John Mark Reynold -- "An Odious Law: Uganda and Homosexuality"

John Mark Reynolds:

Uganda may pass a law that could lead to the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

The proposed law is odious.

Due to the legacy of colonialism, Western people should be sensitive about interfering in sub-Saharan African politics and modest in making moral pronouncements regarding Africa, but this law deserves universal condemnation. Uganda experienced many evils under colonialism, including the loss of basic liberties.

Experiencing evil does not give a free pass to do evil and this bill is wicked.

It is not a close call.

Read more!

Culture wars: Sign "The Manhattan Declaration"? Not Me.

At the moment I am writing this line 178,536 people have signed "The Manhattan Declaration" - A Call to Christian Conscience. It is probably clear from my series on the culture wars that I will not be a signer of the Declaration - but some comments are in order.

Their website front page reads:

Read more!

Culture wars: Foolish Expectations

[Point one of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

1. Its expectation is foolish. Whether you believe America was ever a Christian nation or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn’t be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won’t make anybody a Christian, much less make America “a Christian nation.”)

Read more!

The Obama DOJ and the Federal DOMA

This popped up at The Volokh Conspiracy (HT: Parableman) and seems like a discussion item.

The Obama Justice Department yesterday filed a brief urging a California district court to dismiss a little-known constitutional challenge to DOMA filed in late 2008 by a married gay couple . . . For lots of reasons, gay-marriage advocacy groups would like to see this case go away . . . A dismissal on jurisdictional grounds would nicely suit that purpose, and that seems to me the most likely outcome.

But the DOJ brief goes further than it needs to go at this point in the case by addressing the merits of the constitutional issues in the case, . . .

Of most interest is what the DOJ has to say about the due process and equal protection claims, rejecting just about every single variation of an argument that gay-rights scholars and litigants have made over the past 30 years.

Certainly, there can be lots of discussion on the Federal DOMA and it's constitutional merits - but what caught my conservative eye was Carpenter's point of interest #3:

(3) The Obama DOJ also has new understanding of federalism:

[B]ecause Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States. Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not. (emphasis added)

Historically federal marriage benefits have been available to anyone married under state law. The federal definition was parasitic on the state definition. If a state chose to allow 14-year-olds to marry, but most states did not allow that, nobody thought federal recognition of such marriages functioned as a subsidy forced on the taxpayers of other states. DOMA changed that, but only for gay marriages. "Neutrality," as the Obama administration understands it, does not mean federal recognition of state choices in this matter. It means denying federal recognition of state choices.

The continual erosion of the rights of the several states vs the Federal government is, of course, worrisome to me.

Obviously, for folks who expected President Obama's administration to support gay marriage, Carpenter's conclusion may be a surprise:

My point here is not to claim that the DOJ's arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. My point is only to note how much continuity there is in this instance, as in others, between the Bush and Obama administrations. In short, there's little in this brief that could not have been endorsed by the Bush DOJ. A couple of rhetorical flourishes here and there might have been different. Perhaps a turn of phrase. But, minus some references to procreation and slippery slopes, the substance is there.

Obama says he opposes DOMA as a policy matter and wants to repeal it. Nothing in the DOJ brief prevents him from acting on that belief. He is, he says, a "fierce advocate" for gay and lesbian Americans. When does that part start?

Read more!

Romans 1:24-32:"God Gave Them Over"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

Touring the Net

I am not going to call this a "weekly" tour because I haven't been too good about doing it weekly.

• First, the 215th Christian Carnival is up at Fish and Cans. A sample of three posts:
  
  
  • A fellow Oregonian posts "My Testimony" as a meme. My contribution starts here. Go look at her questions, answer at your blog, and link in her comments.
  
  
  
  • Politicians say some interesting things about scripture. Jeremy Pierce at Parableman looks at a recent comment by Barack Obama:

    I want to delve a little bit into the contrast he draws between the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 1. The gist of his statement is (1) the Sermon on the Mount is more central to Christian faith than an "obscure" passage in Romans, and (2) the Sermon on the Mount should influence our attitudes toward civil unions in some positive way.

    The conversation in the comments between two of the "parablemen" is a really good launch for this discussion.
  
  
  
  • Speaking of that obscure passage in Romans, Chris at The Bible Study Podcast begins a podcast series on Romans:

    This is the introductory episode for a new series studying the book of Romans. This episode will provide an overview of why we will be studying the book of Roman. It also starts to look at the introduction to this letter. Romans is the only one of Paul’s letters written to a church that he has not previously preached to. Because it is written to a new audience it is the most complete of the New Testament letters theologically.

• Another meme caught by eye at Parableman: "Bible Meme". I am putting this on my list to do - and you can consider yourself tagged if you like (but since I haven't yet (and may never) done it - my tag doesn't really count since I am not yet "it")



• Joe at Evangelical Outpost looks at "Prostitution and the Pollution of Moral Ecology":

  The news of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliances with high-priced prostitutes fills me with sadness, regret, and dread. Sadness over the Governor's shaming his family in such a public way, regret at having to listen to the smirking schadenfreude of his political enemies, and dread that we'll have to suffer the tedious and inevitable articles and blog posts asking, "What's the problem with prostitution?"

• Bonnie at Intellectuelle examines "The Exclusive Nature of Religious Pluralism":

  To look at RP [religious pluralism] more closely, one has to admit that it cannot really exist because religious pluralism cannot embrace historic Christianity, it rejects it. Historic Christianity teaches that it is only through faith in Jesus can anyone be saved, and RP rejects this claim. Therefore, all roads do not lead to God, rather any road other than historic Christianity leads to God.

• Scot at The Jesus Creed has a series on Os Guinness' The Case for Civility. See "Civility 1" (it has reached "Civility 3")

  Some of my finest moments of exhilaration in study have emerged out of visions for what public discourse has been and could be. But we are presently mired, largely in the wake of America’s culture wars, in bombastic and apocalyptic ruts. We have Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity and Michael Moore and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, and just naming them embarrasses public discourse. I despise TV news talk shows where folks talk over one another.

