality.
Exactly to both questions.
how does that question clarify Roberts “qualifications” in any way?
“I would also add its a false dichotomy to state that he was put in a position to lie or out himself, he also could say nothing”
And that question has NEVER had an implied answer if someone refuses to answer has it?
The fact that a given question has been used that way in no way means it can never be asked. That’s silly. Especially since you have enough history here to know David better than that.
And I do believe someone’s motivations and background are part of their qualifications on any topic. If I started making strong statements about quantum mechanics and arguing repeatedly while pointing at pieces of the scientific literature that appeared to agree with my position, it would be reasonable for someone to ask me if I were actually a physicist or in another related science. Robert makes incredibly strong statements about both Christianity and homosexuality. It’s fair to ask his qualifications on both topics since he chooses to speak from a voice of absolute authority.
Yes, I quite familiar with David’s history, esp. his history with Robert, which is why I say the question was inappropriate.
As the the “qualifications” claim, that is complete BS.
1st, a person doesn’t have to be gay to understand sexual orientation. I’m pretty sure Warren isn’t gay (I’ve never asked because it doesn’t really matter), does that mean he isn’t qualified to discuss homosexuality?
2nd, all you need to do is look at Robert’s comment history to know he is completely unqualified to discuss sexual orientation. You don’t need to know his orientation to see that.
Could you point me to the part of David’s history with Robert that makes the question inappropriate? Would the question be inappropriate if I asked it, and why?
1) David did not imply that Robert must be gay to understand sexual orientation. He is asking him background information due to the points he repeatedly espouses. This is to inform the discussion rather than continuing to go in circles.
2) This seems likely true but it also implies that there is no point in trying to make a connection. People on this forum have changed their views in the past due to diligent interactions and attempts to understand where they are coming from. My experience with David in this forum is that he debates in good faith and is not seeking a rhetorical ‘win’ vs actually trying to help people come to an evidence based conclusion (even if it is not exactly his). Sometimes to do so you need more information so you can use the tools and information you have used in other settings to assist that process.
“Could you point me to the part of David’s history with Robert that makes the question inappropriate?”
No I can’t.
“Would the question be inappropriate if I asked it, and why?”
Yes, because it is a personal, invasive question that adds no value to the discussion and is generally used to stifle such discussion, often as an attempt to demean the person being asked it.
“David did not imply that Robert must be gay to understand sexual orientation.”
You did when you said this: “And I do believe someone’s motivations and background are part of their qualifications on any topic.” it implies his orientation has something to do with his qualifications to talk about homosexuality.
“Sometimes to do so you need more information so you can use the tools and information you have used in other settings to assist that process.”
And how would knowing Robert’s orientation accomplish what you describe?
I’ve done all I can to explain my reasoning and we apparently disagree, which is fine. However, if you are accusing me of asking the question “to stifle discussion in an attempt to demean the person being asked it” that is quite a different thing and you are simply incorrect.
I’m sorry you are apparently unable to comprehend my point of view, and apparently David’s. I don’t know how else to explain this to you as you are not responding to what I said but instead to your desired meaning of what I said. I may be failing to communicate with you effectively, but since I tend to assume good intent from most posters I’ll stop going in fruitless circles in this discussion.
Put simply, without examples of David’s posts that make his intent something other than what he said it was in this thread, I can’t see your objection as having merit. But as always, feel free to disagree (as you obviously do).
“you as you are not responding to what I said but instead to your desired meaning of what I said.”
What is it you feel I haven’t responded to?
What is it you feel I have misinterpreted about what you said?
The other David has pointed out several times he understands what Robert (and LT) are doing when they post here. That Robert isn’t interested in an honest dialogue, he just comes here to spread his mis-informed, bigoted views about gays. And David’s history with Robert makes it pretty clear he understands that (as I assume you do as well). So no, I’m not slogging through all of that past discussion to find “examples” for you.
I am aware of this (more in the past really), but that depends on the context – the question itself is benign.
