Christian ministry under threat...

[tall73]

That's not my position at all. I'm not ruling God out of anything. I'm saying that particular behaviours by human beings which have been shown to be harmful and ineffective should be out of bounds. That says nothing about what God may do.

If you are not limiting what God may do, then don't say that God cannot send one of His servants to deliver someone, or that it is wrong of that servant to obey if God does.

 

[Paidiske]

You seem to suggest that even though you know it is up to the Lord, and He could do any of the above, that we should not in fact answer them truthfully when they inquire about it. We are not going to lie and tell them God never takes away such desires. It is not abusing them to tell them the truth, as The Liturgist also noted.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that putting the emphasis on a change in sexual orientation or gender identity, that praying specifically for that, or otherwise attempting to change that, creates a traumatic situation when those things do not change.

We have a different view, and think that telling someone the truth, that God does sometimes remove the desires, and sometimes does not, but that someone is accepted in Christ if they are walking in the Spirit to avoid sinning, is not at all abuse.

I don't think that's abuse either. Because that is not an attempt to change someone's orientation or gender identity.

Your plea ignores those who have been joyously freed by God. You don't seem to want them to know that at all.

No, it doesn't. Because God joyously freeing someone does not depend on us trying to make it happen, or asking for it to happen, in these very specific terms. So on the one hand, we can avoid harm and lose nothing by so doing.

Telling people the truth is not negligence. In fact, it is possible to be negligent by refraining from telling some one the truth.

Again, this is not about "telling" anyone anything.

So we close down genuine ministry in every branch the church because we hear claims that some believers have been abusive, further, instead of investigating complaints and looking at correction within the Church we just ask parliament to shut our ministries down by Law? - really??

There is no genuine ministry shut down by this.

And the church has failed miserably at self-governance on this as on so many other matters. Why should the government or society trust us on this, when we have proven to be so untrustworthy?

 

[Paidiske]

Whoever made the legislation in Victoria was wanting to discuss it because they forbade prayer and exorcism ministry:

Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020

(b) carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism

Within very specific parameters, yes. Because those prayer and exorcism ministries cause demonstrable and well-established harm. That is the point that we must take into account.

 

[tall73]

I don't think Romans 1 is even talking about the same thing we're talking about. First century Greco-Roman culture had a very different understanding of sexuality than our society does. I understand Romans 1 to be talking about, what today we would describe as heterosexual people, whose lust becomes so overriding and distorted that they will - to be blunt - have sex with anyone for the carnal pleasure of it.

We certainly agree the Bible warns about some who have a continual lust, and we certainly know some would have sex with anyone.

But while Romans was written to believers in Rome the scope of 1:18 to 3:20 is all humanity and how all have sinned and stand condemned. He begins with well known sins of the pagans and in chapter 2 says that the Israelites are no better.

The text forbids both the passions and the act. And the act is forbidden in language not limited to Rome.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The act is said to be contrary to nature. You did not want to elaborate on this previously, but now that you have put forward the theory of a context issue we will need to look at the details.

Why was the act contrary to nature?

Is the act ONLY contrary to nature if one wants to have sex with everyone?

Is the act only forbidden if one wants to have sex with everyone? You seemed to indicate this was not your view earlier.

 

[Paidiske]

You did not want to elaborate on this previously, but now that you have put forward the theory of a context issue we will need to look at the details.

No, "we" don't. I've made my position on what matters in this discussion clear. If you want to explore the rest, I'm not participating.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is no genuine ministry shut down by this.

So the ministries that were associated with the folks wonderfully freed from same sex attraction were not genuine?

Because those prayer and exorcism ministries cause demonstrable and well-established harm.

The folks giving praise to God for their new found freedom were harmed?

This is the problem - this Bill will deem illegal genuine ministry.

What are those called to the deliverance ministry (which is a strong tradition in your church) saying about this ban?

Lastly you said...

"And the church has failed miserably at self-governance on this as on so many other matters. Why should the government or society trust us on this, when we have proven to be so untrustworthy?"

It sounds like you are at odds with your church.

Maybe abuse has occurred because of lack of accountability, discernment and wisdom in your church ??

