The wording of the changed language does not 'allow' noncelibate gay and lesbian ministers it trusts the Holy Spirit will work with and through the governing bodies called to ordain and install officers.

I trust that lifestyle choices (such as promiscuity) will be addressed just as they always have been.

It will now be interesting to see, after radical liberals have pushed through 4 items on their far-reaching agenda(maybe 6, depending on how votes go on gay marriage & med. benefits to non-ordained partners) if they have attempted to capture the proverbial "bridge too far".

My hunch is that, for now, a fair percentage of moderates will rise up and vote for orthodox, Biblical truth in these various areas. May God help us if not!

This is extremely heartening. The church my partner and I attend with his family (his church since childhood) is PCUSA, and this decision reflects how our church feels the Spirit is leading in the world today. We are not "radical liberals", but simple people who deserve respect as children of God. It's a shame people see us as a threat. I wish they would come live with us and our church community, and see that we seek to reverence God with our life, service and love.

Good to see that PUSA is moving toward treating our bisexual and gay Christian brethren with respect and dignity. IT is heartening that each year, more and more local presbyteries vote in favor in eliminating discrimination against gay Christians. last year, the vote in the presbyteries was closer than ever, and the trend continues toward full inclusion of LGB Christians!

David, you claim to "love God"... but Jesus said, that those who love God, OBEY Him.
It is wonderful that you are moved to serve God. May the Holy Spirit move you to seek HIS word and truth, rather than attempting to rewrite it to justify your own fleshly desires.
Someone who is involved in fornication, should repent first, before trying to serve.
Homosexuality is fornication. By God's own word. both because "homosexual sex is an abomination before God", and also because it is "sex outside of marriage".

God loves you and your partner, David.. but He loves you in SPITE of what you are doing wrong. Repent of your sex, and seek His healing.

with Love,

Philip

This is great news! I'm proud of the PCUSA and, once again, saddened by Christianity Today. While I am aware CT is not bound by the primary rule of even high school journalists (to explain WHY something happened), it is annoying that your author decides to publish a dissenting comment without even quoting an official from the denomination in an effort to explain the decision.

You could have at least done that. Please put a little more effort into this in the future.

God's Peace.

This PCUSA vote is akin to voting which color of noose is more appropriate for hanging oneself.
if our sexuality is our chief aim in life, we will be let down. The man or woman who has sex with their same gender is no different than the couple living out of wedlock, or heterosexual casual sex. Such people have been deceived to believe their lifestyle is permissible and should be celebrated. Satan knows the is the gold standard God has intended, and will fight it. For many, they feel there is no alternative, and don't even desire one. The elephant in the room is that many (not all) homosexual people have been abused as children, and have the unfortunate questioning of sexuality that follows such encounters.
Does having your identity as primarily a homosexual (or even as primarily as a hetero) satisfy your soul? does your identity as a sexual being overshadow your identity as a child of God? Be wary of your heart, and of your answer, for sexual intents and lusts are strongly used of Satan. God has given sex as a gift, but with strict guidelines and parameters.

Philip, I challenge you to get to know some gay folks (if you don't already). My relationship with my partner is about much more than fulfilling some "fleshly desires", and I know that would be the case with those you might become friends with as well. To suggest otherwise is a mischaracterization of our relationship, and therefore personally hurtful, because it feels as sacred to me as your own marriage or that of those you love. Your depiction of gay Christians as persons who warp God's word to satisfy their own desires paints a picture of us as conniving, evil persons, which we have long battled with ourselves over. I have come to the conclusion that as much as others in the church may paint me that way, those who really know me, know that that is not the case. For some persons pride is a major sin, the tendency to exaggerate one's own sense of self worth and desires, but for many gay people, the opposite is true: our major sin has been to allow ourselves to self-deprecate, convince ourselves of our unworthiness for God's love and mercy and of our fundamental deformity. Instead, I believe God's Spirit is calling us and our churches to embrace ourselves as children of God, made in God's image, and therefore good as we are. Please try to understand our hurts, joys, commitments and convictions before you abstractly define what is right or wrong for us. Your comments fall like clanging symbols to my ears and I cannot believe you could truly love me and still say them.

Respectfully yours,
Craig (ps. my name is Craig; the commenter is mentioned after the comment)

This has been a long time in coming!! Craig - you present your thoughts well and I'm behind you 100%. Let's hope that the presbyteries now give the vote the attention it deserves.

I have many gay friends, and appreciate their wish to worship in an inclusive atmosphere, where they are accepted and feel free to be themselves. The dividing question, however, is "What does the Bible say?" As member of a PCUSA church, and a long-time lay Bible scholar, I see no way in which the amendment lines up with Biblical teaching. This is not necessarily a criticism, only a statement of what seems quite obvious.

A church can support and hire noncelibate gay clergy, OR it can follow all Biblical teaching faithfully. In my view, it cannot do both. The PCUSA has opted for the first choice -- which it is free to do -- but in so doing, it has necessarily rejected the second. The line seems clear, and also certain to lead to further dissipation of both the size and relevance of the PCUSA.

Craig,
God's Spirit lives in people and not churches, denominations or buildings. People are the temple of God's Holy Spirit. The effect of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer is to make us whole and holy. The spirit that is in operation here is apostasy, and the false prophets are those peddling this false teaching. To fight temptation is one thing. To give into it and embrace it as God sanctioned is to distort God's Word and the Divine order. Scripture warns that in the last days "many shall depart from the faith" and "many shall be deceived." The Christian walk is a narrow path and "wide is the road that leads to destruction."

I am also seminary-trained, and for the longest time I held the same convictions: that God's word dictated a lifestyle that was incommensurate with romantic love between members of the same sex. The reason I had to re-evaluate that conviction was that I saw what a detriment it did to gay and lesbian persons in the church (incl. myself) and gay and lesbian families who had decided to leave the church. Gay and lesbian Christian youth are six times more likely to commit suicide than their straight brothers and sisters. This means something is WRONG! This is because they cannot envision what it means to live while believing they are fundamentally deformed; there is no way to reconcile what appears a fundamental aspect of their being with what their pastors are telling them. This is shame upon the church. The responses I often hear have more to do with people desiring to keep their own sense of ethical security (or often even a deep-seated and misguided homophobia) than it does a compassionate response to real people who are hurting deeply. Instead of listening to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters they assume they know best, or assume God knows best - and conveniently enough God's opinion looks a lot like their own. The claim that the Bible holds the standard through which we can make all ethical judgments in all times concerns me, because we know that Scripture has been used to justify the mistreatment of women and slaves for years. Instead of seeing Scripture as a kind of "Divine Instruction Booklet" (it sure doesn't read like one to me), I believe God calls us to understand Scripture as a kind of fountain or source of our faith. We also know that Jesus' concern was that religious leaders used the letter of the law to condemn those they had little knowledge of or appreciation for, whom they did not even know (or possibly even feared). I fear the same is happening for gay and lesbian persons today, which is why I encouraged Philip to make some gay friends, and why I suggested that until he does, his words will fall like clanging symbols upon the ears of persons for whom the lifestyle you claim is God-breathed seems like it kills part of themselves.

For what it is worth, statements which characterize me as an apostate or unfaithful are hurtful to me. I am not assuming that my feelings are more important to you than your convictions, but in conversations like these, I'm always struck by the ways the conversation has a deep emotional impact on the end of the gay or lesbian person having it, while to the other person it is simply a matter of biblical ethics, divorced from much of any lived reality - something I hope all remember when they discuss these issues.

Why are you guys even associated with these unbelievers?

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

Just obey Scripture and get out.

Ted, I believe the people on this forum are committed to being "associated with" one another (which simply means talking in this case, not being "bound together") because that was the model of Jesus' ministry. It doesn't mean that we don't have our own convictions or our own understanding of what God calls us to, but it means we are able to talk without feeling threatened by one another. Seeing those outside your faith as enemies leads to violent extremism, as it has unfortunately occurred too often with Muslim fundamentalists. You do not have to concede that we are right, but you can rest assured that we don't desire to harm you or stand in opposition to you. In fact, if you believe you are right, you may even have something to gain by being in conversation with us, but you certainly do little good by isolating yourself from the rest of the world (or the rest of Christianity). Does that seem antithetical to Jesus' model of ministry to you?
Craig

In this dialog, I have not read any comments that accused. Only reiterated Scripture and sound doctrine - doctrine which does not change over time. God's Word remains the same - though many have distorted the Truth throughout history against others (women, slaves) to support their agenda. Take what they want and leave out the rest. God's message has always been about love and forgiveness for us which most of us have conveniently used to remain in sin. What some of us have done (me included) is to conveniently forget about the message of God being righteous, holy and just in His inevitable judgment. I've yet to come across Jesus' teachings that support any sin - including the mistreatment of another innocent person - even women or slaves. A woman was the first person that Jesus appeared to, by His choice. Jesus washed His follower’s feet as an example -“no servant is greater than his master”. And Romans calls those of us in Christ "slaves to righteousness".
God is Alpha and Omega. His Word does not conform to us or our 'new' thoughts. Quite the opposite, we are told to conform ourselves to His Word, not to this ever changing world (Rom 12). We all sin, no one is above it. That's why Christ came and His gift of salvation and grace is so precious. Part of our mature growth is daily sacrificing our sinful nature & desires, to grow closer to Him. That is the message from the Gospel. There are no variations. It is not sugar-coated to make any of our sins acceptable... That is why Christ died. To deviate from that message in any way or put the proverbial "blinders" on, is to humanly distort the Truth. It is no longer the Truth that we are spreading but a politically correct lie so we don't need to feel conviction. I'm sure we are all guilty of this at one time or another.
Isn't it clear from the church's deviation from God's Word, that they are apparently more interested in pleasing men than pleasing God? God is not PC. Look at Jesus slamming the temple tables or His comments about the Jewish leaders or the way He instructed His disciples or the way He loved and healed or the way He taught the people or the way He lived, died and rose from the grave...nothing PC about any of that.
The Truth is hard for some yet simple.
God has always been and will always be the same.
He does not change nor does His Word.
~Respectfully God's

Amy,
I agree that Jesus had an ethic towards women that was radical in its love for them. Paul however said they should remain silent in church. This is demeaning and has meant many women more competent and intelligent than myself have been silenced, their wisdom left at the front door of the church. I agree with you that people have used the scriptures poorly in relation to women and slaves in the past, but it may be that we require more than just the "simple words" of scripture in order to make ethical judgments commensurate with God's will. After all, those persons who were defending slavery and subordinating women thought they were using the "simple reading" of scripture. I trust that the Holy Spirit guides us when we truly seek God.

What is more morally reprehensible to me than reading scripture poorly is making ethical decisions without considering the actual suffering of real people. Jesus did not look down on the world and say "God's law is this" without getting to know the people he gave his wisdom to. Will you agree that the church should listen to, dine with and love gay and lesbian people, before they abstractly condemn their relationships based on what they read in the Bible? This seems to me that it would be truly imitating Jesus' ministry. It is easy to characterize us as immoral, selfish or perverted people, but I believe you would have a hard time calling me those things if you really knew me. Do you know any gay people? In fact, I spent many years of my life believing I was those things. No child deserves to believe they are fundamentally broken, a mistake or "not God's best".

I wonder if you think that the Christian response to gay and lesbian adolescents' increased suicide rate is to tell these children that God loves them, just not the way they are. Maybe if I heard a pastoral response that could actually help them, I would consider changing my opinion. So far I have only seen the church drastically fail gay and lesbian teens, so I will continue to seek out and plead for reform.

Craig

I also never addressed George's comment that the dividing question is "What does the Bible say?". This assumption is one I find difficult to digest, because it wasn't Jesus'. Jesus seemed more concerned with actual human suffering and flourishing than with being doctrinaire. "What does the Bible say?" is certainly an easier question to ask and answer than "What do we do in the face of human suffering?", but it was not Jesus' question. It is certainly the Bible scholar's question, but it wasn't Christ's. In fact, Christ seemed deeply disturbed by the way scriptural condemnation came from the Pharisees without consideration of human suffering. He, guided by God's Spirit, used scripture to heal persons, to explain life, and even (shockingly enough) to call us to go beyond its strictures, to remember the core values that should inform it. I believe he desires for us to use it today to proclaim to those suffering (primarily my concern is with gay and lesbian teens) that they are made in God's image, loved by Him just as they were created.

Craig,
You have read much scripture. What does Jude 1 say to you? Who occupied Sodom and Gomorrha and suffered the vengence of eternal fire?
God says "I am the Lord I change not." I do not fully understand homosexuality I must admit, but fornication, in what ever form it takes, is sin and cannot continue in the life of the believer. May you see the truth before it is too late for if not you are counted as
those in Jude 1:4.

Craig,
I have a lesbian cousin who I love, I have supervised a homosexual man who I supported for promotion, and I've enjoyed the company of several LGB friends. I've also shared my joys and sorrows with some adulterers and womanizers, and they've been willing to put up with a petty, prideful man like me. Jesus, being without sin, wasn't afraid to do the same, but he never made any bones about wanting us to be just and righteous in him, and he made that abundantly clear in his teaching. He pitied us while we were lost, but he let us know we were lost. Read Mark 10 where Jesus challenged the fleshly way of considering marriage and see what he says was the ideal from the beginning. See in John 8 where Jesus forgives, and then lets the woman go on her way with the warning to stop sinning. Jesus didn't come to affirm us in our hurts...he came to heal us and transform us so that the hurts never overcome us and blind us any more. That's why the decision of the General Assembly grieves me- it takes the gospel of Christ and his deliverance for you and ME, and makes it into another gospel.

