I’ve written enough on this subject already. But I sense a need to summarize some thoughts especially in light of this post by Craig Carter. I think Craig’s got me wrong and frankly inhabits a position that does not meet the demands of mission to a sexually broken society. I’ll respond to Craig’s post in next few days when I get a minute. For now, I’d like to put forward a summary of the whole thing by posting a comment from the last post. It’s by Jon Trott. Jon encapsulates the challenges, the practices and the shape of the “welcoming and mutually transforming community” as it seeks to incarnate the sexual redemption of Jesus Christ.
Living in an intentional community of very imperfect people, of which I am certainly one, I might add that sexuality within a Christian community ought to entail confession, transparency, and restoration. This could also be formulated as repentance / restoration, but that implies sexual failure, which is not always the case; one can be tempted without falling. But the need for others walking alongside — others who also transparently admit their own struggles sexually and otherwise — is one of the great lacks in the Church today. It startles me how dishonest we are individually and corporately about the near-universality of sexual temptation. How do we minister to one another? Living as I do, I have the amazing luxury of being able to walk down the hallway on most days to a friend’s room, pull him aside, and ask for prayer and/or counsel re being tempted sexually. These days, it is more often just “Five minutes to live by” — a quick confession of feeling weak or even entertaining sexual thoughts — followed by a prayer. Why do this? Why not just do it on my own? Because the act of becoming transparent before my brother also makes me accountable to him as a representative of Jesus. I know the difference — he’s not going to rescue me or condemn me. But looking into his eyes and telling the truth about myself sexually is a place to start facing my own struggles in a deeper way than I otherwise might.
There’s so much more to this… as someone who does believe in the work of mutability groups such as Exodus International (in part because I know people — see them daily — who have changed their orientation), I do bear witness to what the Scriptures say regarding homosexuality. But I don’t think homosexuality is where the conversation starts or ends. Rather, it is part of the human journey toward wholeness that Jesus uniquely enables us to walk into.
In this simple comment, Jon describes what I think gets at some the essential elements of a “welcoming and mutually transforming community” that I have tried to articulate in this long series of posts (you can read them all by clicking onto the Women/GLBTQ category). Jon’s community (the JesusPeopleUSA Community of Chicago) manages to occupy the broken position thereby inviting everyone to see their brokeness not from a position of power (making public pronouncements). We’re all in this together. This hopefully becomes a place where we do not engage “the other” from platitudes which mean little in this age where the words “heterosexual,” “gay,” “lesbian” mean any number of things. Jon’s community engages in regular concrete practices where the examination of one’s self, desires and the reshaping of those desires is all part of a communal language, liturgy and practice. Jon’s community appears to do all of this while continuing to live within the historical wisdom of the Christian tradition, that same sex unions and many other kinds of sexuality miss the purposes of God’s creation and His work for sexual redemption in our lives. I don’t know everything about JPUSA community in Chicago. I am sure there is some dirt here too. Yet Jon’s words give a little vision of what is possible through incarnationally inhabiting a context for the sexual redemption God has begun in Christ for the world.
My questions are: 1.) Is this possible in non-proximal intentional communities? say in “groups of three,” or other forms of redemptive community. 2.) Why does my brother Craig Carter have such a problem with this? If anything I expected more push back from the traditional Emergent folk who I consider my friends but have been largely silent on this particular approach I am pushing for. What’s going on here?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
i posted this on craig's blog as well.
that homosexuality is considered a sin indicates that christendom is still struggling to fully embrace the new covenant of christ, because to stand on homosexuality being a sin comes against the principles of the new covenant of christ.
romans1: 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
those being gay have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to those being heterosexual. they have not been found to be less a father, friend, attorney, counselor, teacher, administrator, doctor, neighbor, brother, spouse, etc.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
im not talking about a group that acknowledges something is a sin but continues to do it, but one that holds that being gay is of god and is good.
surely those given over to advocating and valuing something that is against god would show show obvious deterioration in their lives compared to those who didnt. isnt that what 12 step is about, people who have been given over to those things are against god, their lives showing a deterioration, losing their businesses, families, friends, faith, etc.
gay believers who have married, an action to certify what they are given over to, their marriages are flourishing along with their faith. in fact the fruit of the spirit fills their lives and marriages in the same way as those of heterosexual believers. choosing to deny fellowship to gay believers, by trumping 1cor over 1john1, gives no excuse.
as indicated by peter at cornelius's house, john5 by christ, and 1john1 we believers are called to have witness that substaniates our beliefs formed from our interpretaions of scripture. choosing not to have one gives no excuse.
bottom line: where the spirit rests indicates what is of god.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
this was what jesus was talking about in john7, when he CHOSE to heal a man on the sabbath(in another case he TOLD the man to pick up and carry his bed) that in spite of the law about honoring the sabbath(num15……god told moses directly to kill a man for gathering wood on the sabbath, an execution that was to be witnessed by the whole assembly)
john7: 21Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
BEING HOMOSEXUAL does not come against the godlove(love one another as i have loved you)of the 2nd commandment…. love your neighbor as yourself, the summation of all new covenant the law. (knowing 1john4:20 that one cannot love god unless he is loving his neighbor also)
CONTINUED
Hey John r,
Thanks for coming on the blog.
