‘People looking into the Church can think it’s a really homophobic environment’ – the words are those of the Evangelical, Vicky Beeching, who ‘came out’ not long ago. Reading her comments. one can see that she has been shaken by the reaction from some of those on Twitter and on her blog and has decided that is not the place to engage with further thinking on the subject.
I wasn’t willing to have my LGBT readers, who bravely share their personal and vulnerable views in the comments section, ganged up on by aggressive, conservative readers – many from the American Bible Belt – in a way that feels insensitive and inappropriate.
I can understand that. A couple of years ago, when I posted on the subject of a wedding invitation I had received from one of my oldest female friends, who was marrying a woman, some of the comments made were pretty ghastly.The essential argument from tradition is based on certain Biblical passages and on a view of what is and is not ‘natural’. The essential argument against the traditional view is that the passages concerned have been misread and that misreading is largely culturally conditioned. In the case of my own dilemma, given that there is precisely one verse in Scripture criticising lesbianism and many more criticising people being judgmental, that was quite ironic.
This is something that, when speaking in Toronto in 2007, Rowan Williams pointed out:
Paul in the first chapter of Romans famously uses same-sex relationships as an illustration of human depravity — along with other ‘unnatural’ behaviours such as scandal, disobedience to parents and lack of pity. It is, for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality, and has understandably been the focus of an enormous amount of exegetical attention.
What is Paul’s argument? And, once again, what is the movement that the text seeks to facilitate? The answer is in the opening of chapter 2: we have been listing examples of the barefaced perversity of those who cannot see the requirements of the natural order in front of their noses; well, it is precisely the same perversity that affects those who have received the revelation of God and persist in self-seeking and self-deceit. The change envisaged is from confidence in having received divine revelation to an awareness of universal sinfulness and need. Once again, there is a paradox in reading Romans 1 as a foundation for identifying in others a level of sin that is not found in the chosen community.
Now this gives little comfort to either party in the current culture wars in the Church. It is not helpful for a ‘liberal’ or revisionist case, since the whole point of Paul’s rhetorical gambit is that everyone in his imagined readership agrees in thinking the same-sex relations of the culture around them to be as obviously immoral as idol-worship or disobedience to parents. It is not very helpful to the conservative either, though, because Paul insists on shifting the focus away from the objects of moral disapprobation in chapter 1 to the reading /hearing subject who has been up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else. The complex and interesting argument of chapter 1 about certain forms of sin beginning by the ‘exchange’ of true for false perception and natural for unnatural desire stands, but now has to be applied not to the pagan world alone but to the ‘insiders’ of the chosen community. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.
This is worth quoting at length because it makes the important point that we have to read what Paul is saying, not read into Paul what we think he ought to have been saying – and that is something people on both sides of this issue do.
The Church of Scotland has what it calls a position of ‘constrained difference’ on this issue:
“It is a fundamental part of our faith in the Reformed Tradition that we permit each other in good conscience to interpret scripture differently but to keep any such interpretations in check by what we understand as the substance of the faith.”
Those for whom tradition is paramount will, naturally, come down where it has always come down, and they will continue to read the Bible passages in a way consonant with it. Those of us for who tradition is important, but not the decisive factor, will use our reason to read the Bible passages in a contextual way and will come down in another place, which does not necessarily mean abandoning tradition, but wondering how we deal, pastorally, with homosexuals or transexuals who are also Christians. Some of them will adopt the position that they are called to celibacy, but those who do not feel they have that grace, what of them, especially if they cannot see that the traditional reading of these Scripture passages is at all convincing? Perhaps the Church of Scotland’s position is not quite as unsatisfactory as it looks?
Of course, for those who believe that homosexuality is in the same league as murder and oppressing the poor (I do hope those last are not voting for neoliberal economic solutions to our economic problems), this line will seem intolerable. But then to those who don’t, their line seems intolerable too. We are all sinners, but we cannot all agree on what is sinful. So perhaps ‘constrained difference’ is the most sensible way for us to disagree – except for those who feel that arguing on this issue s getting us anywhere – something it is hard to see is the case.
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Of all the hot buttons, this is currently the hottest, and you’ve done a good job of trying not to offend anyone – and no doubt doing so.