• Two folks pointed to a new CDC report that 1 out of 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease - with two diametrically opposed conclusions:
  
  
  • Rain at Street Prophets believes this shows a lack of eduction of our children - particularly because of "abstinence only" sex education:

    My sister and I discussed this briefly this morning and she made the point that teenagers are not stupid. They need information so that they can protect themselves – and abstinence only programs of sex education are likely to blame for some – if not a lot -- of this. Add to this the fact that health care is not easily available to many American families and the problem is compounded.

  • Melinda at the Stand to Reason Blog points out the obvious:

    Some people scoff that "abstinence doesn't work." Yet, I guarantee you that all of the girls who practice abstinence are in the disease-free group. Abstinence works every time it's tried. No one said it was easy, only that it is right and it works. More than 3 millions girls lives are devastated because they bought the cultural lie perpetuated by the sexual revolution.

  My 14 year old daughter's response: her classmates are NOT ignorant that unprotected sex can cause pregnancy or STD's - and they can be very stupid when it comes to sex. She proceeded to tell me some horror stories she has overheard at school which I will not repeat here.
  
  We are failing our children - but the failure is in the lack of moral and ethical grounding about sex - both culturely and in our families; and not because they lack information about the negative outcomes of sex: they know them and ignore them in the moment.
  
  
  • Should sex education by "abstinence only"? No.
  
  
  • Should it be morality and ethics free? No - it needs to include abstinence (my daughter's health classes do not).
  
  
  • Can our schools handle the ethics and moral education necessary? No.
  
  Parents: teach your children well. [Incidentally, for anyone who says my daughter's opinion is anecdotal - she is an expert on everything: just ask her :-)



• Jan at The View from Her has something to say "Re: The Apologists":

  I have two observations that cause me to re-think apologetics as a positional framework for faith. First, the desire to be "right" can sometimes get tangled up in the lust for power that goes all the way back to the Garden. Armed with all the "right answers" we are ready for battle, to attack and demolish another's arguments so we can conquer them with The Truth. Do we really think adversarial war metaphors will help us win anyone to Christ? Really? I remember hiking in the mountains, and crossing a stream from rock to rock. A friend stretched out his hand to help me make a particularly slippery jump. This is a better metaphor, I think - helping people cross over to faith from rock to rock, and extending well-thought-out answers to help them over the places where they may have the most fear.

  This is primarily about folks thinking Anne Rice the artist should adhere to reality in her Christ the Lord series



• In the "you cannot make this stuff up" department, Save the Humans [HT: The Volokh Conspiracy] reports [please tell me this is a spoof]:

  In a surprising turn of events, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has filed a lawsuit against “Kristen”, a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club prostitution ring. Spitzer’s complaint alleges that “Kristen’s” refusal to allow him to sleep with her bareback, while allegedly knowing of his sexual addiction, constituted unfair exploitation of an ADA-protected disability.

  There . are . no . words.



• Finally, back to those schools teaching sexual morals and ethics: WorldMagBlog reports on a school in Illinois that assigned Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes as required reading:

  "The book is replete with profanity, overt racism through multiple uses of the N-word, an explicit description of a sex act involving Mother Theresa and some of the most graphic, vile and vivid depictions of homosexual anal sodomy every put in print." -- Concerned Women for America

  Lynn at WorldMagBlog challenges folks to google this if they think it "case of straight-laced Christian schoolmarms with their knickers in knots." She asks the question I would ask:

  But can not even our gay and lesbian friends on this blog agree that it is not appropriate to assign sexually graphic/pornographic literature to high school students? And, if a teacher is going to assign gay-themed literature, aren’t there more age-appropriate, less sexualized, polarizing choices? Gay activists are constantly arguing that the gay lifestyle isn’t just about sex. Why then assign Angels in America and reinforce the opposite opinion?

Enjoy.

Read more!

Rick Moran Goes Off

I like Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse. We share at least one thing - the principles upon which he bases his political conservatism are close to my own. We do not share at least one thing - a belief in God. Rick is a professed atheist.

We share another belief I think: the marriage of theologically conservative Christians with the Republican Party in 1980 and increasingly in 1984 was not really because of shared political philosophy.

It was because the Republican Party staked its verbal claim (at least) to being opposed to abortion and the repeal of Roe v Wade; while the Democratic Party staked his big tent firmly for abortion choice and the defense of Roe. For those who believe that the death of 1,200,000 unborn children a year is horrific, and the most important issue facing the country, they really had no other place to go. The rise since then of a movement for re-defining marriage as any two loving people, even if they are the same biological sex - again generally opposed verbally by the Republican Party and supported verbally by the Democratic Party - has increased that feeling that being Republican was where it was at for theologically conservative Christians. Since they constituted 40ish% of the Republican Party, and were essential to its victories since 1980, they have wielded some weight.

However, both the Republican and Democratic parties have both completely pandered on the latter point (a Democratic president signed the Federal DOMA) and the Republicans have largely pandered on the former. The results are that the two Supreme Court appointees of George Bush will NOT (imo) vote to overturn Roe if they get the chance; and (imo) - they were never intended to; and John Roberts - claiming hired gun status - successfully argued the case against the Colorado DOMA before the Supreme Court before he was nominated. While both are strict constructionists whom I support, there is hardly a reason to believe they will violate that strict constructionist philosophy to make social conservatives happy in the areas of gay marriage and abortion.

In exchange for (imo) nothing, some of the leadership of theologically conservative Christians in this country have traded the centrality of Christ's power in their life, as well as the spreading of the Gospel, with the quest for political power - or really just recognition at the "kid's table" of American politics. Now, the first time one of those social conservatives takes a shot at political power itself the screams from the right of American politics is deafening.

That brings us to Rick's "Facing up to the Unbearable Truth" - a rant every bit as hateful really as any I have seen from the most rabid anti-faith secular liberal. It made me want to put my shoes on, take that straw outa my mouth, and march right up and hit him in his citified face with a bowl of grits - and I will not be voting for Mike Huckabee. To Rick's credit, he apologized, and in doing so brought up the real issue:

There is going to be a reckoning within the conservative movement between classic conservatives who believe that a society must have a just, moral order to survive and social conservatives who wish to “take back (sic) the country for Jesus” while imposing a moral order on the rest of us via top down, government solutions . . . the solution will eventually be found in local communities who will decide for themselves the definition of “moral order” without diktats from Washington. [I am going to ignore that "imposing morality" nonsense for now]

Every married couple - especially after being married for 30 years - has had those periods of strained civility for the sake of peace - a horrible caricature of relationship to be sure. Suddenly, when the peace breaks and the long-stifled issues surface - the marriage has either reached its end; or a new and deeper relationship will be formed. Welcome to that moment in the social conservative and political conservative marriage. It is hard for me to see how the marriage can be saved.

