Not that there’s anything wrong with that

To see where where the complementarian argument of Not heterosexuality but holiness is headed, see the 2015 article at The Gospel Coalition (TGC) titled Godliness Is Not Heterosexuality.  In the article Pastor Ed Shaw complains that Christian parents don’t want their children to become gay like he is:

I was recently on a panel talking about same-sex attraction at a large Christian conference. One of the questions I was asked was a thinly veiled version of the one question many Christian parents most want to ask me: “How can I stop my children from being same-sex attracted?” or (as no one has really had the courage to put it) “How I can I stop my child from becoming like you?”

It’s a revealing question. The number of times I’ve been asked it (always in roundabout ways) demonstrates how great a fear it is for many Christian parents—to raise a child who might be sexually attracted to their own sex. It’s not something they want to have to share in the Christmas letter in years to come—either openly or by what’s clearly left unsaid.

The great hope is that they’ll be able to write of happy marriages, numerous grandchildren, and continued involvement in a good evangelical church. They don’t want to have to say instead that a child is gay, that there won’t be any grandchildren (at least, not in the conventional way), and that their son or daughter is now part of some LGBT-affirming church (if any church at all).

What they want from me is a few simple steps they can take to stop that from happening—ban their young son from playing with his sister’s dollhouse and discourage that sister from playing football when she’s older.

Shaw explains that Christian parents shouldn’t be concerned with such things.  What they should be concerned about is that their children grow up to be holy, and being gay can make them holy.  He quotes another pastor whom he says gave the right answer when asked how to help prevent children from being gay:

So I was helped enormously—hopefully like everybody else listening—by the reply of another panel member at that conference. A heterosexual minister, he runs his church’s support group for same-sex attracted church members. He’s also the married father of two sons. He said something like this:  “We, most of all, want our boys to grow up as godly and mature Christians. Some of the most godly and mature Christians we know are same-sex attracted. So why should we be so afraid of them growing up as same-sex attracted?”

I was flabbergasted by this reply. It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that same-sex attraction and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix. It made me recall that some of the most godly people that I’ve ever known have also experienced same-sex attraction. In fact, one of the Christian leaders I most respect as godly has been made so through his struggle with same-sex attraction.

…that panel member is a parent whose main ambition for his children is the right one—godliness, not heterosexuality. I’m sure it doesn’t mean he’s praying his boys will grow up to be same-sex attracted. But his reply showed he has what we should all care about in our response to the gospel of grace—Christlikeness. Being like Jesus is the true biblical definition of godliness.

Shaw is one of three gay Christians who run the site Living Out (along with Pastor Sam Allberry and Sean Doherty).  This is relevant because while Shaw isn’t speaking for Allberry in the TGC article, posts on the Living Out website speak on behalf of the three of them.  The article Does Living Out support ‘gay cure’ or ‘conversion therapy’? makes it clear that Living Out has the same objection to the idea that being straight is somehow better than being gay:

Why we do not support the idea of ‘gay cure’

1) Homosexuality is not an illness. But using the language of ‘cure’ makes it sound like it is, which could be very damaging to vulnerable people (such as a young person coming to terms with their sexuality), making them feel ashamed of who they are at a very deep and fundamental level, and perhaps in some cases even contributing to suicidal feelings. Thankfully, we are not aware of any organisations in the UK which do support the idea of a ‘gay cure’. Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires (whether heterosexual or homosexual), and that what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.

2) Attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation assumes that being gay is somehow more problematic than being straight. We believe that heterosexuality as we encounter it in this world is just as fallen as homosexuality. If a person changes from lustful desire towards people of the same sex to lustful desire towards people of the opposite sex, that is in no sense an improvement. So, attempts to change sexual orientation could be a distraction from the real goal, which is sexual purity expressed either in fulfilled marriage or in fulfilled singleness…

Keep in mind that Denny Burk, the president of the CBMW, co-wrote a book arguing against conversion therapy because the goal should be holiness, not heterosexuality.  At the same time Burk asserts that homosexual desire is sinful, and that the idea of a gay Christian identity is wrong.  Yet he also has declared that Pastor Sam Allberry of Living Out is a man the Lord has raised up for our time.  This kind of pretzel logic is exactly what complementarians have traded in for decades regarding feminism, and they are now doing the same thing regarding homosexuality.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. Denny Burk, Living Out, Pastor Ed Shaw, Pastor Sam Allberry, Sean Doherty, The Gospel Coalition, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to Not that there’s anything wrong with that

  1. WillBest says:

    These people need to be cast out, quickly.

  2. Christopher Conrad Nystrom says:

    Try substituting. “Some of the most godly and mature Christians we know are alcoholics. So why should we be so afraid of them growing up as alcoholics?”

  3. Christopher Conrad Nystrom says:

    “Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires” – Nope. Hetrosexual desire is not a sin and not all hetrosexual desire is lust. Lust is wanting what you can not rightly have. Desire for what you can have (in sanctifying marriage) is healthy and righteous and how we keep the species going.

  4. Robin Munn says:

    Christopher Conrad Nystrom has it exactly right in his 10:32 AM comment. At one church I used to attend (and quite liked, only reason I’m not there now is because I moved), I remember the pastor once said, “Back when I used to drink — oh by the way, my name is Lyle, and I’m an alcoholic. But by God’s grace, I’ve been dry for (number) years now.” I greatly respect that man, and his saying that from the pulpit probably helped other people struggling with the same temptation.

    If Christians struggling with same-sex attraction saw it as a temptation to sin, like being an alcoholic, they might be able to speak about it Biblically and help others struggling with the same temptation. (Though because of the nature of this particular temptation, they should never do so in a one-on-one setting.) But too many of them have bought into the lie that it’s an identity. It’s an identity just exactly as much as being an alcoholic is an identity: it’s something that will never go away short of a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit, which He does not always choose to grant. But if you make “I’m an alcoholic” your primary identity, you’ll be thinking about it all the time and you’ll vastly increase your chances of falling to the ever-present temptation at some point.

    We need to stand firm against the world’s lie that this is, or should be, someone’s primary identity. Nope: your primary identity should be in Christ, not in whatever your worst temptation is.

  5. Kid Charlemagne says:

    What is the stance of the evangelical churches on whether homosexual conduct should be illegal, and be punished by the secular authority? Because until our lifetimes, this was taken for granted…and anti-sodomy laws were on the books in most states.

    Indeed, a few centuries back, Pope St. Pius V was talking about the “execrable crime against nature” in one of his papal bulls (i.e. he was referring to homosexual acts), and after stating that any clerics who should sink so low must be de-frocked and ex-communicated…he added that they should then be turned over to the secular authorities for the appropriate punishment for their crimes. Which he noted approvingly, was the death penalty. As per the doctrine of Christus Rex (“Christ the King”), the State has the authority to punish such moral crimes that also effect secular society.

    How far we’ve “advanced”, no?

  6. Kid Charlemagne says:

    Robin Munn,

    Personally, I prefer using the example of fornication over alcoholism in the substitution argument.

    Would these pastors be going on about how people should make their primary identify of self be that “I’m a fornicator, and you have to accept that this is God’s plan for me”?

  7. Sean says:

    “I’m a rapist and you have to accept that this is God’s plan for me.”
    “I’m a murderer and you have to accept that this is God’s plan for me.”
    “I like to flash women wearing nothing under my trenchcoat and you have to accept that this is God’s plan for me.”
    “I”m really a large goldendoodle and you have to accept that this is God’s plan for me.”

  8. squid_hunt says:

    I lived in Vermont/Mass while my oldest children were really young. You can’t hide from the sodomites there. They’re all over and they’re out there. You’ve got creepy ones to cohabitating to blatant butch, whatever. Men in dresses. We once had a guy come over and tell our pastor at our church that he was a faggot with aids or whatever, drug addict, but we needed to do a better job on our recycling. I was living outside town, about nine miles, out in the middle of nowhere on a highway and one day I look out my window and some guy in a dress was marching up the mountain, purse clutched to his side, in heels. Where was he going? Who knows? Point being, you couldn’t hide from it.

    We didn’t even try to hide it. I used it as an opportunity to point out who these people were, to let my kids rationalize what their lifestyle was, what the outcome was, how they got that way, what the Bible says about it. Kids are smart, but you have to approach them like they’re smart. I think there’s a small nugget of truth to what this guy is saying. If you’re just combatting the gayness, you’re going to loose. Kids don’t respond to fear-mongering. If you’re just attempting to raise your kids as cultural conservatives, you’re going to fail. But if you raise them that right is right becase God said so and look at the consequences of living wrong and trust them to think it through, if you’re honest and upfront with them, most will come through it.

  9. Novaseeker says:

    2) Attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation assumes that being gay is somehow more problematic than being straight. We believe that heterosexuality as we encounter it in this world is just as fallen as homosexuality. If a person changes from lustful desire towards people of the same sex to lustful desire towards people of the opposite sex, that is in no sense an improvement. So, attempts to change sexual orientation could be a distraction from the real goal, which is sexual purity expressed either in fulfilled marriage or in fulfilled singleness…

    Leaving aside whether the change approach is effective (at least for the men … for women it probably isn’t necessary in a lot of cases because most are bisexual, whether acting on that or not, anyway), it’s impossible to agree with that text from a Christian perspective.

    The difference is obvious — heterosexual desire has a non-sinful expression, homosexual desire does not. Period. Fornication is a sin, yes. Heterosexual adultery is also a sin. But they are misdirected exercises of heterosexual desire — the underlying desire is capable of being expressed in a non-sinful way, in marriage. Homosexual desire is not like this, in that there is no possible venue in which it can be expressed that is not sinful. So it’s totally inaccurate to suggest that “heterosexuality as we encounter it in this world is just as fallen as homosexuality” … a simply untrue statement precisely because heterosexual desire can be satisfied in this world in a non-sinful way (marriage), whereas homosexual desire cannot, by definition, be satisfied without committing a sin. That’s not a minor difference, it’s an inherent one.

    There simply is no way around that for the pro-gay folks in Christianity — either homosexual desire is capable of being satisfied without sin (as the mainlines and other liberal Christians believe) and so it’s “just like heterosexuality in terms of potential sin” (despite the Bible and 2000 years of uninterrupted teaching to the contrary), or it isn’t capable of being satisfied without sin, unlike heterosexuality, and therefore stands on a different plane: a desire that has no non-sinful expression or satisfaction is not a neutral desire, morally, since it *always* tends towards sin. There is no way it can tend that is not sinful. Therefore it’s downright blasphemous to suggest that this is the same as heterosexual desire, from the sin perspective, when heterosexual desire, by contrast, can tend towards non-sin, in marriage, whereas homosexual desire cannot. No way around that without really being disingenuous.

    I suspect what is going on here is a the early stage softening up of people on the conservative side for the eventual “conservative argument for supporting same sex marriage” that these folks will be making in the next decade or two, given where the argument actually leads (i.e., the question of whether there is a licit outlet for homosexual desire — which traditional Christian morality answers unequivocally in the negative).

  10. Lexet Blog says:

    It’s like the false gospel coalition is built on the crumbling foundation of numerous logical fallacies.

  11. Griffin says:

    Holiness is more important than sexuality, but this is depraved thinking.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kid Charlemagne
    What is the stance of the evangelical churches on whether homosexual conduct should be illegal, and be punished by the secular authority?

    What difference would that make?

    Because until our lifetimes, this was taken for granted…and anti-sodomy laws were on the books in most states.

    That’s true. Then in the last 50 years they all were repealed. Thus can be no punishment by secular authority, and your first question is moot.

    What’s your point?

  13. The Question says:

    “Some of the most godly and mature Christians we know are same-sex attracted.”

    Notice he didn’t say “struggle with temptation regarding same-sex attraction.” This is what wizardry looks like.

    The man after God’s own heart committed adultery, had the woman’s husband murdered when he refused to cuckold himself, then brought God’s wrath on the nation for counting the fighting men.
    But would we use that as an reason to say that desiring to commit adultery, murder and not putting our faith in God is acceptable?

  14. Kid Charlemagne says:

    @AR: “That’s true. Then in the last 50 years they all were repealed. Thus can be no punishment by secular authority, and your first question is moot.

    What’s your point?”

    So your answer is just give up? Lie down and surrender?

    If homosexual conduct should be illegal and punished by the secular authority, but the laws have been repealed, isn’t the answer to start lobbying to put those laws back on the books? And to rigorously enforce them?

  15. Frank K says:

    These people need to be cast out, quickly.

    While I agree with the intent, how is this to be accomplished? Who has the authority to do that? Even if they were to get kicked out of their denomination/movement, what’s stopping them from walking across the street and setting up shop?

  16. Oscar says:

    This kind of pretzel logic is exactly what complementarians have traded in for decades regarding feminism, and they are now doing the same thing regarding homosexuality. ~ Dalrock

    It’s also the pretzel “logic” they’ll use to justify child attraction.
    It’s the pretzel “logic” they’ll use to justify relative attraction.
    It’s the pretzel “logic” they’ll use to justify animal attraction.
    It’s the pretzel “logic” they’ll use to justify formerly-alive attraction.

    The slippery slope is real, and its grade is increasing.

  17. Frank K says:

    If homosexual conduct should be illegal and punished by the secular authority, but the laws have been repealed, isn’t the answer to start lobbying to put those laws back on the books? And to rigorously enforce them?

    I think that the point being made is that given the moral rot it will impossible to get voters to back such an action. And even if you could get them to vote for it, the tyrants in robes will rule the laws unconstitutional. We allegedly have a “conservative” supreme court, so much so that leftists perjured themselves to keep Kavanaugh from being appointed. Has this “conservative” court overturned Roe vs. Wade? Has it overturned same sex marriage?