We can argue Scripture all day I suppose. I don't see the point. I for instance wonder how you can quote Rom 1:20 the way you do in light of the 10 verses that follow? But I don't see the point of such debate.
I'd rather just offer that if you see no brokeness personally in your life (whatever "orientation" you profess), then you would have no reason to join in with those of us who do see it in our lives. Right? If you have no need for sexual redemption, what sense would a welcoming and mutually transforming sexually redemptive community make? So seriously, I am not trying to convince you of anything … that's not my job. My calling is rather to witness to and offer a way to those who ARE deeply troubled and hurting in their varous sexual struggles … Amen? Can i ask, what problem you would have with that?
peace bro
David Fitch
about exodus: i have no doubts of the healing in christ anywhere. if a man's witness that he is healed, then as a fellow believer it is for me to honor his testimony. my understanding from the exodus website is that it is about sexual addiction. sexual addiction exists among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. there may be also issues of sexual identity. if a gay man even in the midst of an affirming heterosexual marriage can discover that he is gay, why cannot heterosexual man in a gay marriage discover that he is heterosexual? what does that have to with the orientation.
the next ten verses of romans is paul describing the basis of all sin, how it is in everyone to show that all need a savior. that is why romans 2:1 says you who judge another, condemn yourselves because you do the very same things.
"they exchanged the truth of god's love(god is love) for a lie and worshipped and served the created(powers and principalities………..the things christ said we were to battle against) and were given over to the things that served them ……………shameful lust. because of their shameful lust they abandoned the things of their heart, their relationships with their women, the things that were of and embraced the fruit of the spirit that brought them peace for the things that were not and did not. their due penalty self hatred and self loathing.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
abandonment…………homosexuals have never had a heart to be bonded with women, not from their first sexual memory, but instead the same sex 24/7 their entire lives. those gay believers that marry, their lives and marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as those of heterosexual believers. one cannot abandon something they never had.
shameful lust………….where there is lust there is no relationship, the participants are there solely to satiate their lust. there are million reasons to have sex with with someone that has nothing to do with lust, even passion. if homosexuality of itself is a sin, why the necessity to mention anything about shameful lust.
natural………….anything that is natural of god is not about physicality. god is spirit. the things of god are about spirit. what is natural of god are the things that are about the fruit of the spirit. physicality has no limit to god "he will turn these stones into the sons of god."
there is no "only" in genesis and matthew 19. and eunuche is not about physicality. there have been those who have been born without the equipment to have intercourse who still married women.
John r …
There's no way for me to engage your argument here. Sorry … it's complex, I'm not following it all, and so probably best to be carried on over a face to face conversation. I'd be happy to talk if you're ever around Northern Sem or if our paths can cross some other way. Blessings !
the relationship of the law to the spirit of christ: it is like placing a bright light in a dark room that is without light. the light is christ, the shadows the law. the law is about the absence of the light. the shadows are not the light. if the light is holy, its shadows are holy as well. if you turn away from the light, the shadows indicate the presence of the light and from where it comes. but the form and shape of the shadows change if the light moves. the light always remains constant but the shadows can change depending on what the light is doing. to be led by the law requires turning ones back to the light. to led by the light requires turning ones back to the shadows. according to romans the law is to make believers "conscious" of NOT loving ones neighbor as oneself. it is the leading of the spirit that lives in believers that shows us what is the loving ones neighbor as oneself.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
"the law is but a shadow of things to come not the realities themselves"
gal5:24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
romans…."the sons of god are led by the spirit of god"
I'm going to love this aren't I?
one of the main reasons why i have been refused ordination in the free methodist church is because this issue, and i really need help fleshing out this statement.
"thereby inviting everyone to see their brokeness not from a position of power (making public pronouncements)"
this is where i see the problem. i don't fully see a need to have such a strong opinion on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, especially in terms of everything else we know about the gospel, reconciliation and sin. all things are good, we all sin, god redeems all things. This is the beginning and end of the story. I don't know how the homosexuality debate of right or wrong fits into it. But what you said there hit a chord, I really think you are onto something.