First of all, both parties have lost their way. Christianity is not, at its heart, a legislative religion - the failure of Mosaic Law to make us righteous was one of the reasons for Christ's advent - to write the law on our hearts instead of in stone. It is not possible to use secular political power to spread the Kingdom of God. If you are going to use secular law to restrain immorality, the process of doing so shouldn't obstruct the real building of a real Kingdom. Admittedly, over a million lives a year is an astronomical pressure on pro-life Christians to ban abortion. I cannot blame them for trying even if it will never work before you win the hearts and minds of a super-majority; and the current political/legal battle may actually get in the way of winning those necessary additional hearts and minds. However, the amplification of homosexuality to some special class of sin has no Biblical justification whatsoever in my opinion.

Politically conservative Republicans have also lost their way - becoming "big government" "big spenders" at the Federal level (at least). Frankly, it matters not whether your deficits are created by cutting taxes or increasing spending - conservatives have not been paying the bills and instead have left them for future generations. When the only President in the last 27 years to actually balance a budget and pay down the debt was a Democrat - it shows the bankruptcy (literally) of the current version of (un) "fiscal" conservatism.

Also, whether it be actively usurping state's rights through use of the Commerce Clause, or centralizing control of FEMA so it was unable to respond quickly to a regional crisis like Katrina - the idea of subsidiarity has been lost to the Republican Party. This goes for attempting to usurp state power through proposed constitutional amendments governing marriage and abortion: even if pandering to social conservatives, these political impossibilities (coupled with liberal top-down social engineering) should have never been proposed. Republicans, in general, have been just as much about giving power to the Federal government at the expense of lower levels of organization as the Democrats. Witness President Bush's use of the Commerce Clause and the FDA to assault California medical marijuana and Oregon's acceptance of physician supported suicide.

The use of torture and the building of vast Federal domestic spying programs are anathema to classic conservatism and its support for individual rights vs. the intrusion of the state. Admittedly, the need for security in a post 9/11 age requires some giving up of individual liberty in order to protect the general population - but excess is excess. President Bush's claims to unrestricted executive power in such cases do not ring true - whatever classic conservatives trust, it is not unrestricted government power.

Luckily, political marriages are not made in Heaven, are not forever, and divorce is not banned. This couple needs to examine themselves, repent and return to their respective philosophical and theological roots, and then decide whether they should part for the good of both of them.

Hey, they can still remain friends.

Read more!

We Need to Get Over This

I was meaning to post this long comment from an outside thread anyway because I think it is one of the clearest statements I have made to date on my view of homosexuality, sin, and how the Body of Christ needs to view it. Then, this happened:

A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

There is a lot of discussion in the article about what the church knew, when, and what the content of some of the pictures were. From my perspective, none of that matters. I will grant the church its entire argument for the sake of discussion:

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.”

I will grant the church did a great deal to fix the situation:

He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends.

I grant this:

Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.

“We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle,” Simons told The Associated Press. “Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it — yes, we would have declined then. It’s not that we didn’t love the family.”

I will not argue with one word of what they said - except that they made the wrong decision: their principles are wrong. More importantly, they have interpreted Biblical principles very wrongly. I will get back to this at the end. First, that long comment yearning to be a post. [It is best if you also go read the whole thread] [there have been some modifications/clarifications to the original comment].

* * * * *

[In answer to this comment] I think exactly some of the translations say "natural use" - and the natural use, as in nature, is for our sex organs to be used in procreation - you know "tab a" and "slot b" for the purposes of making babies. I think "natural use" and "against nature" very much have to do with our biological design and function - and the nature we were originally created for.

You and I, and the Bible, believe that the purposes for which we were originally created have become warped by the Fall - indeed all of nature was disrupted by the Fall: we now have no real gauge of what God intended our true natures to be other than scripture and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We now have a "natural" (in our own nature) inclination to turn away from God and do what feels right to us - we have our sin nature, or flesh.

I think the passage in Romans tells us that due to the general idolatry and foolishness of mankind - God has "given us over" to our internal cracked natures - the "degrading passions" and "depraved minds" that we all share - in fact I think Paul included enough items so that no one could be left out [if you think you were, please feel free to amend the list]. I read the passage as making homosexuality "natural" in that sense. I have no problem, Biblically, with believing that someone could have always felt homosexuality was natural for them - and that heterosexuality is against their very nature. We all choose who we have sex with, but none of us really choose who we are attracted to. That is a very complicated stew of our experiences, etc - earned in a broken world. It wouldn't even change my analysis if it was proven homosexuality was the result of the in utero hormone bath or a particular genetic make-up - all of nature is cracked and broken. This would be just one more broken piece.

I think Paul, in Romans, identifies a number of aspects of our "nature" that God has given us over to follow. I kinda see it as a "thorn" list - mine has settled into a desire to look at naked women not my wife. To me this is far worse than homosexuality as thorns go - but the thorn isn't any less sharp on the other side of the fence. It seems to me that Romans 1:26-32 is not a list of crimes (even though they are); but the reading out of a sentence passed by God on humankind due to our historic (if not prehistoric) idolatry.

Homosexuality is perhaps the "worst" of the group because it does involve, for committed relationships, love and not lust. How indeed can two people caring and loving each other be wrong? God is love, right? Frankly, only the Holy Spirit operating in someone's life can answer that question - it is nearly impossible for me to do so; and I think foolish to try.

It is just not my job to convict others of their sin - that is the job of scripture and the Holy Spirit; or to do the work of the Holy Spirit in transforming their lives. "God is God and I am not".

This leaves the author of the diary right on the money. Are Christians going to drive gays away from Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit - the only Person that can take an effective hand in leading them out of their sin nature and toward their true nature as the human being God intended at Creation. Every single person in our churches is a sinner (probably every day) and what are a couple of guys holding hands added to the mix: just a couple of more sinners - whether homosexuality is their sin or not.