I can see that those au fait with gender theory and also au fait with individual stories (I did follow some of those links) might suppose that those who write, as I did, about mental disturbance, are being unkind. We are (or I am any way) not intending to be unkind, but a man with x y chromosones and his equipment intact is still, for most of us, a man, and the fact he thinks he is a woman is something with can produce a yuk factor. As a Christian, I can get beyond that, and I can also see the need to love all God’s children. But if we do, as I do, take the traditional view that the things Paul says are sinful, are sinful, then it isn’t so easy to just write it off and say ‘whatever’.
LikeLiked by 6 people
JessicaHof said:
Yes, I think there is a generational issue here too. We can take the view that this activity is sinful despite what recent theories on gender and sexuality say, and we can say that makes no difference. It may not to us, but it does to the troubled souls who feel this way. The question then becomes what do we say to them?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That is a good question. For me what we cannot do because Scripture and tradition and my own reasoning take me there, is to say that it is right for people to act on these impulses – any more than it is right for a married man to act on the impulse that leads him to want to have sex with a woman other than his wife.
That, for me, leads to a counsel of celibacy – hard, but with Christ, all things are possible.
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
Which is a very fair position, and one quite a few gay people come down on too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
Celibacy, continence and chastity are sometimes confused with one another. We are all called to be chaste and continent in our sexuality no matter what our state in life is.
Being celibate is the condition of being unmarried and a vow of celibacy is one of the three vows taken by those who enter monastic life. The other two are poverty and obedience.
LikeLiked by 3 people
thoughtfullydetached said:
Much depends on what weight you give to tradition. If you assume a Sola Scriptura approach then so long as you can justify your interpretation of the Bible your position, liberal or conservative, will seem unassailable. If, however, you assume that the Holy Spirit has had some role in guiding the sensus fidei for the past two millennia then although you can accept doctrinal development you cannot accept doctrinal reversal because that would imply that the Spirit had guided the Church into error.
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
Are we talking doctrine here though? It isn’t clear to me we are. If we balance tradition with the light of modern thinking on issues of gender and sexuality – that is the fruits of people using the brains God gave us, you might well come to read Scripture in a different light. You might still, as I would tend to, come down on the side of thinking the activity sinful but the inclination itself not a cause of condemnation. It is the black and white positions taken up which seem to me less than helpful to many who are personally caught up in this issue. We sometimes theorise as in a vacuum where there are no troubled souls – it helps if we remember there are.
LikeLiked by 3 people
thoughtfullydetached said:
Firstly, an inclination necessarily cannot be a sin unless it is a sin to be subject to temptation which is our common human lot.
Secondly, I’m not sure if you can have one category called doctrine and another one called morals without supposing that the two are intrinsically linked.
On your final point, the existence of troubled souls should call forth first and foremost a pastoral response. But the idea that supporting someone in a difficult place is best achieved by ‘affirming’ them is an opinion not an established certainty.
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
By doctrine, I tend to understand something the Church is saying must be believed, but I see your point. It was a genuine open question about what the best pastoral response should be. If one genuinely believes they are in the wrong place, of course, one can’t affirm – but not everyone believes that any more. I get uneasy with that last position, because it seems to me to be going beyond where anything like a consensus of the faithful can go. It is a shame (but inevitable) that it gets involved in the issue of ‘gay rights’, as that injects notes of bitterness and hostility which are not helpful.
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. If you’ve more reflections on doctrine in this area and would be happy to share, I’d be interested to read.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
It is a shame that rather than engaging with the serious issues raised by ++Rowan’s comments, and the other issues you have raised this week, there has been another sort of reaction in other parts of the blog. This, not least, because you are raising issues with challenge us in our comfort zone. The easiest reaction is to react to the discomfort.
On this hot button issue, what you say about it getting caught up with other secular issues is highly relevant. Vicky Beeching’s mauling was not helpful either to her or to those likely to read her blog. It simply allowed the usual suspects to point to evidence of homophobia.
You, and your church, are wrestling with issues the Catholic Church is also wrestling with, and it is more useful to share thoughts than to stop thinking because it is painful. You know where I come down on this – more or less where ++ Williams does. Our tradition, Scripture and reason does not allow the church to come down where secularists would like it to.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
A very, and characteristic, thoughtful response. As you can see, I have tried to raise issues here, I don’t pretend to have the answers 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
It is good to have the questions posed so well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – so you’d like to see some reaction to ++Williams comments. Here are mine.