    The only way, in my humble opinion, to turn back the tide is to re-evangelize the nation and for it to repent of its wickedness. But given that half of those married are in invalid marriages (due to divorce) it will be a tall order. People’s hearts are as hard as stones and they prefer the broad road that leads to destruction.

  18. squid_hunt says:

    @Frank

    While I agree with the intent, how is this to be accomplished? Who has the authority to do that? Even if they were to get kicked out of their denomination/movement, what’s stopping them from walking across the street and setting up shop?

    I don’t understand your questions. It is accomplished in accordance with the Bible and your church bylaws. The church has the authority or in some instances, the pastor or a board of some sort to do this and a biblical expectation to do so for those that refuse to get right in the church. It’s not up to me to worry about someone once they’re put out. The punishment for churches who accept such individuals will suit the crime as we’re seeing now.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    I suspect what is going on here is a the early stage softening up of people on the conservative side for the eventual “conservative argument for supporting same sex marriage” that these folks will be making in the next decade or two, given where the argument actually leads (i.e., the question of whether there is a licit outlet for homosexual desire — which traditional Christian morality answers unequivocally in the negative).

    Agreed. However, just like complementarians found a way to adopt feminism in practice while making a big deal of not being egalitarian, they will do the same for gay marriage. The roadmap here is clear:

    1) Homosexuality is declared no worse than heterosexuality.
    2) Conservative Christian churches should have visibly gay members and pastors, youth leaders, etc. In theory they aren’t supposed to “identify” as gay, but as SSA or something similar. However, this is a non issue in practice (see bullet 1 above).
    3) Gay conservative Christians are encouraged to publicly declare same sex “spiritual friends” (complementarian gay marriage). These are lifelong “friendships” where the same sex individuals live together. Coincidentally, these gay friendships could comprise of former gay lovers, but everyone swears it isn’t a gay thing anymore, it is like David and Jonathan in the OT.

  20. Novaseeker says:

    And even if you could get them to vote for it, the tyrants in robes will rule the laws unconstitutional.

    In fact they already did that, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). In any case, it’s not like re-enacting sodomy laws with a view to enforcing them against gays has any significant electoral support. There are far better ways to direct energy than that.

  21. Kid Charlemagne says:

    @Frank K,

    Good commentary, thanks.

  22. Lexet Blog says:

    Romans 1:24- end is all you need to know that acceptance of the gay identity as being Christian is blasphemous.

    Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, and Al Mohler- are heretics. They associate and affirm wicked men who preach blasphemies.

  23. Oscar says:

    Let’s try and substitute a different abomination, shall we?

    “We, most of all, want our boys to grow up as godly and mature Christians. Some of the most godly and mature Christians we know are sexually attracted to animals. So why should we be so afraid of them growing up as sexually attracted to animals?”

    I was flabbergasted by this reply. It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that sexual attraction to animals and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix. It made me recall that some of the most godly people that I’ve ever known have also experienced sexual attraction. In fact, one of the Christian leaders I most respect as godly has been made so through his struggle with sexual attraction to animals.

    …that panel member is a parent whose main ambition for his children is the right one—godliness, not heterosexuality. I’m sure it doesn’t mean he’s praying his boys will grow up to be sexually attracted to animals. But his reply showed he has what we should all care about in our response to the gospel of grace—Christlikeness. Being like Jesus is the true biblical definition of godliness.
    ………….
    1) Bestiality is not an illness. But using the language of ‘cure’ makes it sound like it is, which could be very damaging to vulnerable people (such as a young person coming to terms with their sexuality), making them feel ashamed of who they are at a very deep and fundamental level, and perhaps in some cases even contributing to suicidal feelings. Thankfully, we are not aware of any organisations in the UK which do support the idea of a ‘bestiality cure’. Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires (whether sexually attracted to humans or sexually attracted to animals), and that what we need isn’t more sexual attraction to humans or less sexual attraction to animals, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.

    2) Attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation assumes that being sexually attracted to animals is somehow more problematic than being straight. We believe that sexual attraction to humans as we encounter it in this world is just as fallen as sexual attraction to animals. If a person changes from lustful desire towards animals to lustful desire towards people, that is in no sense an improvement. So, attempts to change sexual orientation could be a distraction from the real goal, which is sexual purity expressed either in fulfilled marriage or in fulfilled singleness

    If that sounds right to anyone, they’re too far gone to bother. Let the dead bury the dead. Are some sexual perversions worse than others? What’s worse; a man who desires to stick his penis in another man’s anus, or a man who desires to stick his penis in a dog’s vagina? What’s worse; a man who desires to stick his penis in another man’s anus, or a man who desires to stick his penis in a 9-year-old of either sex?

    Nobody believes that all sexual perversions are equally destructive. No one believes that lie. Not even the people who spread that lie believe it.

    Finally, notice the use of the word singleness, not celibacy. In poker, that’s called a “tell”.

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kid Charlemagne
    So your answer is just give up? Lie down and surrender?

    Where did I write that?

    If homosexual conduct should be illegal and punished by the secular authority, but the laws have been repealed, isn’t the answer to start lobbying to put those laws back on the books? And to rigorously enforce them?

    Are you serious, or just LARPing?

  25. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K

    The only way, in my humble opinion, to turn back the tide is to re-evangelize the nation and for it to repent of its wickedness. But given that half of those married are in invalid marriages (due to divorce) it will be a tall order. People’s hearts are as hard as stones and they prefer the broad road that leads to destruction.

    Correct. And it’ll probably be Africans and Asians who eventually evangelize Americans.

    https://world.wng.org/content/methodists_vote_to_uphold_biblical_sexuality

    “We Africans are not children in need of Western enlightenment when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics,” the Rev. Jerry Kulah, dean at a Methodist theology school in Liberia, said in a speech over the weekend. “We stand with the global church, not a culturally liberal church elite in the U.S.”

    Also, read this article.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/united-methodists-fracture-lgbt-plan-rejected/583693/

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking down the road a bit, there is a real possibility of a split within denominations such as the Southern Baptists, United Methodists, etc. over the issue of homosexuality acceptance. People in those denominations should start thinking about that. Who holds title to church buildings, the local congregation or the national church? Can a congregation leave the denomination but keep its building(s), or not?

    Looking just a little bit further, I wonder how many churches would remain financially functional if their 501.c3 status was removed? The Johnson Amendment of the 1950’s was a deal in which churches got to be tax-exempt entities in exchange for which they stayed out of politics. It’s been winked at various times, but for the most part enforced fairly evenhandedly.

    That may change. The SJW’s are forcing politics into every sphere of life, and since homosexual acceptance & now transvestite acceptance are high on the SJW list of demands, institutions that won’t toe the line can expect to be punished. Special enforcement of IRS regulations would be one way. Loss of tax exempt status would be another.

    That’s another thing church leaders should start thinking about, because in any organization the largest single line item typically is “personnel” followed by “debt service”.

    None of this is happening now, nor will it happen next year, but after 2020 things may change. The pace of change has increased in the last 10 to 20 years, and may increase again.

  27. Tetricus says:

    I subscribe to both you and Denny and read every post that each of you two put out. Makes me feel a bit more qualified to post a comment, and I also say that to assert that I’m arguing in good faith here.

    Denny’s willingness to call same-sex attraction sinful puts him at odds with a lot of people within the church, and it’s a point that he’s defended well and not yielded on. You seem to think that “arguing against conversion therapy because the goal should be holiness, not heterosexuality” is at odds with “same-sex attraction is sinful”, but it’s not:

    This is not to say that Christians who experience same-sex attraction will necessarily be freed from those desires completely in this life. Many such Christians report partial or complete changes in their attractions after conversion—sometimes all at once, but more often over a period of months and years. But those cases are not the norm. There are a great many who also report ongoing struggles with same-sex attraction. But that does not lessen the responsibility for them to fight those desires as long as they persist, no matter how natural those desires may feel. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit can bring about this kind of transformation in anyone—even if such progress is not experienced by everyone in precisely the same measure. As the apostle Paul writes, “Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed” (Rom 6:17).

    When Denny and his co-author Heath Lambert talk about conversion or reparative therapy, they’re talking about a specific thing. They’re not speaking out about conversion; a search of Denny’s post history should confirm that.

    If you want to get to the heart of the discussion here, Heath Lambert has an article that gets there:

    RT has a more complex and nuanced understanding about the development of heterosexual desires than they are often credited with. They do not argue that “ex-gays” never battle same-sex temptation, nor do they argue that men who formerly identified as homosexuals must experience the same “rush” during heterosexual sex as they do during the homosexual variety. Still, the pursuit of RT is heterosexuality.

    This goal is not one that biblical counselors can embrace. The Bible never declares that heterosexuality is the goal of a full and contented life. I can say it more strongly. The Bible never says that heterosexuality, in general terms, is a good thing. Sex that the Bible praises is the kind that happens in heterosexual marriage—that is sex in a marriage between one man and one woman. The Bible, however, never commands or commends heterosexual desires in general terms.

    A biblical goal for persons struggling with same-sex attraction is something much more glorious than mere heterosexuality. The biblical goal is to honor Jesus Christ with sexual purity (1 Thess 4:3-8). A faithful Christian could pursue this goal by turning from homosexuality in either of two ways. They could mortify their sinful desires and behavior in a lifestyle of honorable, chaste, Christian celibacy (Matt 19:10-12; 1 Cor 7:25-40). They could also mortify their sinful desires and behavior in the context of a loving Christian marriage.

    I think that middle paragraph is uncomfortable, and at the very heart of the issue. Would be interested in hearing your perspective on that.

    Also, not sure if you caught Denny’s followup to Revoice. His tone is of one who has personal connections, understands the stakes, has the kind of standing to influence people in the right direction, and is unconvinced by all of it. His reservations against reparative therapy aren’t based out of a wishy-washy desire to be friends with the world; he saw Exodus crumble, he’s met with people who struggle here, and seems to want to make sure that he doesn’t duplicate whatever mistakes happened there. I tend to give a lot of latitude to “the man in the arena”, though I recognize that it makes people susceptible to compromise.

    I don’t know Allberry at all really, so I can’t speak to him, or Denny’s relationship to him. But I don’t think it’s beneficial to go there unless we were on the same page with the other stuff.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Looking down the road a bit, there is a real possibility of a split within denominations such as the Southern Baptists, United Methodists, etc. over the issue of homosexuality acceptance. People in those denominations should start thinking about that.

    I agree, but I think it may be worse than even you suspect. When the split comes, the vast bulk of the “conservative” side will follow the gay complementarian model. The liberals will head out on the road other liberal denominations went down a few decades ago. The conservatives will (by and large) follow the lead of organizations like the ERLC and CBMW. This means gay marriage in all but name (for clergy and laity), so long as they can assert the fiction that it is really just celibate cohabitating lifelong friendship. This is what happened with feminism, and for the conservative churches to break with ERLC and CBMW now would be to reopen the rationalizations they thought they sorted out decades ago.

    That may change. The SJW’s are forcing politics into every sphere of life, and since homosexual acceptance & now transvestite acceptance are high on the SJW list of demands, institutions that won’t toe the line can expect to be punished. Special enforcement of IRS regulations would be one way. Loss of tax exempt status would be another.

    That’s why they have Russell Moore and the ERLC, to protect them from exactly this kind of risk. http://www.thewhiteheadfirm.com/uploads/Protecting_Your_Ministry_ADF_ERLC.pdf

  29. Frank K says:

    Looking down the road a bit, there is a real possibility of a split within denominations such as the Southern Baptists, United Methodists, etc. over the issue of homosexuality acceptance. People in those denominations should start thinking about that. Who holds title to church buildings, the local congregation or the national church?

    Will there be schism, or will people vote with their feet? We have a Greek Orthodox Church in our town that has grown by leaps and bounds, and most of its members, if I understand correctly, are refugees from the local Episcopalian church (and a few others). They recently completed a massive expansion/remodel (the building used to be a vanilla looking Protestant church) and it now looks like an Orthodox Church.

    The RCC has a program called the Pastoral Provision that allows Episcopalian parishes (and male clergy) to join the RCC while keeping their Anglican rubrics (with some minor changes). In the case of the Pastoral Provision, it is my understanding that they had to leaver their building behind with the Episcopal Church

  30. vfm7916 says:

    Dalrock, you didn’t list the #4:

    4. Ultimately the purpose is access to young boys who can be groomed into homosexuality.

  31. cynthia says:

    What is it with Protestants and this idea of being “holy”? I truly do not understand it; very few people in the history of our faith have ever reached that level of grace and goodness. Like, what’s the idea here? What state are they indicating with this term? It’s an odd turn of phrase.

    As for why you would be concerned about a child growing up to be gay, there are many factors that play into that. Higher risk of substance abuse, higher incidence of domestic abuse and STD infection, difficulty finding a suitable lifemate, being part of a culture that celebrates depravity and requires it’s members to conform to extreme political positions, the misery of it and the difficulty of finding happiness in that world… it’s all very real. It’s a rough way to live.

  32. Cane Caldo says:

    1) Homosexuality is not an illness. But using the language of ‘cure’ makes it sound like it is

    Since I was a kid in the 80s I’ve heard Christians say that church is like a hospital; sin being the disease. Recently I read someone (here I think) repeat that same line and credited it approvingly to Pope Francis. They were wrong to approve this sentiment because it was a feint all along, and the pathologizing and over-pathologizing of sin has set us up to get walloped by the uppercut of acceptance. The set-up is that–If sin is a disease, then–sin’s manifestation isn’t truly the responsibility of the sick man; just as we don’t hold a man responsible for getting the flu or Alzheimer’s. Disease’s aren’t something that come from our choices or our hearts. Conservative Christian culture has already bought this feint and so of course the response from them will be that sin is a disease and must be treated; with sentimentality and sweetness.

