Not much I can, Chris. You said it all. The only extra thing is a (quasi)theological point: If God says something is really, really, wrong, and really offensive to His purity and goodness, and a human being holding a position of authority in the church which He founded and of which He is the Head says that God was wrong about it (OK, let’s be charitable, God was so hopeless a communicator that the church He founded misunderstood Him for 2,000, until finally getting it right now) then what does that say about that human being’s view of the God he worships?

And what does it say about God’s likely view of that human being, who purports to speak for Him?

There are all these other verses, see, the ones about leading sheep astray and what happens to shepherds that do that. They do not end well.

Couldn’t the argument be made that such relationships are a from of idolatry?

I recommend the interviews of the three bishops that Kevin posted on his Anglican TV site. They also explain the real problem with the “inclusive” agenda. Great theology.

Mr. Johnson

I admire you ability and tenacity which allows you to to slop through this sort of porcine bowl excretion.

I was lost at the word “inclusive.” “Inclusive” apparently means to this apostate that Christians must accept the exchange of fecal matter through insertion of the penis into the rectal cavity between males as the purpose of the Incarnation.

Christ was probably the most “non-inclusive” person ever. “He who is not with me is against me. “Some will say ‘Lord, Lord, and I will say I never knew you.’ “Which is said for you and for many,’ ‘Narrow is the gate.’ etc.”

I hope, through Christ, to be present in Abraham’s bosom, when the smoke rising forever and ever from Hell from demons such as this fool, appears to all the angels and saints.

Episcopalians and Anglicans are beyond apostates – they have become the haven of demons and other foul things.

Pray for the repentence of this heretic and the souls who will follow after his teaching

Pastor Luz Morales of the First Congregational Church of the Zeitgeist in the Fidel Castro District of San
Francisco explains it all:

“We’ve all heard that the Bible calls homosexual activity an abomination. But that was considered to be the Word of God for a different people at a different time. We are ways smarter now than those old superstitious people. We have advances of science that those primitive folks could not have imagined.

“So, now we know, because all the really smart progressive people say so, that the old view is not true. Let’s face it: God made a mistake. It happens. Sort of a divine brain fart. I mean, God made humans in Her image, and we make mistakes all the time, and say things we don’t mean. So, if we’re just like God, She could have a blonde moment, too.

“Fortunately for God, modern people are around to correct Her when She gets it wrong. Peace out!”

If he believes that portions of the Bible are only the human authors expressing their opinions on ANYTHING he cannot use the Bible to back any argument for or against anything. Oh, at that point he is no longer evangelical.

>Numerous studies show that suicide rates among gay people, especially young people, are comparatively high. Church leaders sometimes use this data to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy when tragically it’s anti-gay stigma, propped up by Church attitudes, which, all too often, drives these statistics.

Actually, all the studies show is that the suicide rates among homosexual remains constant REGARDLESS of their environment. The suicide rates in places like the UK – one of the most Godless and most pro-Gay countries in the world, and San Fransisco – the centre all things Homosexual, matches the rates of Mexico or, say, Nigeria.

Which means the only constant at work is the orientation of the homosexuals themselves which implies very heavily that the Church is trying to SAVE them from suicide while the likes of Mr “let’s-shag-anything-we-like-no-really” is driving them towards it.

Oh, and the reason I get so sarcastic about this issue is because when certain people say, “Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because people’s lives are at stake” I think to myself… “Actually, it’s all about oppressing the Christian, closing down free speech, eliminating freedom of conscience, and generally spreading tyranny.”

Why do I say that?

‘Cause the likes of Mr Dork Brain and the Gay activists MADE ME LEAVE MY COUNTRY! I left my family, friends, every single damn possession I ever had, my career in IT management and have had to rebuild everything from scratch because I knew if I stayed, sooner or later I would have to sign an “Equality Contract” to declare my faithfulness to the Gay Gospel and/or deny my faith in order to work and eat.

It’s not just the Gays whose lives are at stake. People like me are ALREADY affected by activists! We are already being driven from our homs. And those who stay KNOW they are waiting for prison. They KNOW!