And, are we as Christians going to "question another man's servant" when gay Christians tell us that indeed they have the Holy Spirit inside of them - they are in Christ and Christ is in them; and that Spirit tells them their relationships are not wrong. Especially, when it is over - really - one or two passages in scripture; and the actions of vehemently anti-gay Christians have run against so many other important passages of scripture.

I think Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin should probably just "love their (gay) neighbor as themselves" for a very long while; and let God handle their homosexuality as He sees fit. We need to help them get to the Master Builder, and He needs to remodel their temple to His liking.

* * * * *

Paul caps off Romans 1 with the start of Romans 2:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

We need to get over our fixation on homosexuality, and the "homosexual lifestyle", as some special class of sin. Even if you want to say that those who choose to have homosexual sex (as opposed to choosing that type of desire) are unrepentant and continuing in their sin - so are remarried Christians who were divorced for reasons other than the adultery of their first spouse. Nearly all of our churches have folks living in that unrepentant and continuing sin.

I am not saying the church needs to accept or ignore sin in order to accept sinners. I am saying that our unrepentant and continuing demonization of one of God's loved creatures is unseemly, un-Biblical, and is driving folks who desperately need Him (as we all do) away from Christ.

Our church is supposed to bring the spiritually sick to the Great Physician so that He can heal them - not drive them away because of our legalism and moralism. It is time for this to end; and time to remember the second greatest commandment

Love your neighbor as yourself

I sent an email to the church in Texas - which you can do but I am not advocating. Just put an end to this kind of nonsense at your church.

Read more!

A Sex Addict's View of Haggard's Fall

If Ted Haggard was in my FMO group and he had given this statement to us to explain why he committed adultery with a male prostitute - what would be my reaction? How do I view his statement as a sexual addict?

First, he would have to be in our group. Some polls have shown that up to 64% of Christian men, pastors included, "struggle with sexual addiction or sexual compulsion including, but not limited to use of pornography, compulsive masturbation, or other secret sexual activity". He would perhaps have taken the test; found out he wasn't doing well; and contacted a group in Colorado Springs; or wherever he was in the US.

Next, we have group guidelines I have to follow (and which are right anyway) which are going to limit how I, and the group, will react [Hopefully :-)].

• Self-Focus: We are here to work on ourselves, not on others. We share our own experience, insights and feelings.
• Respect of Others: We do not advise, analyze or try to "fix" others. Each of us is free to find our own answers.
• Listen: We avoid cross-talk and give each person who shares our undivided attention without offering unsolicited advice.
• Let God Work: We do not preach at members of this group.

So, brother Ted gets busted and comes to us and says:

I am so sorry. I am sorry for the disappointment, the betrayal, and the hurt. I am sorry for the horrible example I have set for you.

I have an overwhelming, all-consuming sadness in my heart for the pain that you and I and my family have experienced over the past few days. I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment to all of you.

I asked that this note be read to you this morning so I could clarify my heart's condition to you. The last four days have been so difficult for me, my family and all of you, and I have further confused the situation with some of the things I've said during interviews with reporters who would catch me coming or going from my home. But I alone am responsible for the confusion caused by my inconsistent statements. The fact is, I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem.

Whew, finally. (Sorry brother Ted - what are those guidelines above?) Shame and guilt are a horrible, horrible cycle that leads us to medicate ourselves - usually with same actions we feel shame and guilt over. That is why addictive cycles are cycles and addictive. Feeling sorry is certainly one of the first emotions, but one of the least productive. Now, we get to his taking responsibility; even though he has made excuses for his deceptions and half-truths as the four days progressed. That is understandable though, his entire life has just come apart.

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark . . .

Sigh. The problem with being repulsed by the darkness inside us is that we stay away from it instead of shining a light on it and examining it. We all have darkness inside of us; all have parts of us that repulse us; and we gain healing, in part, by holding those parts out in God's light and not allowing them to stay in some dark place and fester.

. . . that I've been warring against it all of my adult life For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom . . .

I destroyed my first marriage by adultery with prostitutes - although I "gained victory" over this, and stopped the behavior, about 6 months before the behavior was discovered by my wife because of some leftover evidence.

I continued my seeking after sexual gratification separate from intimacy between leaving my first wife and meeting my second. God did a wonderful miracle in my life on the meeting of my wife; and for 14 years I did not struggle with finding other women attractive, a desire for topless bars or erotic massage, or indeed for other women at all. No pornography. A "victory" given me, in an instant, by God's grace alone.

During that 14 years I became a Christian, and I strived to be a good husband and eventually a good father. Four years ago, we got the internet in our home and I casually decided to see what kind of sexual stuff was available - a month later I, with the help of God, turned away from it. I too thought I had experienced "victory" - again.

Then, my wife left me two years ago for reasons not connected to my sexual sin - although my "outing" myself a year after the fact about the internet pornography was a significant part of her pain; and my seeking help a major part of her demands. During the period she was gone, sexual sin exploded in my life: I wallowed in internet pornography; and ran up huge cable bills watching porno on TV. Again, I gained "victory" and got this "under control" with God's help. I joined FMO to appease my wife and prove I "was working on my problems" so we could restore our marriage. I really thought it was "much ado about nothing" - I had, after all, had "victory" through God's strength. Victory (temporary), but not healing [see James passage below]

I now view this as a monster living in a closet in my attic; and that my victories amount to stuffing him back in that closet and getting the door closed again. I have never killed it or cleaned that closet out - and as long as it lives it will gain strength. Ted had the same problem:

Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

This is normal. Certainly, as a Pastor in an evangelical, bible-teaching church he understands the depravity of the flesh - so well described by Paul

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

How often did Ted preach on this passage in his life?

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me.

This I have heard a lot. Some people struggle in this area and never get victory. Paul talked about "his thorn" and God's refusal to remove it from him in order to keep him from spiritual pride:

2 Corinthians 12:5 . . .on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses. 6 For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain from this, so that no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Apparently, the point of this passage was missed by Ted as well - leading to the problem Paul cites:

Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them. The public person I was wasn't a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe.

Now, of course, my little scenario falls apart. Ted isn't in my group - he is one of those men who fell away to deal with their "darkness" on their own.

