Hermeneutics homosexuality and the Holy Spirit

[Jack Leonard (65.96.56.161)]

I am a fundamentalist. I believe the Bible is the word of God, a complete revelation of God and His truth. I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant (although there are some known textual mistakes). I believe the Holy Spirit is given for illumination, to guide us to the truth as it is contained in the Bible. (The Holy Spirit can also guide us to the truth independent of the Bible, but the one truth will not contradict the other). I believe God is a god of revelation, who wants to be known; He has given us His Spirit so we can grow in the knowledge and practice of the truth.

However, I am the first to admit that I don’t have all the truth. The Holy Spirit has not yet given me all knowledge. The Bible still holds many truths which I have yet to discover. My interpretation and understanding of the Bible is still very rudimentary. For this reason, I am more confident about some things than others.

For example, I know Jesus is the Son of God. I know he is the savior of all mankind. I know He is coming again, bodily. On the other hand, I don’t know why the New Testament says that women should cover their heads in church and not ask questions.

Biblical interpretation is not black and white. The main facts are sufficiently clear so that any unenlightened sinner, assisted by the Holy Spirit, could grasp the goodness of Jesus Christ and his/her own need of redemption. On the other hand, there is plenty of material that is sufficiently dense that I can read this book for years and still be challenged, provoked, and intrigued by the Holy Spirit’s illumination. I think it is important to admit that I still struggle to understand.

I have not yet figured out why Paul wanted women to cover their heads and not ask questions in church. I don’t know why he didn’t come out adamantly against slavery. If I entertain the thought that maybe this was just a contemporary accommodation to the culture, then I open the doors to question other Pauline statements. Maybe his hard stand against homosexuality was also tempered by the time and the cities in which he ministered. I am not a homosexual and I am repelled by the thought of the practice, but I am also repelled by the visceral hatred that I see from many people toward homosexuals.

My personal experience is that the Holy Spirit has often shown me things in life first and then helped me to see them later in the Bible (which is a comforting confirmation that I still need). I still can’t get my head around the fact that, for me, working in public education is God’s calling (and therefore a higher calling for me) than pastoring in a local church. However, time spent in the Scriptures has led me to other useful government officials, including Joseph and Daniel and Esther, and their lives are instructive to me. I have also noted that people like Abraham and David and Deborah and Luke are not considered second class citizens because they did not pastor and plant churches.

I have been surprised to find the presence of God in the public school. Let me say this more clearly: I have been surprised to find Jesus, daily, visiting, walking, counseling, and loving in my public school. I have been surprised to see how close to the surface are spiritual things, how right at the tip of the tongue is the truth for many of my students and teachers. I have been surprised at how busy the Holy Spirit is among the unsaved.

I have a friend who, after thirty years of frustration and three failed marriages, finally admitted to herself that she was gay. She has a female partner and freely admits that she craves intimacy, just like all of us. She also professes to be a Christian who hungers to hear good preaching and prays to Jesus Christ. Much to my surprise, she is a little prophetic in the sense that she hears from God and can speak His will. I have heard words of reassurance and comfort from her, directed toward family members – and wondered what mechanism in Heaven sends messages to Christians through gay women. I don’t endorse her lifestyle (which I can’t understand); I do endorse her desire for intimacy, friendship, and acceptance (which are my needs as well). I am the first to recognize that her lifestyle is contrary to her physical design (in that it is ill-suited to reproducing children) and contrary to public approval (in that we will never see the day in which homosexuality is widely endorsed and embraced) and therefore very inconvenient.

I also have children at school who are autistic and others who have cerebral palsy. They are limited in their approach to life. I have another group of children who are always acting out, challenging the rules, skipping classes, and hiding in the hallways. They are given a state designation as “emotionally and behaviorally challenged” and accommodations are made for their disability. I have given up trying to dissect when the problem is a physically determined one and when it is deeply learned behavior stemming from early childhood and when it is just teenage willfulness. It’s easier to just see children in need and address those needs, rather than waste time trying to fix blame. There are limits in life, regardless of why we bump up against them. Our job is to steer students in the most productive pathways. We turn on lights, rather than categorize and label the darkness.

I have a son who began high school on the honor roll and went on to fail the 11th grade. For several years, I struggled to “break” his stubborn willfulness by getting him to do his homework, study for tests, and get extra help. We moved him through three schools. I eventually gave up the blame route, had him tested, and accepted his diagnosis as Attention Deficit Disorder (and I even wanted to blame him for this, wondering if he had spent too many hours playing computer games). In the end, it was easier to name and face the disability as an isolated entity (and learn to live with the consequences), even while we affirmed the dignity and goodness of our son who loves God, prays, is exceedingly generous and likable, and has never troubled us at all with drugs, smoking, promiscuity, drunken driving, and so on.

I enjoy working with my special education teachers for they have learned to live with disabilities. Recently, I was talking with two administrators, one of whom is blind and uses a white cane. He was describing this amazing computer software that can scan books and read them to struggling readers. The other person, clearly bothered by this reading “crutch,” asked him if the students eventually outgrow the need for the software. The blind replied, “Maybe, but you don’t outgrow a disability!” and he waved his cane.