When the Christians are rounded up and shot – and, yes, it will come to that. The Christians have ALWAYS been shot in atheistic societies which the UK is… will ‘Mr Passionate’ be taking truth to the power to save the Christians?

Well, if he can betray them this far why not go all the way?

“through prayerful reflection,…” But of course! and so we get:

“One tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of faithful polygamous relationships is our failure to provide polygamous people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, monogamy”, and

“One tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of polyamorous relationships is our failure to provide polyamorously inclined people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, monogamous relationship” and finally,

“the tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of (name your sin) is our failure to provide (sinful) people with any model of how to cope with their (sinful inclination) except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, (not giving in to their inclination).

Simply put: if we redefine what is sin, there will no longer be any sin and the Kingdom of Evil will flourish on earth. Christ’s injunction to “go and sin no more” will finally be overcome.

Oookay… now, there are a couple of reasonable points here. First, unchaste lives apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and if we’re pointing the finger at Bill and Steve shacked up together, but we pass over in silence (for the sake of peace) Joe and Sally, even where Joe left his wife and/or Sally left her husband to get married, or had the affair before getting married, or Joe is currently living with Sally but had a previous relationship with Jane and has a child by Susie through a fling, or Sally is on husband no. 3 (this time for sure!) – then we’ve got a lot of catching up to do on the old “sex is for marriage and marriage is for life” preaching.

Secondly, yes, we do need to offer a model to people as to how to live chastely, particularly in reply to “You at least have the option of getting married, but you’re telling me I can’t even have that.” Eve Tushnet is doing a lot of good work on the idea of redeeming the concept of friendship and using it as a model of intimacy and support for gay people trying to live chastely.

All that being said, if you’re really going the “Jesus was culturally bound by the taboos and prejudices of His time” route, Steve, forget about it!

Condensed version of above: yes, the Church needs to develop and offer resources to help people (straight as well as gay) live according to the Gospel in their sexual and romantic lives.

Redefining what is and is not sin is not the way to do it.

I mean.. was it really THAT bad of a thing to occasionally have to light these people over a stake and cordwood?

It has been my experience that when I find myself “grappling with the Bible” then it usually is the case that I am doing it wrong. I may be trying to make it say what it clearly does not say.

Grappling with the Bible should be a clue that something is wrong that needs correcting. The Bible is meant to convict us of our sins as well as offer us the hope of salvation by the merits of Jesus sacrifice on the Cross.

When you find yourself grappling with Scripture go get competent help. I know that is harder now than it used to be because so many ordained clergy have gone over to the Dark Side. But there are still plenty of orthodox clergy around to give guidance and direction.

This man is in need of prayer and guidance. He has stryed from the Word and needs help to find his way back. But I doubt he even realizes it.

One other poing. If Philemon is not a letter about freeing slaves, I don’t know what it is.

“The author”? That would be the Incarnate Son of God, sir. There’s the rub. Redefining the message entails redefining the source.

And, yes, Chris, all of this is intensely offensive to unmarried adults. A celibate life can be lonely, certainly, but it need not involve secrecy and fear unless it also involves sin. For that, the Lord Himself came and died and rose and offers forgiveness. We are not perfect, and we fail to live as He wills, in this matter and many others. As Deacon Harmon points out above, those who teach that we should just give up trying to live according to God’s will are worse than the hapless sinners they mislead.

The Oasis Charter reflects what happens when the church wants to ‘partner’ with the government for funding purposes. “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14)The social gospel must not trump the great commission. That is not to say that the church should not minister to social outcasts. At the same time, the outcasts should be challenged by the church to put on Christ. Instead, the church is putting on the characteristics of the outcasts.

Some people call Steve Chalk an evangelical but they’ve had to redefine the word “evangelical” to do it.

..in my understanding, the principles of justice, reconciliation and inclusion sit at the very heart of Jesus’ message.

Well, see, that’s what’s wrong. The principal message of one of repentance and reconciliation through renunciation of sin. If he doesn’t even get that part right, then everything that follows is going to be wrong.