Anyone in any addiction program understands this. He did not have success in the programs, which caused more shame, so he attempted to "fight it on his own"; or perhaps he thought "I'm Ok really" and could handle it himself. I think he misses another point here - this is something in which he needed on-going accountability; and that could not be his wife - because we all desire to not hurt our spouses and cause them pain (that is a good thing BTW - our wives do not need "all the details" but we need to confess them to someone). Sexual sin is extremely humiliating and painful to our wives; and only by working on it for years can we get to the point that our honesty about our sexual sin will not be painful to them. In the meantime, you must have other men who know how you feel and suffer through what you suffer through to talk to and hold you accountable. Why? God is willing to forgive if we ask:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

but healing comes by a different process:

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

And, of course, the darkness will increase and dominate you if you do not continue to act:

With sexual impurity, many times there are no visible consequences for years. However, we cannot escape the fact that we will reap what we sow. Inappropriate sexual behavior that is stimulating or pleasurable now [even just in your thought life], may cause you a great deal of pain later.

What are the consequences if you continue your behavior?

• Loss of self-respect - feelings of shame and the need to conceal your behavior
• Lack of relational intimacy - until you start living with integrity you may not know how differently your relationships and attitudes can look
• Lack of satisfaction in your current relationships
• You may lose your wife, fiancée or girlfriend
• A destructive legacy for your children

If you progress you could:

• Lose your job
• Get arrested
• Lose your reputation

Most of this probably happened to Ted as he spiraled down to the final train wreck..

The accusations that have been leveled against me are not all true, but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry. Our church's overseers have required me to submit to the oversight of Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Jack Hayford, and Pastor Tommy Barnett. Those men will perform a thorough analysis of my mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical life. They will guide me through a program with the goal of healing and restoration for my life, my marriage, and my family.

Just a bit more denial there, but that will be going away as well. The program Ted needs is weekly, if not daily, accountability with men who have experienced the same issues. I do not know Dobson's, Hayford's (although he wrote the introduction to Pure Desire - the book my FMO group is working through now), or Barnett's history. I also know such a "thorough analysis" is an on-going, lifetime process that is not going to be handed to Ted on a plate by anybody.

I created this entire situation. The things that I did opened the door for additional allegations . But I am responsible; I alone need to be disciplined and corrected. An example must be set.

This bothers me - a lot. This is his shame and guilt desiring to be punished. No, brother Ted: I desire your healing and the restoration of a loving, unlimited relationship with Gayle that can glorify God - assuming she can reach into God's power and give you his grace and mercy and forgive you. If she divorces you, which you deserve, I hope to help you heal and re-build a life based on an honest examination of your self. I do not need to see you "punished" because that may make you think the problem has reached closure.

Also, he didnt "create the whole situation" - it is far more complicated than that; and he is striving here to again pretend he is in control

It is important that you know how much I love and appreciate my wife, Gayle. What I did should never reflect in a negative way on her relationship with me. She has been and continues to be incredible. The problem is not with her, my children or any of you. It was created 100 percent by me.

I have been permanently removed from the office of Senior Pastor of New Life Church. Until a new senior pastor is chosen, our Associate Senior Pastor Ross Parsley will assume all of the the responsibilities of the office. On the day he accepted this new role, he and his wife, Aimee, had a new baby boy. A new life in the midst of this circumstance - I consider the confluence of events to be prophetic. Please commit to join with Pastor Ross and the others in church leadership to make their service to you easy and without burden. They are fine leaders. You are blessed.

I appreciate your loving and forgiving nature, and I humbly ask you to do a few things.

1. Please stay faithful to God through service and giving.


2. Please forgive me. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. I caused this and I have no excuse. I am a sinner. I have fallen. I desperately need to be forgiven and healed.


3. Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did.


4. Please stay faithful to each other. Perform your functions well. Encourage each other and rejoice in God's faithfulness. Our church body is a beautiful body, and like every family, our strength is tested and proven in the midst of adversity. Because of the negative publicity I've created with my foolishness, we can now demonstrate to the world how our sick and wounded can be healed, and how even disappointed and betrayed church bodies can prosper and rejoice.

Gayle and I need to be gone for a while. We will never return to a leadership role at New Life Church. In our hearts, we will always be members of this body. We love you as our family. I know this situation will put you to the test. I'm sorry I've created the test, but please rise to this challenge and demonstate the incredible grace that is available to all of us.

There is not much I can say here. He needs to get beyond the shame he expresses in #2 - again, guilt and shame are useless and destructive emotions. Other than that, I hope he finds God's healing and peace.

Read more!

I Decided to Start With Marriage

I decided to start with marriage: mainly because the overriding theme of Ted Haggard's "fall" - or perhaps his rise - is his adultery; and not who he was adulterous with. A complicating factor is the question of whether he married against his basic nature as a homosexual and therefore his vows were dishonest and void. Or, if they were not void - they were doomed to failure because he was in denial and self-loathing.

This is about marriage between followers of Christ - well, at least mostly. There are variations cited in scripture even for Christians married to non-Christians; and everything assumed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

There are some passages of scripture that are "fundamental" to my understanding of marriage; and that the Holy Spirit has confirmed again and again in my life as true. Let's start with:

Genesis 2:23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

While I may not personally agree, for the sake of this discussion I have no problem

• with those who want to believe that the gender definitions in all of this are fluid.
• if you want to include same-sex marriage in God's definition of one-flesh relationships.

However, I have a problem if you are not willing to "pay the price" the next pieces of scripture imply.

I have direct experience with my wife and I being "one flesh" - this is not about sex (although I believe the sex act creates a marriage - and not the church or society). My wife is "bone of my bones; and flesh of my flesh". We are one entity with two personalities - like Christ and God; and in our unity with God through the Holy Spirit that indwells us both - we form a type of the Trinity that represents the nature of God to the world. Marriage is God's institution for displaying His nature to the world. Of course, we humans succeed in blurring the image we are to present quite nicely and almost always.

Jesus and Paul both branched off the Genesis verse. First, of course,

Jesus

Mark reports (probably from Peter):

Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

and Matthew gives "the rest of the story":

Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

What does this say for Ted Haggard's choices? Or mine? Or yours if you are married? By using the word eunuch, isn't Christ saying that if you are not willing to be married, and married "for life", that you should avoid sex period?