First I will respond to Deborah because I just read Jude again and then I will respond to Mark. Deborah, you asked me what Jude 1 says to me. To me it seems that Jude is extremely fearful of a certain kind of person with non-orthodox belief finding their way into his early Christian community. He characterizes these people as posing as real orthodox Christians, but having malicious intent, sneaking in to the community from the outside. They sound really nasty: Jude even compares them to the rapists at Sodom and Gomorrah! I guess by your last sentence that you suspect I might be one of these people. I guess I can only really say that though I am not perfect, this does not really sound like me (or anyone I know). I have certainly never "slandered celestial beings" (vs. 8) or raped anyone (like the men in the Sodom and Gomorrah story). I usually identify more with Peter or Martha, trying to follow Jesus, stumbling along the way, but keeping my eyes on the prize.

Please consider the ways that characterizing someone as an enemy to your faith damages your ability to have a conversation with them, to get to know them and understand them. You have already typecast me, and it hurts me deeply to hear someone I assume is a sister in faith think that I am her enemy.

Mark,
To some of your points: I agree that Jesus desires us to be just and righteous, that he heals us and desires us to stop sinning. I only disagree as to whether or not his living Spirit thinks my relationship with my partner is unrighteous.

I am awfully glad that you have lgb friends and relatives because I'm sure that causes you to approach this with humanity (maybe you can understand how abstract name-calling and typecasting makes these conversations often very difficult - I'm sure you would be uncomfortable characterizing your cousin as a pervert for whom "the blackest darkness has been reserved forever" (Jude 1:13)).

I do believe that at times we may be approached with ethical conundrums so egregious that they cause us to rethink how to interpret, read or use the scriptures. I've mentioned in previous comments that the treatment of women and slaves have been examples of this. I can only really speak from my own experience and say that my life was no longer livable with the understanding of how to read scripture that I had before. I've mentioned in an earlier post that I don't think I am alone in this: gay and lesbian Christian teens find their lives so unlivable that they commit suicide 6 times as often as straight teens. In response to this, which obviously is more problematic to God than whether the words in a book are being interpreted correctly (am I correct to assume this?), I have had to re-imagine what Jesus wants of us today. I mentioned earlier as well that the scriptures read less to me like a "divine instruction booklet" than the "fountain or source" of our faith, an account of God's interactions with the Jewish and then early Christian peoples. If God wanted the scriptures to be read like a cookbook, wouldn't it be more systematic and straightforward??!! To me, it appears to be a collection of stories, poems, prose and parables. This does not mean it has any less authority for me than it does for those who read it like a divine instruction booklet, just that it has a different kind of authority. I trust the scriptures to provide me with the wisdom and first-hand record that the early Christians provided. I trust God that using that knowledge, along with our own God-given faculties of judgment, compassion, mercy and grace, the Spirit will guide us to truth. I try to model Jesus' ministry. Of course, Jesus spoke with conviction, candor and confidence, but he also approached each person he met in a spirit of mutuality, eating at their same table, becoming a human just like them. He cried over them: he even changed his mind when they pleaded with him!

I understand how this decision seems like a betrayal of much that many Christians hold dear, because the Bible offers clear, easy guidelines for how to live life (well, at least when it's interpreted that way in community). But Jesus prioritized love over the letter of the law - in fact, in the Mark 10 passage you asked me to read Jesus says that the law that Moses wrote allowing persons to get a divorce was wrong. It looks to me that Jesus is affirming that the bonds of love are sacred and that every effort should occur to ensure they are not broken. Moses made conciliation for the failings of Jews who wanted divorces, but Jesus said "love radically - make spiritual bonds of love that last."
Of course, someone on here will say that I am twisting Jesus' words, because my interpretation is not traditional or orthodox. But I don't think Jesus gave a lick about orthodoxy - I think he cared about bringing God's kingdom, the kingdom of love, to earth, as a gift to his beloved children. That is the gospel I will continue to be faithful to.

Okay, Mark, I obviously began to speak a little beyond your comments, but I am passionate about this. What do you think should be the church's response to its gay and lesbian children committing suicide 6 times more often that its straight children? I really care about that more than most anything, so if you have a good idea my ears are open.

Craig: Sadly, your understanding of the gospel is unbiblical. The biblical gospel does not tell us how good mankind is, and that we should all accept everyone for who we are in love. The biblical gospel tells us that we have openly rebelled and hated our Creator, the Lord God Almighty. We have sinned against Him, and we are corrupt in all our ways. We have no good or righteousness to present to God for ourselves, but Jesus Christ came as the representative for God's elect, our Federal Head. He worked out a righteousness for us that we could never have had, and then He died to suffer the wrath of the curse for our sin, and rose again to justify us. We receive the forgiveness of sins through His blood, and we are united to Him by grace alone, through faith alone, by His work alone.

What do gay and lesbian kids need in order for them to stop committing suicide? They need the good news and hope that the biblical gospel brings. They don't need to be told they are o.k. in their sin. They need to hear the words of Scripture to repent and believe. They need to hear those words just like every other sinner needs to hear them. They don't need someone putting their arm around them and telling them they're o.k. just the way they are. They need to be regenerated so that they might have faith in Christ alone and repent of who they are outside of Christ. They're not just homosexuals outside of Christ, they are children of wrath that are dead in trespasses and sins. Let's put our arms around them and tell them about the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ, not that they are o.k. without it. If we convince them that they're o.k. just the way they are, we may be preventing them from committing physical suicide, but ultimately we will just be sitting back and watching them commit spiritual suicide without the gospel.

If the PCUSA wants to see judgment then they have certainly accomplished the opportunity to experience it. Remember that judgment begins with the house of God.

Ryan, I will address first your comments, then I want to speak to all others who may be reading this.

Ryan, if your God cares more about words than the suffering of children, then I don't care to be a part of your God. If he thinks life on earth is any less important than life beyond earth, then he is inconsistent - all life is sacred. My God, the Father of Jesus Christ, has proven to me and revealed to me through Scripture, my life, family and the natural world around me, that love trumps all else, that compassion IS righteousness. We obviously have differing understandings about what should guide our Christian decision-making. I believe the model of ministry Jesus gives us is to use Scripture for good, not to see it as God's rule book - why do you believe that to faithfully follow Christ means slavishly following the practices and words of a 2000+ year old culture? I believe to faithfully follow Christ is to imitate his ministry, which was equally concerned with healing earthly lives as it was providing eternal salvation. I believe this involves an openness to the Spirit's guidance and a willingness to use the God-given faculties we have. I think your pessimistic view of humanity (suggesting even children are "children of wrath") means you will ultimately devalue human life - as your flippant remark about teen suicides being not as bad as eternal suicide reveals. I am thankful that my family and Christian community realized that my struggles as a teen were not primarily with pride or greed, but with self-deprecation and believing that God could not love me, that I had no divine spark within me. Instead they told me that I was fearfully and wonderfully made. That I was the very image of God on earth, just as they were; that although I had my failings, Jesus Christ covers those up. I was bound by my belief that I sucked, but Christ (through the ministry of my family and church) freed me from my sin of self-hatred.

To others who may be reading, since Christ's call to evangelize the nations, Christians have disagreed and lived in communities that were at odds over certain beliefs, ways of interpreting the scriptures, what scriptures to use, etc. If you are a member of a Christian community who demands of you that you be someone you are not, or if you feel there is no one like you, or that you cannot reconcile your faith with your identity as gay or lesbian, know that there are Christian communities praying for you, who love you just as you are, and who believe that the Spirit leads us in the ways we read and use the scriptures. We reverence Scripture, love God, desire God's kingdom to come to earth, believe that Jesus covers over all of our sins and that the Spirit guides those who desire to continue Jesus' ministry today. Jesus values your life and wants you to live. He cares about your situation now just as much as he cares about your eternal salvation. While your church may characterize us as evil, apostates or snakes who infiltrate churches or claim that we spread evil, judge us by our own words and deeds, which we speak in love and with confidence. Of course no one is perfect, I am as much of a sinner as the next person, but I am also God's beloved, as are you.

Craig: If my God cares more about words than suffering children then you don't care to be a part of my God? The gospel is the only hope for suffering children. We find this truth revealed to us in God's Word. Essentially what you are saying is that you don't care about what God's Word has to say concerning these things, but you do care about your words and what you think. You are looking at the Bible from a subjective point of view. This is more than just imitating the ministry of Jesus. He didn't come simply to be an "example" for us to follow. He came claiming to be God in the flesh. He said He came to be our righteousness, justification, sanctification. If He didn't die for our sins, and rise again for our justification then He was the biggest liar and fraud that ever was. Some example. Did He, or did He not suffer on the cross in the stead of His people? I am guessing your answer to that is no, in spite of what the Bible has to say about the matter. Why did he have to suffer and die and bear the curse of sin, if life was just about imitating His ministry?

My view of mankind is a BIBLICAL view. It's not whatever I want it to be, but rather it's what God says. It's not left up to our opinions or feelings, because God has already stated the facts, and our own sinfulness bears the truth of the matter.

You totally misapplied my comment on suicide. If all we are doing is giving a child "hope" here and now, without giving them the gospel to care for their eternal souls, then you better believe we are failing those children. Paul says it in I Corinthians 15 when referring to the eternal hope that the gospel brings. If we only have hope in the here and now, then we are of all people the most miserable.

You ask to be judged by your words and deeds. Sir, you are living a life of fornication. If you were a heterosexual living in sin, I would tell you the same thing. It doesn't matter whether you think it is done in love or not. Your very words and deeds are condemning you, Craig, because you don't believe in the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. This conversation goes WAY beyond your sexual preference. If you told me you were a Christian that was fighting homosexual desires, then we would have a starting place. I am a Christian man that has to fight lustful thoughts about women all the time. Very often I fail, but by God's grace I will continue to fight against what God says is wrong, because that's what sanctification is all about. But you're telling me that you don't see the need to fight sin in your life (at this point it doesn't even matter whether it's homosexual or heterosexual lust), and that's frightening. The heart of the matter is that you don't believe the gospel as it is revealed to us in Scripture.

Please repent and beleive the gospel as is found in God's Word, and until you do that, please stop claiming to be a Christian. Jesus makes it clear that a Christian is one that obeys God's Word, not their own ways.

Ryan, I don't see anywhere where Jesus says that the definition of a Christian is one who obeys the Bible, as if it is a divine instruction booklet. I cannot imagine how one could read the Bible objectively, as if there is no matter of interpretation involved. Each human being and church reads the Bible subjectively. We all read the Bible through the lens of our own human experiences. That is why you choose to emphasize that human beings are sinful, wretched creatures, while I choose to emphasize that they are made in the image of God, fearfully and wonderfully made. Your viewpoint is a remedy for a sin that possibly you and many others struggle with: pride. My emphasis remedies the sin that myself and many other oppressed persons have struggled with: self-deprecation and self-hatred. Both look biblical to me. The "Word" as some objective, same-for-everyone set of rules simply does not exist. Instead, we must utilize the Spirit's guidance to discern God's will for us every time we make a decision.

Your assumption is that your worldview is biblical, while mine is not, but mine is just as rooted in the scriptures as yours. The fact that the majority of the people in your church think the same way as you does not mean that yours is the biblical worldview. Here is the problem to saying that YOUR worldview is biblical, while someone else's is not: it is "biblical" that women should stay silent in church (1 cor. 14:34); it is "biblical" to sell everything that you own and follow Christ (mt. 19:21); it is "biblical" to smite your enemies (OT somewhere); it is "biblical" to be unmarried and travel around nearby towns preaching (Jesus); it is "biblical" to spit in dirt and rub in on blind people's eyes; it is "biblical" to drive stakes through people's heads while sleeping (judges 4); it is "biblical" to encourage slaves to return to their masters (philemon). Yet we do none of these things. If there are ways to explain away each of these that is fine - i write them to show that the "plain reading" of Scripture is not as plain as we like to believe it is. I only write all of these things to say we pick and choose, and that is natural, because it is not the words that we should put our allegiance in, but in the fruits of the Spirit, love being the greatest. I cannot believe how you could see this as so unfaithful to Jesus, who was angered by the Pharisees privileging of law over love.

I do believe that despite that fact that we were probably both upset by each others' posts that it is more productive to try to understand one another. Is there some reason that you believe the Bible should be read like a "divine instruction booklet"? Some reason that you privilege the 66 books found in the Bible over other early Christian sources? Did God give a special revelation to you or someone else saying that these 66 books represent his words? Without something like that, I am inclined to read them reverently as accounts of the Jewish and early Christians' experience with God, since they are not written like an instruction manual or cookbook.

As for whether or not I should stop calling myself a Christian: I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ, so the name seems to fit. Maybe a better name for you would be a Biblist, or a Christian Biblist, because you seem more committed to the idea that the scriptures tell a unified story than with mimicking Jesus' ministry (I don't say that to mock, only to suggests Jesus' model of human interactions bears more authority for me than ancient Jewish society's or even Paul's). I care deeply about what the Bible has to say, but I am not sure anyone has provided reason for me to think that God wants me to live it word-for-word (nor do I believe anyone could do so - although the satirist A.J. Jacobs recently tried - i'd recommend his funny book). Since it looks to me like it is a collection of stories, poems, parables and proverbs, I feel convicted that I should approach it as such. I still think that insofar as it teaches me about Jesus' ministry and background and gives an account of the early Church, I will treat it as the greatest gift God has given us after Christ and his Spirit. That still doesn't mean it is somehow not a book, or that it should be read in a way incommensurate with its form.

this is how I can be a Christian without necessarily seeing the world through your "objective" "biblical" worldview. your suggestion that the sin i need to deal with is lust is especially surprising because I am one of the least lustful persons I know. i fear that you have a picture in your head of what gay and lesbian people are that just isn't reflective of reality. it is my love for God and God's love for me that motivates me to think deeply and honestly about these things. insofar as I've reflected my own position, I hope you can hear it and try to understand it.

if i mischaracterized your remark about suicide among lgbt teens, i apologize. only know that in my opinion the church is doing little to attack this problem, and that seems like a real moral failure. in a spirit of comity, i would love to hear how you think telling kids your version of the biblical gospel will help them to relieve the tension they feel. the american psychological association has stated ex-gay therapies do more harm than good in these situations. but if there if you have a model that works, i'm for it.