Again, we disagree. First, it wasn’t my supposition that he was closeted, though a venue like this would hardly be an “outing” even if he was. Rather, he seems like someone who may have been involved in ex-gay ministries a decade or more ago. If that were the case, and he was still working under that philosophy, then a lot of what he has said here which appears so inhumane would at least make better sense – the zeal of a convert and all that.
I’ve waited a few months for the subject to come up but while the indications keep appearing, the question has never been raised. I raised it. As I said, there could hardly be a safer venue to say so, and for Robert it would not be an outing but simple a “struggle” like all other temptation. I think the answer, if he lied, simply doesn’t change anything. If I had been right, and he did answer truthfully, the dialog would have a lot more depth.
The alternative to his being homosexual is that he really is just a deeply dogmatic blowhard that can’t stand anyone else claiming the flag of Christianity without espousing his brand. I don’t know about you, but I think anything that might have altered that perception would have been a good thing. And honestly, how do you know it would not help him?
I understand how the basic question could bring up bad memories, but it can’t be ruled out in all circumstances because others have used it as a weapon.
“- the question itself is benign.”
No the question is not benign. It put gays into a corner, requiring them to either out themselves or to lie. For someone who is closeted there is nothing benign about that question. While the homophobia the causes gays to be in the closet in the 1st place is a lot less than it was a decade ago, it is still persistent enough to make many people uncomfortable with that question.
“And honestly, how do you know it would not help him?”
Because no one with that level of internal homophobia would be helped by being confronted about it in such a public forum.
“I understand how the basic question could bring up bad memories, but it can’t be ruled out in all circumstances because others have used it as a weapon.”
I didn’t say it is inappropriate in “all circumstances”, I said it was inappropriate in the way you used it.
Objection noted.
ken, I’ think that you and I tend to see things mostly in the same way, but I just want to note that this is for the most part an anonymous forum where asking if someone is gay in the context that David asked is different from asking someone when everyone is face to face in person. I too have wondered about Robert because of his obsession. If this was a face to face forum, I’d be right beside you kicking and screaming over the question. But in this context, I’m glad David asked.
My 2 cents.
Strachan used a story to give evidence that Revoice leads to ruin.
I used 4 to show that people who attempted to do things his way also went the same way he lamented.
Instead of comparing his way to Revoice’s way and saying his leads to hope and victory while their way doesn’t, he should be honest about the situation.
That’s about it.
Does one need to be Reformed like Strachan to make a go at mortification? If so, then the conundrum is solved. Now I know why so few people made it through. There were not enough RLS™ support groups active around the nation.
My guess is he’s read a fair bit more than you….
I would expect someone with that much formal education on the subject to speak in a more scholarly manner than you do. You come across as parochial, and dogmatic in the extreme. Something doesn’t add up.
To be clear, basing decisions based on verifiable evidence is not ‘dogma’. You may choose to disbelieve it of course, but your disbelief is itself a belief, and is not a ‘counter’ to those who rely on evidence. They are not equal and opposing sides, in fact while belief tends to oppose evidence, evidence does not even acknowledge ‘belief’ as a thing, since of course its not evidence based.
I tell ya laddie, no true Scotsman would run away with his gay lover.
LOL!
Geez, I just got the joke!
No I do understand, but I don’t agree that they have the only perspective.
You don’t get to decide what Warren would or would not do if he understood. Understanding something in no way implies the responses will be fixed to only those your understanding has led you to. Two people can understand the same thing, the same way, and still react differently.
Well now, isn’t that damn convenient.
Ahhh, this is why you got the PATHEOS boot.
Very unlikely. Evangelicals hold a wide variety of beliefs about LGBT issues at Patheos and the remedy was to move me to another channel if that really was the problem.
While some evangelicals are glad to see me gone, others are not and will be talking more about it.
Patheos is the last place one would expect dogma to reign. Your swift removal and erasure from there would have nothing to do with something so relatively minor. I believe this was personal, and I suspect we will eventually know the real story.