    Now, sure in the knowledge that Conservatives have bought the feint, they have unleashed the punch which is more true: Homosexuality (“same sex attracation”) is from the heart. If sin is a disease and not anyone’s fault really, then everyone must agree that what is from the heart is what God intended all along. Attempts to cure homosexuality are attempts to interfere with what God intended all along. How dare anyone?

    Of course, sin is not only like a disease, but also a chosen perversion that comes from our hearts. The Conservative though, having bought the “church is a hospital” feint, is going to default back to the falsehood that “sin is a disease”, and so they will lose the fight because it has never been the goal to get us to treat sin as a disease. That notion was only forwarded to distract us from the truth that the sin which defiles us are chosen perversions and to maneuver us to accept sin and reject God and His plan as He revealed to us.

    So if they say, “Homosexuality is not an illness.”, then the response is, “Correct: It is a perversion, and the desire for perversion is a wickedness from the heart.” Do not try to argue that it is a disease. That just leads back to the idea that sinners are merely victims rather than perpetrators.

    I’ve seen several people try to use the “natural law” argument also. My advice is to eschew that for the same reasons because the problem of sin isn’t one of misunderstanding the nuance and intent of What It All Means.

  33. AnonS says:

    Sometimes defects in the body’s DNA leads to behavior that would otherwise be sinful if others did it.

    Someone with Tourette’s not being found guilty for offensive words.
    Someone mentally retarded not being found guilty for certain criminal behavior.

    The problem is that the Bible takes the anti-enlightenment view in that people can be segregated even if it is due to factors they can’t control.

    That someone walking towards a mall while infected with a super virus, you can morally take them out before they infect others. Even in the case that they were infected by some evil scientist and it “wasn’t their fault”.

    We do this by locking up sociopaths even thou they are born that way.
    We used to do this by shaming homosexuals to not damage the social fabric with their condition by keeping it strictly secret.

    Sometimes it is just the case of containing defective brains from causing damage even if their soul is opposed to it.

    Defective cars that are unsafe are not allowed on the highway, even if the driver doesn’t want to hurt anyone.

  34. c0l0nelp0pc0rn says:

    I’ve thought about this a great deal because adultery carries this penalty as well. How many people are alive now that, by God’s standards, shouldn’t be?

  35. Matt says:

    “What is it with Protestants and this idea of being “holy”?”

    Cynthia, different branches of Christianity is different words but we all advocate striving toward being more like our holy exemplar Jesus.

  36. Expat Philo says:

    These people are vipers. We all know the spiritual, social, and material problems that arise from homosexuality, it’s not a secret even to them. Homosexuals are simply at war with their flesh, their base desires, some recognize the problems even with the not out and loud pride parade types. We all suffer similarly, but kindness is not in excusing or rationalizing the behavior. Kindness is helping the repentant deal with the temptation, whatever it may be, such that it does not control them. Homosexuality is simply one of the more ruinous sins.

    Just add these people to the list of church as a social club peddlers. Another casualty to the cult of nice. I find the whole thing sad, in a cosmic sort of way.

  37. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    As for why you would be concerned about a child growing up to be gay, there are many factors that play into that. Higher risk of substance abuse, higher incidence of domestic abuse and STD infection, difficulty finding a suitable lifemate,

    The gay lobby insists that all these pathologies are caused by homophobia. Gay acceptance, legalized marriage, etc., would end all those problems.

    Of course, now that we have gay marriage, and gay adoption, and Queer Studies at school, and our movies and TV shows are full of “positive” gay role models, and even police departments and the military are sponsoring Pride events, such that gayness is not only widely accepted, but is loudly celebrated … well then, I guess all those pathologies endemic to the gay community should soon cease to exist.

  38. “I’ve thought about this a great deal because adultery carries this penalty as well. How many people are alive now that, by God’s standards, shouldn’t be?”

    Technically all of us but I see what you mean.

  39. ray says:

    Here’s the secular side of ‘Christian’ complementarism. This is an excellent example of why American conservatism has zero chance of slowing the Feminist Juggernaut, much less stopping it:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/nike-and-the-phantom-bigots/

  40. vfm7916 says:

    @redpilllatecomer. Yeah, the 60% HIV infection chance from 16-40 is caused by homophobia, obviously. Gotta love that argument!

  41. Anon says:

    Homosexuals are disease vectors. There is a very obvious, natural reason that normals are grossed out by seeing two men kissing. This was an indicator of disease spread.

    Plus, it is pretty obvious that nature created gays in order to pack the defective genes into a few individuals who were not going to reproduce, so that the wastematter could be eliminated from the gene pool swiftly. There is no other reason why nature would create this mechanism and designate a few people as the wastebaskets.

  42. squid_hunt says:

    @ColonelPopcorn

    All of them. The wages of sin is death.

  43. Pingback: Not that there’s anything wrong with that | Reaction Times

  44. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    Homosexuals are disease vectors. There is a very obvious, natural reason that normals are grossed out by seeing two men kissing. This was an indicator of disease spread.

    I’m not sure how possible it is to separate the practical from the spiritual when considering the taboo. But to the extent that we can, my own guess is the practical explanation is less medical (disease) and more economic. Gay men are effectively outside the system we rely on to incentivize men to generate economic wealth (marriage). Think of the visceral reaction to the much trumpeted “Peter Pan Manboy” phenomenon. Ironically I think the reason we don’t have much of that visceral reaction today is we have supreme confidence in the effectiveness of the taboo, so much so that we have waged war on the taboo. It is irrational, but we trust the taboo to protect us once we have destroyed it. We trust that our sons will know we are lying when we tell them there is nothing wrong with being gay, because we assume the lie is obvious. So far this has worked (for the most part), but how long it will continue to work remains an open question.

  45. AnonS says:

    It is likely epigenetic. Genes are closer to if > then statements then to an instruction manual.

    If (Testosterone = low) used to work as applying effects only to girls. But as diet and exercise + exogenous hormones + older mother age has shifted the average womb environment. More of these genes get turned on in boys.

    So a degree of vanity, narcissism, and obsession over male approval and male beauty that was expressed in girls; is now expressed in boys. It happened to Greece and Rome as they urbanized and the fact that 3rd and 4th children are more likely to be homosexual and transsexual.

  46. Opus says:

    A lot of theories. I repeat my own view that there is no such thing as a homosexual, merely acts which are homosexual. My first experience or rather observation of ‘homosexuals’ came when as a sexually ignorant child I was sent to a boarding school, a place both violent and depressed and if that is white privilege you are welcome to it, and as far as the homosexuals were concerned they were predatory, promiscuous and paedophiliac. These were people with short time preferences who wanted it now, did not give a damn about anyone else and enjoyed the abusing of others. We tried to kill them; that we failed amazes me.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    Gay men are effectively outside the system we rely on to incentivize men to generate economic wealth (marriage). Think of the visceral reaction to the much trumpeted “Peter Pan Manboy” phenomenon.

    It’s true, but for some reason they are disproportionately wealthy relative to straight men. My guess is that this is due to (1) wealth becoming associated with higher levels of education and gays succeed in that setting more than straight men (more like women) and (2) gays not having to devote time to chasing women (mate/sex acquisition for gay men is trivial in terms of time consumed).

    We don’t see the same effect among lesbians — they aren’t much more educated and wealthier than straight women are. Then again, the phenomenon of “lesbianism” is truly tiny, and what we call lesbians are mostly “bisexual” women who, on reflection, may just as well be called “women”, given how fluid women’s sexuality is, and now some kind of latent bisexuality seems to be so normal as to not even call for a specific label, being typical rather than exceptional. That may explain why “lesbian” women are more like “non-lesbian” women … because they’re really not different groups (other than a few butch outliers), whereas among men, gay men are a very distinctly different group.

  48. BW says:

    By this point these folks are flirting with the execution of their real hope and ambition – the full acceptance of homosexual desire, including the consummation of said desire – within traditional, family-oriented Christianity. It wasn’t enough for them to usurp control of more liberal leaning churches, now they’ve set their sites on the traditional ones as well.

    Who in their right mind doesn’t think that Shaw, Allberry, and Doherty would, in the blink of an eye if they could, shack up with a same-sex “husband” if the core theology held by the majority of traditional Christians suddenly allowed for it?

    Theologies and laws of man are their word, not the revealed Word of God.

  49. Dalrock says:

    Welcome Tetricus

    I subscribe to both you and Denny and read every post that each of you two put out. Makes me feel a bit more qualified to post a comment, and I also say that to assert that I’m arguing in good faith here.

    Not required, but I appreciate where you are coming from here. I don’t doubt your good faith.

    Denny’s willingness to call same-sex attraction sinful puts him at odds with a lot of people within the church, and it’s a point that he’s defended well and not yielded on. You seem to think that “arguing against conversion therapy because the goal should be holiness, not heterosexuality” is at odds with “same-sex attraction is sinful”, but it’s not:

    In a narrow sense, I agree. But Burk and Lambert aren’t doing this in a vacuum.

    When Denny and his co-author Heath Lambert talk about conversion or reparative therapy, they’re talking about a specific thing. They’re not speaking out about conversion; a search of Denny’s post history should confirm that.

    If you want to get to the heart of the discussion here, Heath Lambert has an article that gets there:

    Agreed.

    I think that middle paragraph is uncomfortable, and at the very heart of the issue. Would be interested in hearing your perspective on that.

    Yes. I was familiar with that article, and that paragraph is what jumped out to me as well. This clarifies that while there are specific objections to the methods commonly used in conversion therapy, their objection is to the goal of (as Living Out puts it) curing gayness. I’ve only skimmed their book, but that paper, and specifically that paragraph are to my understanding what Burk and Lambert drew out into book form. I thought about quoting from each, and in the end decided not to for reasons of brevity. Burk states his objection to curing gayness in his own announcement of the book, so it was simple enough to quote that instead.

    Also, not sure if you caught Denny’s followup to Revoice.

    I saw a number of pieces from him, and in all of them (including the one you linked) he wanted to change the subject to a squabble between Protestants and Catholics. This will date me, but it reminded me of John Belushi yelling “Food Fight!” in Animal House. If you prefer a more biblical analogy, then see the Apostle Paul in Acts 23:

    6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

    At the very least Burk is a useful idiot, not a fellow traveler. He really could be clueless to how he is advancing a very open agenda, the right man, at the right time. And he really could be clueless as to what Living Out means, and what Allberry is quite plainly promoting. I actually argued this with a friend of mine a few months back. I started out giving Burk the benefit of the doubt, that he was merely a useful idiot. But I simply couldn’t defend it. There are too many coincidences where he would have to be mistakenly carrying water for men like Allberry, Moore, etc.

  50. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Trannies can be cured, at least in many instances. I heard of an instance (on a podcast) of a woman who felt that she was a man. For some other malady, she was given estrogen replacement therapy. A side effect was that she stopped feeling like a man.

    It seems that men who feel like women should be given testosterone treatments. And women who feel like men should get estrogen treatments. It might solve much of this problem. Might help with gays too.

  51. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It’s been asked why so many women support drag queen story hour, and other SJW causes.

    I think there are many reasons for promoting SJW agendas. Some people obviously believe in them. But I think there are others who simply enjoy sticking it to … Christians, conservatives, their parents, the imagined rich, etc.

    Let’s say Betty hates Bob. Maybe because he’s smarter, or more successful, or a harder worker. She can’t say she hates him for being “better” than her. But she senses that Bob is uncomfortable around gays. So Betty shoves pride events in Bob’s face. “Hey Bob, want to sign up to sponsor Drag Queen Pride Day? I know want to fight hate. All your co-workers are signing up.”

    Betty doesn’t care about trannies. But she enjoys watching Bob squirm as he signs onto something he hates.

    It’s the same with children. They learn about environmentalism at school. This gives them a moral club with which to beat their parents. “Hey dad, this should be recycled. You’re such a hypocrite, pretending to be moral, while you’re killing the planet.

    What a delight to tell off your parents, and be told by your school and society that you’re in the right, your father is wrong. What matters whether your teachers are right?

    I think a lot of leftist activism stems from a juvenile need for rebellion.

  52. Warthog says:

    @Dalrock there have to be at least two or three posts to be mined from this fruitcakery:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFRC6yu_o-_csH28I8yDU-Q

  53. Dalrock says:

    Continuing my response to Tetricus

    I don’t know Allberry at all really, so I can’t speak to him, or Denny’s relationship to him. But I don’t think it’s beneficial to go there unless we were on the same page with the other stuff.

    It surprises me that you aren’t familiar with Allberry. He is hugely influential. It isn’t just Burk as president of the CBMW endorsing Allberry, it is Tim Keller and the other leaders at TGC, along with Russell Moore’s ERLC. And Allberry’s stance is astounding, and quite out in the open on the Living Out website. There is so much insanity, I don’t know where to start. But here are some highlights from the top of my head (links to follow via edit):

    1) Christian families need to give gay Christians trusted access to our children, to make up for the intimacy gays give up by leaving the lifestyle. He gives specific examples, including taking the kids to and from school, putting them to bed at night, and babysitting.
    2) The Living Out church audit.
    3) Promoting a model where cohabiting gays continue living together after becoming Christian.
    4) Asserting that being gay isn’t any worse than being straight from a theological perspective.
    5) Warning Christian parents that Christian hospitality forbids them from telling their adult gay children not to have their gay lovers spend the night.
    6) Lobbying for Christian “singles” to adopt children.