Craig: I'm not upset at all. I am simply trying to help you see how unreasonable your worldview is. Once you throw out any authoritative ground such as the Bible, then all things are subjective and relative.

Do you believe it is o.k. to murder? If not, why? Do you believe it is o.k. to have sex with an animal? If not, why? Do you believe it is o.k. to cheat on your taxes? If not, why? You can't answer in the negative to any of these questions and still hold to your subjective, relativistic worldview. It just isn't possible.

I've already stated that the only hope for gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual teens is the gospel. You have refused to confess that you believe the gospel, therefore, I have no other option than to assume you don't. A true follower of Christ has been born again, by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ alone. If you want to try and make the world a better place by imitating Jesus, that's fine, but the Bible teaches a Christian is one who has had his/her life forever transformed by the gospel. It would be better for you to just say you admire the teachings of Jesus, but ultimately you don't understand them. Jesus taught to love one another, but he also taught to love the Lord God above all else. To be disobedient to His commandments is not loving Him at all, yet Jesus taught repentance. A turning away from evil and a trusting of Him alone. With your subjective worldview you cannot believe in repentance because there is no objective standard of wrong to repent of. You, therefore, cannot say that murder, sex with animals, cheating on your taxes, or any other crime against mankind is wrong. You simply cannot say those things are wrong and be consistent to the worldview you hold to. If you say those things are wrong, I would like to know how you came to such conclusions as to define them as being wrong? If someone rapes and murders an individual, according to your worldview, all that person needs to be told is that they are o.k. because they are made in the image of God.

You confess in your own posts that you are a sinner, but with no objective authority, you're once again being inconsistent in your arguments. The Bible defines what sin is, man does not. You would not even know what sin is if it were not for God's law. So by admitting you're a sinner you are saying you believe the Bible to be true. Yet this is completely opposite of everything you are trying to say. Do you see how inconsistent your worldview is? Anybody can hold to this worldview and decide what is right or wrong for their own lives. Murderers and thieves and rapists and cheaters do everyday.

Also, I was never implying that you are some lustbucket that can't get enough sex to satisfy himself. I was simply making the point that a N.T. Christian marriage is defined as a man and a wife. Anything outside of that, whether it be homosexuality or heterosexuality, is fornication and lust. Again, you confess to being a sinner, but everytime I bring up something that the Bible calls sin, you don't want to hear anything about it.

As for interpreting Scripture to fit what we want it to say, the Bible is clear that it is a self-attesting book that has been inspired by God and it is of no private interpretation. See the definition of analogy of faith which follows:

The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. In other words, the “faith,” or body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.

Another related principle, that is very helpful in interpreting prophecy and apocalyptic literature in particular, is that the clear must interpret the unclear. In other words, a very specific interpretation of the highly symbolic visions of John's apocalypse, for example, may never “trump” the clear teachings of Paul's epistles, which are more didactic and less symbolic, and hence more clear.

Sir, we could keep going on this for a long time, but I have been answering your objections concerning a biblical worldview, I don't think you have been able to defend your worldview at all.

Just wondering why practicing homosexuals are attending a religion that says their way of doing sex is wrong. What's your point, to flaunt your way of doing sex in people's faces figuring people will get use to it and accept it. Obviously you're not there to worship Jesus and God who has been known to wipe out those who didn't follow him and his wishes. Anybody can attend Church and call themselves Christians but the big guy knows what you're doing or not doing, believe me. Homosexuals out in the secular world have nothing to do with attending church. One is work, relationships with people not in church, etc. while church is an organization with mission, beiefs etc. not necessarily the same as that out in the secular world. One requires you to believe not just think like them, one does not. Believe me, children and adults commit suicide for so many reasons, the least is homosexuality, that it is hard to uncover even after it's done. An arguement with a friend or not wanting to go to a party will send the weakiest into suicide for some reason. As a social worker, I've seen it all. The role of parents is to put and keep their children on the right path in life, sometimes parents are so fearful of losing their kids over something, they let them continue doing what they wish. As adults, the kids 98% of the time will than blame their parents for their problems and this could be true in some cases. Anyway, the homosexuals I know don't think like I do. Sex and normal coupling isn't understood by them, my sex and normal coupling to them is off.
Just like the pervert who rapes and kills 3 and 4 year olds who think the child smiling at an adult which they are taught to do is instead asking the pervert for sex. I think Jesus understood the difference in people because he said to move on if you're not accepted. He said to go and sin no more and Exodus with it's members proves that homosexuals unlike perverts can control their sexual desires, like alcoholics, adulturers, drugies, etc. they have to want to and will probably need psychological and help like getting away from their partner in sin to do so. Abused partners have to learn how to get away from their problem so do homosexuals. This is where the Church needs to concentrate not on letting them continue in their problem/sin.

Ryan,
I make ethical decisions based on some combination of scripture, reason, experience and community and I believe the idea that one person, group or church could hold THE ethical stance that Scripture contains is impossible. The reformed tradition certainly has a history of trying though, and the attempt is admirable in it's acuity. We do fundamentally disagree though that this is a task to which Christ calls us.

My partner and roommate tried to convince me that getting into an argument on an online forum is as taxing as it is futile, and I'm tending to agree with them now. This is the first time I've ever tried this. Should we agree to end the conversation?

It seems like we are from two different worlds, which is probably true. My friends, family and church think the world is complicated enough to need endless creativity when applying the gospel to our lives, while it appears you believe the gospel and the answer to all of life's questions are simple, rigid and unchanging.

Maybe we should think of one another as practicing different religions, rather than both trying to find the heart of the same religion. As a fellow religious person, steeped in a tradition very similar to mine, I respect you. I do hope you realize though that I am not alone: there are people who consider themselves Christians, desiring to serve God and the world, who think differently than you. In my Christian religious tradition, we believe (supported by our conviction of the fallibility of human persons) that attempts to claim the objective truth are suspect. Christian history evidences that Christians easily get things wrong - and use the belief that they hold the one objective truth to justify their misdeeds. Instead of assuming we have the one, true understanding of the Bible which is the only basis for ethical judgment, we use the resources at our disposal (including the Bible when appropriate) to do the best we can.

You misunderstood my worldview if you thought that my answer to every problem is to tell people that God loves them. That was not the model of Jesus' ministry, nor is it what I said in my post. Jesus met people with the needs they had when he met them. For the tax collectors, whose sin caused them to be social outcasts who were often greedy, he brought acceptance and a call to end their greed. To the sick, he brought healing. To pharisees, filled with pride and self-righteousness, he brought a call to humility. To children (probably orphans), who were rejected and alone, he brought comfort and company. I am not a moral relativist: I just believe the attempt to read the Bible "objectively" hasn't worked out very well in Christian history, and am not quite sure why it is so important to people. Not seeing it the way you do certainly hasn't kept me from forming ethical decisions about such things as rape, murder, beastiality, or tax evasion. I do not do any of these things not only because the Bible says they are wrong, but because I can understand their wrongness ethically - I can make arguments as to why each of these is wrong, even without using the Bible; professional ethicists are better than me at this, but we each have this God-given ability I think. More important to me than having everything set out rigidly and systematically is being trained in the virtues Jesus extolled, love and compassion being, I think, the greatest. This way, if we are trained in these virtues, we can address the human condition in all its complexity with answers that actually fit the situations people are in. As I said, my own experience and the stories of gay and lesbian teens I find so vulnerable, lead me to believe that the rigid responses churches offer relying on their "objective" sense of Scripture, have failed. Maybe since you believe that Scripture is the basis of all moral reasoning you are distrustful of professional organizations who claim an ethical authority, but I believe the American Psychological Association when they say that encouraging people to change their sexual orientation is psychologically damaging and shouldn't be done, especially teens, who are the most psychologically vulnerable. And to Anna, many reputable leaders from organizations like Exodus (and including Exodus, I think - do a google search of george rekers for a most recent example), have proven at least that people can say they are ex-gay, but often still harbor same-sex attraction.

Ryan, while I'm sorry that my arguments haven't "swayed" your opinion, I didn't have much delusion thinking they would. I only hope that other people out there learn that if they are stuck in churches or worldviews that seem inescapable, like I did as a gay teen flirting with conservative evangelicalism, there are other options. The world is a BIG place, with multiple Christian traditions. If you are not convinced that people outside the conservative reformed tradition are truly Christians, I encourage you to get to know them, experience their lives and worldviews and see that God is working outside your own tradition.

Ryan, I will commit to continue to study and learn about your tradition and way of understanding Scripture. In fact, I just finished reading a book called Theology in America which is a survey of the American theological scene from colonial times to the civil war. It was really illuminating because it taught me more about reformed Christian theology (I've only been worshipping with the PCUSA for a little over a year, so didn't know much about reformed biblical hermeneutics - btw, is that quote from you or from somewhere else I could read more?).

Craig: I agree that this conversation is probably best if ended. We do have EXTREMELY different worldviews. That doesn't mean that I think you're not sincere in your beliefs, but sincerity doesn't mean that it's right. I know you would say the same to me, but the bottom line is the exclusivity of Christianity. Even Jesus was exclusive. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father BUT BY ME." Christianity does not leave room for different view points when it comes to the Gospel. This doesn't mean that I could not sit down with someone with a different worldview and have a meaningful discussion. I can, and I think this has been just that. And I can walk away from that discussion thinking that a person with a non-Biblical worldview is very sincere in what they believe. But at the end of the day, I have to go by what God Himself says, in His Word. I don't doubt that the APA can be a very helpful organization, but I believe that what you stated about them in your post above goes totally opposite to what the Scriptures teach. So at the end of the day, I'm going to rest in the Scriptures, not what man says. I cannot trust others (or myself) to be authoritative when I have the Word of God.

I respect you for wanting to study out the Reformed faith more. I tried to show you what I believe through Scripture, and that exclusivity makes a lot of people really angry. I didn't sense that hostility from you in this conversation.

I would encourage you to go to monergism.com and read as much on that site as possible. I will be praying for you as you study these things out.

Take care.

Craig,
the manner in which you refer to Paul's letters and teaching shows that you do not have the correct understanding either of the passage or of Scripture as Theopneustos("God breathed"). 2 timothy 3:5 speaks of those "having a form of godliness but denying it's power." it is speaking of those who have rejected sound doctrine and have a counterfeit faith. I don't say this because of your homosexuality but because you ignore or reject the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. We are told in Romans to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind." The Holy Spirit was speaking this to believers who needed to have their minds renewed and brought into conformity with the mind of Christ.
The lgb community needs to understand that it is not exempted from these same commands to turn from sin["for all have sinned"]. 1 Corinthians 5 & 6 speaks of Christians being able to deal with sin in the church but limits our jurisdiction to within the church with some fairly significant caveats on how it should be done. We are not to judge those outside the church. Those within must be graciously called to repentance and to "honour God with your body" for we are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Michael,

I wonder if you've read closely the things i've written here. How do you know that I do not have the "correct understanding" of Paul's letters? Did God tell you I am reading them wrongly? I have tried to make a claim here that understanding the Bible is a more difficult task than we often like to admit. I have also suggested that people read it like a "divine instruction booklet" without considering why they should read it that way in the first place. Please do not assume that because I read it differently than you or your community, that therefore I am somehow "wrong".

I never rejected the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. In fact I suggested that I have an even greater respect for the Holy Spirit's power, because I think that we need the Spirit's guidance constantly in order to interpret what is right and wrong, and ESPECIALLY when we are reading the Bible. It is because of our confidence in the Spirit's work that we don't need to think of the Bible as our only hope in coming to truth in light of our fallible state.

Please do not call me "wrong" or to "repentance" without first hearing out why I think the way I do. This kind of arrogance is why the rest of the world thinks of conservative Christianity as morally repugnant. I did not write on this discussion board in order to get into an argument (read my first post). I respect that other persons practice Christianity differently. This is all very silly because I basically believe almost everything else you believe, all of the important stuff, that is. I believe in the Trinity, that Christ died and rose for our sins, that he was fully human and fully God, that he desires his kingdom to come to earth, that he sent his Spirit to guide us today, etc., etc. Maybe there are more things we disagree on, but so far I can only really see two: I believe that God affirms same-sex romantic relationships and that the Bible should be used as the kind of book it is, the earliest account of God's relationship with Christians and a record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the religious tradition from which he came. For some reason, these beliefs are deal-breakers for you. To you, they mean that I am not Christian and that I need repentance (who else have you told they need repentance lately?).

To me both my relationship with my partner and the way I read the Bible come from my encounter with Jesus Christ. I simply don't see him committed to understanding Scripture the way that conservative reformed Christianity does. To me, Jesus comes first and THEN the Bible. Jesus was familiar with and used the scriptures of his tradition, but he often chastised the Pharisees for their privileging of the law over love. Another person who posted extolled the "exclusivity" inherent in Christianity, but when I read Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees, it looks to me like he hates their exclusive, judgmental behavior. I don't think this meant Jesus didn't have his own moral standards, but if you look at the ways he called people to repentance it was never as a call to an entire segment of the population (the only case I can think of when he does that is to the very religious people, the Pharisees). Instead he meets with people, learns about them, notices what is truly wrong with them, and takes care of it. I care more about the WAY he treated people than what he said to individual people, because I am not a first century Jew to which he was speaking. I desire to hear what the Spirit has to say to me TODAY, and trust that when mimicking the ministry of Jesus I will hear the most clearly.

