Christian ministry under threat...

[tall73]

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

Because there is evil in the church as a whole we cannot individually do good that God wants us to?

That is ridiculous.

 

[Paidiske]

But you want to limit what kind of biblical ministry we can do...

This is not such a shocking idea. There are many healthy boundaries to ministry. For example, I will never be alone with a child in my pastoral care. I could rail that I am safe, would never abuse a child, and in fact could benefit a child with one-on-one attention, and perhaps all of that would be true in my case; but the boundary is there because across the population that is often enough not true that the boundary is necessary. So I accept and work within the boundary. The evidence points to this being another such necessary boundary.

They are hurting true ministry.

Since true ministry does not require us to attempt to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, this is not true.

 

[tall73]

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

You mean in cases where they say things we don't say.

Sorry, that is not evidence of what my ministry does, or @Carl Emerson 's ministry does, or @The Liturgist 's ministry does.

So no, I won't accept those accounts of what poor ministry does to say we can't do biblical ministry.

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.

I have interacted with victims, and I have interacted with those struggling, and sometimes they were the same person.

I still have to speak what God says TO them, and I still do not tell them that they are an abomination if they are in Christ, but instead treat them as a fellow believer.

So when you say that we must stop doing our ministry because some other ministry that did some other thing abused someone, no I don't have to interact with that.

I don't doubt it. Some I ministered to WERE abused. But not by the message of Scripture.

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

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.

I don't doubt their accounts for a moment, and have heard them personally. But not because someone said they were precious to Christ and washed and sanctified and justified, and that if they fell God would restore them in His mercy.

I asked you about the aspects that Carl, The Liturgist, and I state that we do in our ministry. And you have taken exception to that as well. Even though we plainly do not do the things you talk about in these others.

So either engage in the conversation about our actual ministry, and our feelings about this bill, and our theological reasons why, or stop objecting to the practices we describe in our ministry, but then backing off when called on it.

 

[tall73]

So I accept and work within the boundary. The evidence points to this being another such necessary boundary.

Indeed you have presented zero evidence that the specific things we described in our ministry caused people harm.

You presented evidence other things did that we do not do.

 

[Carl Emerson]

An underlying matter that I raised has not been responded to.

See post #330

I am open to correction but the Bible indicates that lust drives the same sex attraction.

This leaves me to conclude that we are agreeing not to assist folks to be free of lust.

 

[Paidiske]

Indeed you have presented zero evidence that the specific things we described in our ministry caused people harm.

You presented evidence other things did that we do not do.

If you are not doing anything to attempt to bring about a change in sexual orientation or gender identity, this conversation is not about your ministry.

An underlying matter that I raised has not been responded to.

See post #330

I am open to correction but the Bible indicates that lust drives the same sex attraction.

This leaves me to conclude that we are agreeing not to assist folks to be free of lust.

No, this is not about whether or not we assist folks to be free of lust. Orientation is not the same as lust.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you are not doing anything to attempt to bring about a change in sexual orientation or gender identity, this conversation is not about your ministry.



No, this is not about whether or not we assist folks to be free of lust. Orientation is not the same as lust.

Then I invite readers to comment on the correct understanding of the passage in Romans 1 that makes this connection directly.

 

[Paidiske]

I asked you about the aspects that Carl, The Liturgist, and I state that we do in our ministry. And you have taken exception to that as well. Even though we plainly do not do the things you talk about in these others.

So either engage in the conversation about our actual ministry, and our feelings about this bill, and our theological reasons why, or stop objecting to the practices we describe in our ministry, but then backing off when called on it.

What I take exception to - based on all the survivor accounts, the evidence of trauma and harm - is any attempt to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. That's what conversion therapy is. Anything else is not the heart of the issue for the purposes of this legislation.

People object to this bill because they fear it will interfere with necessary and healthy ministry. As far as I can see, there is no such interference, because attempts at changing sexual orientation or gender identity are not necessary or healthy ministry. The bill might require some modification of practice for some people. But not in a way which means good, sound, healthy, safe ministry is hampered.