The reason Patheos has given pertains to their “strategic objectives”. This suggests that they thought your presence on Patheos was a hindrance to something they hope to accomplish in the future.
What that is, I do not know. Maybe time will tell. Maybe one day we will learn about a new development at Patheos which would have been unlikely or impossible if you were still there.
The only thing I have thought of as to what that could be is that there are one or more potential customers of Patheos who have told Patheos that they were unwilling or hesitant to share a website with you.
Ugh. This looks like just more “God is compassionate and loving to everybody except you–unless you change to meet the requirements of the church. I have no real problem with gay people being celibate VOLUNTARILY, if they want to do so. I have nothing but problems with celibacy being coerced, or they will be rejected by their chosen religion. Much like ex-gay “therapy,” this approach changes nothing about the gay person; it simply causes more pain.
Transgender is orthogonal to sexual orientation.
There are straight, gay, bisexual and asexual trans men.
There are straight, lesbian, bisexual and asexual trans women.
Those are just factual observations.
Any policy that is based on anything else isn’t going to match reality well.
This debate seems a lot like the objections Christians often have to AA’s vocabulary and philosophy on alcoholism. “Why are you still identifying yourself an alcoholic today if you no longer drink?”, etc. I personally would not want to continue identifying myself as a smoker, even though I smoked for over ten years and still want a cigarette sometimes, but personally I do not care what labels/systems people use in order to maintain the changes they want to make in their lives. Some Christians are very focused on the idea that you have to throw it behind you and walk as if it has no pull on you, and I really think that’s because that is how THEY successfully deal with their unwanted temptations/attractions/addictions. I see that John Paulk’s ex-wife still adheres to the Exodus model.
Is this on your radar, Warren? Preston Sprinkle posted it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bje1k8XXBs&feature=youtu.be
The problem is that this analogy doesn’t work. Smoking is a habit you picked up, not your sexual orientation. One is literally part of who one is, while the other is an activity, an addiction even, but a habit learned can be unlearned, albeit sometimes with great difficulty.
If you had experience with the history of the ex-gay movement (I’m assuming you don’t, I don’t know), you may understand the issue better concerning claiming to no longer be gay when one still is. This is how ex-gay proponents lied to those who genuinely believed they could make this change. They deceived themselves by “claiming victory” even though it was not happening, and deceived others because they were portraying a change that had not happened. This is not benign.
You can’t really appreciate the pain and agony this caused until you’ve seen countless people of all ages, but especially youth, condemn themselves because the change they think has happened in all these others has not happened in them. Or worse, when they finally come to realize it was all a sham. If someone feels they must be celibate for whatever reason, that is their business. The problem comes from lying about the difference between abstaining from something, and having actually experienced a change which has rarely, if ever, really happened.
Deception, internal or external, is not good and certainly has no business in the Church.
I think we’ve been over this on other threads but there is neural evidence as well.
Comparisons to criminal activity are not appropriate, ever. Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is in no way comparable to criminal behavior.
I could dig up the links where this has been explained to him before but really, it’s Robert – he isn’t interested in data, only dogma. Why bother when he doesn’t care? The first time he injected pedophilia into the discussion months ago I knew what he was about.
Pretty certain I have replied to him this way previously as well.
You are very aware of the connotations. Don’t weasel your way out. This comparison is made for exactly one reason and it is unacceptable. Choose another analogy if you must.
“From a Christian perspective…”
Which Christian perspective? Your own particular personal one, not that of every Christian.
Your claim is that scripture should be followed because it is static and therefore never changes. That makes no sense, and your continued FUD on pedophilia is getting really old. No one is being fooled by it.
We’ve been over it with Robert specifically at least 4 times now. I started just linking back to earlier threads to save time. It’s not worth the time anymore.
Asked and answered on at least one other post that I recall.
About Lisa Diamond, you will find a lot of her data has been distorted by some groups. I suspect Warren will respond, but I think it has been recognized for quite some time that women have more fluid sexuality in general than men. It has also been recognized for decades that there is a range of sexual orientation in men and women (hence the old Kinsey scale). If current theories about the development of sexual orientation are even partially correct, this would be a logical result.