    And again, this is what Burk says about Allberry:

    I recently moderated a Q&A with Sam Allberry where he fielded questions from me and from students (see above). Sam is a same-sex attracted Christian, and a faithful brother. I cannot overstate how grateful I am for his life and testimony. The Lord has raised him up for our time. If you haven’t yet read Sam’s book, you need to. It’s titled Is God Anti-Gay? (Questions Christians Ask).

    It is true that Burk and other complementarians can point to an even more radical group of gay activists than Allberry, and therefore claim he is a moderate. But that others are worse doesn’t change the fact that what Allberry is promoting is abominable. This is the same thing complementarians have done regarding feminism. They sold us out to so called moderates while patting themselves on the back for holding the most rabid feminists at bay in the process.

  54. ray says:

    Dalrock — “I’m not sure how possible it is to separate the practical from the spiritual when considering the taboo.”

    Few Christians understand the spiritual elements involved in homosexuality, i.e., beyond the religion-wars surrounding it.

    This isn’t the place for a detailed explanation, but suffice to say that Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality exist because the practice has repercussions well beyond individual physical disease and cultural degradation.

    Satan is prince of the powers of air, and his angels teem around this planet, largely in the sublunary atmospheres. Homosexual activity opens both individual and society to demonic activity and influence of various kinds. It is no coincidence that both the major occult ceremonies of the 20th Century had ritual homosexuality as energetic core.

    Aleister Crowley’s Amalantrah Working (begun 1918) and the Babalon Working (John Marvel Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard, 1946) updated the temple prostitute/sex magick/goddess cults so popular and ubiquitous in the ancient world. The OT is full of descriptions and condemnations of these cults, whether of Jezebel in Israel or the blood/sex/ritual sacrifice activities of surrounding nations.

    The secondary purpose of these rites is to destroy any godly/biblical aspect in the nations; the primary purpose is to attract demonic forces for various satanic purpose. Crowley was homo since early age. Hubbard was bisexual. Parsons certainly was involved ritually in homosexuality, and as father of JPL and modern rocketry, he undertook ritual congress with demons with specific purpose of aiding incarnation of a female who would embody the Spirit of this Age, Babalon. Think of this as a pre-curser to the modern Feminist States of the West.

    Nothing material leaves this planet for ‘outer space’ without first passing through Earth’s atmospheric regions — the very regions ruled by satan. That should give Christians major pause about the origins and purposes of the U.S. space programs. I believe this individual (Babalon) already has incarnated, or will soon, and will play a central role in the rising NWO — New World Order/New Woman Order.

    Likewise and overlapping the above, the masonic orders both present and past utilize ritual homosexuality as central element of their ‘religion’, indeed there are separate degrees involving homosexuality through which the practitioner must pass. These orders are ancient, going back to Sumer, Babylon and Egypt, and they are v much in control of the politics and spirituo-cultural directions of the modern nations.

    These subjects appear Tinfoil Hat to the average citizen, and that’s just how your enemies like it. The norming of homosexuality, along with all the other ‘improvements’ of modern Progism, are not accidental, but instead carefully managed operations, of long standing. To take just one example, the fastest growing religion in America is now wicca, or occultism in general. Didn’t happen by chance, not even a little.

  55. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Some interesting stuff about Crowley here: http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2004/wicca.htm

    But perhaps most shocking of all Crowley’s sex acts was the night his mistress, Leah Hirsig, “demanded the ‘Eucharist’ — that Crowley should eat her excrement, which lay on the consecrated plate on the altar.”

    Wilson reports [p. 123] that Crowley cleaned his plate of poop under Hirsig’s stern gaze, then described the experience: “My mouth burned; my throat choked; my belly retched, my blood fled whither who knows, and my skin sweated. She stood above me, hideous in contempt.”

    So it seems that eating feces was a part of Crowley’s magic rituals.

    I’ve heard that a feces fixation plays a big part in gay culture. How could it not, considering their emphasis on anal sex.

  56. Paul says:

    @Novaseeker I suspect what is going on here is a the early stage softening up of people on the conservative side for the eventual “conservative argument for supporting same sex marriage” that these folks will be making in the next decade or two, given where the argument actually leads

    This is already happening right now. The key phrase used is “living together in a permanent relationship in loving care”. That way no ‘marriage’ need to be acknowledged. And to get around the sexual part, it is promoted to use a ‘don’t tell, don’t ask’ policy in combination with ‘we’re all sinning now and then’, or ‘we don’t interfere with what’s happening in the bedroom’. Or the often used ‘we deal with that in a case-by-case, pastoral context’.

  57. ray says:

    Dalrock — “But that others are worse doesn’t change the fact that what Allberry is promoting is abominable. This is the same thing complementarians have done regarding feminism. They sold us out to so called moderates while patting themselves on the back for holding the most rabid feminists at bay in the process.”

    Exactly. And how much work for you was it to read all the garbage, parse it, and present it cogently in such manner that the ruses — the deceits — eventually could be teased out and put into written form?

    That is, the average Christian, heck even the exceptional Christian, would have great difficulty grokking the Scriptural falsifications and rebellions exposed in these pages over the years. On his own, almost impossible. The satanic programming is vast, international, but at the same time greatly subtile, presented always as a good, an inclusion, a plus. Absent close examination, the activities of most of these ‘pastors’ and ‘ministers’ appear authentically Christian, and their errors could not be perceived — much less rejected — by the mass of persons professing Christ as king and leader. The global agit-prop is too powerful, and so is the peer-pressure. It is incremental, it is attractive, and it is carefully normed, particularly by that paragon of spiritual virtue, the modern American woman (all bow and produce money).

    America is under judgment, and Christians and conservatives are in absolute denial thereof. Hurricane Michael didn’t even get their eyes fluttering, much less opened. The works of these pages help to convict the world of sin, which is part of my charge likewise. The peoples and nations involved in the apostasies and abominations described herein thus have no excuse for continued support of same, as this page illustrates clearly and repeatedly the hypocrisy and error of such false churches and leaders. The LORD does not punish without affected people/nations knowing why first, by way of His servants. Sin may be forgiven, as all in this place have it. But there is no excuse for rebellion, and no excuse will be accepted.

  58. Jake says:

    Well yeah hard to parse all the gobbeldygook. Simple rubric. Is the world nodding? Heresy.

  59. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    One problem is that these teachers do not believe that one is a new creation in Christ, that the old person is passing away. Instead they want to say that the old person with its fleshly lusts is already holy, no need to repent or to be converted by Spirit. Their antinomian orientation is as dangerous as their sexual orientation because they think holiness is found in opposition to the law. Seeking to justify their sin, they do not bother to justify the sinner, they place their faith in their own standards of righteousness and fail to see the righteousness standard of Christ.

  60. feeriker says:

    But too many of them have bought into the lie that it’s an identity. It’s an identity just exactly as much as being an alcoholic is an identity: it’s something that will never go away short of a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit, which He does not always choose to grant. But if you make “I’m an alcoholic” your primary identity, you’ll be thinking about it all the time and you’ll vastly increase your chances of falling to the ever-present temptation at some point.

    Bottom line: they don’t WANT to avoid temptation to sin; they’re looking for a (pseudo-biblical) justification to succumb to it.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock on splits within denominations:
    I think it may be worse than even you suspect.

    Sheesh. That’s bad.
    A while back I was considering using Eeyore as a gravitar, but copyright…and now you say this!

    When the split comes, the vast bulk of the “conservative” side will follow the gay complementarian model. The liberals will head out on the road other liberal denominations went down a few decades ago. The conservatives will (by and large) follow the lead of organizations like the ERLC and CBMW

    Well, then, there will be another split off of the “conservatives” in due course. Because from the 30,000 foot level these Protestant denominations are making almost the same mistake that the Roman Catholic hierarchy did back in the 70’s or 60’s – accepting known homosexuals into leadership positions.

    This is what happened with feminism, and for the conservative churches to break with ERLC and CBMW now would be to reopen the rationalizations they thought they sorted out decades ago.

    Hey, half-way down a slippery slope is still half way up. However it would require a lot of word-eating and humbling for leaders of these denominations to admit that, well, gosh, they just didn’t expect things to work out this way and mistakes were made and shucks!

    That’s why they have Russell Moore and the ERLC, to protect them from exactly this kind of risk.

    There are bigger risks than SJW’s siccing the tax law, though.

    It does not give me any pleasure to predict that churches following the Allberry model will have some extremely ugly scandals within a decade or sooner. Scandals involving “vetted” and “celibate” homosexual men and early teen or preteen boys. Good luck defending the “vetters” and denominational leaders in court.

    I used to think that only traders and bubble-chasers really bought into “this time it’s different!” such as the housing bubble of 2001 – 2007, but obviously I’ was thinking too narrowly.

  62. info says:

    ”What is the stance of the evangelical churches on whether homosexual conduct should be illegal, and be punished by the secular authority? Because until our lifetimes, this was taken for granted…and anti-sodomy laws were on the books in most states.”

    Society keeps bailing them out of the consequences of their actions.

  63. info says:

    @Paul
    ”This is already happening right now. The key phrase used is “living together in a permanent relationship in loving care”

    Totally loving to desecrate and make a mockery of the image of Christ and his church. Perfectly loving too to spread disease that kill people horribly.

    May God either break them in repentance or break them in judgment.

  64. info says:

    And as noted in this thread. Compromise on women’s role to be other than the God ordained Patriarchal role especially the way complementarians do it and this is the result.

    @BW
    ”By this point these folks are flirting with the execution of their real hope and ambition – the full acceptance of homosexual desire, including the consummation of said desire – within traditional, family-oriented Christianity. It wasn’t enough for them to usurp control of more liberal leaning churches, now they’ve set their sites on the traditional ones as well.”

    No opposition must be allowed to remain it seems.

  65. Spike says:

    Ed Shaw is a predatory wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    The trademark sign of ANY ”gay fundamentalist” – those who want homosexuality to propagate and prosper, is that they believe that homosexuality is inherent and genetic and therefore immutable.
    This is not scientific. It is not proven and a Google Search “Genetic basis of Homosexuality” will prove it in a second.
    That said, heterosexuality is not holiness. As Jesus said, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God”: Keep in mind, no gay “Christian” pastor will ever do that. If he did, he would not tell anyone about himself. Instead, he will rationalize Christian theology away with arguments about shellfish, violent rape etc.
    And parents SHOULD want their children growing up heterosexual. It isn’t just because we get marriage, children and grandchildren and we get to see our legacy in churches, which is in and of itself a wonderful thing that I’m only just now starting to appreciate, a sign of God’s blessing.

    No. Here’s why: gay people have, on average, a 22-year lower life expectancy. Tat isn’t because of “homophobia”. It is because of higher alcohol abuse, drug abuse, higher rates of intimate partner violence (actually higher in lesbians than in gay men), higher risk of STDs such as AIDS (ow considered a thanatophilic ‘gift’ – Google ”bug catchers” and ”gift givers” if you have a strong enough stomach); In recent years, an average of 3500 men are dying prematurely of cancer of the rectum, caused by Human papilloma Virus. This disgusting and undignified way to die will eventually make it’s way through to women, thus, like AIDS making it ”everyone’s” disease.

    Meanwhile us poor scientists, hobbled by a greedy corporate culture that has bound our hands in patents on HIV, preventing a vaccine being made, will also have the gay lobby descending on us to ”find a cure” before demanding it while telling us we don’t care, so they continue with their lifestyle.

  66. info says:

    @Dalrock

    Is there a compilation of complementarian accomodations to feminism? I would like to see the core roots of this problem but I am hard pressed to find the most important articles to make the case.

  67. Ron Tomlinson says:

    Homosexuality can be holy? No, the temple of the Holy Ghost is the body. Male bodies are designed to complement female bodies and vice versa. You can call yourself man or woman or trans but the sex of your *body* has already been determined.

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @Anyone who read my comment above

    When Tetricus says this:

    Denny’s willingness to call same-sex attraction sinful puts him at odds with a lot of people within the church, and it’s a point that he’s defended well and not yielded on. You seem to think that “arguing against conversion therapy because the goal should be holiness, not heterosexuality” is at odds with “same-sex attraction is sinful”, but it’s not:

    what he is saying is, “No, it’s not like Denny Burk is smoothing the way for homosexuals. Look here where he talks about the sin of homosexuality. No one is saying that same sex attraction is good. We’re just saying heterosexual attraction isn’t God’s best for everyone. God’s chosen us all with special gifts, and–while they are a blessing–some of those gifts come with unique pitfalls. See, sin is like a disease…”

    And so Burk has, but Burk’s act is just rope-a-dope so that later, when conservative Christians are exhausted, Burk can say something like, “No one has been fighting this battle as long as I have. Look at this article and this essay and this book! The fact is that the homosexual Jeremiahs have a lot to teach us about acceptance and the love of Christ for even sinners like you nuclear family types pretending you have it all together. There are no heroes here but Jesus so you just be quiet, you anti-gay bigot.”

  69. Strike Three says:

    ray:
    My request is in response to your comments of March 21, at 4:46 p.m.

    I would honestly love it if you would give some suggested book titles. Your allusions to Crowley, Parsons, and the U.S. space program are intriguing.

    And your reference to why the space program was dangerous on account of spiritual realities was very interesting. I’ve read the same Bible verses you’ve read, but I have never interpreted them as you have.
    I’m not trolling you; I am genuinely interested.
    Thanks!

  70. Dalrock says:

    @info

    @Dalrock

    Is there a compilation of complementarian accomodations to feminism? I would like to see the core roots of this problem but I am hard pressed to find the most important articles to make the case.