Another poster beat me to it but regarding the suicide rate, it is because they are engaging in behavior that is intrinsically disordered and moreover they willingly take on that disorder as their very identity.

Given that, nothing will give them lasting peace. The marriage thing is absurd, just a few years ago intellectuals claimed marriage was just a means for men to enslave women. No fault divorce and cohabittion were liberating. Now marriage is just the most wonderful thing ever?

Bigger issue is where will it end in the gayinistas quest to find peace? First dibs in adoptions? Mandatory instruction of school kids nation-wide? Arresting non-compliant clergy? Gulags? Hey, if they’ve got a suicide problem then someone else is murdering them, so what doesn’t that justify?

Lamberth conference 1930–way to go Anglicans. When sex no longer needed to be ordered towards procreation, this was what we got.

The good news is that claptrap like this doesn’t attract people capable of establishing stable communities. Hence their “churches” have a short shelf life during which to wreak their havoc.

Allen, I generally agree with you: my own crises of faith always turn out to be my attempts to justify my own preference for something other than Christ. Funny how that works. I would say that ordained clergy are not the only – sometimes not the best – source for spiritual direction. Christians have a long history of seeking out holy monks and nuns, and today we have devoted and well-prepared lay folks available. For myself, I’ve found that when I repent, things become a lot clearer, and God speaks (I hear Him speak) all over the place.

But clergy are good too.

Gay suicide is higher than straight everywhere. It’s erported higher in gay-friendly large coastal cities than in rural areas and the South, which may be an artifact of the population being out enough for more accuracy, but it is still a higher rate.

People have taken to putting quotation marks around “marriage” when it is same-sex. We shouldn’t do that.

Instead say, two-males-in-a-barren-mutual-masturbation-arrangement-given-a-legal-rubberstamp-by-a-government-at-war-with-reality.

“The Bible writers didn’t know about stable, homosexual relationships.”

Don’t give them that argument:

My understanding is that the Roman emperor during NT times was in a stable homosexual relationship that everyone, including Paul, knew about. Gay Marriage was also widespread. Juvenal (60-140 A.D.) and Martial (c. 40-102 A.D.) wrote of formal marriage unions between homosexuals.

What sticks out in this guy’s writing is a refusal to label sin as sin. Sin is not “less than God’s best” or “falling short of God’s ideal.” This kind of mealy-mouthed mush has become popular throughout Christianity. This kind of understatement might be comforting for people who feel overwhelmed by their own sins. It might help some particularly weak souls to get back on track and to repent of their sins. Or it might serve as an excuse to remain in one’s sin, like a pig lying in muck.

Sin is the ACTIVE REJECTION of God’s goodness in some area of our lives. When we sin, we are directly telling God that we do not want His love.

I’m not very familiar with this Chalke fellow. Apparently, he’s fairly prominent. Just like Bishop N.T. Wright is fairly prominent. As well as ABC Rowan Williams.

They’re all caving compromising Neville Chamberlains.

Britain needs a Churchhill.

Erase Chalke.

Steve Chalke has 2 sons and 2 daughters, I wonder ……?

On the other hand, T19 is reporting that the English House of Laity have shown some common sense and decency by defeating a “no confidence” motion against its Chair merely because he expressed his opinion that the flawed Women Bishops measure should be defeated. Unlike TEC, so far in the CofE one can express one’s views without being thrown out.

“Sin is the ACTIVE REJECTION of God’s goodness in some area of our lives.”

No, sin is refusing to surrender and submit to GOD’s will, authority and dominion in some area of our lives.

PS – Someone needs to clue Chalke in on the CDC and police statistics, clinical medicine and mental health, and science research data that show:
- 44 times increased incidence of HIV
- 46 times increased incidence of all other STDs
- increased incidence of physical injuries (painful)
- increased incidence of mental health problems
- increased incidence of domestic violence, assault and murder.
- increased incidence of cancers, cronic bowel conditions and other diseases.

None of these is the result of social stigma, but actual biological consequences of dangerous deviant sexual activity.

Chalke should peruse this site before engaging in another public self-immolation on the flames of homophilia.

Whitestone,
I think you make an artificial distinction between God’s will and His goodness. And His love, for that matter.