 

[Paidiske]

So the ministries that were associated with the folks wonderfully freed from same sex attraction were not genuine?

Genuine ministry to such folks is not shut down. It is given some boundaries. But good, healthy, sound, safe ministry is still allowed.

What are those called to the deliverance ministry (which is a strong tradition in your church) saying about this ban?

The ones I have spoken to, have supported the ban. They understand that it is a misuse of deliverance ministry to attempt to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.

It sounds like you are at odds with your church.

Maybe abuse has occurred because of lack of accountability, discernment and wisdom in your church ??

I take a realistic view of the failures of the churches. Both through formal investigations by the government, and in my own pastoral practice, the failures are glaring. But this is not about "my" church. It has been a problem in just about every institution and movement.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Genuine ministry to such folks is not shut down. It is given some boundaries. But good, healthy, sound, safe ministry is still allowed.

And the courts are to decide what is 'good ministry'?

Someone complains they were hurt by a prayer and bingo you are charged...

Is that what we wanted?

I have had folks come back to me six months later and thank me for what I said although it hurt at the time.

Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

You seem to suggest that even though you know it is up to the Lord, and He could do any of the above, that we should not in fact answer them truthfully when they inquire about it. We are not going to lie and tell them God never takes away such desires. It is not abusing them to tell them the truth, as The Liturgist also noted.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that putting the emphasis on a change in sexual orientation or gender identity, that praying specifically for that, or otherwise attempting to change that, creates a traumatic situation when those things do not change.

Just like praying for healing from cancer may be traumatic if God says no? We still pray. There is no avoiding this issue. Everyone faces times when God does not answer their prayer the way they hope. Paul did as well, and was told God's grace was sufficient. We must trust that He knows best. And He is the one who answers or does not answer. And we must tell the truth in this, and not hide it for what we think will be their good. Faith must be faith even when we don't understand what God does.


tall73 said: ↑

We have a different view, and think that telling someone the truth, that God does sometimes remove the desires, and sometimes does not, but that someone is accepted in Christ if they are walking in the Spirit to avoid sinning, is not at all abuse.

I don't think that's abuse either. Because that is not an attempt to change someone's orientation or gender identity.

Great.

No, it doesn't. Because God joyously freeing someone does not depend on us trying to make it happen, or asking for it to happen, in these very specific terms. So on the one hand, we can avoid harm and lose nothing by so doing.

It is not harmful to tell someone the truth, or to pray for them to be released from desires, when we explain that the Lord will be the one to decide.

Yes, God can do it with no other person involved. And He can also do it through one of His servants involved. He tells us to pray for people.

And the Victorian language forbids even a situation where God directly tells one of His servants to do it. They do not have the right to dictate to God.

Again, this is not about "telling" anyone anything.

Counseling with someone who is struggling can involve discussing how God has worked in the past, how He says He can work in Scripture (renewing the mind, working in you to will and to do, helping to stand under temptation, restoring if we fall, etc. ) And when that is done specifically in the context of someone requesting ministry regarding temptation it may also involve prayer that God would renew their mind, work in them to WILL and to do, etc. regarding that specific problem that they have.

It may involve telling, discussing and praying. None of them are immoral or abusive.

And the church has failed miserably at self-governance on this as on so many other matters. Why should the government or society trust us on this, when we have proven to be so untrustworthy?

Why should we trust the government for the same reason?

But whatever you think of trustworthiness, God assigns different roles to the church and to the government. So you still have to address what @Carl Emerson posted about taking it before believers. That is Scripture.

If the church has not regulated it correctly, and we agree in many cases they have not, then take it to the church to regulate.

We do not support limiting what God can tell His servant to do. That is not the role of the government.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
Whoever made the legislation in Victoria was wanting to discuss it because they forbade prayer and exorcism ministry:

Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020

(b) carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism

However, neither Victoria nor you determine "no-go" zones where God cannot send His servants.

Within very specific parameters, yes. Because those prayer and exorcism ministries cause demonstrable and well-established harm. That is the point that we must take into account.

Oh so you and Victoria DO think you can tell God where He can send His servant? Something tells me that won't work out.

