Well, hello.

Christmas was weird this year. Really weird. I always hate to be Debbie Downer. But I can't help but to point out what I see. Call it what you will, I'm just pointing it out. Asking questions and such...

Christmas is awful, if I may be blunt. The signs of "Jesus is the reason for the season" make my stomach turn. Because its not. Its just not anymore. I don't know a ton about the beginnings of it all. I do know that the Church decided to celebrate a new holiday (Christmas) to offset Saturnalia (a pagan holiday) and that we get a lot of our traditions from said day. I don't know what Christmas was like 100 years ago. But now... its just not about Jesus. Its about us. Its about money. Its about gifts. Not that I don't enjoy those things. Who doesn't like getting nice things? Its just so hard to live like I'm used to. To "celebrate" like I'm used to.

What's it like to be poor and starving and to have nothing and to see those around you who have more than enough? What's it like to not be us white, middle-class Americans this time of year? I read a survey that said the average household spends $800 on gifts. I would venture to say that its much higher than for the majority of us. And the problem isn't the gifts. The problem is what we are ignoring by spending money where we do.

I don't know.
I don'tknowdon'tknowdon'tknow. I just don't know how to feel.
What to say
what to think
what to feel
what to do
who I am
who we are
who we're meant to be
I just don't know.

I don't mean to ruin anything for anybody. But in the process of examining me, it makes me think a lot about us. When someone doesn't have clean water to drink, doesn't have anything to eat, doesn't have medicine to give their dying child... how can I continue to "celebrate" like this? How can we?

I thought this was a great article. Worth a couple minutes of your time to read...

http://tableforone.tpmcafe.com/blog/tableforone/2007/dec/03/christianity_as_a_global_threat

Pardon my foolishness, but...

I'm pissed. It happens often, I know. But tonight, I'm especially pissed. And not about something someone wrote on my blog or an email I received or my job... none of the usual.

I'm pissed because I think we make God boring. At our churches. With our corporate worship songs. In our lives. The way we present things. Our services. I think its incredibly insulting to God.

I follow a God who is creative and imaginative and inventive. I follow a God who inspires and pushes limits. But the ways in which we sometimes portray God... its awful. Lots of things about church tend to piss me off. But as someone who cares about what others think about when they look at our lives and our faith, it drives me nuts to have boring music at church. Or to have a corporate church service that isn't engrossing. Or to introduce people to God through a five point presentation of why they're a sinner and they need to be saved. Or to only be concerned about tradition and white bread American values not about being relevant to culture.

I'm ranting. But I hope you get the intended meaning. Blaine Bartel always makes the point that "relevancy is not an option." We need to always be aware of who we make God out to be. Jesus obviously captured people with the way he talked, the way he treated them, the way he simply interacted with the world around him. Look at the world... the universe. Quantum physics and the DNA helix and penguins and banana trees and mountain ranges and the Grand Canyon and nebulas and black holes... so much beauty and thought put into the design. Its mind blowing.

People need to meet God. Interact. See the big picture. Yes. But... freakin A... let's be interesting. Let's make sure we don't make God boring. It pisses me off. I bet it pisses him off, too.

Its finally been asked...

So Josh finally put it out there: how do we (as the church) approach homosexuality? I'm glad someone asked...

I write a lot on here. And I really appreciate those of you who take the time to read, comment, and discuss these topics that I put out there. I apologize if I get defensive (which happens easily when I feel like people are asking questions that could easily be answered if they actually read what I'm writing). I am arrogant and stubborn--but the whole reason I write is to share ideas and to get your opinions and viewpoints. It helps me grow and develop these thoughts that are resounding in my head and heart. I am working through these topics and I like being able to do it in an odd communal way. It really is quite helpful. You challenge me and I hope I do the same for you...

But back to the question at hand.

Josh, I think about it a lot. I really, really thought hard today about a way to respond to this. I think I can boil it down to this: For homosexuals, healing will start when the church accepts them as children of God who are worthy of love and respect. That has to be first and foremost. I feel like we tend to tell people they have to clean up their lives, THEN they can be a part of this community we call Christianity. When in fact, that's reverting back to the old system of sacrifices and laws. That's ignoring what Jesus did for humanity. That's not Christ-centered.