Yes, on the radar.
Women seem to be more fluid than men. Fluidity is a characteristic of orientation and not alike for everyone. Just because one person can flex doesn’t mean everybody can. It should be noted that not everybody in the sexuality research world agrees with Diamond on all her points.
The problem is that this analogy doesn’t work. Smoking is a habit you picked up, not your sexual orientation. One is literally part of who one is, while the other is an activity, an addiction even, but a habit learned can be unlearned, albeit sometimes with great difficulty.
If you had experience with the history of the ex-gay movement (I’m assuming you don’t, I don’t know), you may understand the issue better concerning claiming to no longer be gay when one still is. This is how ex-gay proponents lied to those who genuinely believed they could make this change. They deceived themselves by “claiming victory” even though it was not happening, and deceived others because they were portraying a change that had not happened. This is not benign.
You can’t really appreciate the pain and agony this caused until you’ve seen countless people of all ages, but especially youth, condemn themselves because the change they think has happened in all these others has not happened in them. Or worse, when they finally come to realize it was all a sham. If someone feels they must be celibate for whatever reason, that is their business. The problem comes from lying about the difference between abstaining from something, and having actually experienced a change which has rarely, if ever, really happened.
Deception, internal or external, is not good and certainly has no business in the Church.
I wasn’t comparing smoking (or alchoholism) to being gay, I was just comparing the resistance to carying labels from before conversion to after conversion in the Evangelical community. They have a legalism related to the vocabulary people use, and they always want people to use words that make plain that they are no longer what they once were and do not believe what they once believed. It shows up in various ways. For instance, Evangelicals never say “lucky”. Luck suggests chance. So they say “blessed” or something similar. When I consider my smoking, I get it on one level.
I have no experience with the ex-gay stuff except that I have a friend who underwent “change therapy” (whatever that explicitly means, which I also do not know. I do know he focused a lot on his relationship with his dad, who ridiculed him as a kid for having artistic interests). He is happy today and highly invested in his family, and I always resist people who insist that it must all be an illusion or a delusion. He’s living the life he wants. Whether he is utterly “changed” or not is almost beside the point, and I find the notion that people can be without any temptation to be Puritanical and weird.
The only thing I have to compare it to is the experience of being divorced and celibate, which was certainly difficult. But there is a sense when one is a Christian in which not having sex outside of marriage (denying an inate genetic imperitive) and not lying (exercising character) and not having a second piece of cake (exercising discipline) are all the same. I believe there is nothing about me that God cannot be Lord over.
The latter makes some sense to me but the former seems similar to prosperity gospel where one claims that which is not so in order to bring it about (magical thinking) – the sacred version of “fake it ’till you make it.”
That was (is) a common ploy, finding something the parents did, particularly the father, that could be called trauma and used for a causation argument. In the times they couldn’t find even the smallest thing on which to build their case, they would tell the client that it would probably surface later – so strongly convinced where they of their process. As we’ve discussed, I’m glad your friend is happy, but there is little to be gleaned from his case without particulars.
For your friend, perhaps, but most certainly not for those who heard the message that one could be “utterly changed” and placed their lives (and cash) in other’s hands to accomplish it. This was the whole point. If the goal is to help someone attenuate their sexual urges (whatever they may be) because they don’t fit with their belief system, then there is a case for that – but say that, not that one can change one’s sexual orientation. One is possible, one is a lie.
This is basically Christian language for being disciplined. People do this with various beliefs, philosophies and personal character all the time and it is fine. But the similar sentiment, “God can do anything” has been used to claim that sexual orientation can be changed as well. It’s a nice bumper sticker, but do you say that when someone has lung cancer and expect it to make a difference?
What I was trying to say before was that these programs hurt because basically everything about them was deceptive. This is not a judgement of God, but of those who put their dogmatic beliefs into action through fraudulent offers of “change” and then made it clear in any way they could that change meant you could go from gay to straight (or worse that they themselves had done so). The subsequent failure of this causes all sorts of damage in people’s lives.
