Pax

Chambers’ own handicap — infertility — forced him and his wife to adopt. Now he projects his own sexual handicap, his own sense of inadequacy, onto gay people.

What nerve.

As I have stated before, there are people “missing” from the Body and they can be found in the gay community and we would be far better off with them than without. God would rather have a handicapped child than no child at all.

If he is sincere about welcoming gays in his church then his church will need to adjust to the needs of the gay community. And the LGBT people he invites are going to have to feel welcomed which I honestly don’t think Chambers and his brew can accomplish in all reality. It is one brand of Christianity (amongst many others) that has caused so much damage to the individual lives of so many LGBT people who sincerely seek to find God and a place to worship. If his words are sincere then Exodus will need to make a 180 degree turn around, otherwise, as Shakespeare said, his words are “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

DR

Today’s Christian gays, particular the “Side A’s” seem to have no real cognizance of the surprising brevity of this new theology that they cling to to justify their active homosexuality.

There are many doctrines and beliefs that have been seeds in the deposit of faith that have taken many years to germinate. The understanding of homosexuality is one of them. During the Middle Ages there are many poems glorifying homosexuality amongst monks and nuns (since they were usually the only ones who could write).

Another such belief is having a lifetime partner. Marriage was usually just a means for procreation. It was never considered a defined sacrament for Christianity for over 1200 years of Christian history. It took the Church a long time to acknowledge it, and it merely required the couple perform the sacrament in front of a priest. One major reason for marriage to be performed in front of a priest was to ensure priests were not marrying and having offspring, thus robbing the church of property.

The Church Fathers took a dim view of sexuality all together mainly because fathering children and having a spouse took away from a man’s duties as a Christian. That’s why men and women were encouraged to become monks and nuns after they fulfilled their marriage duties. In other words, once they had a sufficient amount of children and the children were able to be on their own (for the girls it meant they got married off, became nuns, or worked for the nobility), the couple were free to work in the Church.

It was during the Protestant Reformation times that relationships between men and women began to change. Protestantism actually aided in expanding Christianity’s understanding of sexuality. Wives were looked more as companions rather than just baby machines. Other factors during this time helped in making this a reality.

Protestantism showed that a man and woman can be productive in the Church as a couple. They did not have to wait until their children left the house in order to be productive members of the Christian community.

This led to the role of women in the Church be more inclusive, as Protestantism in the 21st century has demonstrated with female bishops, priests and preachers taking leadership roles that would have been unheard of in St. Augustine’s time.

For some of us Christians, this is a sign of the Spirit moving the Church forward to accomplish its mission of being truly “Catholic” meaning “embracing all.”

As an Orthodox Catholic I have no problem understanding how and why it takes the Church a long time to acknowledge something like same-sex marriage. I don’t negate that there were times in the Church’s history that the Church took different views on different subjects, homosexuality included.

Take the case of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There were Church Fathers who denied it and used Scripture in doing so. The Eastern Orthodox consider it an unnecessary belief because of their understanding of Original Sin. It took the Church a long time to come to grips with the concept, and was not defined until the 19th century by the Roman Church. Other parts of Christianity either deny it or do not consider it relevant to the Christian faith as a whole. As someone who believes in the Immaculate Conception, it doesn’t phase me that it took the Church a long time to define it, nor that there was and is opposition to it.

It has taken the Church a long time to understand and accept homosexuality. And there are those in the Church who accept it and those who don’t. There are branches of Christianity that embrace the LGBT community and those that don’t. Like with any doctrine or belief, there will be divisions that only time and God’s grace can heal.

Today’s Christian gays, particular the “Side A’s” seem to have no real cognizance of the surprising brevity of this new theology that they cling to to justify their active homosexuality. In light of history, and of Christian thought, it’s a mere puff of wind. They don’t know the history from where it comes, nor do they understand that this new theology was manufactured by homosexuals in the church as a way to find any mechanism by which to justify what, prior to their arguments, had always been considered immoral.

Emily is quite correct. Dan has been around here long enough to know that making such smears against the beliefs of people of good conscience is unacceptable. Beyond that, I have been watching this thread swiftly change course to orbit around Dan, with no more discernible purpose than to reinforce his own world view. Intentionally or not, this tends to sabotage discussion and reduce the quality of debate for all concerned.

Dan, I have reviewed your comments since you started making them at XGW. They are infrequent but in each burst you repeat this pattern. They are tedious and smug, and they center the discussion around you in short order. The result is not a meeting of the minds or even “iron sharpening iron” but an argument of attrition.

A desire to provide an atmosphere of open discussion leads me to be patient, even though that does not come naturally for me. But my concern is that we also provide a relatively safe space with honest debate. I think it works well most of the time, but it isn’t working right now.

I’m going to ask that you apologize for the statement above — you can not possibly know the intent of those who interpret scripture differently than you on this issue. Your statement was callous and demeaning to some very sincere, honest believers. In addition, I’m going to ask that for the foreseeable future, you limit your comments to one or two paragraphs maximum, with no more than a few lines each. Use the quote above as the maximum. And in these comments, make one concise point germane to the original post.

It is my interest to see if there is any way you can contribute in a positive way to the discussion. The alternative at this point is to ask you to stop commenting, which of course is always your choice. For the rest, please either continue commenting sans Dan’s remarks, or go on to the next thread.

Thank you for your cooperation, and I apologize that such an interruption was necessary. XGW is not an idle project; their are lives behind what we discuss.

Dan, Alan Chambers is not capable of “upholding a moral teaching.” He is a constant liar and promotes hatred and discrimination against gay people in the US and overseas. His actions and inactions with regard to the Exodus sponsored Ugandan conference and the subsequent anti-gay campaign that has grown out of the conference are about as despicable as it gets. Let’s not forget about Uganda’s violent past or that many Tutsi’s went into exile in Uganda. Uganda and its neighbors have suffered far more violence recently than any people should ever experience. Why stoke the flames?

By comparison, his reference to gay people as handicapped is so minor as to be inconsequential. All it does is call attention to the severely handicapped life that he “struggles” with every day, while trying to make the rest of us as miserable as he is.

Dan, if your mission in life is to stand up and defend Alan Chambers against unfair criticism, I think you are wasting your time. I’m not sure it is possible to unfairly criticize Alan Chambers. He deserves to be called out on every single horrible thing that he does. If you want an example of someone “living in sin,” I would suggest you focus on the dishonest, underhanded, contemptible life that Alan Chambers is living. I think it might be more educational than waxing on and on about some old quote from CS Lewis.