I've learned from talking on this forum that it is really tempting to attack someone else's character/faithfulness, etc. What is more difficult is to listen to hear where someone is coming from. I hope that I've presented the reasons I read Scripture the way I do. I've thought about it a lot and don't do so flippantly or without reverence. Please treat me with the respect to present YOUR way of approaching Scripture without acting like mine is ridiculous. I actually think that my way is faithful to what God has given me.

Michael and Ryan:

The manner in which you speak of this person's character shows that you do not understand the teachings of Paul or the true heart of the gospel. 2nd Timothy 3:1-5 speaks of those who are proud, arrogant, abusive, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, brutal, having the appearance of godliness but denying its power. According to this passage, your belief in the unerring objective words of Scripture has nothing to do with your godliness. Your godliness is suspect because you deny God's power could be at work in Craig.

Mark 7:1-13 speaks of those who honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far from him, those that abandon the commandments of God in order to establish their tradition. Thus do you make void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. You neglect the love of the neighbor for the sake of preserving your tradition. I am glad that Jesus and Paul have warned the faithful about your kind. snakes and wolves.

Jesus said blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. I rejoice for Craig that he has been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for defending the lowly and downtrodden, the misunderstood, the hated, the exiled, for championing the love and grace of Christ and the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 5:12 says his reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who went before him.

Craig,
Please receive this in the spirit it is intended. I have not purposed to offend you or wound you. We all have distortions and many issues to grapple with as human beings. I also believe that God is for you--who you really are in Him.
So here goes:
The concept of imago dei cannot be utilised to endorse homosexuality. Homosexual activity diminishes our humanity and is a desecration of imago dei. It is also a distortion based on a lie of the devourer. In other words, whilst you may be same sex attracted, for the Christian, his/her predilections do not dictate or determine WHO we(or they) are in Christ. If this were the case, then Christ's command to the woman found in sin to "Go and sin no more" would be have been meaningless. I do agree that Jesus' example to us was first to establish the credentials by which others can pass sentence on someone. Answer: We don't have any. In doing this, he demonstrated that he stood with the person without endorsing their sin. Yes He was a Friend of sinners, but not of their sin because He knew what it would cost Him to have carry the weight of sin upon His shoulders.(Galatians 6 gives instruction on how we ought to restore those who have fallen into sin.

If your identity as an "LGBT/Gay Christian"(of which there is no such thing in Scripture) is how you describe yourself, that would seem to indicate that you are placing your sexual identity before that of your identification with Christ. It is the elevation of your "self"(the flesh-sarx) above the call to realise your "true identity" in Christ in the new creation. The who or what we are in our sinful nature is based on an "old identity". Our "new(or true) identity"(in Christ) is what determines our "new activity". We are called to put on the nature of Christ which is our new identity and the Holy Spirit is the empowering presence that makes this possible--it is a process and a work of grace.

Also, several points indicate that your interpretation of Scripture is suspect and perhaps based more on an attempt to justify your homosexual practice. My reasons for outlining these are because it is important that we have a balance in both orthodoxy (belief) and orthopraxy (action) in our faith. What you believe will determine how you act. If you believe wrong then you will act wrong.
1) All Scripture is given by inspiration....for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
2) your suggestion that Scripture endorses homosexual relationships is not based on any accepted mode of exegesis or hermeneutics that is endorsed with unanimous support--even by denominations that are moving into apostasy. Neither does it have any historical support in church history nor in the Hebrew or Greek texts.
3) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 give clear indications of the Christian position on sexual immorality of all descriptions("some of you formerly practised these....." and the "BUT NOW" phraseology indicating a call to different living). There is no heirarchy of sins, but it is unequivocal that all sexual activity outside of the divine order of marriage(between a man and a woman) is against God's divine order and sinful.
4) You ignore cultural relativity(or perhaps misapply it) as being an important consideration, hence the reason for your faulty interpretation of Paul's addressing 'women' issues in the church. Paul was addressing troublesome women in those specific churches(see Ephesians). Women are in fact found teaching (Acts 18:26) and prophesying (Acts 21:9, 1 Cor 11:5) elsewhere where in the New Testament. Also slavery was undercut by Paul's instruction to treat them well and regard them as brothers/sisters in the faith--notwithstanding how many people have manipulated the text to suit their purposes in supporting slavery and many other harmful/evil causes. I would hasten to add that this is no different today as we see many people manipulating the text to suit their own conditions. This is known as eisegesis--adopting an a priori position and then using Scripture to support it.(the opposite of exegesis)
It is likely also that it was inconceivable for slavery to not exist in that time which is why it was not condemned. Thus the elevated status given to both women and slaves is a departure from their treatment in all other texts in antiquity.
5) As for homosexuality, the whole Bible has a consistent witness against homosexual activity and treats it as morally wrong. Thus it is excluded from being endorsed on the basis of cultural relativity for this reason among others.
6) There is universal opposition in Scripture to homosexuality and it is insupportable historically or exegetically.

I wish you well in your search for truth. I pray the Holy Spirit guides you into His truth, freedom and new identity.

Michael,

Can you imagine a scenario in which you would stand with the person without endorsing their sin? Would you say that you are standing with Craig now? Do you think these are the kinds of conversations Jesus had with the "sinners" as they reclined at the table with wine? I imagine the tax collector inviting Jesus to his house for lunch, and I imagine Jesus telling him over the table that while he appreciated the invitation, he would be remiss if he didn't inform the tax collector that he was living in sin and that he is a desecration. And I imagine the tax collector absolutely never talking to that guy again. I am not saying the question of the tax collector's sins would never enter the picture. But I am saying that accusations tend to alienate people, and I can't imagine Jesus becoming loved among the sinners and hated among the religious people by calling the "sinners" out on their sin.

Besides, Jesus eating with sinners did mean that he endorsed their lifestyles. That is exactly what it meant. You seem like an educated man; maybe do some research on table fellowship in Second Temple Judaism. A Jew's choosing to share a meal with a person implied religious acceptance of that person. This is exactly why it drove the Pharisees and religious officials crazy.

Does it not concern you in the least that a gay person would feel so radically unwelcome in your church, and all the worse if that person actually knows, loves and follows Jesus? Does that not seem eerily incommensurate with the ministry of Jesus?

Reading over Craig's comments, I would like to offer a few points of clarification.

1) Craig never claimed that the Bible endorsed homosexuality. Craig claimed that the Bible is too complicated to be treated as a "divine instruction booklet." You yourself acknowledge that there are conflicting portrayals of women in the Bible, and you even acknowledge the cultural relativity that caused that. But if you think the statement "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent" is somehow specific to a community, maybe you should read the next verse, which traces female subjugation back to the very foundations of the earth. And if you think cultural relativity does not come into play when considering biblical authors' statements about homosexuality, then I do believe you are being very sneaky in the way you read your Bible. The fact that there is a limit to the variety of perspectives on homosexuality offered in the Bible does not make it exempt from cultural influence.

2) You say that homosexuality diminishes humanity, desecrates the imago dei, and is based on a distortion of the devourer. But you do not make it so by saying it. Rape diminishes humanity. War desecrates the image of God. Religious arrogance is a distortion of the gospel. A same-sex monogamous committed loving relationship is an expression of love, a practice space for mutual submission and self-sacrifice, for patience, kindness, humility, for the image of God made manifest. Homosexual love has as many opportunities for transcendence, growth, and worship as heterosexual love. It differs only in one respect: the genitalia of the object of that love.

What are you pointing to when you refer to who Craig "really is"? If something so personal, so immediate as a person's sexuality is actually hated by God, which parts does God love?

3) Lastly, this isn't just some argument about biblical exegesis. Gay Christians don't have the luxury of consulting only the Bible for their understanding of the world; they must face the reality of their everyday lives, and they must find a way to live towards God within that reality. I cannot imagine a more crippling, paralyzing, psychologically damaging thought for gay teens than the idea that God hates who they are. And I can't imagine that the God of the universe is so weak that he would find it impossible to love and embrace these people that I love effortlessly.

Michael,

In order for me to take seriously the biblical arguments you make, I need you to explain why you read the Bible like a "divine instruction booklet" in the first place. I think your answer was your first point, but the 2 Timothy 3:16 verse you shared in point #1 is IN the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is inerrant because it says it is? Before I can take seriously the biblical arguments you make, you have to make sure I understand why you would read the Bible in this way. I've characterized the way you read Scripture as the "divine instruction booklet" approach. Does this seem off to you?

To me, it seems more faithful to read scripture as the "fountain or source" of our faith, the collected codified experience of the early Christian communities. I believe this in part because of the forms Scripture takes: poems, prose, history, stories and parables. I will be more likely to take your Scriptural arguments seriously if you can explain to me why I should.

Jesus is a member of the Trinity. Scripture is not; Scripture is a gift for us to use in carrying out Jesus ministry. It should not be seen as a good in itself, for Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for valuing the law more than the people it was written for.

Craig: Your denial of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture really cuts off any further conversation with Reformed believers who are posting. It is a fundamental difference in how we view the Scriptures. I would encourage you to get Louis Berkhof's "Principles of Biblical Interpretation" for a Protestant Reformed understanding of biblical interpretation.

Jen: I would suggest the same for you, but I don't know if you are willing to do so. Craig has already stated he was willing to study out our position on why we believe the Bible is the Word of God. As long as you don't believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God then it simply will be an exercise in futility to post much to you. You have the nerve to call me a snake and a wolf for believing the exlusivity of the gospel? Jesus blasted the Pharisees for trying to obey the law as a Covenant of Works, but I'm not doing that, so you're not surprisingly taking Scripture out of context by comparing me to the Pharisees. It's a cop-out, and I'm thinking you're in a little over your head.

I find it interesting that you want to quote Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Do you really want to do that? Are you saying because I am calling something evil that the Bible calls sin, that makes me a wolf and a snake. That's interesting. I guess since Jesus called several things evil in the Sermon on the Mount, he must have been a wolf as well. Is that true? Or are we simply talking subjective evil? If Jen thinks it's evil then o.k. it must be evil, but if Jen thinks it's good then certainly it must be good. Never mind what Jesus says that has been recorded for us in the Bible, Jen is the authority here. Jen likes to quote the likeable parts of the Sermon on the Mount, but when Jesus gets exclusive in his claims in that same sermon, all of the sudden there's silence in the house.

I suppose the latter part of Romans 1 doesn't matter to you, even though you want to quote Paul and say you understand his true teachings. What are those true teachings? Could you please enlighten me? You say I am missing the heart of the gospel. What is the heart of the gospel? I would love to hear your answer on those two questions. It's easy to make claims and call people names and throw around statements, but now you're being called out on the carpet. You accused me of "persecuting" Craig. Show me where I did that, as well.

So I will be waiting for those answers. What are Paul's true teachings, and what is the heart of the gospel. You obviously know them as opposed to me, because you said so. You said I was a wolf and a snake that doesn't understand these two things, so I will be anxiously awaiting your answers. I suspect you'll be coming with authoritative Scriptural proof and not just subjective opinions. Looking forward to it.

Ryan,

I really desire to know why reformed believers such as yourself read the Bible in that way. Would you be interested in reading and answering the questions I posed in my last post?

I also committed to continue studying the reformed tradition so that I might better understand where people like you are coming from. I feel no urge or desire to get caught up in your worldview. I just think the world will be a better place if we seek to understand why each of us takes the stances that we do. I am interested why YOU read the Bible the way you do. I'm sure there is good reason.

Does my analysis of the "divine instruction booklet" way of reading the Bible seem like it is an adequate depiction of what you have come to believe is the faithful way to read it? If so, why? The conversation between us doesn't need to stop, because I'm asking you to explain WHY you read the Bible the way you do, not what you believe the Bible says. If I can find a copy at my seminary library I will take a look at the book you recommend, but I would like to know how YOU make these decisions.

My denial of the inerrancy of Scripture needn't shut off conversation with conservative reformed readers. It only means we must first discuss why we read the Bible this way anyway. I imagine you would have to do this in any conversation with any person outside of the conservative reformed Christianity, something I imagine you are equipped and willing to do if you believe that Christ called to evangelize persons (do you believe this?).

As to your comments towards Jen. While her words are obviously quite strong, to suggest that she is in over her head seems a bit demeaning to me. She is obviously an intelligent woman. Why not try to clarify what it is that would make her say the things she said? Or ask her about the fundamental differences between your two worldviews? Instead of treating her like a silly little girl, assume she has something to contribute to this conversation. Did you consider asking her why she joined this conversation?

I'm really anxious to hear your responses to my last post!

Ryan,

I have just reread the Sermon on the Mount in its entirety, and I am trying to understand what in it you are characterizing as "exclusive." You say that Jesus' problem with the Pharisees was that they lived by works not grace, but the Sermon on the Mount says your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. The Sermon on the Mount says judge not lest ye be judged. The Sermon on the Mount says remove the log from your own eye before pointing out the speck in your brother's. The Sermon on the Mount says not all who claim to know God will enter the Kingdom, that many who profess to follow him will be turned away from the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus says these will be known by their fruit. And what are the fruits of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23).