    The central pattern is to pose as being traditional while adopting feminism as practical reality. The mechanism to achieve this will vary, and will be at times self contradictory. Examples include:

    Women preaching to women (short explanation, long explanation).
    God signals the righteousness of a husband by how happy, beautiful, or sexually aroused his wife is.
    The wakeup call
    Romantic love sanctifies marriage and married sex.
    Blaming men for women’s sins.
    Women are better at marriage than men because they are more prone to discontentment.
    The wife as house despot.
    The sin of servility, of being a doormat.
    Husbands are to mind their own business, wives are to set and enforce boundaries.

  71. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    And so Burk has, but Burk’s act is just rope-a-dope so that later, when conservative Christians are exhausted, Burk can say something like, “No one has been fighting this battle as long as I have. Look at this article and this essay and this book! The fact is that the homosexual Jeremiahs have a lot to teach us about acceptance and the love of Christ for even sinners like you nuclear family types pretending you have it all together. There are no heroes here but Jesus so you just be quiet, you anti-gay bigot.”

    Right. If you squint hard enough, what Burk writes is technically right. It just happens to lay the foundation for all of the wrong things he tells us he is against, wrong things being promoted by a man he tells us God stood up for our time.

    Also, regarding Burk’s followup to Revoice that Tetricus referenced.  Burk is the guard in the watchtower.  His job is to sound the alarm if danger is approaching.  Revoice was exactly the kind of danger he should be warning us about.  But instead he mysteriously tries to change the subject;  don’t forget we protestants disagree with Catholics!  Look, over there, a squirrel!  But that is just one part of his response.  The rest of it is Burk singing a lullaby when he should be shouting the alarm.  The tone of the whole piece is a sleepy “don’t worry, everything is fine”.

  72. purge187 says:

    “Homosexuals are disease vectors.”

    Especially the male ones. The CDC shies away from allowing faggots to donate blood because they realize that they’re walking Petri dishes.

  73. SnapperTrx says:

    Remember the original Toy Story? Remember the part where Buzz and Woody are underneath the car and Buzz STILL thinks he’s the REAL Buzz Lightyear and, at one point, Woody gets angry and screams at him at the top of his lungs in an attempt to get reality to set in:

    “YOU! ARE! A! TOY!”

    I feel like someone needs to approach these people and, in the same manner, scream at them:

    “BEING! GAY! IS! SIN!”

    Unfortunately I feel they would have the same response Buzz had for Woody:
    “You are a sad, strange, little man.”

    Like said plaything these people are living in their own reality where the words of the bible are taffy, meant to be stretched and twisted to meet their needs. Sad and strange, indeed.

  74. h0neyc0mb says:

    @purge187 ..

    “Homosexuals are disease vectors.”

    Especially the male ones. The CDC shies away from allowing faggots to donate blood because they realize that they’re walking Petri dishes.

    You might want to double check those facts .. because, the last time I checked, they allow people with AIDS and HIV to donate blood.

  75. Jack Russell says:

    AR said:The Johnson Amendment of the 1950’s was a deal in which churches got to be tax-exempt entities in exchange for which they stayed out of politics.
    I do not live in the US, but from what I have read about the 501C3. Churches were tax exempt before were they not? Correct me if I am wrong. Demon possessed (IMO)Lyndon Johnson brought this in as he know religious groups would keep quite on any issues moral or otherwise if they want to keep their “tax exemption”. They should have spoken out anyway. Most mainline churches seem more concerned about backmasking in Led Zeppelin songs than the abortion issue, the end times, etc.

  76. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I think it was Pat Buchanan who said that churches’ tax exempt status is in the Constitution, which permits churches to engage in politics while remaining tax exempt.

    This notion that churches must refrain from politics to remain tax exempt is an IRS ruling, no? And it’s never been tested in court.

  77. thedeti says:

    It’s true, but for some reason they are disproportionately wealthy relative to straight men. My guess is that this is due to (1) wealth becoming associated with higher levels of education and gays succeed in that setting more than straight men (more like women) and (2) gays not having to devote time to chasing women (mate/sex acquisition for gay men is trivial in terms of time consumed).

    And because (3) gay men often aren’t supporting children, and (4) when gay men are paired up in apparently monogamish relationships, and even when supporting children, they usually have no more than two children and both work in highly compensated occupations.

  78. Haha some people trying to act like being gay is as bad as a straight person having out of wedlock sex.

    Homosexuality breaks a person at their core and twists them into something against nature. It absolutely must never be tolerated.

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jack Russel
    AR said:The Johnson Amendment of the 1950’s was a deal in which churches got to be tax-exempt entities in exchange for which they stayed out of politics.
    I do not live in the US, but from what I have read about the 501C3. Churches were tax exempt before were they not?

    RPL
    I think it was Pat Buchanan who said that churches’ tax exempt status is in the Constitution, which permits churches to engage in politics while remaining tax exempt.

    This is probably not the best forum for a discussion of US Constitutional law. Nor will getting off into the weeds of 501c.3 and other tax laws be all that useful.

    The point is simple: In the US, churches have certain special status regarding taxes. We’ve already seen the IRS used as a weapon multiple times in the last 40+ years. Therefore the possibility of SJW’s using tax law as a club to attempt to force churches to accept homosexual marraiges, etc. is real.

    tl;dr
    Prudent church people in the US and elsewhere should consider the possibility, and how they would continue to function as a church, if they are told “Either accept homosexual marriages or else” for several different forms of “or else”.

    That’s all I was attempting to say.

  80. thedeti says:

    You might want to double check those facts .. because, the last time I checked, they allow people with AIDS and HIV to donate blood.

    No. Blood donation/circulation services notably the American Red Cross screen hard for HIV/AIDS and the supplies are tested. HIV positive people and people at risk for HIV are told not to donate blood. There are no laws I’m aware of that require the Red Cross or other entities to accept blood donations from anyone; or that just anyone be allowed to donate blood or blood products.

  81. h0neyc0mb says:

    @thedeti ..

    Re-Read what I said .. more carefully this time .. thanks in advance.

  82. thedeti says:

    honeycomb:

    Are you saying there are no CDC regulations or directives that bar HIV positive people from donating blood? Are you saying HIV positive people are allowed to donate blood and the blood donated is simply discarded after donation? Are you saying HIV positive people are allowed to donate later-discarded blood so no one will feel bad about either turning away a donor and/or to avoid the HIV positive potential donor’s “feel-bad” at being turned away?

    Not that it matters all that much.. But are you saying this is a practice that’s followed by medical services and the Red Cross for one reason or another?

  83. anonymous_ng says:

    @Frank K said “Will there be schism, or will people vote with their feet? We have a Greek Orthodox Church in our town that has grown by leaps and bounds, and most of its members, if I understand correctly, are refugees from the local Episcopalian church (and a few others). They recently completed a massive expansion/remodel (the building used to be a vanilla looking Protestant church) and it now looks like an Orthodox Church. ”

    It’s all the Orthodox churches. Our Antiochian Orthodox parish was founded by a group of people including a priest that left the Episcopalian church. There is a Greek Orthodox church about one hour North of where I live that is struggling with the influx of non-Greeks and their desire to keep their cultural practices that are not necessary for Orthodoxy.

  84. ray says:

    OT. Re-enforcing prior OPs and comments concerning the degradation of the military. —

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/21/retired-army-general-warns-of-balkanization-in-u-s-military-identity-politics-is-a-cancer/

    Notice this guy had to be retired before he could hint at the impact of feminism/PC on the military. Even then, he couldn’t bring himself to mention the taboo word ‘feminism’. So he left it at Identity Politics, somewhat safer.

  85. Opus says:

    May I suggest that Novaseeker and Deti have both fallen for the Iceberg fallacy: that is to say, that because the outwardly vocal Homo-sexualists they know of are overwhelmingly educated unburdened by family and therefore with both time and money to spend deep-throating their religion of de-generation down everyone else’s throat that therefore they represent most homosexuals. I say: not so; for like the iceberg it is the 90% below the surface that are not seen, the sort that far from affecting Pride, feel shame and indulge their weakness anonymously in the dark-rooms of bath-houses and the like. These are not the Homosexuals that are of any interest to the globo-homo elite.

  86. Scott says:

    There is a Greek Orthodox church about one hour North of where I live that is struggling with the influx of non-Greeks and their desire to keep their cultural practices that are not necessary for Orthodoxy.

    If this trend continues, I am torn. Christ is in our midst! is the correct response to the growth in holy Orthodoxy as all these seekers “come home” as we say.

    But I want the Greeks to keep their traditions, their language, their food and the little quirks that make their expression of Orthodoxy unique. And the Russians. And the Serbs, etc. They are beautiful and they are ancient. They are a way to connect with the past through relgio-enthnicity.

  87. Scott says:

    On the one hand, if Americans are going to do a mass exodus of the churches here and into the local Orthodox parishes, my assumption is it is because they are wondering, like I once did, “what is it about the ancient form that has stood fast and endured” then they need to enter, and sit quietly and learn. Americans, obesessed with their individuality and stubborn will to privately question and interpret everything need to humble themselves in a 2000 year old tradition. Otherwise the liturgy will change, the espresso bars and retarded jumbo tron screens will appear, and next thing you know we will be right back here talking about gay “marriage” and women clergy again.

    On the other hand, an Orthodoxy, that embraces and synthessizes the best American culture has to offer could save the world.

  88. seventiesjason says:

    Scott. I agree to “quietly learn” in a setting as you have mentioned and defended. My cousin married into the Greek Orthodox church in 1998. I was in the wedding party (groomsman) it was a LONG ceremony. Just over two hours.

    I remember asking a question of the Father during the rehearsal dinner about the “dance” and the “crowns” and was told “it’s tradition”

    I asked about the iconography (which was beautiful) and some of the regalia used and was told “it’s tradition”

    I asked why the Orthodox Cross has another crossbar at an angle “It’s tradition”

    It’s really hard to learn when you come from another tradition and every thing you ask about is “tradition” and that’s the answer. The flocks of people that are “coming home” as you mentioned are going to have questions, and that doesn’t mean many or even most are being “impolite” or wanting espresso bars……I have a problem with believers wearing flip flops and pajama bottoms into church on Sunday….and you dare say anything “you’re judging” and I am being a “legalist” and I have stressed when I was in the Salvation Army “a new believer will not know better or a visitor as well…..but when we have teenagers raised in this church, and this is allowed, tolerated and accepted……what message are we sending about God’s House?”

    As for espresso bars, most protestant churches now are snack time, cellphone time, and watching a praise performance and a sermon that is never convicting, or now only “affirming”

    Hence why I am looking for a church

  89. Novaseeker says:

    The issue with the Greek Orthodox in particular is that they are extremely ethnically closed.

    I have mostly been in English-language OCA and ROCOR parishes in my 20 years in Orthodoxy, and the parishes are very much in the Slavic/Russian vein, other than the use of English. There are a lot of converts because many converts wouldn’t convert if the service were 50% in a foreign language, and this is sensible. The Greeks recalcitrance on that issue alone is reprehensible in my opinion because they were the ones who created Slavonic to begin with, and thereby the tradition of having liturgy in the vernacular which is quintessentially Orthodox (unless you’re a Greek heritage non-Greek speaking 3rd generation American, in which case it’s important that the liturgy be in Greek ….).

    I feel strongly about this issue because I have worked with converts in areas where there is only a Greek Orthodox church and they could not convert because it really doesn’t work when everyone there is Greek or married to a Greek and the liturgy is 1/2 or more in Greek even though many people there don’t understand it despite being Greek American. Some traditions are dead weight, and that’s one of them, imo.

  90. Jake says:

    Churches should try to be churches and when the enemy comes in the guise of government agents they should render into caesar what is caesars.

    The problem isn’t church paying taxes, it’s the people not getting an exemption. No one has any faith in God and tithing is reduced to an accounting exercise. Modern christians give so that quickbooks, everyone on the bookkeeping committee at church, and the federal government knows what they are giving.

  91. Scott says:

    There is some level of beauty in the answer “it’s tradition.”

    And I think clergy should do as good a job as possible describing the thought processes, history and rationale behind the tradition being asked about.

    But most American protestants are not asking those questions because they want to know. THey already have an eye toward “discenment” and are looking for something they “disagree” with because the Bible. I know this because I was brought up in that mindset. It is something that you must completely jettison from your thinking process to become Orthodox. And its the reaon moat protestants don’t ultimately take the leap.

    Or they are the ones making the loudest noises about how culture and tradition have no real place in the faith, especially if its one they don’t like.

  92. Scott says:

    Nova-

    to play devils advocate here. I gerw up on not knowing a word of Serbian. I can now get along OK in it. The liturgy was the reason I got off my ass and learned a new language at 43. It never occurred to me to ask the Serbs to have more of the liturgy be in English for me and my family.

    Does that make sense?

  93. Scott says:

    And they make is supre easy.

    In the prayer book, both labguages appear side by side, so you can follow along. The best motivator to learn a new language is that it is meaningful to you personally. I can’t think of anything more meaningful thatn worshipping Christ the way my ancestors did, and teaching it to my kids.

  94. seventiesjason says:

    Scott, not denying a beauty in tradition. My Holiness tradition was birthed out of the slums of Victorian England “In darkest England”

    Hence the brass bands, uniforms and a quasi military structure (and the Germans get a bad rep for uniforms! lol)

    I will add I was not even a practicing Christian in 1998, and when I did venture into a Orthodox service this past September, I wasn’t looking for a fight, or being objective…..I know how to behave in a church that is not my tradition……..I was raised with some manner.

    My mother was a cultural COE (church of england) until the late 1970’s. Never devout, but she liked the traditions of church and crown, of family heritage…..but in the late 1970’s the “common book of prayer” was changed. Also in the episcopol church gays were openly being ordained.