Michael D: Those ‘formal marriage unions’ were of no legal force under Roman law — any more than the ‘orders’ that slaves gave their masters during Saturnalia. They were, as the article says, evidence of the grave moral decay in Roman society at that time; but they were not evidence of actual homosexual marriages. Nero did indeed play at marrying male slaves or other favourites; but Nero deemed himself above the law, and mocked every kind of convention as a matter of course. That was one reason why he was not only overthrown, but subjected to a formal decree of damnatio memoriae by the Senate — which essentially meant removing him from the list of emperors retroactively.

Elagabalus, the other emperor mentioned in the article, is not widely believed by historians to have committed most of the crimes and indiscretions attributed to him by the sources. The Historia Augusta, which is the principal source for the naughty stories about him, is notoriously unreliable. Almost the only thing you can definitely conclude, when you see someone attacked in that book, is that there was such a person to attack. Records for the Crisis of the Third Century are so sparse that we don’t have any good sources for several of the ephemeral emperors of that era, so the Historia Augusta remains in use as Hobson’s choice. That doesn’t make it a sound reference.

Juvenal, by the way, was a satirist, seldom named names except to defame his personal enemies, and is not a reliable source either.

Fuinseoig

Oh, give me a break! “Chaste” homosexuals, i.e. sexual perverts?

Where are they?

I fantasize about strangling puppies in front of children below 5 years of age. And then I fantasize about sodomizing the same children while their mothers watch. After which, I kill the children and roast their dead bodies and eat them.

But, according to you and your cohorts, I am “chaste” and therefore “OK” and a real Christian.

Christ: “Adultery in the heart….and all that jazz.”

Fool. You must be a Prot. Roman Catholics would never think that way. Do you march in Catholic areas on Orange Day?

Don,

A homosexual is one that is attracted to those of the same sex. That has nothing to do with their actions. And attraction does NOT mean lusting.

If you turn it around, then there can be no chaste heterosexuals either. And I suspect that there are a few around.

Not everyone has a problem with Lust. That is the sin, not the attraction.

Whitestone-

Thank you for the site. I’ve been really reading some Catholic blogs, which have severe infestations of Internet Atheist Trolls (IAT) making assertions about same-sex behavior that need data-based refutation.

Don, shame on you for that way over the top attack on Fuinseoig. You owe her an apology, and your harshness WRT homosexuals who try to live chastely is an affront to the faith as most of us understand it.

I might add to Anna’s remarks that even those of us who do have a problem with lust (of whom I am one) have a Savior who bore our sins just like Mr. Janousek’s. Or did He die only for sins that Don approves of? Are you without sin, sir? Do you never struggle with temptation?

I would further suggest that Matthew 5:22 might make for profitable reading.

If this blather comes from an “evangelical,” then the word has lost its meaning.

“Some will think that I have strayed from scripture – that I am no longer an evangelical. I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible’s authority, but by way of grappling with it and, through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously.”

What further proof is required for the truth of our host’s use of Soren Kierkegaards’s guiding principle for his own blog:

“Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible”.

Its climax: “There is no sin, but a failure by the traditional interpreters of the Bible to prayerfully provide accommodation, in the Spirit of the love of Christ Himself, for those who cannot or do to want to live by its principles”. i.e. another act of disappearance up one’s fundamental orifice, and in this case, that is a very appropriate comparison.

“your harshness WRT homosexuals who try to live chastely”

…was totally uncalled for there, Don. You may even know some chaste homosexuals without realizing it… because if they are chaste and sincerely trying to live a Christian life, chances are they aren’t running around making their sexual identity obvious to everyone, nor do they identify as “gay”. If chaste homosexuals don’t exist, then neither do chaste heterosexuals.

“If this blather comes from an “evangelical,” then the word has lost its meaning.”

Another word that’s lost its meaning: “Christian.”

And this one too: “Love.”

“You at least have the option of getting married, but you’re telling me I can’t even have that.”