So what then? I'm happy to discuss actual ministry which avoids attempts at conversion therapy; how we might respond to and pray for people in a safe and healthy way. I'm happy to put (the many) unfounded fears about the legislation to rest. I'm happy to note that no matter our theological grounding, the evidence of trauma and harm from poor pastoral practice ought to give us pause. I'm not happy to chase down rabbit trails that lead away from the heart of the issue.

 

[Carl Emerson]

By the way, for the record Paidiske, I appreciate the challenges of ministry within the frame of the modern church to some degree, being in the same church myself. So I hope we can work the issues through and maintain mutual respect - I do hope good comes out of it...

 

[rturner76]

Perhaps you could weigh in on this as well:


Did God design that some people have a desire to steal?
Did God design that some people have a desire to murder?
Did God design that some people have a desire to envy?
Did God design that some people have a desire for people of the same sex?

Or is there a reason, other than design, that the above happened?

I don't know about all that other stuff but it's pretty much been proven that same sex attraction is biological. I don't think the desire to steal is biological.

 

[rturner76]

This passage in Romans 1 post#330 indicates clearly that homosexual orientation is lust driven.

Does it actually say that?

 

[tall73]

I don't know about all that other stuff but it's pretty much been proven that same sex attraction is biological. I don't think the desire to steal is biological.

Thank you,

I think there may be a strong biological element to it, as well as environmental. So I can understand your position.

However, do you think it being biological means that God designed these desires to be there?

I do not see that. I see the desires that we have for things God condemns as the result of the fall and rebellion of all people (not just homosexuals). We are all by nature objects of wrath, but God because He is rich in mercy makes us alive in Christ.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Does it actually say that?

As far as I can see yes, but I an open to correction.... Have a read !!!

Here is the passage...

Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

[rturner76]

However, do you think it being biological means that God designed these desires to be there?

That brings up the question "why does God allow bad things to happen?" That is a bigger question than what we are talking about here.

 

[rturner76]

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

They abandoned God to the way of sin. Sin is the issue, not attraction. Their attraction was based on lustful desires. That applies to both gay and straight

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Again, it's about what they did. Their actions. A gay person should be celebite just like an unmarried person. The law doesn't disallow preaching celibacy to the unmarried (gay or straight). It is specifically about people trying to change someone's same-sex attraction and they do it with shame and guilt not love.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Their attraction was based on lustful desires. That applies to both gay and straight

No I don't think so...

Healthy Christian marriage does not have lust.

Homosexual activity is driven by lust.

 

[rturner76]

No I don't think so...

Healthy Christian marriage does not have lust.

Homosexual activity is driven by lust.

Fornication is also driven by lust and that is straight attraction so what's the difference i terms of lustful desires? Is it preferential to be in straight lust? I don't think so. It's not the orientation but the lust that is at issue.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Romans 1 is pretty clear.

A homosexual union is lust driven.

A hetrosexual union among obedient believers is not.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Engaging in arsenokoetia is inherently unhealthy, and clergy like Fr. Josiah Trenham of the Antiochian Orthodox Church who explain clearly the correct form of sexual expression - monogamous matrimony between a man and a woman, are promoting health and not detracting from it. Monogamous heterosexual matrimony is the sine qua non of sexual behavior according to Sacred Scripture and the tradition of the Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Romans 1 is pretty clear.

A homosexual union is lust driven.

A hetrosexual union among obedient believers is not.

This is correct. Also, if you take ostensible heterosexuals and confine them in prisons and deny them contact with the outside world, homosexuality inevitably occurs.

Basically, homosexuality is either the result of a confusion of the human ability to appreciate the beauty of other humans with sexual desire, or the result of an inability of a human of one gender to relate to humans of the other in an intimate manner required for the development of what we would call romance.