    She would say in her heavy accent “Why are they allowing that in a place where it’s never been allowed? They are hurrying up and afraid of these people instead of being afraid of personal salvation”

    She quit church until a year or so before she died. Her funeral was an episcopol service, and many hymns were sung in Welsh (a beautiful language sung I might add)

  95. Novaseeker says:

    Scott —

    The tradition of Orthodoxy has always been to have the liturgy in the vernacular. If that were not the case, Church Slavonic would not exist, and you would be praying in Greek (like the Catholics did until the 1960s).

    The church can be an ethnic club, or it can evangelize America, but it can’t be both — and Orthodoxy has never approached it that way. When the Russians were in Alaska, they translated the liturgy and the gospels into Aleutian — the result is that even today many Aleuts are Orthodox. This would never have happened had they tried to get them to learn Russian, rest assured.

    I do have respect for ethnic traditions, but not when they get in the way of evangelism for the Church. Language is a huge barrier, and it is not a traditional barrier that the Orthodox Church has erected — again, otherwise we would have made everyone do the liturgy in Greek everywhere, instead of having it in Romanian, Arabic, Serbian, Slavonic, etc … and English. I don’t see why there should be an exception made in North America because it hurts the mission of the Church here to make an exception (i.e., let’s not do it in English because the English culture here is Protestant anyway) … it just impedes the mission of the church.

    I do understand your ethnic ties and the importance of them, but I have too often seen potential converts just walk away because they cannot worship without understanding the language … and many people, especially in America, are not capable of learning languages — disclaimer, I learned liturgical Greek and Slavonic, but I do not expect this of most, because I am a language geek and outlier and speak multiple non-liturgical languages already, which is not the norm in our country at all.

  96. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    African-British actress fired due to old, anti-gay Facebook post: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/actor-playing-gay-role-in-musical-sacked-for-homophobic-comments

    An actor playing a gay character in a stage production of The Color Purple has been sacked over homophobic comments she made five years ago.

    Oluwaseyi Omooba, who was due to play the lead role of Celie, claimed the Bible made clear homosexuality was wrong in the eyes of God and that people cannot be born gay. A row was sparked when her Facebook post was unearthed and shared online by a fellow actor last week.

    On Thursday, the producers confirmed she would no longer be appearing in the show, saying Omooba’s comments had caused “significant and widely expressed concerns”. …

  97. anonymous_ng says:

    We had a family coming to our parish for a while that left their previous parish, a Greek Orthodox one because the women there treated the wife horribly for not having married a Greek man, at least that was what the husband said to me.

    I was talking to one man who’s family had been attending that Greek church, and I asked him how things were going with the Greeks vs the converts. He said that it had swung away from the hardcore Greek festivals etc, but then had swung back.

    I would guess that most of the people at our parish are converts, some African and Arab Orthodox, some Greek and Russian, but mostly converts. I have heard that the closest OCA/Russian church is embarking on a building expansion as is the Greek church to the North.

    Scott makes an excellent point about the value of the ethnic traditions, and Novaseeker on the downsides.

  98. Novaseeker says:

    I remember asking a question of the Father during the rehearsal dinner about the “dance” and the “crowns” and was told “it’s tradition”

    I asked about the iconography (which was beautiful) and some of the regalia used and was told “it’s tradition”

    I asked why the Orthodox Cross has another crossbar at an angle “It’s tradition”

    It’s really hard to learn when you come from another tradition and every thing you ask about is “tradition” and that’s the answer.

    This is likely because they either (1) didn’t know (common enough, even among priests, sadly, in some Orthodox jurisdictions) or (2) didn’t want to bother to explain to an outsider (also common enough in some Orthodox jurisdictions … like that one). I’ve sat next to Greek Orthodox mis-explaining various Orthodox traditions to colleagues — I did not call them out before others, but asked them afterward and the answer was always “that is what Yia-Yia taught us, so that’s what it is” .. basically Yia-Yia-doxy rather than Orthodoxy. It needs to be borne in mind that historically, Yia-Yia bore a large part of the transmission of the faith due to the various shortcomings of the men involved, or the lack thereof, as was the case for the Greek church under the Ottoman yoke, but to have this trickle down into 21st Century America does great damage to the mission of the church here, simply put. It’s embarrassing that a priest couldn’t explain the three-bar cross for example — that’s simply scandalous.

    If you’re ever interested, I’d recommend checking out an English speaking parish of the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) or ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia) … you will find less of that, generally speaking (although things do vary from parish to parish).

  99. Scott says:

    I’ve said repeatedly that I pray for an ascendant “American Orthodox Church”

    It would be one that is 100% Orthodoxy, and culturally American.

    It would take centuries to build such a thing. The OCA is in the position to become that. But they have a LOT of liberal/leftist folks in positions of power who need to be asked to leave.

  100. anonymous_ng says:

    Novaseeker points out what seems to me to be the eternal conflict in the churches, is the focus on the members, or on the evangelism?

    I’ve not run into a place yet that I think does both well. Far too often, it seems that the worst charge you can lay on a church is to say that it is focused on the membership, and that’s seldom a charge that they are unapproachable, or unwilling to embrace converts, but that they aren’t spending their efforts on “outreach” and “engaging with the community”

    I would like to see strongly ethnic churches and strongly American Orthodox churches, but hey, that’s just me.

  101. Novaseeker says:

    It would take centuries to build such a thing. The OCA is in the position to become that. But they have a LOT of liberal/leftist folks in positions of power who need to be asked to leave.

    I don’t disagree about the OCA’s leadership, but we will get nowhere towards creating a better kind of American Orthodox church if we refuse to even use English in our services. It’s like not even taking the first step.

    I would like to see strongly ethnic churches and strongly American Orthodox churches, but hey, that’s just me.

    In larger locales this is a good approach. In the DC area we kind of have this — there are the ethnic parishes (mostly Greeks, but also some Carpatho-Rusyns and a large Antiochian parish that has a large percentage of ethnic background parishioners) and then we have a significant number of English-speaking parishes (AA, OCA, ROCOR, ACROD). And the OCA and ROCOR cathedrals here both have an English community and a Slavonic (Russian) community with separate liturgies, which is a way of splitting the baby (it leads to its own issues, due to the parish having two communities that only rarely worship together, like on Pascha and Christmas and so on).

    The issue arises in smaller communities where there is only 1 Orthodox church. Normally, due to demographics, when that is the case, that church is Greek, because there are numerically more Greek Orthodox than anyone else here in the US. And if you’re an interested convert in that area, that’s all you’ve got … and I’ve worked with a few of those people and lost most of them to the faith because of what the Greek Church was doing. That’s a total fail. It may be that some of those would have been lost anyway, but a main issue for each of them what that this church was the only option (yes a Greek Orthodox church in a medium sized WV city will still have the liturgy mostly in Greek, even though the priest isn’t Greek, and the parishioners themselves don’t understand Greek … but they do have a nice organ …). It just is a very hot button for me because it’s a massive fail for Orthodoxy in North America. Massive fail.

  102. seventiesjason says:

    Hey……no hate…..I have a Greek first and middle name but I am half-Polish and half-Welsh, baptized and christened as a COE, but became born in Christ in the Salvation Army….and my father was a lapsed Catholic. I speak Welsh but have my height from the Slavic side…….

    The Father at this Orthodox church was a friendly man. I just had some questions……who knows….and the family my cousin married into (Greek) didn’t really have answers either. The wedding ceremony was long, and I couldn’t take Communion during the wedding service because I wasn’t Orthodox. It was funny because half the church got up to take it, and my side of the family just sat there.

    I went up and got a blessing from the Father. He gave me one.

  103. MK Riker says:

    Recently found Pastor Steven Anderson, and last night listened to his sermon on Daniel 4 where he goes on a long aside about God giving people over to their desires leading into an homosexuality and then just goes off on “these disgusting sodomites.” It starts around the 29 minute mark but you can go back to 24 if you want more context. It was very exhilarating to hear someone speak the offensive truth so passionately.

    Really great preaching to hear especially after reading the horribly lukewarm pc garbage Dalrock has linked and countered the last few posts.

  104. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I think Steven Anderson might be headed for prison, were he a citizen of Canada or Great Britain. I’m not 100% sure of that, but it might be a possibility.

  105. ray says:

    seventies jason — “I went up and got a blessing from the Father. He gave me one.”

    Don’t call people in churches father. Or anyone else, including your dad.

    Father is a hallowed name belonging to One only.

  106. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Jason

    I just had some questions……who knows….and the family my cousin married into (Greek) didn’t really have answers either.

    I got many questions answered here.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36041089-the-orthodox-church

    Starting from scratch (near total ignorance) this was a good introduction for me. Later I met a Deacon during an annual open house at an Antiochian Orthodox church. He seemed to know all this and more so keeping an eye out for churches that have these events is another possibility.

    The Orthodox commenters here may know better sources or methods.

  107. seventiesjason says:

    Ray…that is the title that tradition uses…..there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t use that term in my tradition. What do I call my father? By his first name? Always called him father, or when I made it over forty (an older man myself now), I called him “pop” until he died.

    I worked with Father Garcia in Fresno very frequently concerning interdenominational matters of “work needing to be done in our neighborhood”

    I used the title “father” because that is the title in that tradition when addressing a Catholic priest

  108. If I recall correctly, Steven Anderson also said it was impossible for sodomites to repent of their sins or be saved, that it’s a sin that makes you irrevocably lost. He’s also prayed for Obama to be sent to hell. If I’m mischaracterizing, and I don’t think I am, this is pretty heretical stuff as I understand it.

    It’s no good to just bank off of one error and run into another. Every true Christian is on some level a fundamentalist, and I still read/listen to the KJV every day. Paradoxically, I have tremendous respect for the late Peter Ruckman. But just because a fellow shouts a lot and goes against the grain doesn’t make him a good shepherd or ally.

  109. seventiesjason says:

    Thank you LP. I like the “Holiness” of Orthodoxy, and the seriousness of it……..but I still have a problem with praying and reading to an icon or idol…….and if somehow I don’t get Communion every week, I’m going to hell……..or if I don’t read some liturgical text on certain Sundays somehow…someway I am not “with Christ”

    I am just too hopelessly Protestant in these matter…..and I am not making Protestantism into something it isn’t. The Blood and Fire left a LONG time ago as a driving movement of “why” it became such a prominent force in the world.

  110. feeriker says:

    Prudent church people in the US and elsewhere should consider the possibility, and how they would continue to function as a church, if they are told “Either accept homosexual marriages or else” for several different forms of “or else”.

    I truly hope and pray that this is coming. What the American church needs more than anything else (and more than any other church in the world) is persecution. Nothing else will burn away the rot that has infected it. Being told “play by the State’s rules, or be prepared to suffer for not doing so” is going to be the ultimate test of how genuine the American church is (prediction: the true Church of the Body of Christ is going to be revealed to be horrifyingly tiny in numbers, but purer and stronger than ever before).

    The issue with the Greek Orthodox in particular is that they are extremely ethnically closed.

    The Greeks recalcitrance on that issue alone is reprehensible in my opinion because they were the ones who created Slavonic to begin with, and thereby the tradition of having liturgy in the vernacular which is quintessentially Orthodox (unless you’re a Greek heritage non-Greek speaking 3rd generation American, in which case it’s important that the liturgy be in Greek ….).

    I can’t speak for the Greek Orthodox church in America, as I have had no exposure to i. But after living in Greece for a total of four years and having been acquainted with both priests and regular church attendees, my conclusion is that the church in Greece proper is not a religious institution or a body of true believers in Christ at all, but a government organization embodying Greek nationalism and ethnic pride. The Orthodox Church is an official arm of the Greek government and the priests are all government employees. They behave like it as well (to say that priests are not highly thought of by most of the Greek people is putting it kindly). Try talking to any Greek who attends church even once a week about the fundamentals of the Christian faith and you will either get a blank stare or a hostile diatribe about how contemptuous they are of religion.

  111. PokeSalad says:

    Don’t call people in churches father. Or anyone else, including your dad.

    Father is a hallowed name belonging to One only.

    Oh, please. *eyeroll*

    Don’t call my dad, “father?”

    No wonder so many forums find you tedious.

  112. ray says:

    Jason — Call him your dad, or pop, or poppa, or whatever. I call mine ‘dad’. He passed long ago but ain’t far off.

    I don’t care what title the tradition uses. I don’t care what the Catholics, or Orthodox, or anyone else says or demands. The traditions of men do not supersede the commands of God. They just think so.

    “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23)

    It was the King himself who said that, so I’m thinking it’s important. It’s a proscription I wasn’t aware of until a few years ago; took some getting-used-to. It made sense when I realized He wants us to hallow Father (the name) when we say and meditate the Lord’s Prayer. The only one He saw fit to teach us. It is a special word and a special name.

    Note how Jeshua folds-in all the title-conscious traditions of men as well. He’s saying don’t call yourself, or be called, rabbi or pastor or minister or prophet or anything. He knows exactly how much we like to puff ourselves up, award ourselves authority and preen before others. He didn’t want His church to become . . . well exactly what it has, a haven for status-seekers and money-grubbers, multitudes professing spiritual authority and gifts, whom the LORD has not anointed, nor wanted. The sheep then look to them falsely.

    The titles He wants us to have, He will hand out later. When there’s no confusion about who’s who.

  113. ray says:

    Poke Boy —

    “No wonder so many forums find you tedious.”

    Well it was Christ Jesus who said it, so doubtless you and your fellow-travelers find Him tedious as well. Not to mention inconvenient to your purposes.

    Be seeing ya.

  114. feeriker says:

    I think Steven Anderson might be headed for prison, were he a citizen of Canada or Great Britain. I’m not 100% sure of that, but it might be a possibility.