Jesus talked about adultery earlier during the Sermon on the Mount; and made it clear, as usual, that it is our heart - and not our actions - that matter:

Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 "It was said, `WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

and immediately goes to the heart of what an oath must be:

33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.' 34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, `Yes, yes' or `No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Paul

Paul cranks "one flesh" up another notch or two - but of course he was writing after the Pentecost so that makes sense. Does our intent matter when we enter marriage - a "one flesh" relationship? Paul was obviously dealing with a Corinthian church in crisis on a lot of levels; including sexually. In his letters to the Corinthians, he corrects them about prostitution and marriage; and points out a deep spiritual reason to "flee immorality":

1 Corinthians 6:13 . . . Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Imagine God, Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit as a direct participant in your every sexual acts once you have been indwelt - that should give you some pause; and imagine marriage as initiated by the sex act itself - even with a prostitute. [For those interested in what became of the Corinthians after these two letters - see Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. This, incidentally, was close to acceptance into the Canon]

One last point, which is derived from this one flesh relationship:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The idea that our sexual life is under the authority of our spouse, whether we are the husband or the wife, is of course a radical concept - which has never been practiced by all believers and may never be. As much as folks want to separate Paul's teaching from Christ's, the theme of Paul's presentation here is clearly present in and derived from the teachings of Christ.

Of course, that is all really hard teaching which humans care to ignore - because it's hard: "Moses" still allows us to divorce because our "heart is hard". There is some teaching on what I, as a husband, need to do in order to make this work. Maybe that will help:

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself [see also: "The Submission of the Christian Husband"]

Nope, no out there for myself or Ted.

Conclusion

Regardless of Ted Haggard's "orientation", and his honesty about that with his wife, when he got married, he was "in for the duration" and obligated to take "every thought captive" for Christ. There is no excuse for adultery; and if he is divorced he should be celibate for life unless he is reconciled to his wife: he should become a eunuch for the Kingdom of God.

I am as hypocritical compared to this standard as Ted Haggard is: I am teaching this is true while not living up to it - even today. If we are all honest, we all would be hypocritical to this standard (as Christ loved us?) unless we delete part of the standard to save our hypocrisy. Luckily, while we are called to strive for holiness (and are responsible for "every thought and deed" in that), we can rest in the love and mercy of Christ when we fall short. Which, of course, we all will.

* * * * *

Other resources:

• My church recently had a three-part series on marriage :
  • Forever Together I
  • Forever Together II
  • Forever Together III
  This may give some of you a better idea about what some conservative churches talk about when they talk about marriage
• "Christian Marriage" from Mere Christianity
• "The Meaning of Christian Marriage"

Read more!

Overview: Three Posts Coming

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

Ted Haggard's fall has been fascinating. It has rightfully called up many questions of orientation, marriage, sex, obsession, obedience, works, grace, mercy, and unfounded faith in other human beings. All the more so for me perhaps because I am a sexual addict and understand daily that struggle against "part[s] of my life that [are] repulsive and dark".

Some of the comments at Street Prophets have been good, bad and ugly - and some have succeeded in including all three. Last Saturday I was certain I was going to discuss (1) the Biblical view of marriage between followers of Christ. I promised to do so in response to these two comments: this one:

Here's the deal, JCH : No, I don't think that because someone went into a marriage with illusions means they can suddenly decide to negate the union when cold hard reality hits them.

If anyone could have bailed for that reason, it should have been me when Dana came down with cancer. I was 6 years older than him and had had HIV for 10 years longer than him when we met, and my expectations were 1) newer medications would get us through and 2) I'd be the first to go.

Didn't work out that way, yet I STUCK TO MY COMMITMENT.

But cancer, and his f....d up family, and our illusions were externals.

The internals are that our relationship was founded on the TRUTH about ourselves. Both gay men, both desiring monogamy, both HIV+ - and some other details that are not relevant here.

Externals will always change, that's the nature of existence, but some internals never will (in a given lifetime), and we must make peace with them, or live our entire lives in vain, in service to lies and denial. It is highly unlikely that exclusive orientation (hetero OR homo, and not to be confused with acts) will change in the course of one's life, though it is possible to pretend otherwise and lie convincingly to oneself and others. (I'm intentionally leaving the inherent ambiguity of bisexuality out of this discussion).

Haggard took a vow in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the truth of his internal nature. His relationship with his wife was, is and will forever be a LIE. I flatly refuse to believe that God holds ANY vow so sacrosanct that it cannot be broken when predicated on falsehood, especially SELF-deception. If you honestly believe God does, then I want no part of that God, because He values Appearance over Truth, something Jesus repeatedly preached against.

The only thing I will say at the moment is that I want to examine this definition of internal and external - I do not agree. Wolfie's love, integrity, and unwillingness to abandon Dana were all, of course, internals. The contrast in this week was my pastor talking about a follower of Christ who divorced his wife because she got a double mastectomy after her breast cancer. The other comment in the same thread was this:

"He gave her title to his sex life"?

Oh really?

I'm a former lawyer. I have some idea of what "title" means in a legal way. And I can tell you that the average 22 year old (that's how old Haggard was when he got married) had no idea of what "legal title" was, nor did Gayle Haggard know what she was getting.

I've never seen this kind of thing expressed in the Bible. I think you're reading the American property owning system back on to your belief that marriage is basically sacrosanct, hard to break up except in cases of adultery, that sort of thing. I don't think this is fair to married people to do that.

I did give the scripture in that thread; but the question I probably will never be able to look at is: Did Gayle Haggard know? My wife knows more about the adultery that broke up my first marriage than my first wife knew; knows that I had homosexual lovers before that (both of these the day I proposed); and knows I now struggle with pornography (something I never had problems with before 4 years ago). Why assume Ted Haggard has not, in the past, opened up these struggles to his wife? Do you think she wouldn't have married him and had 5 of his children if she knew? And, are you sure his homosexual desires pre-dated his marriage to Gayle? Of course, some of this is wrapped up in the next coming post.