The truth is that we all have a disability of some kind. The old word is sin and sickness. Jesus died for both on the cross. Some go away (like the flu or like smoking). Others linger (like cerebral palsy or retardation or those “besetting sins” that the writer to the Hebrews took note of). We can argue all day about who is going to go to hell for these things and who is worthy of Heaven.

I am impressed that the thief on the cross found acceptance and promise with Jesus Christ. As far as I can see, he took one step toward Jesus – and that was enough to do it for that moment. He was completely ignorant of the Scriptures, doctrine, or theology. He saw something that rang true, took a step, and he was in. Based on that, I am encouraged when a Muslim, a homosexual, an “emotionally and behaviorally challenged” student, a fundamentalist, or Jack Leonard takes an interest in Jesus Christ and takes even the smallest step toward him. Jesus said, “He who takes to his heart anyone whom I send, takes me to his heart; and he who so takes me, takes him who sent me” (John 13:20). If a person accepts me (and I mean accepts, not targets and proselytizes) then I figure he or she is on the first step toward accepting Jesus Christ. I do NOT say he is saved because he accepts Jack Leonard. This is the Lord’s work. It’s a miracle He uses any of us.

Do I know if my homosexual friend is saved? I don’t know if anyone is saved; that is God’s business. I think John’s first letter gives us some clues to knowing who has the Spirit and who does not (and for those of you who know what I’m talking about, this knowledge does not come by reading 2 Corinthians 5 over and over again).

I have said in earlier posts that we are trained to judge, that God expects us to exercise judgment, and that we will be doing some big judging in the future. We should be judging things which are said and done in the name of Jesus Christ, holding them up the standard of the Bible for inspection and comparison. We are to judge the spirits and we will judge angels some day. However, I do not believe we are appointed to judge who is going to Heaven. One thing I do know from reading the Scriptures, where God has delighted in confounding and exceeding human expectations for 6000 years, is that there will be some surprises when we get there. His love surpasses our (Biblical, fundamentalist) knowledge.
Jack Leonard

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

While the Holy Spirit may indeed show you many things, Jack, and one of those being the difficulty of hermeneutics--we may be assured that the Holy Spirit does never contradict himself by speaking one thing in your heart and another in the pages of Holy Scripture. When in doubt, doubt yourself and your abilities rather than God and what He has said.

It would be absurd, for example for two people committing adultery--each with the spouse of another person--to expect God to bless their relationship because He has already determined what He will bless very clearly in the pages of Scripture by declaring "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I once knew a woman who was going through an awful time in her marriage and sought counsel from a man at her church. The man spent time with her and her children while her husband was away, and during prayer with her said that God had revealed to him that God had something for them together for the future. She sought counsel with a woman on the staff of her church, and later decided to divorce her husband (who had indeed been a very poor example of husband or father) and began a relationship with this man. He later, after nine years and without marrying her--abandoned her. In all probability, he was gay.

The gay lobby know very well all the Scriptures in both Testaments concerning homosexuality and prohibitions against them. They are adept at sidestepping the issues bringing up obscure points and mainly putting forward the "that was then, this is now" argument as with the biblical stand for male elders. They are adept at pointing to their status as "this is who I am, and how God intended me to be." Of course, it then becomes all that much harder to confront, because how can we argue against their experience?

The strongest argument appears to be that God in Scripture addresses lust and promiscuity rather than long term, loving same sex relationships. For this we need to look at the Creation narrative, and to the words of Christ concerning marriage. God created humans in His own image to be in fellowship with Him and in so doing created them male and female to "multiply and take dominion over the earth." The biblical context for intimate lifelong relationships is only heterosexual because God's end and goal was to fill the earth with people in his likeness. His goals and designs do not change--for He proclaims "I am the Lord and I change not." He created man and woman because she was a "helper fit (designed) for him." This is God's only provision for sexual intimacy.

As for hatred and homophobia--should we never again preach Romans the first chapter or any of the other chapters dealing with this sin for fear of being labeled hatemongers? That is almost certainly the situation in Canada as we speak. When the Holy Spirit begins His work in the human heart, are we not told that he convicts of sin? We who hold to the truth of the Scriptures are often labeled as "hateful" simply for holding to the exclusivity of Christianity. Are we to be labeled the same for preaching against sin? The eighth commandment tells us that we shall not steal--should we view all theft in the light of disproportional distribution of wealth or should we say that all thieves are in fact ill with kleptomania? Should we cease preaching against this sin too? Should we cease preaching against lying because lying compulsively could be viewed as an illness?

I am surprised that you link ADD or ADHD with "besetting sin." There are real illnesses, are you calling homosexuality an illness or are you implying that the condition is blurred? Preaching the gospel as the "good news" will never again have its greatest effect unless the bad news is preached first--that we are sinners, transgressors against God's laws falling short of His glory. To declare this, even in specificity, is not hateful but rather more loving in diagnosing our great need of a Savior. We ought never to forget the condition of the human heart as being "deceitful and desperately wicked" beyond all knowledge.

[Jeannie (64.12.117.12)]

Thank you Jack!

A profound testimony of the workings of the Holy Spirit in your thought-life. The fruit of which is apparent to those who intersect your life on a daily basis. I am baffled how JF could utterly miss the spirit behind your words. I don't understand how he could find something to even debate in your post.