I have the nerve to call you a snake because of your insistence that you are living and believing according to GOD's truth, while those who disagree with you are wrong, subjective, and out of line with truth. I call you a snake because you think remaining faithful to the understanding of the Bible that you've inherited is more important than saving teenagers from suicide. And apparently you have no awareness that it is incredible presumptuous and hurtful to call a man in a committed relationship a "fornicator," to compare his committed, consensual, God-honoring relationship to rape. You have claimed that Craig is incapable of any moral reasoning, unable even to identify murder or bestiality as wrong. You have presumed that he "doesn't believe the gospel," simply because he never explicitly stated this, when he obviously calls himself a Christian. And you have assumed that since he does not maintain the same rigid understanding of the Bible as you do that he is a reckless relativist with absolutely no ethical standards whatsoever, interested in comforting and reassuring murderers. In short, you have shown no interest in or ability to carefully and gently attempt to understand where Craig is coming from.

Sir. I hope you wouldn't think it too "subjective" of me to label these offenses as proud, arrogant, abusive, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, brutal (2 Tim 3:1-5). And I hope you have enough familiarity with love, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control to recognize that your comments and your attitude toward homosexuals in general have not epitomized these virtues. Of course you did not claim to be perfect. But you do claim to be representing the perspective of GOD with your comments. Respectfully, I don't believe that is the case.

Jen: Totally misrepresenting what I said to Craig. I told him that the Bible (you know God's Word) sets up the biblical model of marriage between one man and one woman. ANYTHING outside of that, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is fornication. I NEVER said he was a rapist. I simply asked if he thought raping and murder and cheating was wrong. Is there something wrong with asking that question? Do you think those things are wrong? If so, why? You don't believe homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible says it is in Romans 1. I won't even mention the O.T. references. You want to throw around Paul's teaching, but you ignore him in Romans 1. What else do you ignore him on? It's obvious, the things you don't like. Can you not see what relative subjectivism that is? This isn't about what I believe. This is about the fact that you are subjective in what you want to believe in Scripture, when it is as clear as day. Romans 1 is not confusing at all. It is prescriptively condemning homosexuality and other sins. There is no way you can read Romans 1 and say anything other than that. But you want to use Paul when it's convenient for you. This is relative subjectivism at its finest.

The Gospel is revealed to us in the Word of God. I am sorry that you think that is rigid. But the Gospel is not revealed in feelings or opinions. It is revealed by God alone. The gospel transforms lives. That's what gay and lesbian teens need! Don't put words into my mouth and say I didn't care if they committed physical suicide. My point was, if we reach them with the gospel that transforms lives then we are saving them physically and spiritually. If you try and help them without the gospel then you are helping them commit spiritual suicide.

Please don't give me this line about those that disagree with ME are wrong. I don't have all the truth, but I KNOW what the Bible calls sin, and to not fight against that sin in the grace of the Lord Jesus goes against everything the gospel stands for! I'm not perfect! Far from it! But by the grace of the Lord Jesus, I fight and strive against what his Word says is wrong. What it calls sin. That's what Christians are called to do. Go read I Corinthians 5 where the man living in an adulterous relationship with his father's wife. Go read what Paul said to the church about that. You like to say you have insight to Paul's teachings (which you never shared, by the way). Go read that and tell me if Paul is being rigid and uncaring. Go call Paul a snake. Go call Jesus a snake when he said not all that call me Lord will enter my kingdom. Go call Jesus a snake when he said that the road to eternal life is NARROW and FEW there be that find it. Sermon on the mount references. Go call Jesus a snake when he prayed that we be led not into temptation. Again, sermon on the mount. Go call Jesus a snake when he said no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. YE CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON. These are not my words. They are the words of Jesus from the Sermon on the mount. You like when he says to judge not, but you ignore the fact that Paul says a man that is spiritual judges all things. Are Jesus and Paul at odds? Of course not. Jesus was talking about passing judgment upon man as if we were God. We have no right to do that. But we do have a right to call sin what it is. And we have a right to warn people living in open, unrepentent sin that the Bible says except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish.

You say a homosexual relationship is a God-honoring relationship. Why do you say that when you can read in Romans 1 and several other places that it is not! You say it because that's what you want to believe! That is relative subjectivism. You call what you want a sin, but you just don't care what the Bible calls sin. I would say the same thing to someone if they were living in a relationship with the opposite sex outside of the bounds of marriage. This isn't just about homosexuality. It's about what our Creator says is right and wrong. And it's not gray. It's right there in Scripture. The problem is that you want to ignore what you want to ignore. If you want to do that and continue to call me a snake, that's fine. But it's funny how I never called Craig any name like a snake, but you accuse me of treating others that don't believe like me in a harsh way. Wow, maybe you should take the advice of Jesus and cast the beam out of your own eye. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You blast my worldview to pieces, but then you say I'm harsh on others who don't believe like me. That hypocrisy, maam. It's hypocrisy of the worst kind.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. This will probably be all I have to contribute.

Craig: I'm sorry. I really don't want to go back and forth like this. We have different views of Scripture. That's just the way it is. You said you would look more into mine, and I hope that the suggestions I gave will be of help to you. We agreed to end this conversation because it wasn't going anywhere. I actually had a lot of respect for the way you handled the conversation, but Jen's comments were more of an attack mode. I don't feel like I attacked you at all, so her comments were out of line. I've said to her all I need to say, and I think the same can be said for my conversation with you.

Craig: The Berkhof book will explain why I read the Bible the way I do. It would do you more good to read the book than trying to get bits and pieces from me in this type of setting.

"Maybe we should think of one another as practicing different religions."

That's a very perceptive comment--for that is exactly what is taking place.

I know that the Presbyerterians say they aren't "redefining marriage", but that's exactly what they did (in principle) by their unbiblical decision to give practicing homosexual clergy-couples a green light. Even if the 173 regional divisions ultimately reject this move, the damage is done.

I know that the Presbyterians highly value church unity--and so does the Bible!--but barring a miracle from God, some sort of split (either official or unofficial) is inevitable. Two different religions, as it were.

The larger picture? The Presbyterian gay-clergy green-light should be viewed alongside other recent developments (like the decision of of NBC's "The Today Show" to include gay couples in its nationally televised "Modern Wedding Contest"), as part of America's overall ongoing slide towards the judgment of God.

Our nation is in serious trouble; the clock continues ticking.

okay, well, I'd prefer to hear how YOU make these tough decisions, but I can see if I can find a copy of the berhof book. Just in case you're interested, some of my fave theologians are: St. John of the Cross, Grace Jantzen, Schleiermacher, the Shakers, Karen Armstrong (idk if she's a theologian, but accessible and good), kathryn tanner (whose theology is more reformed influenced), and elizabeth johnson.

Some of these may help if you feel anxiety about the encroachment of "post-modernism", which seemed like it was held suspect by the monergism website.

I understand how you must feel wearied by this conversation. Surely you can understand that it has been absolutely dreadful for me. If you want to try to see things from the side of gay/lesbian persons inside the church, the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So is phenomenal. Of course, it is biased, but it doesn't purport to speak for the other side, only to show the struggles lgbt folks go through in Christian communities. You can watch it all online here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v_nFmLPMwk&feature=related).

Ryan,

Craig indicated that he does not believe it is a sin to be gay. You stated: "If someone rapes and murders an individual, according to your worldview, all that person needs to be told is that they are o.k. because they are made in the image of God." This is a gross misrepresentation of his position, and the only way I can even imagine you drawing this from his position is by assuming that you are comparing his acceptance of homosexuality to an acceptance of rape and murder. You called him a fornicator, you compared him to a rapist.

The truth is, I honestly believe that your faith makes you a better person, and that you are earnestly trying to live in the way you feel God has called you to. I am not altogether comfortable with calling people snakes, I was just trying to be like Jesus (Matt 23:33), but it hurts my little pluralistic heart to be so judgmental. The reason I felt it was is necessary is that while I deeply want you to be able to pursue and love God in the way you see fit, you won't grant gay and lesbian Christians the same courtesy, so we have ourselves a problem. Big reveal: I actually know Craig. I have admired his commitment to the church and to Christ for as long as I've known him, and I have been deeply saddened to see so many Christians seek to exclude him from the body of Christ for his sexuality. I want you to know: being gay is not a decision he made and it is not a behavior he engages in. It is who he is, and to reject his sexuality is to reject him.

You asked what I believe is the heart of the gospel. I guess we could start with Jesus' death for the sake of our sins, yes? Sure, that is a part of the gospel to me. But what is most important to me is not what Jesus saved us from, but what he saved us for. I believe Jesus came, lived, and died to bring about a world where all his children are valued and loved, where brothers and sisters are slow to anger, compassionate and patient with each other, where we all look after each other's needs, where love is more important than being right, where we see the precious face of Jesus in every person we encounter, and we act accordingly. I understand that I haven't done a very good job of modeling that world in the course of this conversation, and I won't try to justify that. But I will say that when I read the gospels and I try to imagine from them what Jesus would be like were I to see him today, I can't imagine him calling Craig a fornicator. I certainly can imagine him putting his arm around a gay teen who was just told in church that he is going to hell, after being shamed by his family and classmates all week long. And I can imagine him making us think twice about what we have always assumed the Bible says.

You may think this is subjective. Truthfully, so do I. But I don't believe any of us escape our own subjectivity. The human condition is a place of deep uncertainty, and we don't escape that by just assuming the Bible has all the answers. More than that, I believe that following my conscience is the only way I will ever learn to reliably interpret the Bible.

Best wishes.

Jen: I don't believe I was harsh with Craig. I have been trying to make the point that if we excuse one thing that the Bible calls sin, then we have to excuse all. Therefore, there is no right and there is no wrong. It is the typical postmodern worldview. I'm sorry but I don't believe that worldview is biblical. That doesn't mean that I couldn't sit down with you and Craig and have a civil conversation. I believe we easily could. And, you are right about Jesus going to where the sinners were. But remember what he said to the woman caught in adultery - Go and sin no more. He wasn't calling her to perfection, but he was telling her to turn from the adulterous lifestyle. Fight against it. I have things that I have to fight in my life everyday. This isn't about me thinking I'm perfect. But Jesus calls us to more than a life of love and compassion. He calls us to a life of holiness. That's why I bring up the woman caught in adultery. It was not about homosexuality, but Jesus didn't excuse her sin. That is why I brought up the man in I Corinthians 5. It was not about homosexuality, but the Church didn't excuse his sin. This isn't about me being a homophobe. This is about me calling people to repentance and fighting sin through the grace of the gospel. That's what Reformed ministers are called to do. If Craig came to me and said that he believes living a homosexual life is sin, but he still battles those urges to be with someone of the same sex - I would help him from Scripture to battle those temptations. If another man came to me and said that he believes living a life of fornication with women is a sin, but he still has the desire to do so, I would help him from Scripture to battle those temptations. But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that something the Bible calls wrong is not really wrong. I'm sorry, but my conscience fails me far too often. I must be led of the Holy Spirit and not by my feelings or opinions. And the Holy Spirit leads us and directs our thoughts through the Bible, the Word of God.

So because I believe that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, I have to call Craig to repentance of that sin. I have to tell Craig, rest in the finished work of Jesus and repent of your sin. That's what Jesus told the woman caught in adultery. Do you really think he would have condoned her adultery if after he told her to turn from it, she still kept doing it and wouldn't repent of it? That's not the Jesus of the Bible. That's why he told her to stop doing it. To me the definition of a gay and lesbian Christian is one that has repented of that lifestyle and may still have desires to be with someone of the same sex, but they are fighting those sinful desires. So really they are not gay and lesbian. They may have urges to be with those of the same sex, but they are fighting those urges because the Bible says to do so would be wrong. But as long as it is condoned and not repented of, I can have civil conversations with that person and pray for them, but as a minister of Christ's church I have no other duty but to call them to repent and believe the gospel as is revealed in Scripture. This makes me seem rigid to many, but as we've already seen, opposite views to mine are just as rigid.

I hope this makes sense, but I'm afraid our worldviews are just so different that it cannot make sense to you. I do appreciate the tenor of your last post, and I too was hasty in some of my words in earlier posts to you. I'm sorry about that.

Craig: Thanks for the links above. Of course you know it will not change my mind concerning your lifestyle, but I find it helpful to know some of the theologians that have the same worldview as you.

Good night guys.

But you don't understand that this thing you feel compelled to say is by its nature harsh, hurtful, and judgmental. You believe the Bible calls you to do it, but that does not change the fact that yes, it is harsh, hurtful, and judgmental. By saying that a gay person must be "struggling" with their homosexuality, you are essentially saying they have to be unhappy with themselves in order to be welcome in the church. If a gay person actually feels their own self-worth, is assured of God's love for them and acceptance of them, then they are not welcome. It's strange.

FYI, I was a reformed Christian for 4 or 5 years, so your worldview absolutely makes sense to me. I don't believe you're a homophobe, and I recognize and admire how consistent your worldview is. For me, it ultimately seemed all too simple; it didn't acknowledge the complexities of my lived experience, and I came to believe that it arbitrarily emphasized things in the Bible that were not actually the most important things.

As for the adulterer - yes Jesus said go and sin no more. But how can you make this the point of the story? Jesus said let he without sin cast the first stone. Jesus first ran to her rescue when she was being accused. Only after he had defended her did he command that she sin no more. Of course Jesus believed that adultery was wrong, but first, he believed that condemning a person was wrong, even if that person is undeniably a sinner. Maybe you and I can both learn from this story.

I appreciate your apology. That was very kind of you.

Jen:
My comments were addressed to Craig. I thought they were reasonable and fair. I do believe that Craig is more aware of why Christians regard the Bible with the authority that it claims as "God breathed". As I said earlier, there may be Christians who struggle with homosexual temptation and sin, but there is no such thing as "conservative Christians" or "gay Christians". These are labels designed to create division and are based on revisionist and liberalism--both of which are anathema to orthodox Christian belief and practice.