I just know that God would have us to accept and love people for who they are: his children. I know people need to hear that. People need to know they are accepted no matter what they do, no matter who they are. God accepted me, chief of sinners. Who are we to say that someone else doesn't deserve that unless they change everything they are first? People need love, first and foremost, people need to be shown love. Unconditional love. No strings attached kind of love. I love you no matter what kind of love. The love God has shown us.

Its easy for us to say "those" people. We compartmentalize so much of our world. It makes it easier for us to not have to deal with it. To push it to the back of our minds and say that "those" people are bound for hell and we can't change the fact that there's a huge rift between the homosexual community and the Christian community. We are so separated. Its going to take all of us breaking down the barriers that divide us and being willing to honestly be like Jesus. I think we try to force things because we think its our job to change people. Its not. Our job is to be the hands and feet of Jesus. Our job is to love. Our job is to point people to the God who loves them so much. Our job is to let people know about the choice we've made. Our job is to live our lives in pursuit of Jesus.

I think we agree that this lifestyle we are discussing is outside of what God intended for us. But I don't have a list of bullet points that are "Here's What We Do" when it comes to homosexuality. I don't think there's a black and white process we could print up hand out to churches world wide to explain to everyone: here's how to handle this issue we've all messed up so badly. I think the response will differ based on the situation and the location. I know sometimes I don't provide all the answers. I may lead you to believe something, but not actually come to that conclusion. For that, I don't apologize. I haven't got it all worked out yet. Some things are still up in the air (gasp! and that's okay!). That's why I write. But I've said what I need to say for now... I'd like to hear your (everybody's) thoughts on the question Josh has posed. I'd like to keep this conversation community oriented--not just me telling you what I think. I want to keep this as US talking about things TOGETHER.

As always, thanks...

Homosexuality: part 3

Well, final installment of this thread. I'm simply taking a few Biblical exerpts that are typically quoted for uses opposing homosexuality and asking that we all take a second look at what they really mean.

1st Corinthians 6:9
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..."

The word translated "homosexual" here is interesting. Why? Because we don't know what it really means. It is translated different ways different places, but is used so sparsely in ancient writings, that we really can't pin down its exact meaning. By its context, its obviously referring to some type of forbidden sexual behavior, but we can't nail it as being homosexual simply because we think it should be. We just don't know.


Romans 1:26-27
"...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

First of all, Paul is writing, as he says in the beginning of the book, to the Romans. The Christians in Rome. The people reading this would be immersed in Greek culture where homosexuality was widely practiced and widely accepted. He was writing from Corinth. A city whose main god was Aphrodite--a sexual deity with both male and female reproductive parts. See, the word passion or lust (depending on translation) used here doesn't mean what we would think it would mean. It connects back to the frenzied, trance-like state that worshippers of mystery cults (like that of Aphrodite) would work themselves into as part of their worship rituals. So these people were choosing to participate in a cult where they collectively moved into a feverish, wild trance and (to get to know their deity better) acted as members of the opposite sex to experience all that Aphrodite offered. A man would act as a woman and have sex with another man as part of the "sexual orgy worship ritual." Make sense?

The context makes a world of difference here. Instead of referring to people who struggle with homosexual orientations, it seems that here, Paul is referring to people who let themselves have unrestrained sexual practices as a new kind of kinky thrill. Sure, its still wrong. But if we take the time to find out why Paul might have been writing this (because of what he was seeing in local pagan temple practices) it may changed your mind on what he was actually saying was wrong (ie, perhaps he wasn't condeming all homosexuality with this paragraph).


1st Timothy 1:10-11
"The law is not made for righteous man, but... for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

If you know anything about ancient Greek culture, then you know that the young boy was considered the most erotic subject. Look at paintings and sculptures from this time or influenced by this time period. Its plain as day. The young male body was the epitome of sexuality.

It was a common practice in these times as well for a male teacher to take a young boy and personally tutor him. This child lived with, ate, and studied with his teacher. They were most always together. It was also common for the teacher to exploit his position: either by seducing, forcing, or coercing the boy into a sexual relationship. Hence, to stay "attractive" to their mentors as they aged and progressed into puberty, these boys tried to conceal their oncoming manhood--effeminate mannerisms and make-up are a couple of techniques. When they eventually became too old and unwanted, they were tossed aside for a new victim. Obviously, they were left damaged and permanently scarred.

This practice is called pederasty. And like I said, was a common Greek practice. The word used in this verse ("them that defile themselves with mankind") is a masculine word, ruling out females from being involved in this practice. Its just an idea, a good guess perhaps. But in context, it makes more sense than other interpretations.