[Heather from Newark (205.188.117.12)]

I find it absurd that people have to dabate every word written here. I suppose it is their right to do so,however we all are in different place with our walk with GOD. jack I am glad you wrote that, when I left GG i had a struggle with the way gays were treated. Would they treat someone with an adiction like that? I am reading Fresh wind, Fresh Fire. I loved when they went into the "salt mines" to minister to the gay men and one of the hardcore biggest trouble makers, who was also a transvestite came to dedicate his life to the lord and learned to behave like a man, even getting lessons on how to walk and cross his legs. He went on to marry a Christian woman and in his last days made a video for others to learn what he had learned. I wept when I read this last night, to think a life that was disposable to the world God used to make such an impact on people. I also wept because of what I had heard spewed from the pulpit. I remember the kids being forced to write letters to the senator about "the homosexual agenda". It made me sick to think I believed this and taught this to my children. Guess what Carl and Jeff God loves that homosexual as much as he loves you and I. I think you totally missed the mark on that one fellas. read the book. For all the walking textbooks on here go ahead and pick apart my post. Mine came from the heart not a textbook.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.12)]

PS Jack keep working on Pastor Major..they are really setting him up to take the fall

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

I am continually baffled by the lack of understanding of Scripture by people on this board who have been Christians, and supposedly students of the Bible for five, ten, twenty years and more.

Jack introduced the thread as addressing hermeneutics, which is the science of Bible interpretation. While I do not dismiss the feeling and emotion behind his words, he appears to be mixing "disability" and "sin" indiscriminately. While all our sicknesses and even death occur because of Adam's sin, they do not all occur because of our personal particular sins. Homosexuality and ADHD are dissimilar. They are not both besetting sins in light of scripture--only one of the two is addressed particularly. My question to Jack is does he equate homosexuality and disability? He seems to be saying that here:

"The truth is that we all have a disability of some kind. The old word is sin and sickness. Jesus died for both on the cross. Some go away (like the flu or like smoking). Others linger (like cerebral palsy or retardation or those “besetting sins” that the writer to the Hebrews took note of). We can argue all day about who is going to go to hell for these things and who is worthy of Heaven."

The fact of the matter is that Christ died to take our sins upon Himself and rose again for our justification. People do not go to hell because they have cerebral palsy or retardation. They go to hell because of sin. Cerebral palsy and retardation are not similar to homosexuality. Sin is a transgression of the law--cerebral palsy and retardation do not transgress the law, homosexual relationships violate God's law and his design and purpose for human intimacy. Cerbral palsy and all human diseases are with us because of our sin nature, but they are not sins of which we are called to repent--and the Gospel while offering forgiveness, calls us to repentance. The Scriptures do not make this sort of statement to people with physical ailments:

1 Cor. 6:9-11 (ESV)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] <U>And such were some of you</U>. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The Scripture does speak metaphorically of sin using sickness as a picture in this way:

Isaiah 1:5-6 (ESV)
Why will you still be struck down?
Why will you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint.
[6] From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores
and raw wounds;
they are not pressed out or bound up
or softened with oil.

It also similarly uses poverty, nakedness, and blindness to portray sin:

Rev. 3:18-19 (ESV)
I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. [19] Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.

Would it be reasonable to call the physically blind to repent of their blindness or to discipline them for it? I think not. While there are many who claim that there is "physical healing in the atonement" it would seem to be apparent to the reasonable person that experience and Scripture alike prove this view to be erroneous.

And while God's love may surpass any human knowledge it certainly does not circumvent, bypass, or contradict His own declarations.

[Anonymous (162.111.136.12)]

Well said Jack. I have admired you and your wife since I was in high school in Lenox. I believe any reader that is available to the Holy Spirit can discern the humility and love behind your post and the lack thereof behind the one that follows it.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

As American evangelicals, we are full of bumpersticker theology and mushy "love" which is nothing like God's love at all.

Here is one of our favorite cliches, mouthed whenever we deal with sin and we use it to do lousy PR for God:

"God hates the sin but loves the sinner."

This cliche seems to be at the heart of many discussions dealing with any particular offensive or popular sin. We don't use it for little sins. Where do we find justification for this cliche? Perhaps it is here:

...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Note that it is for "us" that Christ has died and to "us" that God shows His love. But we don't quite often understand the enmity that sin creates between us and God and the enormity of God's disposition toward sinners:

This passage in the fifth Psalm is as clear as it gets:

For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you.
[5] The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you <U>hate</U> all evildoers.
[6] You destroy those who speak lies;
the Lord <U>abhors</U> the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

The hatred and abhorrence of God are directed not at the sin, but rather at the sinner just as His love is commended to us in the previous passage. And then there is this:

Romans 9:13 (ESV)
As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

We evangelicals wince at this kind of verse and attempt to do all sorts of damage control because God seems to have gotten quite out of hand. We say, "Well, in the Greek hate means to 'love less than'." Even if this were true, it holds small comfort for Esau in that it appears to make God a respecter of persons. But Esau is not hated indiscriminately as we read in a particularly interesting context in this verse in Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:15-17 (ESV)
See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; [16] that no one is <U>sexually immoral</U> or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. [17] For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

Hermeneutics is process to be exercised carefully and requires exacting study. While we are all full emotions, prejudices, and inclinations--we need actually to see what Scripture ascribes to God and what it does not.