My challenge to Craig is not as the tax collector or the prostitute. They were not believers. On the other hand, Craig claims that he is a believer. The Scriptures exhort, nay demand, that we hold each other to account for the way we as believers live and that we should judge(not condemn) those in the church, but not those without.

If you are asking do I have compassion for LGBT people caught in a life of sin? Yes I do, but with the same compassion that I have for all sinners. No one group can lay to a special exemption on issues of sexual immorality. You somehow seem to accept moral relativism and do not take seriously the authority of Scripture either as theopneustos. Instead you use grace as a license for others to continue in sin.

I would be interested in your view as to whether or not homosexuality can be justified as part of the "new life" and "new activity" that we as believers are called to live. To argue that it does, means that no one needs to change or "die to themselves". Are you suggesting that we can keep sinning deliberately and intentionally? That does not seem to accord with any reasonable understanding of salvation, redemption, atonement for sin etc. In your case, we would need to ask, Salvation from what? redemption from what? atonement from what?

May I encourage you to investigate both the Greek and Hebrew words used in Scripture. The syntax does not leave any room for doubt that Paul (and the Holy Spirit) had all forms of homosexuality in mind when condemning those practices. But of course, as you have demonstrated, you will no doubt read around those passages and find what you are looking for. As someone that takes the text with the utmost seriousness, as they are the Holy Spirit's words to us, I too find much it has to say as being uncomfortable and even disturbing. But I cannot be selective about the way I apply it.

In the Book of Revelation the church at Pergamos are told, "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit sexual immorality".(Rev 2:13-17) In the same passage, the doctrine of the Nicolaitans is rebuked. Both the Baalamites and the Nicolaitans are tied together in this way because they are viewed as "devourers of the people" and commentators view the Nicolaitans as utilising the same methods and practices as did Baalam to lead them astray--that is sexually immoral practices. This same spirit is at work in some quarters of the church today. I believe it is why there is a substantial decline of those churches in attendance because they no longer offer any hope to a humanity that is overwhelmed with sin and bondage.

Finally, there is a lack of certainty about the verses in Timothy speaking to women. However, when looking at the Pastoral Epistles as a totality, it is easy to see that Paul is speaking to a pattern of false teaching that seems to be implying that the new covenant envisages a role reversal with women now to be dominant over men(which is what was happening in Ephesians) or overturning cultural norms that would result in division amongst believers. Paul of course in other passages highlights that there is "neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female..." He also reaffirms in the passage in question, the divine order that remains in the present creation, and also aims to put to rest any teaching to the contrary that somehow women are now to dominate over men. How you can view his reaffirming of the divine order for men and women as somehow inconsistent and at the same time supportive of your view that homosexual practice is a legitimate, Scripturally endorsed lifestyle is classical eisegesis. As I said before, our understanding affects our behaviour.

In answer to your question of who Craig is? I am referring to who Jesus sees us as in our "true identity"--our identity in Him. The work of the Holy Spirit is transformative and brings about renewal. It is restorative, healing, and life changing. Bondages can be broken and we can be set free from unclean spirits. This is part of the ministry that we are called to as believers (see Mark chapter 16). We can be freed from our enemies but not our friends. Our sin needs to be identified as an enemy to our soul. I do not see that we are called to "mimick" one aspect of Jesus' life and ministry, but rather accept the totality of His message--the full counsel of God if you will. (Acts 2)

So the stand I take is one of faithfulness to the Scripture. Not all aspects of Scripture are easy to digest as we see in Rev 10:9, "So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." But that is what it is designed to do and as we incorporate it into our lives, the Holy Spirit forms and transforms the community of God. We are written into the story and maintain unity of the Spirit and the faith by submitting to its authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

In summary, the approach you have adopted is suspect and spurious at best and blasphemous at worst. The unity of the faith and unity of the Spirit are things that believers are called to maintain. The problem with your interpretations is that they seek neither to hold to the faith and teachings that have been passed downand "committed to our trust." In fact, those of us called to teach the Scriptures have a particularly big responsibility to impart the truth of the Word of God.

I don't mean to question yours or Craig's faith in Jesus, but I do question the fruit of your theology which does not seem to involve confession and repentance. We cannot attribute our feelings and opinions to God. His Word is clear. If we reject the authority of Scripture and deny Christ in the way we live, we will be denied before the Father.

Please understand that this is not borne out of pride or arrogance but out of a deep love of the truth in God's Holy Word. Neccessarily, this is the same love that motivates believers to "speak the truth in love." It is difficult to share this when I know that this is likely to be viewed as being bigoted and prejudiced and therefore rejected. That is not my heart. I have said that I personally wish Craig well and that my hope is that the Holy Spirit will lead him into His truth.

Craig,
The Scriptures are meant to be more than merely "read" as a poetic, historical and literary masterpiece as you suggest. They are not merely meant to be appreciated for their intrinsic religious or cultural value or the powerful narratives contained in it. Scripture is the inspired Word of God--inspired by the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. I don't have time to give you a lesson in pneumatology other than to say that the Holy Spirit is God's empowering presence and resides within God's people. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors of Scripture is within believers and motivates us to "wholeness/holiness". The Holy Spirit works to convict sin which crouches at the door of every heart, effect change, and is the eschatological Spirit that unifies the people of God under its authority. Interpretation of Scripture is a very important task and one must exercise great caution in undertaking it.

So in answer to your question of "how do you read the Bible?", I would firstly state that your question is misconceived. It really does not fall within the ambit of "lectio divina" - spiritual reading-- to choose "how we read" it. Whilst I understand that is actually how you, Jen and others approach it, Scripture is not something we can just merely cherry pick from to suit ourselves. If that is the case, then it can be interpreted to justify anything......slavery, subjection of women, homosexuality, fornication, adultery....as has already been pointed out.

Scripture interprets scripture, and whilst I do not believe in taking a purely technical approach because that is to do not understand its purpose, we must "stand under" it in order to "understand" it. We cannot come to it with an a prior position. One can read scripture, or one can "eat it" so to speak.(Rev 10:9)

"Lectio divina" contains three elements, namely 1)meditatio--entering the world of the text--how we become part of the text; 2) oratio--prayer--or our response to what we have read; and 3) contemplatio-means living the read/meditated/prayed text in the everyday, ordinary world. Through the Spirit, we can see the Word become incarnate in us, that is the Word made flesh in us.

It is astonishing how many ways we manage to devise for using the Bible to avoid a believing obedience, both personal and corporate, in receiving and following the Word made flesh. The danger in all reading is that words be twisted into propaganda or reduced to information, mere tools and data. We silence the living voice and reduce words to what we can use for convenience and advantage.

Individuals can engage in sacrilege either upwards or downwards--that is to say, it can become so revered that it is merely a tool of information or data (sacrilege upwards) OR we can be ignorant of what it actually contains and therefore not treat it with the respect it deserves. The modern affliction is usually the former.

Now we may choose to read Scripture, even read around significant portions of it, especially the parts we don't like or don't accord with how we feel, or engage in "spiritual reading" which is to allow it to form us, be made flesh in us, transform us by the renewing of the mind.

Michael, why would I "stand under" Scripture in the first place? Why not, like Christ, stand beside it, ready to extoll its lessons when necessary and call for more radical love where it is deficient? If the reason you do so is because Scripture says to, I cannot imagine that that would be very convincing to people who are not members of your religious community, with the same practices. Are you saying that you must first submit or "stand under" Scripture before you can realize that that is the faithful thing to do? Does this amount to an experience of Scripture which leads to its authentication in the life of the believer? Are you as concerned about subjectivity as Ryan was, because both Jen and I have "stood under" Scripture in the past and it didn't seem as obviously internally consistent or easily systematized into a list of rules. Yet yours is the way the Spirit leads and ours you characterize as blasphemy. In Jen's more heated posts, I think she's been trying to point out (true in a rather incendiary way) that this presumption is faulty and ends up demonizing those of us who disagree.

I think many people practice the lectio divina (and have since the early medieval church), but just because it is your practice does not satisfy my question of why you practice it in the first place. I would truly love to know.

I think you may be coming from a slightly different place than Ryan, because of your pneumatological understanding of Scripture reading (don't worry about the lesson, I'm studied in systematic and historical theology from a variety of Christian traditions including both conservative reformed and evangelical ones - but of course, if you have other insight into your theological tradition, my ears are open). I don't know this for sure, but it feels to me like Christians who are often characterized as conservative (like how I did that?) often get to skirt the question of why read the Bible the way they do in the first place. In my experience this was an easy enough question to avoid because I just read it like everyone else in my conservative Christian community (I flirted with evangelicalism for awhile), but I truly want to know what you think of it. If this is a matter which must close discussion between the two of us, I hope you can see how unsatisfactory that will be to people outside your theological tradition, and encourage you to think about the answer. I'm so adamant about this because this was a major fault in my theological thinking that lead me to make decisions regarding how I treat others and myself that I now greatly regret.

Again, my main question is: why should someone without your understanding of the Bible make the move to "stand under" Scripture in the first place? If someone does so, how do they know the Spirit guided them to do so?

Craig: I don't think that Michael and I come from a different position at all. I hold to a presuppositional apologetic position. In other words, until the Spirit of God opens ones eyes to the truth revealed in His Word, they will just approach the Bible the way you and Jen do. Again, this just gets me accused of being rigid, but that's what someone who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture is going to say. The conversation comes to a huge impasse on that topic. The Bible is self-attesting, and as Michael said, you have to look at it as a whole. You cannot just cut it up into parts and pieces to fit what you want. This is my problem with the post-modern age. Everything then becomes subjective without an objective standard. Ultimately though, everyone has an objective standard whether they want to admit to it or not. My objective standard is the Bible. Those of us that believe the Bible is God's Word, we believe that it doesn't just contain some of God's words, but it is the Word of God as he has revealed it to us. Peter says that it is a more sure word of prophecy even than when he heard the Father speak to them from the Mt. of Transfiguration.

Again, I can continue to give you bits and pieces on why Reformed believers come to the Scriptures the way they do, but it would do you more good to read that Berkhof book. It will explain it in much of its entirety. You seem like a very well educated man, so it shouldn't take you that long to work your way through it. You could probably do it in 2-3 evenings if you took the time.

Ryan,

My seminary library doesn't have a copy of Berkhof's book, but the Presby. seminary library close to my house does, so I'll pick it up asap.

Our conversation only comes to an impasse because you are sliding past my question. Does not the "self-attesting" character of Scripture mean that your position on Scripture is - I know you won't like this - subjective? Are you not saying that the Spirit gives the believer an experience of the brilliance and coherence of Scripture? How can you say the Spirit guides your reading but not ours?

Because I've read of this argument before (in the work of Charles Hodge), let me see if I have your position correct. Calvin taught that, when considering the divinity of the Bible, we should “seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments, or
conjectures.” I think you believe this (correct?). Hodge thought that the conviction of Scripture's inspiration comes from an inner spiritual or moral conviction he calls "moral evidence" that occurs when you read it (I guess you would call this the Spirit's guidance?). This kind of evidence lies not in the arguments but in the “goodness and nature of [the] doctrines” found in the Bible. He characterized moral evidence as consisting

"mainly in its perfect holiness, in the correspondence between all its statements respecting God, man, redemption, and a future state, and all our right judgments, reasonable apprehensions and personal experience. When the mind is enlightened to see this holiness… how exactly the rule of duty prescribed by the word of God agrees with that enforced by conscience; how the account of human nature coincides with
human experience; how fully it meets our whole case… how powerfully
the truths there presented operate to purify, console and sustain the soul,
the belief of scriptures is a necessary consequence.

This sounds to me like what you maintain, is it?

If so, how can you say that because this is your experience, it is objective?! This is obviously an experience of Scripture (which you claim the Spirit for), so how does it live up to your standard for objectivity?! It may be that MANY Christians experience the Bible this way, but as long as there are any who do not, I'm disinclined to believe what you have here is not subjectivism. If objective means true to everyone, everywhere at all times, you're resting your claims for objectivity on the experience of some. You haven't even claimed that it is impossible to read Scripture without this experience (obviously it is not), but have stated that the Holy Spirit only illumines some who read it to believe what you believe. I guess if that is your standard for objective, then you are right, but you are misusing the term, I believe. To tell someone who does not have this experience (what you call the Spirit's guidance) that they don't know Objective Truth is crazy, because they never could given your definition! Might as well keep your faith a secret and certainly not argue an ethical code to wider society from it! What would be the point! And you cannot tell other people who don't have this experience that they are not Christians; to do so will make no sense. Why frustrate them?! Why not leave them silently alone to enjoy what bit of life they have before God sends them to hell? If your version of Christianity relies on a secret Holy Spirit experience, why rub it in everyone else's face? Is it because God tells you to in the Bible? Why would he do that? To torment the hell-bound? Obviously I've gone a little wild with your argument, but there is honesty in these questions.

I don't desire to prove you wrong, only to suggest that you are bound by the limits of your own experience and interpretation, as much as you desire to believe you are not. It may be that you live in an insulated religious community which allows you FEEL as though this is an obvious and objective position on Scripture, but surely you realize you are not the only one reading it and that others read it and do not come to the conclusion that it is brilliant in its consistency and moral rectitude. It seems as though you are more concerned with ensuring you have an OBJECTIVE worldview (really an obsession of Western "educated" men since the enlightenment - it doesn't have to cause you the anxiety it obviously does - we all learn to be ethical beings quite well without the objectivity objession) than you are concerned with the spiritual and physical suffering of human SUBJECTS. I know that is not a true characterization of you, but it appears to be what your theological convictions privilege.