After Haggard's public confession, I was certain that I was going to discuss (2) my sexual addict's view of what Haggard said. I believe at the moment this will develop as a counter-point to "Ted Haggard Embraces More Lies, Continues 'repulsive and dark' Path"; and will probably mostly center around:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life.

For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me. Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them.

The public person I was wasn't a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe. -- Ted Haggard

These statements have so much truth in them about what I and other sex addicts who are followers of Christ experience that I cannot let the other post stand as an explanation of this situation. I am also sorry that this part of Haggard's statement was not included in the other post

Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did.

This all impacts the third coming post.

The last topic floating around in my head is the concept of early orientations (general) [this post isn't going to happen - the other two sucked the life out of it]; whether we can assume God made us that way; and, in the case of Ted Haggard and myself, whether it is acceptable that we have been led by the Holy Spirit to see our orientations as "repulsive and dark" even though others see their similar orientations as "God-given". If I see my orientations from earliest childhood - that oppose scripture - as coming from "the world, the flesh, or the devil" (and not from God), then am I "living a lie", or am I "self-loathing", if I choose to carry on an ongoing struggle with things that are part of my basic personality which I believe are wrong. Also, more deeply, shouldn't followers of Christ, to some degree, loathe their "self" if it conflicts with the revelation of God, either through scripture or the Holy Spirit? As Paul said:

Romans 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

and the triumphant answer in the next chapter [pardon the long quote - I just couldn't find the place to cut this passage off]:

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. 12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. 26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

I am going to leave this here with just the pre-knowledge to y'all that I will be posting on the three topics above between today and tomorrow; and invite you, in comments to this post, to give me some insight into what you see in these three questions - because, frankly, I am not, especially on the topic #2 and #3, sure what I am actually going to write today and tomorrow.

Read more!

"The End of the Spear", gays, and Christ.

I received this email today which I am passing on along with the answer I gave:

On Friday, January 13th, I wrote an article detailing my concerns about the decision by Every Tribe Entertainment to cast an activist for the gay agenda in a leading role in the movie, "The End of the Spear." (You can access the original article here). Gauging the amount of email that I have received and the number of visitors to my blog, the issue seemed to touch a nerve. I also asked pastors who were equally concerned to add their name to a letter that I was sending to Mart Green, the CEO of ETE. The letter expressed disappointment over the decision and asked them to somehow rectify the situation. I sent the letter on Wednesday, January 18th, with the names of over one hundred pastors attached.

On Friday I received a call from Mart Green and Jim Hanon, the director of the film. We had a cordial conversation. I brought up my two primary concerns with the movie: the casting of a gay activist and the lack of the Gospel message in the movie. (I will hold off on reporting what they said about the Gospel message until I publish an article on Wednesday regarding that entire topic.)

On the casting issue, I asked them several key questions. My first question was directed to Mart Green. "Do you feel that what you did in casting a gay activist in this role was wrong?" I received a quick "no." I moved on.

I wanted to clear up a discrepancy between Chad Allen's and ETE's versions of the casting decision. The public perception has been that ETE was unaware of Allen's homosexuality until after he was already on board. This is an important point to many. A representative from a large, pro-family organization even called me on Friday afternoon to make sure that I was aware of this. WorldNetDaily interviewed ETE President Bill Ewing, who said that "he was not even aware of Allen's homosexuality, let alone his activism, when the actor was chosen for the part." Baptist Press reported in an article last Thursday that "the producers have said they were not aware of Chad Allen's homosexuality when they gave him the role of Steve Saint in the film but decided to stick with him once they were told of his sexual practices." It's obvious that ETE would like people to know that they were unaware of Allen's homosexuality and his activism. This is significant, because if they were truly unaware, then perhaps, the reasoning goes, they should be forgiven for not doing their homework and we should all move on.

Mart Green and Jim Hanon clarified the process for me. According to them, they had offered him the role but had not signed the contract with him when they learned of his gay lifestyle. In spite of that, they still proceeded with the signing of the contract. Now, you may be thinking, "To not offer him the job at that point would amount to discrimination." You're probably right.

But it doesn't matter.

They would do it all again even with prior knowledge of Allen's activist agenda.

I asked the question to Mart, "If you knew before the casting process began what you know now, would you still have hired Chad Allen?" I rephrased it just so they knew what I was getting at. If you were to do another movie just like 'The End of the Spear' and you were fully aware of Allen's activism, would you hire him?" Mart responded that he would like both Jim Hanon and himself to answer the question. Jim Hanon said, "Yes." And then I heard him say something like "We are going to open up the door to anyone who wants to act unlike you, Jason, who wants to be exclusive." I asked Mart Green what he would do. He responded, "I would stand behind my director."

That's it. We no longer have a company who was sloppy with their research and made an error in judgment. We have a film-making company that presents itself as Christian who sees absolutely nothing wrong with casting one of Hollywood's most popular gay activists in the role of an evangelical missionary martyr.

I told him that I believed he would lose the support of much of the evangelical community if they knew this. He disagreed. He mentioned that Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard are behind the movie, as well as many others.

I mentioned this conversation to the man who called me from the pro-family organization. His words summed up my thoughts, "That's not good."

Would you do the following?

1. Email this information to as many Christians as you know.
2. Email Mart Green and let him know how you feel -- mgreen@everytribe.com.
3. Contact pro-family organizations and church leaders and ask them to contact Mart Green and express their concerns. Perhaps they can talk to him. From all I have read, Mart is a good Christian man with a desire to please the Lord.

Some people have questioned my motivations in writing on this and continuing to write on it. I am doing so because I believe it is important. The loss of discernment is evident in all corners of evangelicalism, and there comes a time when people need to say something.

Jason Janz

And my response

Brother,

Actually, I will not. I will link my position on homosexuality just to show you I am not totally "apostate" on this issue (that was sarcasm). Frankly, I think the conservative Christian community makes far too much of the sin of homosexuality; and gay marriage. It is not the worst sin, or the even the worst sexual sin; nor is gay marriage the worst threat to God's institution of marriage. I will go with pride; adultery; and men, particularly, not loving our spouses as Christ loved us for those awards.

We live in a secular society where some people simply do not believe what we believe. Christians being so adamant over a negative issue, rather than, say, being fired up over doing something for the "least of these" only makes us appear moralistic and legalistic - neither of which Christ was. He probably would have eaten with tax collectors, sinners, and gays were He here today. Would you be asking Him why He did so?