The passage in the Fifth Psalm continues as David speaks of God's love in this manner:

Psalm 5:7-9 (ESV)
But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love,
will enter your house.
I will bow down toward your holy temple
in the fear of you.
[8] Lead me, O Lord, in your righteousness
because of my enemies;
make your way straight before me.
[9] For there is no truth in their mouth;
their inmost self is destruction;
their throat is an open grave;
they flatter with their tongue.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Thank you Jack. The Spirit is so evident in your words and honesty on the subject. Please continue to share with us?

[Jeannie (64.12.117.12)]

Jf,

Read this:

The truth is that we all have a disability of some kind. The old word is sin and sickness. Jesus died for both on the cross. Some go away (like the flu or like smoking). Others linger (like cerebral palsy or retardation or those “besetting sins” Jack Said: "OR THOSE BESETTING SINS" He did not specify what the besettings sins were.

I don't see anything in Jack's post that is contrary to scripture. I don't see anything except the language of love... Christ's love. I am puzzled by your lack of ability to understand that language. I know you outside of this forum Jim and the words you write do not convey your being. I consider that Jim Faucett to be of the same spirit as Jack Leonard. I just don't get it. Your command of the scripture is great but the greatest commandment was to love one another. Your life conveys it but your words on this forum do not.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

Jeannie,
I am dealing with the connection between sin and sickness that Jack makes in the statement. "Some go away like the flu or smoking" flu is a sickness and I assume smoking is to be taken for a sin here. He then says "others linger." Other what? Other illnesses? Other sins? He mentions cerebral palsy and retardation in the same sentence as these sins. When the "writer of the Hebrews" speaks of "the sin which doth so easily beset us" we are thus encouraged:

let us lay aside every weight, <U>and</U> the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us...

Cerebral palsy and retardation cannot be laid aside, sin--through Christ's help and guidance in grace--can be put away practically in our sanctification (as Christ has put it away eternally in our justification), however slowly--so that we can run the race with patience.

I hope that at least Jack will understand I am not attacking him personally here, or his concern for this friend of his--which concern and compassion directed by him is both admirable and ought to be duplicated and emulated in his fine example. Perhaps you misunderstand me in that case.

I am, however concerned that he introduced the topic as dealing with hermeneutics--which simply put is Bible interpretation. Hermeneutics is not feeding into Scripture what we wished the author had said, but deriving the meaning from the intent of the author in what he has actually said. This is, according to our accusers--"literalism." We must assume that the writer of the Hebrews has a point to convey in the context of the passage and that we are not to inject any and all "applications" (a favorite at GGWO) into the passage.

I am not questioning Jack's love for his friend. I do understand THAT language. I don't see the connection in scripture between homosexuality and physical disability, nor do I see homosexuality as needing special protection of the law, nor do I view homosexuals as a minority in the same way as ethnic groups are minorities--all these things are on the agenda by the way. I am also troubled by the acceptance of that agenda, however slight, by evangelicals--which acceptance is increasing exponentially as we speak.

The love commended to us WHILE we were yet sinners does not LEAVE us in our sin--nor does it "reevaluate" our sin as a disability. While Christ certainly died for sin as a human condition, we are concerned individually that "he gave himself for me," as the apostle says in Galatians the second chapter. All of us are eager to excuse our sin and still be accepted by God, that is the nature of the human conscience we are told in Romans.

It is not loving but rather cruel to tell one party that what scripture defines as sin is a "disability" and then tell one with a disability that his physical or psychological ailment--such as ADHD is like sin. These are not in my view--piddling little issues but rather those on which the integrity of the gospel message impinge. The gospel deals with forgiveness of sins and justification so we may be able to stand boldly before the throne of grace. It does not deal with "forgiving" someone of cerebral palsy as if it were a sin. It also does not allow us to recatagorize our sins as illnesses, conditions or as God's intentional creative design.

So it is that I understand the greatest commandment, Jeannie, is to love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind. This leads us to fulfill the second great commandment which is like it to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we love our neighbor, we will wish for that person all that God has designed him for--to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Christ was not inventing a new commandment but quoting from a summary of the Ten given on Sinai--we are often not very precise in our reading of these verses either. Christ does give us the seemingly impossible task of loving one another as He has loved us. How did he love us? He took our sin upon himself and in exchange imputed to us His righteousness. We cannot do this, but we are commissioned with that message to pass on in all its integrity. Christ died for sin. Sin is a transgression of the Law. Disabilities are not sins, and sins are not disabilities.

Now I hope that you will not misunderstand me, and see that I have addressed the topic of hermeneutics as Jack has raised it, and that I am not attacking him or his love for people, nor am I belittling his spiritual life. I am questioning his method of interpreting scripture, and we all have at one time or another unknowingly stumble into an exegetical fallacy of one sort or another.

[Jeannie (64.12.117.12)]

I don't know Jim, Jack's post seems to differentiate sin and sickness; sickness being C.P. or retardation as life-long disabilities versus the flu. He then said "Or those besetting sins" meaning those not listed.

I do not see a flagrant exegetical error as you do. He did not say the flu is sin and homosexuality is sickness, if he had I would readily understand your need to jump in and correct.