I don’t believe those he is addressing at the beginning of chapter 2 have ‘received the revelation of God.
As I see it, Paul’s argument is as follows: From Romans 1v18 to the end of chapter 1, he deals with the ‘bad pagan’ those who are utterly hedonistic; they revel in their depravity and just don’t care. Emil Brunner describes it as a ‘Don Juan’ figure somewhere towards the beginning of his book ‘The Divine Imperative’. Chapter 2 then goes onto ‘The Good Pagan’ (I’m taking the demarcations from James Philip’s commentary ‘The Power of God’ published by Didasko press, which I believe is now out of print). That is, he is addressing people who are trying to be right with God by being good and insisting on good behaviour; he’s telling them that they aren’t good enough; wherever they pass judgement on others, they condemn themselves. He then moves onto ‘the religious person’ (up to chapter 3v7) and shows that this fails too and finishes this section with the quote from Isaiah (All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
We all stand condemned. Then he tells us where salvation comes from (continuing from 1v16, 17) in Romans 3v23 ‘for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.’
I think this is broadly correct – and hence I think that ++Williams has picked up the wrong end of the stick if he suggests that the switch from chapter 1 to chapter 2 is a switch from ‘outsiders’ to ‘insiders’.
LikeLiked by 6 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks Jock – much more helpful.
FF Bruce and CH Dodds are broadly in line with what you say (as is Ian Paisley – have you read his commentary? Imteresting). He sees Rom 1:18-32 as addressed to the Pagan world,, 2:1-16 as being addressed to the ‘moralist’ and the 2:17-3:8 addressed to the Jews. As far as I can see, Williams is relying on more recent, and in my view, debatable commentators.
The sense in which those in 2 are ‘insiders’ is that they are like those ‘godfearers’ – the Gentiles who attended the Synagogues and might have been thought to have been better attuned to God’s demands than mere Pagans.
I keep wanting to write something here on Romans, but lack the leisure to do so – but I think it might be worth concentrating on these passages for a post or two.
I’m glad you responded as you did – I thought Williams’ comments, as they are sometimes, too ‘modern’ in its emphasis. We can’t just junk the wisdom of the past in this way to get to an interpretation which suits us now. Well, of course, we can, and many do, but it is worth pointing out that that is what is being done. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jock McSporran said:
Yes – I should imagine that FF Bruce and CH Dodds are in line with this, since I remember that James Philips referred to them quite a lot in his sermons.
(I wasn’t aware that Ian Paisley had written a commentary on Romans! Somehow the mind boggles at the prospect).
By the more ‘modern’ I suspect you mean ‘the new perspective’ by NT Wright – and I’d agree with you. I get the impression with Wright that the main thing seems to be that of belonging.
In chapter 2 Paul does change from third person to second person; the hedonists won’t even listen. Philips pointed out that the style of chapter 2 (moving from third to second person) in several places looks a bit like responding to a heckler from the crowd – that would in some sense be in line with those who think they are attuned to God’s demands – and may well think they know them better than Paul.
I, for one, would be very interested in anything you post on the subject.
LikeLiked by 4 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Jock – yes, Paisley wrote it whilst he was in jail in, I think 1968. If you ever come across it, it is a curious production, but not without some merit.
Yes, Lord Williams is taking the Wright line here. Jews are, I suppose, insiders from one point of view, but I am not sure that point of view is that of St Paul.
I have a few more weeks of commentaries on the Gospel of the week yet to come, but it might be good to replace that with something on Romans.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
BTW, we have something on site here by Nicholas – and C himself:
https://jessicahof.wordpress.com//?s=romans&search=Go
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Jess – I knew I had written something – the link also has something from Geoffrey germane to today’s discussion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Most interesting. Fr Adrian Gaffey reminds us that although Paul seems to be addressing the Gentiles here, we might want to bear in mind that the church in Rome was made up of both gentiles and Jews. I wonder whether that is where ++ Rowan is coming from here. Are we drawing a line which is clearer to us than it was to Paul at the time?