Thanks for doing this David, I look forward to more posts
" Sorry … it's complex," legalities are complex. christ's love is simple. perhaps this is why mother teresa instructed her nuns in ministering to basically mostly hindus not to engage in discussions about christ, but instead be christ.
within this whole issue is this concern of being holy, when it is christs spirit living in us that makes us holy…..his love.
there is no question about it that the way christendom has used an understanding of a law passed down generationally, that they still have one foot in the old covenant which has long since passed away. under the new covenant, believers no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28 but directly to the spirit that lives in each believer. in the new covenant christ has become that regulation, because fulfillment of the law is christ's love. how i long for believers saying i took my understanding to christ and thru my relationship in him this is what i have come to understand.
col1: 15christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
It seems Craig was really bothered by your comment about not making any "Preset Public Statements". I think he was misunderstanding your intent because I think I know what you mean but I'd love to hear clarification. What exactly do you mean by this? In preaching on Scriptural texts that reference sexual immorality, does "No Preset Public Statements" exclude the possibility of talking about homosexuality (or a host of other acts).
I guess what I'm getting at is, could you define "public"? I read that as representing the church (little c) to those outside of the church.
Nathan, these are the discernments that must be engaged with great care … I sense you're walking in prayer and with careful discernment … Jeff … i hope to address Craig's concerns more directly here in the next couple days … I think they're worth engaging … DF
This subject causes me to ask, "What is freedom?" What is freedom within a small community, within a christian community, and within a country? Do I want to force my beliefs or values on others or do I want the beliefs or values of others forced upon me?
I love the idea of the constitution of the United States because it continues to wrestle with the questions of freedom. This subject on sexuality wrestles with what freedom is and ultimately with what freedom in Christ is.
Traditionally, the approach to resolving these issues of sexual freedom was through forcing or shaming others to behave "right' – a behavioral approach rather than a heart approach. I don't think LGBTQ needs to be an issue unless we are in close community and my sexuality impedes my relationship with others. For example, if I am a sexual addict, it will affect my relationships with my community. If I choose not to address my addiction then I am choosing to 'love" my addiction over God and my community. This applies to all sexual orientation. I hope what I am saying here makes sense.
Good Lord. Homosexuality is an abomination in the OT and NT. You can't be living in that sin. I'm not going to affirm a homosexual or any other sexual relationship outside of marriage of one man and one woman to each other. No other relationship is spoken about because there's no other relationship God wants. If I have a relationship outside of covenant marriage, then I am a sinner and need to repent and not do it again.
That means all people having any other relations outside of the one above need to STOP and NEVER go back.
Hi Dave. My sense is that you were hoping to elevate the conversation above the typical, "You're not tolerant," vs. "You don't trust Scripture," punching contest. Unfortunately it seems that some in this conversation are only interested in the typical approach. The typical rants don't land as hard on me as they used to. I've found that many conservatives are quite aware of their brokenness and open to relationships within the GLBT community. And I've found that many in the GLBT community strive to take Scripture seriously and do not see sexuality as the thing that defines who they are. So despite the loudest voices here, I think your approach helps move things in a positive direction. Thanks for the concerted effort and sensitivity to God's Spirit.
lewr,
Before you go off on such a rant again, could you show me one place in the many blog posts on the subject which disagree with anything you just said? Or maybe you are responding to comments? I'm confused as to what you are responding to?
Matt … cool .. and thanks
Dave,
I wonder if the issue with "issuing public comments" doesn't lie more with the "how" rather than simply the "what". When evangelicals tend to "issue public comments" about the topic of homosexuality, they tend to often be done in a way that doesn't build bridges and creates unfortunate caricatures of the evangelical community in general. For example, many evangelicals will sign petitions, picket, wear buttons, pass resolutions and more. Yet these do little more than appease the evangelical conscience that "I am doing something in the name of Christ. If I am persecuted, I am even more blessed." It seems to me that "public statements" (and I'm not even sure that I would classify this as a "public statement") should be reserved for preaching/teaching only when appropriate to the text and consistent with sound Biblical hermeneutics. Even then it should be done in the following ways: 1) With a confession that all are broken people. 2) With the confession that evangelicals have done a terrible job at trying to serve, minister and connect to individuals dealing with sexual issues. 3) With a confession that this sin is no worse than any other sin. 4) With a recognition that sexual sin is not simply a matter of choice but is far more complicated than simply "choosing". 5) All "public statements" should be accompanied by concrete acts that desire to express authentic love and compassion in the spirit of Christ. Perhaps if done in this vein, we would not have to hesitate or apologize for "public statements." After all if we follow the Biblical texts using the church calendar, sooner or later we must face it. Appreciate your blog and insights…you always keep life interesting. Miss having coffee with you and chatting.
CWMoore