Now, why don't you show the reports of those who claimed to be abused AFTER they were miraculously freed from such desires through legitimate prayer ministry? @The Liturgist has indicated there are a number of folks who have experienced such in his tradition, and they were blessed by it, not abused.

You are stating because there is false ministry that you can't allow true ministry. That makes no sense.

 

[Paidiske]

And the courts are to decide what is 'good ministry'?

As a last resort, yes.

Just like praying for healing from cancer may be traumatic if God says no? We still pray. There is no avoiding this issue. Everyone faces times when God does not answer their prayer the way they hope. Paul did as well, and was told God's grace was sufficient. We must trust that He knows best. And He is the one who answers or does not answer. And we must tell the truth in this, and not hide it for what we think will be their good. Faith must be faith even when we don't understand what God does.

It's not the same. People with cancer aren't heaped with messages about being dishonourable, being abominations, being unable to inherit the kingdom, and whatever else, every day of their lives. What does it do to someone to be told all these things about themselves, to be prayed for, and then to be left in that abominable, dishonourable, etc, state? We know what it does, because they have told us.

Why can't we trust that God knows best, and will do the right thing for each person, without spelling out that in out by asking for this very specific change?

He tells us to pray for people.

Sure. And we can. But there are helpful and unhelpful forms of words in prayer.

And the Victorian language forbids even a situation where God directly tells one of His servants to do it. They do not have the right to dictate to God.

I guess it'll be up to God whether God tells anyone to directly break this law. I rather trust God can manage better than that, though.

None of them are immoral or abusive.

They can be, depending how they're done.

Why should we trust the government for the same reason?

We're told to submit to the authorities.

If the church has not regulated it correctly, and we agree in many cases they have not, then take it to the church to regulate.

In so many cases, we can't even get the churches to admit harms done. Not just to do with conversion therapy but so many things. The churches have failed at self-regulation on important matters.

We do not support limiting what God can tell His servant to do. That is not the role of the government.

It is, when it's protecting vulnerable people. Romans 13:3-4 sets this out very clearly.

 

[Paidiske]

You are stating because there is false ministry that you can't allow true ministry. That makes no sense.

Not at all. I am saying that it is possible to engage in true ministry without engaging in conversion therapy as defined. There is no need for it, and every reason to avoid it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Good ministry can cause harm as Ananias and his wife found out.

So subjective harm is not really a good measure of the credibility of ministry.

There are plenty of christian counsellors who have to bring a hard word - will they be in the gun next?

 

[Paidiske]

Good ministry can cause harm as ananias and his wife found out.

So subjective harm is not really a good measure of the credibility of ministry.

Really? So, the harm is fine, the trail of broken people are no issue, and we should take no account of the damage done, so long as we don't have to ask hard questions of ourselves or repent or modify our practice in any way?

That is where you stand?

Thank God for these laws.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Really? So, the harm is fine, the trail of broken people are no issue, and we should take no account of the damage done, so long as we don't have to ask hard questions of ourselves or repent or modify our practice in any way?

That is where you stand?

Thank God for these laws.

Really Paidiske you must know that is not where I stand.

Harm from abuse is not to be tolerated but not all harm comes from abuse.

The human personality can be a lot more complicated than that.

Do we ban the Eucharist because some folks partake with the wrong attitude and are harmed?

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
You did not want to elaborate on this previously, but now that you have put forward the theory of a context issue we will need to look at the details.

No, "we" don't. I've made my position on what matters in this discussion clear. If you want to explore the rest, I'm not participating.

It is not my goal to compel you to give the evidence of your claims. But you in fact weighed in on this item, and if you don't back your claims then I have no reason to believe them.

And this has been a pattern.

You made allegations about the impact of developmental dynamics. But when asked for the studies didn't show them.

You now make an allegation that the context is something totally different, even though you avoided discussing the text earlier, but now you won't back that argument up either.

You claim you reconcile Scripture with nature. But every time we ask you to do so you decline.

You indicate our way of ministry is out of line, but you won't describe your non-abusive ministry method, and instead said we would need to go through an entire presentation on what constitutes spiritual abuse. But then you didn't go through that either.

You say :
The only issue I'm interested in here, and the central one, is avoiding harmful practice, and that should transcend theological differences. All this other stuff, from where I'm sitting, is just a way of avoiding that central problem by derailing the conversation.