In homosexuality, we are talking about people who from their earliest sexual memory were generally attracted to the same sex. I agree with you that this is not God's design. However, whatever "nurture" got them to this point from their earliest sexual memory is not going to be counteracted by our ostracism and persecution. It is going to be counteracted by Christ's love; and Christ living in them - which as His representatives we are too show and bring them too.

Or in this case not show and drive them from. Would we be equally concerned if the actor had been divorced once; and it was he that had committed the adultery that ended the first marriage. I sincerely doubt it.

I will end with Romans 1:28 - 2:3, right after the strongest denunciation of homosexuality in the New Testament:

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, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 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. Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

I think the laundry list of sins attached right after homosexuality (notice where "haters of God" is. Think the list is in order of importance?) and Paul's admonition not to judge because we have all done these things is something those who believe homosexuality is sin should keep well in mind

In Christ,
John Howell

Read more!

Grace: Your body's or Someone Else's?

Tyler asked me to read The Body's Grace by Rowan Williams - a defense of homosexuality by the future Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church in England.

The Good

My mom (and everyone else's I think) said "if you cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all"; and there are some things here that are exquisite:

The whole story of creation, incarnation and our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the trinity. We are created so that we may be caught up in this; so that we may grow into the wholehearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves God.

This nearly erotic picture of God's love for us gives us deep understanding of the significance, acceptance, and security we have in Christ. He continues:

The life of the Christian community has as its rationale . . . the task of teaching us this: so ordering our relations that human beings may see themselves as desired, as the occasion of joy

Indeed, all Heaven celebrates when any one of us is saved. The core of all evangelism is to have non-believers see that God loves them; desires them to share in that loving relationship with Him; and that nothing they have done in their life alters that.

Williams shows the true heart of a loving sexual relationship: that each partner's sexual pleasure comes in pleasing the other and not themselves. He comes close to calling heterosexual sex in a legal marriage perversion if "in that they leave one agent in effective control of the situation - one agent, that is, who doesn't have to wait upon the desire of the other." and later mentions 1 Corinthians 7

4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Of course, I think in this case he is better served mentioning any of the "one flesh" quotes; but oh well. Also, he mentions Ephesians 5:

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

All in all, him and I agree that the sexual relationship God wants is one where the partners unite mind, body and soul; treat each other unselfishly sexually; and put their partner's needs on all of these levels over their own. This is the relationship that serves God and glorifies Him; it is what marriage in His name should be; and being heterosexual and married does not imply you have this. Finally, he "tantalizes" with this:

I suspect that a fuller exploration of the sexual metaphors of the Bible will have more to teach us about a theology and ethics of sexual desire than will the flat citation of isolated texts

The Bad

And delivers nothing:

"and I hope other theologians will find this worth following up more fully than I can do here."

This is what I expected him to do. He did have time to spend a third of his space on examples from the Raj Quartet by Paul Scott; and quotes from Thomas Nagel and Susan Griffin.

Now for homosexuality: Archbishop Williams argues that homosexual relationships are able to embody that complete unselfishness and abandonment of self to the other, and therefore they too will reflect and glorify God. Garry J. Williams, in The Theology of Rowan Williams:

"The method which Williams employs in his theological argument entails a significant non sequitur. He finds that God desires his people, and he identifies sexual desire with that desire in God. There may be some basis for this analogy, given that God is so often in Scripture depicted as the husband of his bride. It is, however, hermeneutically dubious to use the relation betweenGod and his people to justify specific sexual activity" [and] "There are thus two leaps here. One is from the desire or love of God for his people to human sexual desire, and the other is from heterosexual biblical examples to homosexual acts. Like the first, this second leap is consistently and conspicuously absent in the Bible . . . Scripture does not make the step which Williams makes, in that it customarily marks a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relations and compares aspects of God's relation to his people with the former and not the latter."

Archbishop Williams does approach scripture in defending homosexuality in one way: he attacks procreation as the major factor in God's view of authentic sexual relations. Here I think he is right: I do not believe reproduction is the central point in God's plan for our "one flesh" relationships; although it is certainly a point. However, he brushes by (and brushes off) what is to me the real points:

the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts [see my piece on this], or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures

The bold part is what he just blows by: complementarity is very much a part of every scripture on this subject. He fails to try to make a case for the opposite - so of course none is made. Garry Williams says this is a natural outflowing from his general theological mistake in dismissing revelation in favor of experience.

and The Ugly

This should have been the first thing I talked about since it explains the title of the work - The Body's Grace - but once the parallelism with Clint Eastwood hit me . . . He does not mean grace from the Body of Christ; but grace our own body shows us when we work out our "fear and trembling" over time in giving ourselves up to the mutuality of an equal relationship with another.

In scripture which is simply packed with references to "the flesh" (our bodily desires) this position that we seek the body's grace is simply wrong. We seek God's grace to work through these relationships; His strength to overcome the "fear and trembling" as we work out a true bond of mind, soul, and body. I would argue that in many cases giving in to the grace of our body separates us from the grace of God.

Archbishop Williams seems to imply that homosexuals actually have an easier time finding the body's grace once they have made those first decisions to "identify certain patterns as sterile, undeveloped or even corrupt" and "what we want our bodily life to say, how our bodies are to be brought in to the whole project of 'making human sense' for ourselves and each other." He says:

"a conventional (heterosexual) morality simply absolves us from the difficulties we might meet in doing so. The question of human meaning is not raised, we are not helped to see what part sexuality plays in our learning to be human with one another, to enter the body's grace, because all we need to know is that sexual activity is licensed in one context and in no other." [and] ". . . where [do] the massive cultural and religious anxiety about same-sex relationships that is so prevalent at the moment comes from . . . I wonder whether it is to do with the fact that same-sex relations oblige us to think directly about bodiliness and sexuality in a way that socially and religiously sanctioned heterosexual unions don't."

Not only am I wrong for following scripture on the issue of homosexuality, I am stunting my physical and emotional growth in my relationship with my wife by doing so. I suppose I need a version of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to get in touch with my bodily life and to recieve its grace.

Read more!