    Within a few years (five, at the most) he’ll be headed for prison here in the USSA, too.

  115. Novaseeker says:

    Oh I know. I lived in Germany twice, both times in heavily historically “evangelisch” (Lutheran/Protestant) areas, and in Switzerland in Calvinist areas as well. Pretty much the least Christian places I have ever lived have been the historic birthplaces of Protestantism.

    European Christianity is dying, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

  116. Paul says:

    @ray Don’t call people in churches father. Or anyone else, including your dad. Father is a hallowed name belonging to One only.

    Your interpretation is wrong, and Scripture disagrees with you

    Eph 6


    Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”

    Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

  117. ray says:

    Strike Three —

    My comments weren’t derived primarily from books, aside from Scripture, which contains vast info on matters occult. The blood-rites and ceremonies of heathen nations are referred to over and over. Unfortunately.

    As for space, I see lots of folks planting flags and saying mine, but I don’t hear them asking God if it’s ok to take over His heavens.

    If you have a specific question on rocket jack or etc. I’ll try to answer, but am not comfortable pointing you to general sources outside Scripture.

  118. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    My Catholic study Bible says that it’s okay to call priests Father, because we don’t mean it in the same sense as when we call God Father.

    Intent is important. Catholics don’t worship Mary. One must only worship God (which includes the Trinity). But it’s okay to revere Mary and the saints. And it’s okay to use statues and paintings to inspire or teach, because that’s not idolatry.

    I know some Christians of a more … fundamentalist? … bent think that Catholics engage in idolatry when we revere Mary or pray in front of statutes. I suppose they feel the same way about calling a priest Father.

    Back in the 1980s, I knew a self-professed “true Christian” whose denomination played no music in church. Not even acoustical. Somehow they interpreted the Bible to read “no musical instruments” during services. (I don’t remember if singing was okay.) They called themselves the Church of Christ, but I think several go by that name. I’ve heard of a liberal Church of Christ, but this was an ultra-fundamentalist Church of Christ.

    They also had no priests, because that was pagan, or whatever. Instead, they had elders. I didn’t see much difference at the time. They were still religious leaders, albeit by another title.

  119. seventies jason says:

    AlsoRPL its a proper title and decorum even in secular culture to refer to a priest as “father”
    it’s just basic manners……..and no, I am not confusing that with chivalry

  120. freebird says:

    “Red Pill Latecomer says:
    March 22, 2019 at 11:31 am

    I think it was Pat Buchanan who said that churches’ tax exempt status is in the Constitution, which permits churches to engage in politics while remaining tax exempt.

    This notion that churches must refrain from politics to remain tax exempt is an IRS ruling, no? And it’s never been tested in court.”

    Yes, yes it has.
    Pastor Pete Peters was assailed with this very problem,the police laid siege to the churchfor his radio show about politics.
    Pete claimed “The Lord Jesus Christ was the Owner of the Church,and that the IRS thus had no jurisdiction against him or his flock.
    The Supreme Court (Of That State or SCOTUS) ruled that
    “Jesus Christ” WAS A PERSON who owned The Church.
    God had a hand in that.Because TRUTH

  121. Tetricus says:

    Hedge: this is too long and not long enough. I always think the second comment reply is hard; the argument ends up going in a bunch of different directions.

    This clarifies that while there are specific objections to the methods commonly used in conversion therapy, their objection is to the goal of (as Living Out puts it) curing gayness.

    Never really spent time at Living Out. Here’s their conversion therapy article, and there’s a LOT more I find objectionable here. Reads completely differently in terms of focus and goals. I will have to watch that video where Allberry shares a stage with Burk; it might change my mind on a few things. But at this moment I’m not ready to say that “Denny Burk” and “Living Out” are interchangeable.

    Nothing about Denny’s work says that cured gayness is a bad thing, or that gayness is a good thing. He says clearly and consistently that homosexual acts are sinful, as are homosexual desires. Cured gayness does not provide salvation; at best we can argue that it would only remove an obstacle.

    in all of them (including the one you linked) he wanted to change the subject to a squabble between Protestants and Catholics

    The tone of the whole piece is a sleepy “don’t worry, everything is fine”.

    That’s a strange way to read that article. He had a numbered list with 6 items, and 1 mentioned Catholicism. That’s hardly changing the subject. And while I’m not fresh on the Catholic/Protestant arguments he made elsewhere, I recall that his critique of Catholicism was to advance his argument that same-sex desires are sinful.

    His next to last paragraph in that piece is a tactful way of saying “I thought there was plenty of wrong going in, and nothing changed my mind here.” I’m not sure why Revoice gets handled with kid gloves when he’s willing to be a lot more heavy-handed with, say, Azusa Pacific University (see his latest article). That’s a fair question to ask of him.

    I get the sense that this sort of cautious wording is born out of a few things:

    1. Pastoral concern.

    Belgau and Finegan do not want to hold out false promises to struggling Christians, and they feel that is what happened with now defunct “ex-gay” ministries. In large part, they feel they are dealing with the aftermath of the failure of those ministries. Those of us who are critics of Revoice would do well to understand this history and how it is still shaping the conversation.

    You’re a pastor, and someone comes into your office. He’s attracted to men, knows it’s wrong, and doesn’t want to be. What do you tell him?

    Burk’s answer (as I see it) is that you seek to mortify the flesh and its sinful desires, but he doesn’t guarantee that doing so flips the hetero switch.

    What’s your answer?

    2. Reparation therapy is a hot-button issue in the secular world. So Burk is heavily incentivized to say that it’s bad. That doesn’t mean it’s the reason why he says it’s bad, but we’re all a product of our environments to a certain extent, which gives us blind spots. It’s possible that’s the case here.

    3. It seems like some of the people around Revoice are more of “his people”, which tends to temper harsh criticism, for better or for worse. Also could mean that he’s trying to influence people in the right direction.

    It surprises me that you aren’t familiar with Allberry. He is hugely influential.

    Christendom is a big world. I’ve had stretches of listening to various pastors over the years. I’d think that some are huge names, yet I found that plenty of people either hadn’t heard of them, or had only heard them by name, or only knew them by how someone else’s framing.

    I see Allberry’s Anglican? I can’t name another Anglican minister outside of my immediate geographical area.

    I doubt anyone in my church has heard of Denny Burk. Russell Moore? maybe some of the younger guys.

    Regarding Cane’s comment:

    what he is saying is, “No, it’s not like Denny Burk is smoothing the way for homosexuals. Look here where he talks about the sin of homosexuality. No one is saying that same sex attraction is good. We’re just saying heterosexual attraction isn’t God’s best for everyone. God’s chosen us all with special gifts, and–while they are a blessing–some of those gifts come with unique pitfalls. See, sin is like a disease…”

    Please don’t put words in my mouth. “We’re just saying heterosexual attraction isn’t God’s best for everyone” and everything after that is not my position on this issue.

  122. Cane Caldo says:

    @Tetricus

    Please don’t put words in my mouth. “We’re just saying heterosexual attraction isn’t God’s best for everyone” and everything after that is not my position on this issue.

    Fair enough. All I know at this point is 1) You’re looking for a way to defend the guy (Burk) who defends the guy (Allberry) who wants children to be tucked into bed by sodomites. 2) You agree with my caricature statement (“No one is saying that same sex attraction is good.”) even though we know people are saying it.

  123. h0neyc0mb says:

    @ thedeti ..

    honeycomb:

    Are you saying there are no CDC regulations or directives that bar HIV positive people from donating blood? Are you saying HIV positive people are allowed to donate blood and the blood donated is simply discarded after donation? Are you saying HIV positive people are allowed to donate later-discarded blood so no one will feel bad about either turning away a donor and/or to avoid the HIV positive potential donor’s “feel-bad” at being turned away?

    Not that it matters all that much.. But are you saying this is a practice that’s followed by medical services and the Red Cross for one reason or another?

    Yes.

  124. info says:

    @seventiesjason
    I agree. older church architecture like those built in gothic and renassiance periods looked and felt sacred.

    Newer ones look like shopping malls or simply looked horrible.

  125. seventiesjason says:

    info…….The Salvation Army Corps building in Fresno was built in the early 1950’s……and it “fits” well with the neighborhood and is now considered “modern”

    Most of the Corps (churches) for The Salvation Army are “utilitarian” in structure, and design. Even the “old” ones that are left in the USA that opened in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s don’t look like a church.

  126. kronbergweb says:

    The church of Baal Peor (Lord of the Open Hole) has been realized.

  127. Otto says:

    https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ny-barbra-streisand-michael-jackson-accusers-thrilled-sexual-needs-20190323-7z3b2dqgbzh7jfs4yyhqhdfjyi-story.html

    “Barbra Streisand says Michael Jackson’s accusers were ‘thrilled to be there’ and his ‘sexual needs were his sexual needs’”

  128. Frank K says:

    Barb misread the Narrative and jumped the gun when defending Michael Jackson. It’s not quite time yet to normalize pedophilia, though it’s coming soon.

  129. Dalrock says:

    @Tetricus

    Hedge: this is too long and not long enough. I always think the second comment reply is hard; the argument ends up going in a bunch of different directions.

    Understood. I find commenting takes much more time than blogging.

    Never really spent time at Living Out. Here’s their conversion therapy article, and there’s a LOT more I find objectionable here. Reads completely differently in terms of focus and goals. I will have to watch that video where Allberry shares a stage with Burk; it might change my mind on a few things. But at this moment I’m not ready to say that “Denny Burk” and “Living Out” are interchangeable.

    They aren’t interchangeable. Burk says that both homosexual acts and desire are sinful. Likewise he rejects the idea of a gay Christian identity. But he also lays the groundwork for men like Allberry to forge a gay Christian identity. Moreover, Burk tells us:

    Sam [Allberry] is a same-sex attracted Christian, and a faithful brother. I cannot overstate how grateful I am for his life and testimony. The Lord has raised him up for our time.

    This is an endorsement of Allberry’s ministry regarding same sex attraction. What is Allberry’s ministry regarding same sex attraction? Living Out. The only remaining question is what does Living Out teach, and as we both agree, it is abominable. The best defense of Burk would be that he didn’t know what Allberry’s ministry was when he endorsed it. If he has repented of that 2015 endorsement I would be in your debt if you could direct me to it.

    Burk’s answer (as I see it) is that you seek to mortify the flesh and its sinful desires, but he doesn’t guarantee that doing so flips the hetero switch.

    That isn’t his argument, although in fairness his argument is so muddled it is difficult to summarize it. I’ll put together a post based on Myth #4 in Chapter 3 in his book.

    I’m not sure why Revoice gets handled with kid gloves when he’s willing to be a lot more heavy-handed with, say, Azusa Pacific University (see his latest article). That’s a fair question to ask of him.

    3. It seems like some of the people around Revoice are more of “his people”, which tends to temper harsh criticism, for better or for worse. Also could mean that he’s trying to influence people in the right direction.

    This, along with his endorsement of Allberry’s ministry, is really the point of it. Burk goes to great pains to shut the door on conversion therapy. He doesn’t just criticize how it has been done (which strikes me as fair criticism), but he says the goal is unbiblical. His passion is warning us against being the way the gay activists criticize us for being. When it comes to the gay activists themselves, he suddenly loses his fighting spirit. This is as I’ve pointed out exactly the pattern complementarians followed regarding feminism. They were passionate about rooting out anything feminists called sexist, and very welcoming of feminist activists into their movement. It is a one directional ratchet, and we’ve been down this road so many times with SJWs that it is surprising that practically no one notices the pattern.

  130. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, here is a link to an article from last year (2018) by a PCA pastor. I don’t know a thing about him other than this posting, which I ran across via a link during a search. It is a perspective from inside the PCA, and Hmm in particular may find it interesting. He wrote right after ReVoice.

    https://www.redeemerbrunswick.com/blog/revoice-is-over-and-i-have-much-greater-concerns-than-before

    He discusses the ReVoice conference in terms of “Side A” and “Side B” – nothing to do with vinyl, though. Bifurcation is helpful in this case to clarify some issues.

    This paragraph jumped right out at me. I have added emphasis in bold

    Greg Johnson, senior pastor of Memorial Presbyterian, wrote a piece aimed at answering some people’s concerns about the ReVoice event. In it he noted that a number of great minds in modern evangelicalism such as Denny Burk, those at Harvest U.S.A. and, I must presume, others, like Rosaria Butterfield, don’t understand the issues or are ignorant about them. If the theological waters are so muddied that teaching and ruling elders, and minds like those mentioned above have trouble understanding things, why in the world would we EVER want to allow such ideas to come into our churches and affect our flocks?

    “It’s complicated”…where have we seen that before?

  131. Oscar says:

    @ Red Pill Latecomer

    Catholics don’t worship Mary. One must only worship God (which includes the Trinity).

    Latin American Catholics worship Mary openly, loudly, and proudly. And yes, they do call it worship. And yes, the Church knows it, condones it, and preaches it.

  132. Oscar says:

    That isn’t his argument, although in fairness his argument is so muddled it is difficult to summarize it. ~ Dalrock

    That’s probably deliberate.

  133. Frank K says:

    Latin American Catholics worship Mary openly, loudly, and proudly.

    I lived in LatAm, and I never heard a Priest say that Mary was a Goddess.

  134. BillyS says:

    OT: This woman seems to get some red pill truths.

  135. BillyS says:

    The prohibition of churches engaging in politics is unconstitutional (though the Constitution has been dead for some time) and inconsistently applied. Progressive churches, especially ones with a predominantly black congregation have continued to participate in politics with no repercussions.

    It has only been used to fight “conservatives” who rolled over for it. That is why many of us no longer consider ourselves to be conservatives since they didn’t manage to conserve anything.