I know that’s what some homosexuals think, and it’s funny to see what a warped concept of normal life these abnormal people carry around in their heads. They think that marriage is just something you can “get” any time you want. Need sex? No problem, you heterosexuals can just stop in at the 24-hour Marriage Mart and pick out a partner. Even if she’s not really what you had in mind, your sex requirements are guaranteed to be taken care of. Oh, all that “being in love” stuff is nice too, but if it doesn’t work out at least you’ve got sex. I’m sure they’ve noticed that there are a LOT of unmarried heterosexuals in the world, but they seem to imagine that they can deploy their “marriage parachute” any time they get tired of being single.

Well, I haven’t said it in awhile, so might add well: if you accept “a homosexual” as being an ontological category, as though “being gay” is a fundamental state of being, then the rest of this follows.

Don, I have no reason to believe that Eve is trying to undermine the teaching of the Church on chastity, marriage, and same-sex attraction by conducting a stealth campaign of being a hypocrite.

Suppose a straight man struggles with the temptation to lust, are we to say he is not really attempting to live a chaste life or to be faithful in his marriage if he feels the pull of sexual attraction to other women?

Oh sure, he never acts on those attractions and never has had an affair, and he tries to avoid occasions of sin precisely because he is aware of his weakness, but that doesn’t count! Unless he never ever feels so much as a twinge of “That’s a fine looking woman”, then according to you he is a pervert.

God help us all then, because unlike yourself, we are not pure in thought, word and deed.

And no, I don’t march anywhere on the 12th of July, Catholic area or not.

Look, drunkenness is a sin. The kind of destructive, destroying drunkenness that ruins families, wastes money, wrecks health, and causes misery all round.

And if someone gets sober out of that kind of life, they have to deal with it not by saying “Hey, I’m sober now, I’m fine!” Every day they have to remember that they’re an alcoholic. A sober alcoholic, but an alcoholic still.

Because the day they think “I’m not an alcoholic anymore”, that’s the day they are at risk of heading back down the path to drinking and wrecking things all over again.

And the same way with same-sex attraction: we have to acknowledge that someone is same-sex attracted and wired that way even if they’re not acting on those attractions. Otherwise, what do we do? Either tell them – as you put it – you’re a pervert and damned unless you turn straight, and send them off to give in and define themselves as “gay” and all that goes along with it, or lie about what their temptation is – you’re not gay anymore, so you don’t have to be careful about avoiding those temptations that you don’t have any more.

How, will you explain to me Don, does that help them live chastely? Or avoid making their sexuality the definition of them, rather than being a part of their personality like straight people? For those who can turn towards marriage and a family, good luck to them – but what of those who can’t? There have always been men who have tried to ‘cure’ themselves by getting married, and sometimes it works and sometimes it wrecks two or more lives. For those who can’t make themselves feel attracted to the opposite sex, but who do not want to be ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ in the sense of “This is what you are and all you are and the most important thing about you, so go out there and live the life!”, how do we help them? Tell them that they are unnatural monsters unless they can turn off those feelings and turn on others, even if they strive to live lives of no sex outside of marriage and purifying eros to caritas by seeking the grace of God?

I notice Don isn’t replying. Here’s what I think. Don is an essentially fine Christian who occasionally gives way to intemperate language here. He gets going and he goes way overboard, and unfortunately sometimes this involves attacking another commenter in ways that don’t have anything to do with the tenor of that commenter’s words here over months and years. That’s the case here, and it’s happened before. Fairly often he comes back and apologizes. This means that Don, like the same-sex attracted folks who struggle against the temptation, is a sinner who has access to God’s grace and forgiveness for occasional lapses. So do we all.

Yeah, what Don said isn’t the worst thing I’ve been called online. He could have left out the bit about puppy-strangling etc. but then again, I’ve been very intemperate at times and regretted it later.

Although I did get great amusement from being asked if I put on the Sash and march on the Twelfth – hmmm, should I be co-ordinating with my Norn Iron Church of Ireland minister brother-in-law about this?

Whiteside, I just used your medical stuff against an atheist on another blog who was ranting about the Evil Catholic Church for homophobia.

This particular fellow is a lot like John: long on opinions, short on actual facts, and smug beyond belief.