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
In terms of God’s law, yes, I can see how the Jews would look like insiders, and I can see why Tom Wright goes in that direction. Not too sure that is what Paul intends, but then pronouncing on that can be a little difficult. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
As we are, I think, before the separation of Jews from Christians in any formal sense, I can see how this would work as ++ Rowan suggests – but agree on the difficulty. It would be a good thing if you did feel able to say something on Romans.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
On the issue of what Paul thinks of the Jews in Romans, it’s very easy to see what he thinks: for him, they’re out.
‘I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel.
Now – only someone who is exceedingly clever with grammatical constructs could get out of the clear and plain meaning. Paul isn’t in great sorrow because he believes that they’re basically ‘in’ although they’ve perhaps been naughty boys; he believes that they’re ‘out’ and he would be glad to take the curse himself and he himself be cut off if it could bring about a change in their situation.
Only someone who is too clever by half can make the passage mean anything else.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I gather you are off Jock – God speed and all blessings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Yes – I’m off.
I enjoyed the discussions with you – and many thanks.
But I’m not too keen on the tone and subject matter that now seems to predominate.
(also – even if I did, I don’t really have the time for much interaction these days).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
Often people shoot off a reply without fully thinking through what exactly they are saying : an original misunderstanding then becomes further compounded.
It is sobering to us on the sidelines wondering if we should wade in or not : would we add to the light
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
…or the heat?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Very true Annie.
LikeLike
Annie said:
My mother used say to us that a bucket of dirty water will never get any cleaner by stirring but if you let it sit, the dirt will fall to the bottom and the water will be clear towards the top and you will be able to do something with it.
x
LikeLiked by 2 people
Annie said:
… while my dad tackled issues head on, like Kevin Vickers earlier this week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
God gave us all different gifts – and if we let people apply them, it is to his greater glory 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
He once assisted the Rev Paisley and the Rev Brown out of our town on a fair day. Hymns were fine but when the Rev Ian started haranguing and insulting us, he had to be shown the road. Hospitality is a given among the Irish and the Scots and everyone’s tale is listened to but guests are expected to be mindful of their hosts too.
x
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That’s a good reminder, Annie. I have one coming up soon which might be of interest x
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That’s a great comment Annie – and as a great scrubber of floors, I know it is very true too 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
If you’ve broken one commandment, you’ve broken them all. We are all murderous adulterous thieves.
The playing field is level.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Oh yes, I am a great sinner and would never deny it. But I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb, and just don’t get the gloomy Gus attitude that says there is no hope- there is, for every miserable sinner – the Lord Jesus Christ though whom, alone, we are saved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
I might seem out of place and irrelevant because I have no writings of men to offer or other philosophies of men. But what I have I will give;
Jesus stands at the door and knocks. If any man hear and open the door, Jesus will come in and sup with him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
That is all we can, any of us, do, bear witness according to the Grace given us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Just a few thoughts, of no great weight. Not on what I’ll term the technical aspects for convenience, you all have far greater knowledge of most of this than I do. Which is quite wonderful. As I told Jess earlier, we have completed the revolution, in a sense. One of the things I love from the early days of AATW was simply how much I learned about my faith, and that is what I missed often in the interim. We have all grown in faith and in knowledge and the way we have done that is largely by calm rational debate, and I welcome its return. I have often compared it to a well-run seminar, which is not inappropriate for a site with so many educators.
The main thing I remember from the Vicki Beeching affair is how hateful so many of the Christians, especially on Twitter, came off. I found much of it literally stomach turning. The same is true with the wedding invitation Jessica spoke of above. That is not a good way for Christians to present. We shouldn’t misrepresent what we believe, but we must not be hateful about it.
Doctrine is fine, we need it, and something Geoffrey said in that linked search is something that many of us Americans can relate to. When language is plain, which should accept its plain meaning. Seems simple, doesn’t it? But doing that would put to rest about 90% of our constitutional arguments, and in many ways, doctrine is our constitution as Christians.
But doctrine is not pastoral care, nor is it evangelization. Again we should not misrepresent, but we must converse to impart either comfort or to help with faith. Doctrine can be, likely should be, black and white – do this, don’t do that. But in the real world, gray exists, and we must work with what we have, where we are, resupply isn’t going to happen, this is a come-as-you-are war. And most of the time, we are not going to have time to research all the millions of words written, we are going to have to deal with the problem presented as well as we can, with God’s help, and do it right now. Part of which is knowing how Jesus and the Apostle’s acted in similar cases.