My main concern is that as long as you deny the experiential element of your own theological foundation and claim to have God's will exclusively, you are likely to work against those whose experience deserves just as much privilege, those often pushed to the margins of Church and society. While I have come to learn how to live well at the margins of the Church, it is no question that it sucks. While it may feel that gays and lesbians are encroaching upon the morals and world of the society at large, in the Church (MY WORLD) we are more often marginalized, silenced, demonized or pushed out.

Does any of this make sense to you? I'm more convinced we've hit a difficult question than I am that we're at an impasse, but if you're not up for the convo, I understand too.

Jen,

You are a dynamite gal. Sometimes women have to be troublesome or men won't listen to them.

Your compassion is Christ-like and I know your passionate speech came from a good place.

She's a good gal, guys. I don't know this for sure, but I think she was in part trying to get you to understand the ways biblical rhetoric affects people, regardless of its appropriateness to the situation.

Craig

Craig: The Bible makes it clear in I Corinthians 2 that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, Jesus also said that, "you err not knowing the Scriptures." He also said that his sheep know him and hear his voice and follow him. Jesus also said that the Spirit of God would guide believers into all truth as is revealed in his Word. The Bible is indeed objective in its truth, but one must be born again by the Spirit to know the truth of God. This doesn't mean that there won't be different interpretations of certain passages of Scripture. There certainly are, but the Westminster Confession states that "all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are nnecessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." A man must be born again to believe these things. And it is the Gospel that brings a person out of darkness into the light of God's Word. The fall had a Noetic affect upon man that destroyed his reason and ability to think God's thoughts after him. This is why we need the Holy Spirit to teach us to think God's thoughts after him. Those are not subjective thoughts because they are God's thoughts, and these thoughts are revealed to us in the special revelation of Scripture. This doesn't mean that all believers will think alike in all things, but see the Confession quote above. Those things that are clearly propounded and opened in Scripture are able to be understood by the Spirit of God alone. This would be like saying that one denies the penal substitiutionary sacrifice of Christ, when the Bible so clearly reveals it. The same goes for the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of regeneration etc. The mind of fallen man must be regenerated to understand these objective truths of Scripture. If that makes me sound exclusive, I cannot help that, for it is what is taught in Scripture. After an individual has been regenerated we desire to know all that God has been pleased to reveal in His Word. But that is where our personal experience is anchored, in the objective work and person of Christ, and the objective Word of God.

I come to an understanding of the Scriptures as being self-attesting and self-evident because God has been pleased by His grace to regenerate me and renew my mind. This sounds like I am placing myself above others, but that's where the unbeliever fails to see the simplicity of the gospel. Anybody can believe the gospel. You asked, why tell others? It's because the gospel demands its message to be spread - repent and believe the gospel. The reason why people won't believe the gospel is because they love darkness rather than light. They need the grace of God to regenerate them by His Word, through the Gospel. In John 3 when Nicodemus was trying to reason with his natural mind, Jesus told him that he must be born again to the see the kingdom of God. Until a man is born again the revelation of God makes no sense to them.

And if an individual wants to blame God for the exclusivity of Christianity, he must remember that God has written the law upon all men's hearts. The unbeliever has no one but himself to blame for supressing that truth. How are we to know what God wants us to believe concerning him? It's revealed to us in the Bible. The natural man, however, tries to live in the world devoid of God's special revelation. He tries to obtain his belief of God from general revelation and history shows us that produces nothing but idolatry. Man is by nature religious and will therefore construct a response to that revelation he sees around him and that he feels within him. But because he id doing this in a fallen state and he rejects God's special revelation, he is simply trying to construct his life in the same way he builds castles out of sand.

The Bible clearly reveals objective truth concerning the salvation of man, sin, redemption, regeneration, sanctification, etc. The problem is that the unbeliever will be rebellious toward this truth and they will suppress it in unrighteousness. This isn't God's fault though, because God's revelation is clear and is not ambiguous because God is present and with his Word. Because of this, man has a responsibility to respond in obedience to God's Word, as opposed to rebellion. God is present with his word therefore there is no ambiguity concerning the fact that man must respond in obedience. The problem lies with the fallen heart of rebellion. The principle here is that Scripture is always sufficiently clear to make us know our responsibility before God because God is present with his Word. So I can preach the Word and call people to repentance and to believe the objective truth of the Gospel because the Bible makes it clear that the Spirit of God goes forth with the preaching of the Word to accomplish his purposes to overcome the rebellion and darkness of unregenerate minds, and to sanctify regernate minds so that we see the light more clearly with each day as we bring our thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. But if you don't believe the Bible to be divinely inspired and without err, then you treat it no differently than a human book. You cast your subjective darkness upon what God has so objectively made clear in his Word.

Hi Michael,

I am sitting in my sunroom with Craig eating guacamole and listening to bluegrass, and I can't stand to have this conversation anymore. You two go be as ungay as you like. I am going to go on enjoying the endless possibilities of God's free earth, loving everyone, trusting them to be whoever they feel compelled to be, thinking in newer and newer ways, reading and listening to as many wildly various perspectives as I can get my hands on, cherishing the earth and all the wonderful creatures I get to share it with.

I am not Presbyterian, but I hope the gays win.

Sincerely,

Jen

I'm with Jen. It seems that you know one perspective in minute detail, that of your brand of Christianity, which has been around just a short while. This is to the detriment of knowing, experiencing, understanding and enjoying anything else about the world, which I agree with Jen has good in it. This is obvious.

To any crazy enough to have read all this, I love Scripture, I think it is the Father's greatest gift to us after Jesus and the Spirit. But you don't use a gift of kitchen knives to kill people; you use them to make a feast that is rich, plentiful, and centered on family and friends and the Giver of all good gifts. I hope this is as obvious to you as it has become to me.

To those broken by "biblical" teaching that devalues human dignity in favor of invisible glory, judge these teachings by their fruit. See what does good in the world and trust that. You are crippled in sin, but so are those who claim to teach you. You are not without value. And you are not alone. We are here with Christ waiting to welcome you in. You live in sin if you hate yourself, and deserve to know God's love.

Ryan, I think once you fall in love or have children this will be all you will be able to say. Until then, enjoy some guac and bluegrass.

Craig

Jen: So by your own confession you do love conservative, Bible-believers for what we believe, right? Ultimately though, when you say things like "I hope the gays win" it doesn't sound as if there is much love involved. You see what I'm saying? You profess to have an open-mind towards all people EXCEPT people like myself or Michael, whom you consider close-minded. You claim to be open-minded, but you leave no room for opposing views if they are those rigid Bible believers. It's a total contradiction to the post-modern mindset. I don't see how you cannot see that. At the end of the day, your last post has given you away. You're going to go enjoy life with those that are "right", and you pity people like me who believe like I do. Guess what, Jen? As much as you don't want to hear this, that is exactly why you hate what I stand for. But at the end of the day you're thinking the same way, it's just coming from a non-biblical worldview.

Take care.

Craig: See my post to Jen above.

By the way, I have been married for over 14 years, have two beautiful girls, and another child on the way, but thanks for whatever that last line or two in your final post meant.

Take care.

Ryan,

I am done with the guacamole, so maybe my head is a little clearer.

I don't know why rooting for the gays is unloving.

I never called everyone I know "right." I could care less about right, mister. I care about good, and I care about kindness.

I consider you impossible to have a productive conversation with, but I sure don't pity you. And yes, my world is plenty big enough to include you. Yours is one of many perspectives that I have investigated and appreciated, and I see plenty of merits to it. God help us if you ever have a gay child, but I know all sorts of beautiful things come out of your beliefs. Seriously, best wishes.

Craig and Jen:

Open mindedness is not always a good thing. We can open ourselves up to a lot more than we would imagine if we are not judicious and prayerful about it.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Romans 8:19

I am content to rest this and other issues in the hands of the heavenly courts of justice--the Perfect Judge. I have no malice or guile toward either of you, but I am compelled to share the truth of the Word--as discomforting as it might be to the hearer and no matter how unpopular or foolish that may make me appear. I don't mind being made a spectacle of before men as long as it is for Christ.

Like my brother in Christ Ryan(who I look forward to fellowshipping with and experiencing the deep mysteries of God the other side of glory00if not before then), I too am married (to an amazing girl)and have two beautiful children. I also enjoy God's wonderful creation, appreciate art, music, the Scriptures and live life to the fullest. Life in the Spirit is wonderful, liberating and freeing. I thank the Lord for His goodness and I hope that the truth of Jesus prevails. Confess your sins and turn from the old life. Embrace the new life!

I would invite everyone to burst open the doors of your heart to Christ, receive the Holy Spirit, and love and know the truth which shall set you free. Receive the Holy Spirit's power whereever and whatever situation you may be in. Nothing is to difficult. No sin too powerful or overwhelming. Sin and death have been broken by the blood of Christ. Get yourself into a Bible-believing, Spirit filled church where you can be encouraged in the new life. His blood never fails us. It is Life Giving! Dance with the Lover of your soul.

Michael: Amen and Soli Deo Gloria, my brother!

Michael,

Would you be willing to answer the questions I posed about the subjectivity of your position? It seems that you and Ryan are claiming that the Holy Spirit illumines a person to believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Is this not tantamount to a religious experience particular to some people but not others? How then can you call this objective? if objectivity is really just what God tells conservative reformed Christians and keeps hidden from all others, then it fits no definition of objectivity you might share with any other Christian or non-Christian, maybe you could consider the term "God's limited-issue subjectivity" or something less confusing.

If you become practiced at experiencing and learning different world views (even other Christian theological ones), of truly knowing those different from you, it need not cause an existential crisis. It is really quite easy, and you grow in virtues that Jesus extolled like compassion, love and the removal of hypocrisy. It doesn't mean you have to leave your convictions, wisdom or faith at the door. It does mean you have to be quiet enough to let the other person speak. I wonder if this seems like a dangerous practice to you because it "invites Satan in" or something like that. I think Jen is suggesting that this kind of humility is more important than perfected doctrine, that this was how she sees the model of Jesus' ministry.

No need to comment on your last post, Michael. Probably not the scriptures I would have chosen, but well done - probably the first post we all agree with!

Way to take this issue on Craig!
I'm with you brother!

One most certianly can believe, serve and love Jesus, and be gay... in a commited and loving relationship.
I've been with my partner 3 years now, and adore him. And once I stopped listening to the judgmental voices of such people as (some of) the above, I've been the most liberated in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as I ever have been.

Keep on pushing along!

Craig, I had a chance to read through a bunch of your comments at the beginning, but couldn't find time to read through all of them. It seemed like you were stuck on one particular statistic, which no one really attempted to give an adequate response to. The statistic stated that LGB teens are six times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth. Before you ask, I have many friends in the LGB community, and most of them already know where I stand on their lifestyle choices. Nothing I am about to say is meant to hurt you, it's a purely rational rebuttal to the conclusion you came to based on the statistic you have offered.
Okay, so you read a statistic that homosexual youth are 6x more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth--then you concluded that the church was responsible for the disparity. I think your conclusion reveals more than the statistic. Why did you draw this particular conclusion? There are dozens of others you could have drawn. Why is the church at fault? Couldn't it be genetic? Or couldn't there be another environmental agent at work, such as family structure, or as one of the other writers pointed out early childhood abuse? Out of all the possibilities you concluded the church was at fault...I think you jumped to this conclusion because of our dominant culture, which tends to blame the burden of the LGB self-image upon the "big-bad" church who disagrees with their lifestyle choices.
Let me put this another way. When looking at the situation, no matter where a person stands on the issue of same-sex relationships, it can be acknowledged and appreciated that a teen or adolescent struggling with LGB feelings is experiencing angst. Either they are meant to pursue the desires they are struggling with (as the dominant culture is telling them), or they are meant to let go of those desires (as the conservative church culture is telling them). Either way one of the groups will be telling them they chose the wrong path, that they will not end up fully embodying their true self, and that they will never fully find self-fulfillment. Craig, can you tell me why you concluded from this statistic that the church was responsible for the increased suicide rates for LGB youth? Isn't it just as reasonable to say that if the desires of LGB youth stem from brokenness, and the church is trying to lead them to healing, that the lies of the dominant culture are in fact what is producing so much angst in the youth that they ultimately begin contemplating suicide? Your conclusion then is not the rational one, only rational to someone who has already decided where they stand on the issue.

Elliott, of course there could be many factors that contribute to the increased suicide rate among lgbt teens. i'm only speaking from experience when i say that fundamentalist evangelical churches caused me more angst than did the more liberal branches of protestantism and catholicism i've been exposed to. also, further anecdotal evidence is found in the movie For the Bible Tells Me So, and you can watch it all on YouTube, which I encourage you to do (not so much because it makes a stellar argument on either side, but because the stories it tells about individuals within the church reveal just what a difficult predicament lgbt persons are put in in the church).