David, are you a Christian? I have some responses to some of what you have stated, but my remarks would be meaningless if we do not have a shared faith, and I just do not talk Christian theology with people who don’t believe in it because it’s a pointless thing to debate about. When I was not a Christian and people said to me, “The Bible says…” they may as well have said, “Mickey Mouse says…” I simply did not care.
I would suggest two points –
1) His responses indicate that he is willing to discuss this within the bounds of faith so long as the condition is not that he ignores evidence that those of faith have chosen to discard in many cases.
2) Many who have no faith do actually still care about how to address this within the bounds of faith because we have friends and loved ones struggling with these issues and their faith. Inability to speak the language or understand where they are coming from makes them unable to support them appropriately or respectfully. While I consider myself a Christian, I am not tribal about it and if a friend was struggling with this as a Muslim, atheist or other faith (or non-faith) and came to me, I would seek to understand the conflict so I could give them the best and most useful advice and support.
I do know that some people will use their faith as a line in the sand and offer no support to someone who believes differently (or try to portray their faith or lack of faith as the problem), but in my opinion that is not a demonstration of love or caring, instead its using belief systems as a cudgel to attempt to put preconditions on supporting them (you must believe my way before I will care about your problems/you must accept my beliefs in order to have assistance with resolution).
David’s participation here, on a mostly Christian forum, implies he is not one to force people around him to choose between faith and support from their friends, regardless of his personal beliefs (which I have no idea about).
How so?
Oh, I am happy to talk to him about anything as one person to another, but when one starts to talk about Christian theology, there have to be a few presuppositions in common or else it is an impossible discussion. I order my life as best as I can according to what the Bible says about various subjects, and I view things like self-control or self-discipline through that lens. The Bible has quite a bit to say about the role of the Holy Spirit in how we live, but going there with someone who does not believe in the Holy Spirit makes no sense. I’d prefer to steer clear of religion altogether in that case.
I care what it means to you because you care. What it means to me is probably irrelevant. To some here I would be a Christian, to others I wouldn’t be. I consider it fruitless to defend my understanding of the world against countless litmus tests so I just speak my mind and try to be civil. No doubt, there are those who push the limits on that last one.
If your purpose in asking is to avoid “throwing pearls before swine” then that in itself is probably an answer. If you simply want to know if I will understand what you mean when you speak of things which are intimately bound to the experience of a Christian in the broadest sense, then I’m pretty sure I will. I may speak of those things in more universal terms just because I think it helps the discussion overall, but it is not meant to be a reflection on your own values, or mine.
You will mostly find that I become energized when someone uses any belief or belief system to hurt or lie about others. I will say that I think it is good to be able to explain what you mean to those who do not share your beliefs as it takes one outside the bubble of their own. This is general advice, not something I believe necessarily applies to you.
If you are concerned about my understanding the theology in general, I did study at what can only be described as a seminary at the time. I will know what you are talking about, but again, I’m not sure all that should be necessary to talk about theology, though I guess it does provide a foundation.
No, I just try to avoid antagonizing people by talking Christian doctrine if they don’t regard it as important or binding. When I was younger I would end up arguing at length about the validity of the Bible, and why we should believe it, and why this and why that. Now I only do that if someone asks and actually wants to have that conversation.
The reason I wanted to know is that as a Christian, I believe there is a supernatural (a word I do not like, btw, because it gives the wrong idea about what is and isn’t “natural”) component to walking in faithfulness to what God calls Christians to do and to be. The Bible is very clear that if I will “walk in the Spirit” and “set my mind on things above”, that I will not “fulfill the lusts of the flesh”. That does not mean it will be easy, and that does not even mean it will be rewarding or make me happy. In fact, it means I will “work out my salvation with fear and trembling”.