Those who know me will recognize that this is how I organize my thoughts when presented new information, so if I did a good job of reading, maybe it can help someone else to, as well
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
One common theme, with Jock and others, is to compare things which are not the same and suggest they should be treated the same.
Alcoholism (which Jock keeps mentioning) is a recognised disease with recognised cures. Homosexuality is not, and increasingly psychiatrists do not treat transgenderism as one, although they recognise the strains the condition places on those who have it. So, treating them, pastorally, as though they were ill, is not going to get us to first base.
I don’t claim to have the answers, but I can recognise the wrong approach a mile off. Where we begin with the assumption that someone else is ill and we need to out them into uniforms and that will set them right, I don’t think we are even asking the right questions if that’s the answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
This morning’s Daily Service was from Edinburgh and covered how Christ dealt with the man who scared his community and was living apart from them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I’m not sure I agree, but then I’m not sure I disagree. While I’m sure there are legitimate sufferers, and likely you’re right about them. This whole furor recently all across the western world smacks much too much of an orchestrated campaign for some benefit or another. But the strange thing about that is that in almost all cases, the shouting is not by the sufferers, and that leads me to doubt. Now that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t deal with them, and I have no clue on what to do, but it must be done in a caring and sympathetic matter and deal with individuals.
But too much of this has become a campaign to infringe on other’s rights instead of looking for tolerance, and help, both of which I’m pleased to help with. But I’m not prepared to allow infringement of other people’s rights in that quest. And sorry, but I’m not convinced there is a significant definitional difference between sex and gender. Maybe there is, but everything I’ve seen is political.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
Here is a mighty witness.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ex-gay-homosexuality-is-just-another-human-brokenness
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Annie – except that Jessica isn’t presenting it as a ‘human brokenness’. If she was, then she wouldn’t get the bad reaction that she has been getting.
The Salvation Army was all about showing people that Christ loved them even in their sinner-hood. In Salvation Army talk, ‘sin’ meant ‘alcoholic liquor’. They didn’t leave people in their alcoholism. They did everything they could to get people off the bottle. They engaged them in the church by sticking them in a uniform, teaching them some rudimentary skills with a brass instrument, arranging tunes beautifully where each part was simple to play and getting them involved in a brass band – to beautiful effect. That was one of the things. The whole point is that they didn’t leave them in their alcoholism.
I see absolutely nothing in Jessica’s post about recognising that this is a ‘human brokenness’ and that people can be transported out of it through the Love of Christ. This is where it all goes wrong on this blog – and has been for several weeks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Annie said:
Did you get through the whole article Jock?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
I got as far as the beginning of the interview – and got the general idea. It’s not what JH has been writing about all these weeks (or if it is then she didn’t make a very good job of it).
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Ex gay me, ex Catholics, ex Protestants, ex Christians, all people who offer one view of where they used to be. Have you tended to find such views an accurate reflection of the place they left Jock?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
What I have been trying to do is to suggest that taking the view that people who do not, according to those qualifies to know, have medical problems should be treated as though they do. Of course, Jock, if you are a qualified practitioner who can show us that the medical bodies here and the US are wrong, do feel free to explain why.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Jock, it’s like you don’t understand the point here. Jess isn’t advocating for or against anything here. This isn’t a lecture course in mathematics, complete with right and wrong answers. This is a seminar, she’s trying to fairly present more than one view of complex issues so we can try to work our way through them and gain some insight. If you come to these, and you’re in your comfort zone, well you’re the only one. This is what we’ve always been about here, rationally and coolly trying to find trees in the forest. It only works with good will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
NEO – my ‘comfort zone’ is keeping in step with the Holy Spirit.
I understand all too well what is going on here – the ‘more than one view of complex issues’ basically means tolerance towards a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. That, at any rate, is how I have understood NT Wright ever since I first heard of his ‘new perspective’ on Romans approximately 14 years ago (it was new to me back then – but it is substantially older and by that time he had probably moved onto his ‘even newer perspective on Romans’).
I didn’t understand until Jessica’s post that ++Williams had swallowed it hook line and sinker (and uses it as a basis – as if it has been accepted into the lexicon – for his theological developments).