  136. BillyS says:

    Jesus did explicitly say to not call anyone father, so you would have to address that to allow for it. Handwaving it away is not appropriate. Note that someone can be a father without you calling them that title.

    I tend to lean toward the idea that Jesus meant the title as one of adoration or special position, which would work against the practice in the RCC. I am pondering whether the principle covers “pastor” and other such titles as well. (That is my own thoughts. I won’t force that on others or argue it.)

  137. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    De Pere, Wisconsin, tries to forbid churches from discriminating against trannies: https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/town-demands-faith-groups-adhere-to-sexual-orthodoxy/

    A judge ruled against a Wisconsin town’s effort to impose its “sexual orthodoxy” on churches through a “nondiscrimination” ordinance that declares all places of worship “public accommodations.”

    Brown County Circuit Court Judge William Atkinson issued a verbal order in December concluding the ordinance passed by the De Pere City Council barring discrimination based on gender identity infringes on the religious freedom of local churches.

    In the written decision, issued Friday, the judge calls the ordinance an “egregious free speech violation.”

  138. Doomsdave says:

    Denny Burk said:
    “The Bible, however, never commands or commends heterosexual desires in general terms.”
    I guess he is not familiar with Song of Songs. An inspired book that is an unabashed celebration of heterosexual desire preceding marriage and consummation. Odd.

  139. ray says:

    Paul —

    “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
    Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”

    These words from Paul do not over-ride, nor cancel, the prior words of Paul’s Master, who very plainly commanded against using ‘Father’ for our personal purposes. Apparently this confuses or discomfits you, but one can honor one’s father w/o using the same word for him that one uses when communicating with Father. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Mebbe it has to do with people’s habit of calling Rome’s priests ‘father’ all the time? Which people are commanded not to do.

    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

    Couldn’t be plainer. I relayed His command as instructed. I was aware beforehand that it would be rejected and/or ridiculed, which it was. You wanna argue against it, or rebel against it, be my guest.

  140. ray says:

    RPL — “My Catholic study Bible says that it’s okay to call priests Father, because we don’t mean it in the same sense as when we call God Father.”

    Your ‘catholic study Bible’, whatever that is, does not supersede Christ’s plain command in the, uh, non-Catholic non-study bible. That is, in the actual Bible. The meanderings and elevations of men are of no interest to me. The command from God — however unpopular — could not be any more plain. Yet as with the homo and feminist issues, men wish to replace God’s plain commands with versions of their own, this time the ‘catholic study bible’. With the Jews, it’s the Talmud. Tiresome.

    King Jeshua — “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

    Nothing in that command about whether individuals ‘mean it or not’. It says Don’t Do It. Now if you folks want to anyway, then suit yourselves. I’m not arguing any more about it.

  141. Otto says:

    @ray said: “but one can honor one’s father w/o using the same word for him that one uses when communicating with Father.”

    Father is just the English translation for a Greek word that means “a male parent” (“patēr”, Strongs G3962). It could also be legitimately be translated as dad, papa, or any word used to refer to a biological male parent. Do you really think Jesus meant that a person should never refer to their biological male parent?

    Strongs also says “patēr” also has a metaphorical meaning: the originator and transmitter of anything; the authors of a family or society of persons animated by the same spirit as himself; one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates and governs their minds.

    Are you sure it wasn’t this second, spiritual meaning of the word “patēr” Jesus was referring to? Remember, the Gospels were written in Greek and the authors and early people hearing them would have understood the nuances of the Greek word “patēr”.

    When Jesus said: “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father”, was he saying the devil was their biological father? Of course not. He was using the spiritual meaning of the word.

    And when he said to call no one on earth your father, he was using the spiritual meaning. It’s really a restatement of the 1st commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” You shall have no other spiritual fathers before your father in heaven.

    You can honor your biological male parent by calling him father, dad, or papa, but calling someone your spiritual father is prohibited.

  142. Paul says:

    @ray Apparently this confuses or discomfits you, but one can honor one’s father w/o using the same word for him that one uses when communicating with Father.

    I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand; the apostle Paul used the title ‘father’ for two instances:
    1. to refer to earthly fathers as mentioned in the OT 10 commandments, as still applicable
    2. to refer to earthly fathers in relation to their earthly children

    So, inspired Scripture calls earthly fathers ‘father’.

    And not only in Ephesians, but elsewhere the apostle Paul calls himself father:
    1 Cor 4
    Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

    So again, your interpretation is wrong. Scripture disagrees with you. (Maybe you should read some commentaries on the words of Jesus to understand its meaning)

  143. MattW says:

    – keep them away from all types of media, but most of all porn
    – don’t abuse them
    – make them work hard
    Beyond those I’m not sure there is anything you can do. There are some cases that can’t be prevented, but I suspect the ones that can be prevented are related to the above points.

  144. Scott says:

    The greatest argument for reconsidering ones affiliatijn with reformed thinking and it’s fetishized obsession with personal interpretation is

    Ray

  145. seventiesjason says:

    This reminds me when I went to church with friend when I was boy (slept over at his house Saturday night, and Sunday morning they went to church). Their Pastor was talking about the “lovely new Cross” they had over the rostorium….finished wood. Centered nicely…….

    He was telling us kids before service

    “Its still bothers me when I walk walk into a catholic church, and see our Lord hanging in misery on that cross. He’s no longer on the cross! He’s in heaven next to His Father! You kids when you are ever in a catholic church……..you need to tell that priest to “take down that crucifix……Jesus is no longer on the Cross!”

    It was a Baptist church of course.

    My take? We Christians have a strange take on our Holy symbol. The cross was a HORRIBLE torture and death. It would be like wearing little “electric chairs” around our necks. A Roman Emperor once said “Oh those Christians are too busy having their never ending sectarian arguments about who is more right about what their Savior said through a man who spent his last years in one of our prisions….”

  146. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jason: My take? We Christians have a strange take on our Holy symbol. The cross was a HORRIBLE torture and death. It would be like wearing little “electric chairs”

    And yet Paul had no trouble referencing the cross:

    May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. — Galatians 6:14

  147. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Ray, you have a son. If he mustn’t call you “father” or “dad,” what does he call you? Your first name?

  148. American says:

    “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire” -Jude 1:7.

    ^ Yet some “Christians” want to ignore their bible and play games with the strange flesh pursuers. Reminds me of the Al Wilson’s snake song Trump rightfully went on about.

    “I saved you,” cried that woman
    “And you’ve bit me even, why?
    You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
    “Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
    “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in

  149. seventiesjason says:

    RPL…Paul had no problem referencing the cross…..but did he require it a symbol to be used in the churches? For a long portion of the early church, a symbol of a “fish” was used for the Christian faith, and much early artwork that exists of Jesus portrays Him as a “small child”

    But it goes back to calling a priest “father” out of respct for his title…..really……..even “The Simpsons” made an offhand comment once Rev Lovejoy replied to a question about The Bible and he replied to the likes of “If you read close enough, there is a verse that could be interpeted that you are not even allowed to go to the bathroom.”

    Now, all jokes aside……..there is a point to all of this……..can’t use the term father, people I have met about debating about “Christ” on the cross or off it……….Jesus telling us to cut off our hand if it causes us to sin……….snake handling……..

    Where is our joy men? I understand the legalistic aspects here….but are we happy in our salvation or not?

  150. 7817 says:

    Ray, that bit about not using the word “father” is one of the strangest takes I’ve ever seen, even as crazy as the internet is.

    And even if you think something that weird, what compels you to try to correct other people that don’t think the way you do?

  151. BillyS says:

    Nothing wrong with a cross as a symbol, though I long ago got into my habit of wearing one.

    The problem with the RCC Crucifix is that Jesus remains on it. An empty cross is far more accurate of the current state of things.

  152. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K

    I lived in LatAm, and I never heard a Priest say that Mary was a Goddess.

    I was born there. And I never stated that any pries said “that Mary was a Goddess”. What I stated was…

    Latin American Catholics worship Mary openly, loudly, and proudly. And yes, they do call it worship. And yes, the Church knows it, condones it, and preaches it.

    Try sticking to the statements people actually make. Conversations proceed a lot more smoothly that way.

  153. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BillyS: The problem with the RCC Crucifix is that Jesus remains on it. An empty cross is far more accurate of the current state of things.

    If you really want to get technical, the cross is empty not because Jesus rose from the dead, but because the Romans removed Jesus from the cross so Joseph could bury the body.

    If you want a symbol to depict Jesus’ resurrection, perhaps an empty tomb would be more in order?

    My point is that a crucifix is no less appropriate a symbol of Christianity than is a cross.

  154. pariah says:

    Ray, there’s no need to take words of the Bible hyper-literally. If what you’re saying is correct, then the Apostle John directly contradicted Jesus:
    “I am writing to you, little children,
    because your sins are forgiven for His name’s sake.
    I am writing to you, fathers,
    because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
    I am writing to you, young men,
    because you have overcome the evil one. …” 1 John 2:12-13

  155. Scott says:

    Icons, which are the Orthodox religious equivalent to sculptures the Romans use are said to be “written” by the iconographer rather than “drawn” or “painted.”

    This is because they are a sanctioned holy item. They are venerated but veneration is conflated with “worhsip” in the reformed view. I remember having these discussions in Protestant seminary.

    When the Catholic or Orthodox Christian gazes at these things he is transported back to the moment they depict and is not confused about that. He is not worshipping the item but using it as an aid to him, spiritually.

    Children’s Bibles have little pictures of Jesus feeding the 5000, turning water into wine, whatever. Should they only have bare crosses and empty tombs drawn?

    Even as disgusted as I am with “America” these days, when the flag is raised and the anthem is played, I rise to the occasion to stand at attention and feel a great stirring because of the meaning and and significance the object and music represent.

    I’m not worshipping the flag.

    These things strike me as such a giant pile of steaming common sense that I feel weird writing them.

  156. Scott says:

    The liturgical calendar has us commemorating the most important parts of His life and ministry every year.

    Pascha (Easter) is the MOST HOLY day of the year. It’s the biggest feast. The happiest celebration. The whole year revolves around it.

    To argue that we somehow don’t remember His empty tomb because we remember other things about Him at different times is silly.

  157. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott, there’s a famous 1943 Supreme Court case in which Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to salute the flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance, because they said it was idolatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

  158. Scott says:

    Well, from their perspective, it is idolotry. If you can’t tell the difference between a temporal representation of a real (or abstract) object, idea, or thing of the past, you must consider it so.

    These conversations are the reason I have zero hope for an ascendent Christian dominant comback.

    I am going to join the church of “people who dont call their fathers, father” which will have precisely two members, me and Ray. Then I will complain about why we can’t get anywhere with the things we discuss here. We will thump our chests about how right we are no matter how many people won’t listen to us. Better to distance ourselves from those heretics who refer to their fathers that way than go to Hell!

    Making oneself marginal, in the already very marginalized manosphere is foolish.

  159. Scott says:

    Correction: If you can’t tell the difference between a temporal representation of a real (or abstract) object, idea, or thing of the past, and the actual thing itselfyou must consider it so.

  160. seventiesjason says:

    Okay…..agree with you Scott…….I have an icon of Mary holding baby Jesus. It’s beautiful. It has gold leaf on it. I bought it at the Greek Festival at the Orthodox Church in Fresno a few years back. The woman who was selling them was Greek and she did the frescos at the Greek Orthodox church in Modesto, CA. This icon is not big 3″ x 3″

    It’s a beautiful representation of Mary and Jesus.

    So, my cousin and her husband….she married into an Orthodox family….visit me. He gets into a tizzy about the icon not “hanging on a wall facing north, and its disrespectful to Mary and Jesus because it’s also sitting on my desk….not a certain height”

    Now, he’s a cultural Greek Orthodox. Since his wedding, I don’t recall him going every Sunday, or walking around the church 3x on Easter Sunday, nor teaching his children the intricacies of his faith and tradition.

    I said “It’s a beautiful piece of artwork” he says “It’s a holy item” and I said “then why was it for sale at a Greek Festival in a booth and not sold by a church store……and why were there no instructions on how to hang, treat and show respect for it?”

    It’s beautiful, can it just be taken for that? I am not hanging it upside down, nor have I defaced it….and I paid 50.00 for it………..it’s not as if I bought it to “disrespect the mother of the Savior” or Christ Himself.

  161. Oscar says:

    @ Scott

    Pascha (Easter) is the MOST HOLY day of the year. It’s the biggest feast. The happiest celebration. The whole year revolves around it.

    The new year should start in April for that reason.

  162. @ray, are Paul’s words inspired scripture or not? They do not “supersede” Christ’s words but complement them since God inspired them they cannot contradict. If scripture seems to contradict, you’re just reading it wrong, in the wrong sense.

  163. JRob says:

    Kevin DeYoung made a valid point pre-ReVoice.
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/words-labels-sexual-minorities/

    Weeding through all the flotsam @ TGC to find something true us difficult. Even then it’s often lies wearing a truth suit.

  164. TheTraveler says:

    Oy, vey.

    80% friend is not 20% enemy.

    A poster reports that some judge has declared that churches are “public accommodation” and must therefore accept–nay, EMBRACE–trannies.

    Meanwhile, there’s a ridiculous food fight going on about whether it’s OK or not to call a clergyman,”father,” and accusing Catholics of idolatry.

    Maybe y’all should stow the interdenominational bickering and concentrate on what we have in common, to fight the real enemy, rather than tearing apart fellow Christians about stupid technicalities.

    No wonder the devil is winning.

  165. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    Not quite. How it became empty is not the point, the fact He is no longer hanging there is the point.

  166. Pingback: Buttigieg and Buchanan: Redefining Morality – The Portly Politico

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.