Imagine two lives. Both Christians, seeking to obey God. One Christian lives in a severely hostile community, and is confronted with a family member who plans to immediately exact a penalty with a machete for his/her conversion to Christianity. The person has seconds to decide: will they renounce their faith and live, or will they stand firm in what they believe and be killed, right now. I am not saying God will not show mercy to that person if they fail, but it is clearly the right thing to do to refuse to recant and to value God more than their temporal predicament. Horrifying! Unthinkable! But I know what I hope my choice would be. For many Christians over the centuries, they have chosen death and become martyrs.
Most of us will never be in that position, but we live out the same predicament in slow motion, across a lifetime. In some ways, it may even be more difficult. I have no idea. But we make a million incremental decisions that add up to the same end result. Do we place God above all else? The particulars of the choices hardly matter if the end sum is not the same.
As a Christian, that is my life. It is not “My Best Life Now”. It is not “Every Day a Friday: How to Be Happier 7 Days a Week”. There is nothing wrong with being happy (and no virtue in being unhappy), and I am filled with joy every day. But it can never come as a compromise to my faith, no matter how harrowing that walk may seem based on my particular circumstances. And it is a given (and my experience) that when you live that way, people who do not share your faith will think you are completely insane.
Your reply seems to have been lost in the ether (probably errantly marked as spam). I’ll touch on just a couple of points to give you a response anyway.
I understand the concept and the mindset behind this, that the Holy Spirit is to be a helper, God dwelling in you, and that sanctification is a process. I would point out that I’ve known Christians who nearly carried this idea to the point of self-flagellation and I don’t think that is what the biblical writers had in mind.
The hypothetical you provided is a common one in seminaries and bible schools, I know it well. This can go wrong depending on what one decides is necessary to remain faithful to God. Many faiths, including Evangelical Christianity, require a decision, a moment in time, a state of mind when someone gives their will over to another. As long as the person’s concept of God is positive or at least benign, then this unlikely to be an issue to others.
On the other hand, this is also how cults work, and dangerous national movements, and other things which, as you said, are far more incremental. I do not at all mean to compare what you experience to that of a cult, but I do want to illustrate my point. Giving over one’s will to another is a powerful thing and can be misused and misguided. This is one reason I have more respect for the Anglican “three legged stool” concept, “The threefold sources of authority in Anglicanism are scripture, tradition, and reason.” These provide the kinds of checks and balances that tend to lessen the dangers and provide stability.
I am not an Anglican, this is just an observation. This does not have to be in the hypothetical, either. Thousands of people thought they were doing what God required of them when they put gay youth through mental torture, sometimes leading to death by their own hand. This is where I am coming from when I ask those who believe as you do to stop and consider the facts as we know them and whether God is really requiring of you to hurt someone under the guise of helping.
I hasten to say that I do not sense from you that you would wish to hurt someone. My point is that this is usually the case, but what happens if you become convinced that not doing so, not denying rights, not providing fraudulent SOCE, etc would be one of those incremental steps to denying God? In those cases, what is the question equivalent to your “are you a Christian” that I may ask of you (or another) in order to know if you will understand what I am trying to communicate?
Probably, “Have you ever not been a Christian?” I mean, that’s the only thing I can think of that would say, “Have you ever not been in agreement with a traditional Christian worldview?”, or, “Have you ever been outside of Christianity?”
This debate seems a lot like the objections Christians often have to AA’s vocabulary and philosophy on alcoholism. “Why are you still identifying yourself an alcoholic today if you no longer drink?”, etc. I personally would not want to continue identifying myself as a smoker, even though I smoked for over ten years and still want a cigarette sometimes, but personally I do not care what labels/systems people use in order to maintain the changes they want to make in their lives. Some Christians are very focused on the idea that you have to throw it behind you and walk as if it has no pull on you, and I really think that’s because that is how THEY successfully deal with their unwanted temptations/attractions/addictions. I see that John Paulk’s ex-wife still adheres to the Exodus model.
Is this on your radar, Warren? Preston Sprinkle posted it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bje1k8XXBs&feature=youtu.be