We dispute that the practice is harmful. We don't agree, and theology is part of that. And you won't discuss that--except when you decide to, but don't follow up.

Instead you accuse us of acting in bad faith and presenting our objections as a means to avoid and derail.

Yet you act surprised we don't take your view. Why should we take your view? You won't explain the parts we actually have questions about.

 

[Paidiske]

Harm from abuse is not to be tolerated but not all harm comes from abuse.

In this case, though, we know that harm is done by attempts to change particular attributes in people. To proceed anyway is abusive.

You indicate our way of ministry is out of line, but you won't describe your non-abusive ministry method, and instead said we would need to go through an entire presentation on what constitutes spiritual abuse. But then you didn't go through that either.

For the purposes of this thread, it's really simple. Don't try to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. As long as you avoid that, you're avoiding this particular form of abuse.

I'm not accusing anyone of being out of line, but simply indicating where the lines are, based on very good evidence and the experiences of the many, many people who have been traumatised. It's their stories and evidence which should be centred here as we seek to minister safely and responsibly.

We dispute that the practice is harmful.

So, what, all the survivors are lying? Or their accounts don't matter? Or... what?

Instead you accuse us of acting in bad faith and presenting our objections as a means to avoid and derail.

Not once have I seen you engage with survivor accounts. Not once have I seen you acknowledge the trauma, or the harm. So it sure looks like you're avoiding dealing with that.

Yet you act surprised we don't take your view. Why should we take your view?

It's not "my" view. I am here standing up for vulnerable people. Engage with them and their stories rather than picking my theology apart.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Just like praying for healing from cancer may be traumatic if God says no? We still pray. There is no avoiding this issue. Everyone faces times when God does not answer their prayer the way they hope. Paul did as well, and was told God's grace was sufficient. We must trust that He knows best. And He is the one who answers or does not answer. And we must tell the truth in this, and not hide it for what we think will be their good. Faith must be faith even when we don't understand what God does.

It's not the same. People with cancer aren't heaped with messages about being dishonourable, being abominations, being unable to inherit the kingdom, and whatever else, every day of their lives.

How many times will you slander us and then go on to talk about standing before the throne?

We have plainly told you we do NOT tell Christians who are walking in Christ that they are dishonorable, abominations, and cannot inherit the kingdom.

Back this up with evidence or retract!

 

[Paidiske]

How many times will you slander us and then go on to talk about standing before the throne?

We have plainly told you we do NOT tell Christians who are walking in Christ that they are dishonorable, abominations, and cannot inherit the kingdom.

But those people receive these messages, whether they come from you or not. That is the context in which we minister. I'm not slandering anyone personally, I am saying we need to take into account the weight of all the messages these people receive over a lifetime, and how what we say can either reinforce those messages or offer something healthier.

 

[tall73]

Paidiske said: ↑

It's not the same. People with cancer aren't heaped with messages about being dishonourable, being abominations, being unable to inherit the kingdom, and whatever else, every day of their lives.

tall73 said: ↑
We have plainly told you we do NOT tell Christians who are walking in Christ that they are dishonorable, abominations, and cannot inherit the kingdom. Back this up with evidence or retract!

But those people receive these messages, whether they come from you or not.

And we give the exact opposite message as I have already said.

That is the context in which we minister. I'm not slandering anyone personally, I am saying we need to take into account the weight of all the messages these people receive over a lifetime, and how what we say can either reinforce those messages or offer something healthier.

I cannot control the messages everyone receives. And neither can you. And neither can the government of Victoria. And in fact many Christians have been shamed for not having "enough faith" to be healed.

But not by me.

And many Christians have been told that they are abominations for not having temptations removed.

But not by me.

The exact opposite is stated.

But you want to limit what kind of biblical ministry we can do for your "better" messages, which you base on your study, and the study of the government, instead of God's word. And you refuse to discuss God's word with us when we ask about particulars. .

There is no better message than what God says. These laws are doing exactly what @Carl Emerson said. They are hurting true ministry. And the government does not have authority in Romans 13 to overrule the word of God or to say God cannot tell one of His servants to do His will.