I think on this forum it is very easy to misinterpret. It is not a flow of conversation where one can clarify a previous statement. Next thing we know there are dozens of posts debating it. It happens here all the time. Our mothers taught us "one should never discuss religion and politics in polite company" and that is all we do here. Heated debates and misunderstandings is the result.

You know my desire for FACTNet was to allow the silenced voices a place to speak. And darn, doesn't everyone have something to say! Whether I agree with it all or not, freedom to speak is wonderful!

[Anonymous (205.188.117.12)]

"Whether I agree with it all or not, freedom to speak is wonderful! "

Yes Jeannie, Freedom to speak is a wonderful gift, ufortunately on here it seems as if speaking ones thoughts, feelings, and beliefs if different in any way from the "norm" is not tolerated. The voices of dissent are silenced into submission. It doesn't matter to those who quell the voices as long as they do it. All must agree and all must tow the party line. It's just a new GGWO all over again only this time it's via the internet.

[Dave Drago (68.91.74.17)]

I did not intend to weigh in on this debate. Just a few thoughts:

1. Those freedoms extend to Jeannie, Jack, Jim, Dave, Roberta, Karen, etc...And, when we post because we are not conversing via the spoken word but the written word, unless we are precise and articulate exactly what we are trying to convey we open ourselves up to questions, comments and rebuttal.

2. FACTNET is not a popularity contest. It is a forum. We need to respect one another’s viewpoint even if it seems absurd to us. It is called Christian decency. Jim, your call for clarification and rebuttal of Jack's musings and mine and anyone else for that matter is welcomed and appreciated by me. While some interpret your style as unloving, I see it as great respect for the Scriptures even if you lack diplomacy at times. So what!! At least I know where you stand. Just like I know where Roberta and Bonnie stand. They are not always diplomatic either. Neither am I. Many times the pots call the kettles black. Opinions are like armpits, most of us have two of them and most of them stink.

3. In “The Market Place of Ideas” all ideas are tolerated but not all are equal or true.

4. I thank God that Jesus still sets the sinner free, regardless of the besetting sin. Be that gossiping, slandering, maligning, lying, cheating, fornicating, adulterating, murdering, drunkenness, homosexuality, self righteousness…just to name a few

5. Jack, we are ministers of reconciliation. Therefore, perhaps you could ask God, “Lord, I need your help. Lord, show me how to help her overcome her sin and restore her to fellowship. My love for her is real; yet, it pales in comparison to Your love for her. When I think how you died for her on the cross to emancipate her from this bondage she has been in for thirty years I am speechless! Lord, she is caught in a sin. It is torturing her. Please help a sinner saved by grace, with feet of clay, drop my stones of condemnation and say to her, your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more.”

6. Jack, I delicately suggest that you clarify more what you are trying to say. You stated that “I believe the Holy Spirit is given for illumination, to guide us to the truth as it is contained in the Bible. (The Holy Spirit can also guide us to the truth independent of the Bible, but the one truth will not contradict the other). I believe God is a God of revelation, who wants to be known; He has given us His Spirit so we can grow in the knowledge and practice of the truth.” I agree with this. However, I do not think your personal experiences and love for this person can override what the scripture reveals about the lifestyle.

7. Jack, I will pray for you that God gives you the wisdom to minister to her. I recommend Exodus International that has a ministry to homosexuals. www.exodus-international.org. “Change is possible, discover how!”

Your Friend in Christ,
Dave

[Jeannie (205.188.117.12)]

I understand the principle of what you are saying but I disagree that FACTNet is the new GGWO. Primarily because those that try to control others thoughts, feelings and beliefs are very unsuccessful. I believe the forum reflects the state of how things are: a huge diverse group of people that have one thing in common (and at times very little else): Their life intersected with TBS/GGWO. That fact alone carries a lot of emotional and spiritual baggage. Everyone in various stages of dealing with the baggage. It does not make for a cohesive group in thoughts, feelings and beliefs. There are also a lot of women on this forum who exited a male-dominated church that practiced spiritual abuse. Our radar is hyper-sensitive to ANYONE attempting to gain control over our soul. It makes an interesting mix of humanity but it will never be another GGWO.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

I was going to say that I find domination by females much more interesting and pleasurable, but I was afraid people would get the wrong idea.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.12)]

What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is an abomination, a perversion, and the bible says that those who practice it will NOT go to heaven. Not MIGHT not but absolutely will NOT.
Is Jim the only one with an ounce of spiritual discernment? Apparently.
I don't care if the woman speaks words of comfort till she is blue in the face ("prophetic"? PLEASE),if she is gay then she is going to hell, she is not saved, period. Shame on you, Jack. You should know better, but apparently you have been infected with the blurry gray boundaries of Factnet spirituality, where anything goes as long as you are kind and compassionate about it. The issue is NOT that being gay is contrary to her physical design to bear children, or contrary to public approval. The issue is that God says it is an abomination,a
sin that condemns your soul. Whether you understand it or not. It is still so. The responses to your post were unbelievable:

" I am baffled how JF could utterly miss the spirit behind your words. I don't understand how he could find something to even debate in your post."
MAYBE Jeannie, he found it in the BIBLE. I am baffled that everyone could NOT debate that post.
The spirit behind the words means nothing when it is totally contrary to scripture, what spirit is that of?