So while I'm not saying I have to be right, I'm just saying I could be. I'm just pointing out that we should take the time to have a good understanding of what's going on when we read a text. Just because the translators of the NIV Bible proposed a phrase to mean something doesn't mean we have to take it at face value and move on without questioning. Nor am I here to take a verse by verse break down of Biblical texts dealing with homosexuality. I've been very clear how I feel about homosexual eroticism. I've been very clear on how I think God feels about it. But the Bible isn't ammunition. We shouldn't go looking for something to shoot at someone. Its in those times we find a keyword, quote a verse, and stand behind what we say it means. When in fact, we could be totally wrong. Homosexuality is a perfect example of something that "Christians" often do that with.

"Most of all, love eachother like your life depended on it. Love makes up for practically anything." 1st Peter 4:8

Jesus said that others would know us by our love. Instead of scouring the Bible topically to find "answers" to a dilemma, let's take a more holistic approach. Let's take the time to find out what it really means. Let's not allow a team of translastors to tell us how to think, believe, and feel. Let's see the good news. Let's live like we love God. Let's love others, too. Because at the end of the day, we're all still human.

Comments are free...

Anyone can comment.
Isn't that nice?
Two rules:
1-Don't leave anonymous comments. Attach your name. Be a man (or woman). You get the point.

2-Like Jim Rome says: "Have a good take. Don't suck." It better make sense and be pertinent to the discussion.

That's all for now.
New post coming as soon as I can get it finished.
High five!

Homosexuality: Part 2

The conversation has been great so far. Lots of great back and forth. I greatly appreciate everyone's willingness to calmly, and logically discuss this. Thanks. This post will be part 2 of 3 (I think. Another may be needed. We'll see.) Part 3 will look at several Biblical texts typically quoted when this issue arises. But for now...

Let me make this clear: I firmly believe that there is a difference between being an American and being a Christian. While I personally feel that homosexual relationships are outside of God's design, I don't think its our right as a country to tell two men or two women that they can't legally be married and have the same rights thereof. I don't feel like someone of a different faith or world-view or political position should be able to tell me what's right and wrong for me. How I can or cannot live my life. And I don't feel like I have a right, as an American, to do the same to someone else. That's tough to say. I really struggle with talking about this. But its just how I feel. I do believe that homosexual eroticism is not what God intended for humans. Yet, I don't think I have the right to tell everyone else they have to agree with me 100%. But enough of that...

My point is (obviously) that I believe homo-erotic relationships are wrong. I do. But Ben brings up a great point. If people are born "gay," and its a "sin," then what kind of God are talking about here? That would be an evil god. True. And I can't argue with two points there. One, I do think people can have homosexual orientations or tendencies from birth. Two, I do believe homo-erotic behavior is a sin. But I don't think God "makes" us that way. Let me explain...

For a long time now, I've been telling people I think sin is breaking down humanity. Slowly unraveling our DNA as we progress in time. If Adam and Eve were perfect, we've fallen far from the tree, so to speak. Birth defects. Cancer. Syndromes and and diseases. Look at how things seem to be getting exponentially worse and worse. I truly believe sin is eating away at our genetic structure.

That being said, I hate to bring this up again, but I must: all this comes down to Reformed vs Free Will theology. If God really makes/forms people in a sinful state then predestines them for an eternity of punishment, what an evil God that would be. A typical Calvinist answer would be that "God is just in giving us what we deserve as sinful humans." True. But I find that premise totally outside of the character of the God of the Bible. Sure God holds us accountable. I don't know precisely how that works for everybody, granted. But I still believe in a God who loves his creation. A God who unconditionally loves what he made. I simply cannot believe God would even "allow" people to be born gay, then destined for hell.

I think we allow it. We chose sin. We chose this. We allowed it to happen. I don't think we can point the finger at God. I think we need to point the finger at us. We screwed this up. We brought sin into the equation. Now we're all jacked up and the world's all jacked up and we say one of two things: 1, blame God; 2, God's just in allowing this to happen. Well, I think that both of those responses are bull. God set things in motion. Gave us so much. And we messed it up. Now we have to deal with the repercussions. And some of them are terrible.

Being born with homosexual tendencies isn't any worse off than anyone else. Harder to deal with than most things that are "wrong" with us. But nothing that's sending anyone straight to hell. Just something else to have to choose what to do with.