I spent 4 years in conservative church culture, and listened and practiced their advice on homosexuality seriously and piously, trusting God to form me to his will, praying regularly and in community, being open about what i thought were my struggles and allowing my life to be changed. it did not make me straight. the most that happened was for a period of about 1 year i felt completely asexual, without sexual attraction to anyone (although i still was intimately attached to male friends).

of course, we cannot know without asking these children why they commit suicide. i know that many liberal churches do much to help these children, and i'm sure even conservative churches help in many ways, offering love and encouragement when necessary (i know if i hadn't had friends telling me how much God loved me, i would not have made it through that time in my life - even though i eventually began to disagree with some of them as to what God wanted for my life). however, in my experience, the message conservative churches send glbt teens is not one that heals. i'm primarily speaking from experience (and the experience of many of my friends). i also have friends from my time as an evangelical who still are trying the ex-gay thing, and it seems to cause them a lot more angst than my own sexual identity does me (not to mention the value having the love and support of my partner adds to my life and how it enhances my ministry).

of course i've been speaking anecdotally. i interpreted the statistic based on my own experience, as i'm sure you are doing too. i wonder how your lgb friends would interpret it?

to the idea though, that this suicide rate could be accounted for by the idea that these kids are more often abused as children than straight children i find a little confusing (if not offensive). it is a common myth that lgbt persons must have been abused as children. i was never abused mentally or physically and have a wonderful relationship with my father, as does my partner with his (we live minutes from his parents, and mine are visiting us from out of state this weekend - we're going to Disney World with my niece and nephew!). i would be willing to consider that claim if it was supported by any of the professional psychological or sociological societies that study these things, but i encourage you to read the statements by the american psychological association, the national association of social workers and other societies made up of the best and brightest scientific minds of our time (although beware, because organizations that sound official, but do not represent the majority of psychiatric and social workers, like to put out "studies" that say otherwise - i'll go with the majority of experts on this one).

i'd encourage you to talk to your lgb friends to find out if they have been abused as children and compare your findings to that of your straight friends. if the number is higher for your lgb friends, maybe they're simply more truthful because of their being forced to talk about their personal sexuality - something straight people usually get to avoid. it's just a guess (based on scientific evidence), but you may find that there are no differences in numbers. also, can you understand why this myth might be offensive to me? i am a psychologically healthy and loving individual - for conservative Christians to assume (or even to wonder) that i have been abused and therefore psychologically unhealthy places me at a disadvantage in society (and could affect my ability to get a job or keep a job - since employers can legally fire someone just for being gay).

also, i'm not as quick to demand that i am showing the "right path" and the church shows "the wrong path". in fact, i respect the decision of people who want to try ex-gay ministries to do so - i only desire that they have all the information available to them, so they can make those decisions in good faith. what is so frustrating to me about conservative Christianity is that often times it denies that opportunity to people - insisting that listening to diverse viewpoints, opinions and experiences can be the devil's way of seducing you into untruth. i don't believe an lgbt person (especially a young one) can adequately survey the information available to them when they're being told they'll go to hell if they come out. i gather you didn't read all of my conversation with the other people on here (probably wise of you), but they seemed unwilling to entertain the viewpoints of other people long enough to see if they held value or worth (in fact, one person directed me to a website that talked about why every other group of Christian than them was wrong! they wouldn't have to listen to other people - because a website already tells them why other people are wrong!).

anyway, i don't think the "big bad" church is out to get gay people. in fact, as a member of the church, i welcome all others with open arms. i agree that the story that the dominant culture tells can often be wrong, but just because an idea is more prevalent in the dominant culture than the church doesn't make it wrong (in fact, Christ had some ideas that flew in the face of established religion). however, based on the anecdotes and professional research i suggested above, i think many of my sisters and brothers do lgbt persons an injustice when they call such an intimate part of a person a sin.

so, i agree with you, the argument i made was more evidential than rational. we make arguments like this all the time. for instance: "is it hot or cold outside?" "i feel heat on my skin, therefore, it is hot". or, "is it hot or cold outside?" "well, Jenny, my meteorologist friend, said it was hot, therefore, it's hot". a rational argument might be "is it hot or cold outside?" "well, it is July, and July is a hot month, therefore, it is hot". i'm not trying to be pedantic, only trying to suggest that we utilize anecdotal evidence and the opinions of professionals all the time in making our truth claims. thanks for asking me to clarify though, and i'd love to hear about your experience with lgbt lives and the church's response(s). how do your lgb friends (Christian and not) think about these things?

I must have missed the part where God came and revoked all his words about homosexuality in his written scripture...

Really, though, this is sad. What happened to God authority? The Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality. So it's very clearly a sin. Itchy ears will lead you astray.

Read the Bible. Read the Bible. Read the Bible. It has God's words to us. He's filling us in on reality. It's right there in the Bible. Don't filter it through your preferences. Our preferences are shaped by our desire to sin and be far from God. So no wonder you're led to accept homosexuality when you listen to your flesh's preferences and cave to the world's pressures.

Doug,
Please see some of the other comments i've made on this post. I've suggested that "bible-believing Christians" are filtering the Bible through their own preferences more than those of us who can read it and clearly see that moral certainty (a list of rights and wrongs) are not what it is all about. Perhaps "bible-believing Christians" are caving to the world's pressures for moral/absolute certainty more than those of us who desire to affirm the actual complexity and beauty of the bible and the world.

As to your admonishment to read the bible, I have read it all the way through and it does not look like a divine instruction booklet to me - it looks like the record of the experience of Jewish and early Christians with God. I would love to hear your opinion on why it should be read that way. Did God tell you it should? Does it look like a divine cookbook to you? To me the form of the Bible looks a lot like that of other early Christian sources, like the Gospel of Thomas. If you simply read the Bible as a divine instruction booklet because that's what your church has always done, this doesn't seem like a very good reason.

Why are my preferences shaped by sin but not yours? You seem to be willing to ignore the way God's word is written in order to read it like a divine instruction booklet - this seems pretty dishonest to me, and reveals an obsession with having "all the right answers" in opposition to the "world's" ignorance. How arrogant! And how opposed to the loving confidence displayed by Christ, who condemned primarily religious leaders for their arrogance and obsession with the law over the mandates of love! Is not his Spirit still with us, encouraging us to do the same?! Does not his Spirit press us to privilege love over obsession with being right?!

I'm not sure what "itchy ears" means, but if it means we should be hesitant to think critically about these things (being willing to be wrong), then we are lost, because Christ and the great reformers who followed him (incl, Paul and Luther) were all willing to challenge the status quo. Insisting that someone should not simply prevents taking an honest account of our faith.

I'm not sure anyone here suggested that God came and revoked the words of Scripture and gave up his authority. In fact, I've suggested something quite different: that scripture is read more faithfully when it is read as a fountain or source of our faith, rather than a divine instruction booklet, and we give God glory when we use the critical functions of reason, good judgment and the guidance of his Spirit to make ethical decisions. To challenge the efficacy of reason, good judgment and the Spirit, is to challenge these gifts that God gives us. If we are so stuck in sin that we cannot trust these things, then we dare not trust ourselves to read the Bible faithfully either, our reasoning for doing so being so suspect. Can't you see how hypocritical it is to say, "i have and read objective truth in the Bible, but you don't"?!

Indeed, to God be the glory, who provides his children with good gifts, corrects us in our failings and leads us into glory.

Craig,
I have read many, not all, of these posts. I believe where you are "getting it wrong",(my words as I am not a master of prose), is where your identity is. You clearly state that a homosexual's identity is as "a homosexual". Personally as a heterosexual this is something that I have never understood. My identity is not as a hetero but as a child of God just like everyone else, you included. As Christians our identity is in Christ and Christ alone! Many of your points seem to be correct right up to the point of repentence. When we become believers we are "born again". We die to our old selves and are a new creation. We are no longer to conform to this world. I feel this is where our efforts to reach young people should start. Our culture tells our youth that they are all kinds of different things; townies, preppies,goths, rich, poor,druggies, etc. While we may consider these things to be social situations, kids see them as identities and place value on them. When they seem to be out of place, the torment, persecution, and heartbreak is just as strong and real as that of a homosexual's. We need to be telling them they're identities are in Christ alone.
One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that Scripture is God breathed and is the infallible truth. It seems as though you do not agree with that. God's Word is unchangable by time, social norms, and trends.

First of all, if someone claims him/herself as a Christian MUST fully believe that the "Bible is God-breathed", "inerrant", and "it never changes 2000+ years ago or now".

We are ALL sinners before God whether one is a homo or a hetero. A homosexual is NO greater sinner than a petty thief before God's justice.

However!!! A true Christian/follower of Jesus must believe everything in the scripture as God's divine/unchanging words and obey His words. Just because Jesus himself did not mention about homosexuality does not mean it is acceptable to God. One must understand that God finds righteousness in a serial killer who REPENTS of his sins through the blood of Jesus Christ, and He will judge a petty thief who does not REPENT. We must also understand that His laws and standards are different than the laws of the world.

Just a quick question to Craig... Do you believe that you have been saved by the blood of the lamb? Do you have the assurance of salvation that God will welcome you in heaven if you leave this world this instant?

In His Service,

I have read the Bible over and over and cannot accept that God blesses sexual relations in anything but marriage relationships. I am a heterosexual and have engaged in sex outside of marriage, both when I was a young man dating and recently as a married man seeking something that was missing from my life. In both cases I knew it was against God's word. I served as an elder for several terms in a Presbyterian USA church after I had sinned. I acknowledged that it was a sin though and that I was forgiven through my asking for repentance. The thing that is wrong with the new language in ordination standards, in my best opinion as aligned with Scripture, is that homosexuality is okay. It is not viewed as a sin. It is viewed that people are born that way and its okay for them to be different; that it is not Christlike to say their behavior is not acceptable to thy Lord, just as an alcoholic's behavior is also not acceptable. But if he truly repents and commits the sin no more, I think it is okay for them to hold office in the church. God forgives them. And if they sin again while in office but ask for forgiveness, I think thats okay too. aI know many gay Christians who no longer practice homosexuality and feel good about it. I feel good that I am no longer practicing immoral sexual practices also because I feel in line with what God wants for me. I feel strongly that this wording should be repealed as stated because it is not Holy.

As PCUSA membership plummets, it should be clear to those who continue to divide the Church that they are misguided in their choice of lifestyles and the meaning of God's Word. It is not about respect, it is is about the disrespect that the divisive choose to bring onto the PCUSA. These people have always had the choice of building their own congregations but they choose to alienate churches in the PCUSA as they pursue their political agenda and ignore God's Word.

Craig, thank you so much for your thoughtful and convincing arguments. I am hopeful that the PCUSA will continue to welcome everyone, just as Jesus did - young or old, rich or poor, gay or straight, of all races and ethnicities- into a community that seeks to serve and love God and others. Thank you for giving me hope, as I am a young aspiring pastor who happens to be gay.

It is still not settled if "gay" is a type of person, a type of desire, or a type of action. Sure, it seems to be the case that certain people are predisposed (by some combination of nature and nurture) to the desire and then (if followed through) to the action in question, but calling a person "gay" doesn't have such an air-tight meaning.

It is very sad when Satan convinces us that our sin is our identity.

People don't want a God that they and their self-centeredness disagree with, they want to make their own god. The Bible tells us that Jesus will deny knowing them. In Matt 7:23 it says "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." v25 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you;DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS." I know some don't like verses posted either, it's too convicting. It should be noted that not all Presbyterians belong to the USA branch, the branch labelled American is much more conservative and follows the Bible, not the god of political correctness. Just like all Lutherans do not belong to the liberal, non-Bible believing ELCA, many belong to the Missouri and Wisconsin synods and possibly a couple more, who won't throw out the Bible like these liberal churches. I do pray that those who belong to those particular churches and disagree with them will vote with their feet and go to another denomination that follows the Bible. People will see at judgment that there are consequences for purposefully sinning. Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Hebrews 10:26-27

Some individuals will leave their churches to find assemblies with more traditional values. Some more churches will leave the denomination. Ten years from now, this denomination will be half its present size, continuing a trend of recent years. All through human history, from the time of Adam and Eve, men and women have wanted to call the shots and be in control. Nothing has changed.

Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more; he didn't excuse her conduct or honor her lack of chastity. He loved her; he didn't condone her behavior. It seems that the PC(USA) vote ignores this distinction.

The PCUSA's GA decision is both appalling and blasphemous! Such a decision can only be arrived at through a radical revisionist and reconstructionist theology that denies the essential propositional truth claims of the Scriptures. If the majority of Presbyteris approve this, there will be an exodus of congregations.

All this focus on sexuality. What about economics. Should bankers who pay 1% in interest and charge 30% interest be allowed in the church? Should we still allow slavery? Should minister's who divorce be allowed to maitain their ordination standing? What about stoning misbehaving teenagers? The Bible and our response to it and to the Holy Spirit is far more complex than the simplistic presentations that say that focus on sexuality alone. By the way, what do you make of the fact that in the Sodom and Gemorrah story, a daughter is offered for the pleasure of the crowd? That whole story seems like an abomination. Finally, how do we judge when we use Scripture to maintain a social position just because it is traditional? Doesn't God in Christ, in scripture and through the church seek to break through tradition so that we can see reality?

I am so glad PCUSA is tackling these issues. I am a young aspiring pastor who prefers to dress as a women, but am bisexual by nature. I was born a male but hope to have sex re-assignment surgery soon. I am in a long term relationship with a female partner that I love. These are exciting times for people like me. I hope to serve god and be accepted as a leader and example for the next generation.

If you think my post above is absurd, it's because it is. This change will open the flood doors to all forms of sexual immorality into the church leadership.

Sure there are a lot of nice gay people in this world, but just because they are nice doesn't make their sin acceptable in the eyes of God. I am all for accepting all forms of sinners into our church and loving them with the intension of sharing the Word of God with them. However, if they do not accept it and repent, I will brush the dust from my feet and move on just as Jesus taught.

PCUSA will be judged just as Sodom and Gomorrha if it's leadership allows these sexual abominations into the church leadership. ... God's wrath may not come as fire from the sky, but will result is a totally destruction of the organization non-the-less. God's faithful will ensure this when they withdraw their tithings, brush the dust from their feet and move on.