"I believe any reader that is available to the Holy Spirit can discern the humility and love behind your post and the lack thereof behind the one that follows it."
And I believe that any reader with even an elementary grasp of scripture can see the error in that post and thank God for the one following it that speaks God's truth on the subject.

"Thank you Jack. The Spirit is so evident in your words and honesty on the subject. Please continue to share with us?"
This was from RJ. 'Nuff said. If she endorses it, it is most assuredly not biblical.

Thank you, Jim, for having the integrity and courage to speak out for truth here, even though you stood alone. You have been more kind in your posts than the situation deserved. You others know nothing of "the Spirit"...you would condone even child molestation or bestiality if the person posting was "thoughtful, humble, honest and loving" about it. WAKE UP!

[Anonymous (64.12.117.12)]

Dave Drago, I did not read your post before I posted the above one, so I would like to thank you along with Jim for speaking truth here.

[Dave Drago (68.91.74.17)]

Jeannie,
I always marveled how the Apostle Paul hung in there!!! Imagine, the diversity of views and agendas he dealt with.
For Him,
Dave

[Dave Drago (68.91.74.17)]

Bob,
Please go and give your wife a hug and a kiss. You are scaring us.
Dave

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Jeannie...do really believe that the male domination factor is still not in play here? How many women are now not posting at all anymore due to the abusive attitude of the "dominant" male voices here...too many. Those that still post anything contradictory to the dominant male voices here subject themselves and their families to abuses.

Sounds like GGWO to me.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.12)]

Wake up, RJ, the dominant voices here are female and think along the same lines as you. Sounds like FactNet to me

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Name them, Anon64

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Dave, My wife is out singing with a local chorus; but I gave her a hug and a kiss before she left. But not out of fear; rather in sound mind. Fortunately she's not a Muslim terrorist or gay. I proposed to her 28 years ago last night, and she still hasn't left me. I gave her enough reasons, but she's got some stubborn Irish blood in her.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Mary is a terrific woman with a sharp intellect and a loving Christian witness. I'd say you both are rather blessed in your choice of spouse, Bob.

[Dave Drago (68.91.74.17)]

Bob,
Happy anniversary. You kill me!!!
Dave

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

I also have to admit that I don't think God has changed His mind about homosexuality. I have heard it said by someone who often debates with homosexuals that many lesbians went gay because of abuse from men; often relatives. I'm sure God takes these things into account. And I think they need to come to Christ before 'dealing with their sin', though if they can discard that part of it ahead of time it wouldn't hinder them.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

She's sure put up with a lot, Roberta. I am fortunate indeed.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.12)]

"Name them, Anon64"

RJ, Bonnie (aka Musky Rose), Karen Duhamel, Lee Leonard, Jeannie Byrne, Maria T., Nancy Curra, Plaid, Arguendo (aka JD Skeets)

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

You think my voice dominates?

What a petit fluer.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Oh man, my lack of French kills me sometimes. Is that a typo?

[Anonymous (205.188.117.12)]

64, You forgot Susanna.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

yes, my little flower, it is ...I meant petit fleur

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Anon 64... you believe that the women you named are the most dominant voices here? Do you believe the louder men on this board agree with our voices and are not working hard to intimidate these women into leaving the board?

There were many others women who once voiced opinions here and will no longer bother. I think that is a sad state of affairs and closely resembles the tactics of GGWo against men and women alike who do not line up with the Stevens doctrines.

Personally I cannot understand why, and I have said this before, why both types of Christian, liberal and conservative cannot co-exist at least in the cause of helping people out of a cultic situation.

Do you think it is possible for liberal and conservative to respect each other's views and see each other as brother and sisters in Christ together? I do, but fear the more conservative among us disagree. I am curious as to how you believe.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Hey, is everybody having to register and get an account now with user name and password?

[jack_leonard (jack_leonard)]

I think I should try to clarify what I have written.

Truly, we should tolerate no contradiction between what we hear in our heart and what God reveals in his scriptures. One of my points was that the former might proceed the latter; in other words, I might learn something from God through experience and an inward word, which might later open my heart to search the scriptures more carefully and then find confirmation. For this reason, it is wise to reserve judgment at times. We still have much to learn from the Scriptures.

I wrote all this not to justify homosexuality, but to point out that there was only one thing that got Jesus really mad and that was legalism that paraded as godliness for it obscured the face of God. I can be very kind and gentle and patient when it comes to sin, but when I run into legalism I get ugly. With 300 adolescents in my school, I see a lot of gross sin and I have to make many judgments to suspend and, at times, expel students. I still hate the self-righteousness that condemns students to low expectations and excludes them from an education.

Jim is right; people do not go to hell for cerebral palsy and ADHD. However, they do not go to hell for homosexuality either. They go to hell because they knowingly reject Jesus Christ. Yes, no homosexual will have any part in the kingdom of Heaven; nor will any thief. Have you ever stolen anything? I do get impatient with the theology that says certain sins are a one-way ticket to hell. That just leads to the hopeless task of trying to determine how many times, how often, how seriously, and how habitually someone must commit the “big sin” to deserve hell. Homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible, but so are liars and trouble-makers and people with wicked thoughts and self-seeking people. Jesus himself said that the prostitutes would get into Heaven before the Pharisees, which is troubling if you think about it. Is he now pandering to prostitutes?