Anyway, I’m out of here. As I indicated earlier, I was attracted here in the first place by Geoffrey writing a series on Pilgrim’s Progress. I don’t really see any point in participating in a blog which is more about solving Jessica’s personal problems than anything else – and I’m not so interested in blogs which degenerate into discussions about abortion, homosexuals and Muslims – although I understand that this is necessary in order to inflate the viewing figures.
LikeLike
NEO said:
No it means a discussion, advocate for your view all you want. But it is just that a view, as is mine. Nothing to do with viewing figures, they’re actually down when we do this, compared to shouting at each other.
Jessica’s problems, if she has any, are none of our concern, and I’m quite sure she can find better pastoral advice than on a blog.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. God bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
NEO – I think you’re blind to what is going on. Firstly, Jessica’s style hasn’t been a reasonable ‘discussion’ style for some time – that’s the main reason that a large number of good people (in addition to those you actually wanted to drive away) have actually left.
Secondly – the blog has, for some time, been centred around Jessica’s personal problems -and this has been off-putting.
I suspect that you’ll be the last one standing when the rest of us have left.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The consonance between the problems facing the Churches in the Western world and what you call my ‘personal problems’ are more or less one to one in ratio – as you’d have realised it you did have the slightest idea what was going on here.
The difference is between someone on the front line and trying to get things done in the name of the Spirit, and those theorising – which is why Geoffrey and Rob ‘get it’ and you don’t. If your comfort zone really was that of the Spirit, you wouldn’t call it a comfort zone.
LikeLike
NEO said:
No Jock, I’m a realist. I look at the numbers most every day, as does Jessica, and C. we all saw a modest dip when some ran off to their safe spaces, and then we saw a rebound as we started having good discussion again. I pretty much know what Jessica’s problems are, she’s my dearest friend after all, and these post have at most tangential congruity with them, mostly none. if you can’t handle discussion, in a rational manner, well you’ll be happier in your safe space as well. This is the adults taking over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
You don’t actually have a clue Jock. The things I am writing about are recognised by others active in evangelism like Rob and Geoffrey. Perhaps you need a safe space too – hope you find it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
We are all broken, Jock. There are even people who, without know such people, think that people choose to be homosexual or transgender, and that it could be treated like alcoholism.
LikeLike
Annie said:
Here is the link from today’s Daily Service… labels can obscure the person and allow us to objectify them. Challenging them and embracing the person is what Jesus came to do with us and told us to do likewise.
Pax
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07cvt24
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
I was a dedicated smoker for over 30 years and my smokes were as important to me as any alcoholic’s beverage so can sympathise with anyone feeling compelled to carry on with previous behaviour because they feel that is who I am… love me, love my dog etc. It would never occur to me now to call myself an ex-smoker but that is what I am but I am also more than that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Annie, thank you so much. I had not realised you could get these on catch up, and am grateful to you.
Yes, we must not objectify anyone, and we we must encourage them to come to Jesus, and then, yes, they will be challenged and we can help. It is the coming to him first which is now the hard part in this society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Bingo, Ann. So much of what I object to is this practice of forcing everyone into these little boxes. We’re not a bunch of characteristics, We’re individual human beings, and the individual is the only minority I’m interested in. As I said above, when people are forced into groups, far too often it is an effort to use them for gain, and often with no benefit to them, in fact often to their detriment. Usually, it’s some political or quasi-political group looking for money for questionable ends, or looking for the power to coerce others.
It also has the effect of making people that are different in some, often minor, way from us into the dreaded ‘Other’, and that can cause real harm even leading to war itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Annie said:
Smoking used be regarded as a sexy and cool thing to do not do long ago.
Keeping faith with the God who created and is recreating us, we who take Christ’s name are to be the salt of the earth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
Have you heard of the “Hound of Heaven”, Francis Thompson’s poem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
“I am He whom thou seekest…” http://www.bartleby.com/236/239.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
The Kingdom of God http://www.bartleby.com/236/245.html
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I have, but haven’t read it since school.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Ay, say, good sister….heres something from your neck of the woods;
Former Brothers Help Each Other in Their Transition to Becoming Sisters
Jamie and Chloe O’Herlihy share a unique story unlike most Irish sisters — they were born brothers.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-brothers-help-other-transition-202100027.html
LikeLike