I am also intrigued that Moses taught the Jews to ostracize lepers – an infectious disease caused by bacteria – and commanded the lepers to bring a sin offering for their restoration. Jesus himself healed a leper and told him to make the same offering; how do I interpret that? In John 5, Jesus healed a crippled man who had been lying around the pool of Bethesda for 38 years. Later, he found him and told him to sin no more. I’d like to think that the sin he was referring to was unbelief, but the threat – lest a worse thing happen to thee – points to some close connection between the sin and his sickness (at least in this case). He continued to mix language when he healed the lame man who dropped through the roof, much to the confusion of the biblical literalists. I don’t think he’s saying all sickness is caused by one’s sin (a cruel thought!) and I don’t think he’s saying that all sin is just sickness.

My point in discussing sin and sickness is that American Christians are often merciful when it comes to sickness but cruel when it comes to sin, yet Jesus bore both on the cross for us. He delivered us from the heavy burden (and fruitless task) of discerning motives, reading hearts, fixing blame, and determining guilt and freed us to speak the truth in love.

My prayer for my friend is that she know more deeply the profound, intimate, inexhaustible love of Jesus Christ. My guess is that she has missed the unconditional love and acceptance of a male father figure for a long time (but this is just guesswork about heart motives again, isn’t it?). I am far less concerned by (and conscious of) her sexual practices than I am of her loneliness and her inability to maintain long-term relationships of any kind.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

In your opening paragraph, you say that what you hear in your heart might proceed what God reveals in the Scriptures. This is a difficult statement. Knowing your current feelings concerning the gifts of the Spirit and your affiliation with a more charismatic church I can understand your statement. I would only say that we are taught of God that our heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.

We are taught of God to hide the word of God in our hearts that we might not sin against Him and we have a promise of Christ that the Spirit dwelling and abiding in us will lead and guide us into all truth. Christ also says that the Word is truth and that He is truth. I think that if we filter our understanding of the Scriptures through our feelings and experiences, even those given to us of God which are very real—we open ourselves to error.

One only need look at the story of the brazen serpent in Scripture to see this. Israel experienced great healing from being bitten by serpents by looking upon the brazen image. Later, the same brazen serpent became part of the worship practices of Israel and had to be destroyed by Hezekiah. Only in John’s gospel do we learn the true significance of this brazen serpent. There is nothing in our heart that would have revealed that—Christ had to say it. It is only in retrospect and with knowledge of Christ’s work and words that we can see how he is revealed in all the Scriptures.

Seeing how Christ is revealed in the Scriptures is the primary task of biblical interpretation—hermeneutics. Again, when we filter the Scriptures through our experiences and feelings—even those which are given by God—we may also miss the intent of both the human and divine authors of Scripture. It is that intent we ought to be seeking out as expositors

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Legalism parading as godliness is how you interpreted Christ’s anger at the Pharisees. Here I again agree, but I think many times we miss exactly what caused Christ’s great anger. At the root of Pharisaical behavior was license, not just a rigid obedience to a set of laws. I will absolutely agree with anyone who sees that legalism is more concerned with “This is what I must do to please God” rather than “This is the God I am pleased to know.” We were created for fellowship and pleasure by God. He did not need us for anything. He does what is pleasing to Him, and for Him that is right for He is also good. Nothing we can do which originates in our sin can please God, we were created in His image to reflect Him. Christianity is not a “DO THIS” religion, it is rather a “KNOW HIM” faith. The Pharisees looked for loopholes in Scripture. “How can I get out of coming to the aid of my aging parents? I know, I will ‘dedicate’ my worldly wealth to God calling it a gift which I use so I won’t have to sell it and help my parents.” So the Pharisees circumvented the commandment to honor father and mother. They loved to be seen suffering in their fasts and saying long prayers while covertly laying to waste the last belongings of widows and children, mercilessly foreclosing on debts built up on high interest.

American evangelicalism is full of “DO THIS” remedies. Pray more, witness more, spend more time in devotion, read more, follow these “five keys, steps or rules” to being a better husband, wife, citizen, businessman or having a deeper relationship with God or getting more use of the spiritual gifts or in fact being filled with the Holy Spirit. We are awash with a “DO THIS” mentality.

We have even reduced salvation to something we must do. We base our salvation on a decision we make rather than on God actually saving us. This is not, by the way just ‘Calvinism’ –it is the Gospel. We bring nothing—absolutely nothing to the table, not even faith for that too is a gift from God.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Although I hesitate a little because of my regard for you Jack, I feel I must deal with what appears to me to be some residue of GGWO doctrine in your statement. In saying this, I know that it does take many years to unlearn the effects of what we were taught for so many years, but I hope you will see that my addressing your statement is not vicious. You said that people “go to hell because they knowingly reject Jesus Christ.” This seems like a bit of the bumper sticker knee jerk theology that we emit so easily from our years of involvement with GGWO. I have heard Carl Stevens and other GG pastors make that same statement—but does it square with Scripture or with rational thinking? If someone must knowingly reject Christ in order to go to hell, might it not be more merciful to leave them in ignorance of Christ at all rather than infect them with the possibility of going to hell by putting forward the choice that they may reject Christ and end up in hell? Scripture tells us to make disciples of every nation—to preach the gospel to every creature. We are also told that the whole world stands condemned already—even those who’ve never heard of Christ—not just because of conscious rejection of the gospel but because of sin.

You also said, “I do get impatient with the theology that says certain sins are a one-way ticket to hell. That just leads to the hopeless task of trying to determine how many times, how often, how seriously, and how habitually someone must commit the “big sin” to deserve hell.” Who would not give this statement a hearty “Amen?” Habakkuk describes the Lord as being of purer eyes than can look upon sin, who cannot view iniquity. The apostle Paul declares: Romans 2:12 (ESV)
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

So it is indeed sin that causes us to perish—Jew and Gentile alike—without or under the law. But what is the root of sin? The first and greatest commandment is a summary of the first table of the law which begins “Thou shalt have no other gods before me…” Although we need to be careful not to confuse our friend Dave here: Exodus 34:14 (KJV)
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God…
This is what we find in Hebrews:
Hebrews 3:12 (ESV) Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
Because God first has commanded that He alone should be worshipped and is worthy of our trust and James declares that if we offend in one point of the law we have offended the lawgiver Himself it follows that when one breaks any of the commandments he acts in unbelief. This is why we are encouraged to fear God as well as love Him—do we not believe that He will hold the guilty to account? That is why the saints of old termed the Day of Judgment “The Great Assizes.” God has declared that He will not clear the guilty.

Consider this:
If we are not worshipping in Spirit and in Truth the God revealed to us in Scripture but one conjured up by our own “devices and desires” are we not idolaters? We are practical unbelievers.

If we take upon ourselves the name of the Lord in an empty and vain manner, do we not believe that the Lord will hold us to our oaths?

If we reject the rest and completed work accomplished by Christ on the cross as for us particularly are we not included in those who are forbidden in wrath to enter into God’s rest?

If we do not honor the authority of God in those he has placed over us in our family, in our church, in our nation are we not acting in unbelief that God has provided these authorities for our wellbeing?

If we murder do we not act in unbelief that God will avenge the innocent and that he alone is the giver and taker of life?

If we commit adultery, do we not act in unbelief that God has provided for our needs in His great design for intimacy?

If we steal do we not act in unbelief that God has provided a way for our needs to be met by him through work or through legal means?

If we lie do we not act in unbelief that God knows our hearts, motives, words and schemes and will hold us to account for them?

If we covet are we not acting in unbelief that God has said that godliness with contentment is great gain?

Hence all sin has at its root an evil heart of unbelief.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

You said also that we are more merciful to illness than to sin. That is absolutely true. But we are also not aware of the enormity, the gravity, the deadliness of or the enmity which is caused by our sin. Because we are not aware of these facts, we demean grace and belittle the cross of Christ. Sin causes us to be children of wrath. Not just some sins. Our sins are symptomatic of our nature which is sinful. This nature is not just a condition that needs healing, it is not a mere "disability" it requires severe measures--the death of God's son. So we ought not to reduce the gravity and severity of sin, and so cheapen grace as a remedy (I say 'WE' because we are all prone to desire to excuse ourselves or make our own sins smaller and those of others larger--as you aptly pointed out).

God through Christ has shown us grace--another term laden down with bumpersticker knee jerk theology--"God's Riches At Christ's Expense"--"I owed a debt I could not pay, He paid a debt He did not owe"--"Grace gave me what I did not deserve." The list goes on, all only touching slightly as to the reality and miracle of the grace of God.

Not only did God give us in Christ what we did not deserve, he did not give us what we did deserve which was justice and punishment. Not only did he not give us what we did deserve, he gave what we did deserve to Christ who did not deserve justice, but was the just for the unjust. Not only did he make us "just as if I'd never sinned" he now imputes to us all the obedience to the law in thought, word and deed--personally, perpetually and perfectly--which is the very righteousness of Christ paid to our account. In so many words, God gives to us what Christ deserves, full sonship as heirs with Christ in God.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

"My point in discussing sin and sickness is that American Christians are often merciful when it comes to sickness but cruel when it comes to sin, yet Jesus bore both on the cross for us. He delivered us from the heavy burden (and fruitless task) of discerning motives, reading hearts, fixing blame, and determining guilt and freed us to speak the truth in love."

" people do not go to hell for cerebral palsy and ADHD. However, they do not go to hell for homosexuality either. They go to hell because they knowingly reject Jesus Christ. Yes, no homosexual will have any part in the kingdom of Heaven; nor will any thief. Have you ever stolen anything? I do get impatient with the theology that says certain sins are a one-way ticket to hell. That just leads to the hopeless task of trying to determine how many times, how often, how seriously, and how habitually someone must commit the “big sin” to deserve hell. Homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible, but so are liars and trouble-makers and people with wicked thoughts and self-seeking people. Jesus himself said that the prostitutes would get into Heaven before the Pharisees, which is troubling if you think about it. Is he now pandering to prostitutes?"


Jack I have read and reread these paragraphs since you posted them. How i wish that more of us thought this way. Thanks for giving me more to meditate upon...the grace and mercy of God that love's and understands us and sins is such a miracle, is it not...

Blessings Jack...I need to remember these words.

Roberta