Is Homosexuality a Sin?: Approaching this is issue through the “Revelation and Invitation” Approach.

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

[Disclaimer: This blog and the posts contained within it are solely the representation of my personal thoughts and beliefs. They are in no way representative of the thoughts or beliefs of  communities or organizations I am involved in or discuss.  Such communities would include, but not be limited to, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Pasadena International House of Prayer, the School of Supernatural Ministry, the Live Bones student prayer group, Christian Assembly Church, etc.]

In my previous two posts I hope I have shown how if one seeks to answer the question “is homosexuality a sin” by reading the Bible as a “Truth-mine” the answer one arrives at is the standard condemnation of homosexuality.  However, the interpretation and application of the verses investigated on this issue in that approach are highly problematic if not outright incorrect.

In contrast, what happens if one reads the Bible as Revelation about God and about an Invitation to join His ongoing story as He interacts with humanity?  How does this impact how one reads the Bible regarding the issue and how does this impact the end result?

To recap this way of approaching the Bible, reading the Bible as Revelation and Invitation means reading the Bible as it is and not as we would have it.  This means reading the Bible as a collection of case-studies, or testimonies, of people’s experience of God that invite us into a relationship with God. This means acknowledging and working within tensions of the text and our limitations when studying it. This means we should humbly approach the scripture, seek to admit and understand our bias, admit all of the textual and interpretive issues at play, and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To begin I want to present some of my presuppositions and bias that inform me and my reading of the scripture and my approach to the Bible and faith even before I begin discussion the specific issue of homosexuality because acknowledging these beliefs is part of reading the Bible in this manner.

First, there is truth outside of the Bible. I believe the Bible is true and contains truth but it is not an exhaustive account of all truth.  The Bible is not the sum total of all knowledge humans can and should know. This means that there is truth beyond the pages of the Bible that followers of Jesus can and should seek out.  For example, 2+2=4 is true, but it is not found in a verse in the Bible. The law of gravity was established by God and widely recognized in the scientific community as true, but the law of gravity is not expounded upon in our Bible. Germs exist but they are never mentioned in the Bible. There are a multitude of examples but I think you get my point.

Because the Bible is not an exhaustive account of all truth, this means that humans can and should learn things about our world, about the human condition, about psychology, about sexuality, about science, about math, about God and about faith that are not written in the Bible.

Second, I believe the Bible is authoritative, but this authority is limited in scope. I believe the Bible is authoritative on what it is communicating to the human race about God, His story, our relationship to Him and to one another. I do not think the Bible is authoritative about astronomy, cosmology, science, human psychology, chemistry, technology, design, entertainment, engineering, etc.  While God’s authority is absolute, I do not think this should be confused with giving the Bible (or more accurately, our interpretation of the Bible’s words) that same absolute authority. So just because the Psalm 104:5 suggests that the foundations of the Earth can never be moved, does not mean that Christians must deny everything that has been learned about our heliocentric solar system, the rotation of the Earth, or force us to go back to an ancient Jewish understanding of the world that looked something like this.

Third, I believe the Bible was communicated through an ancient culture. All of the material in our Bible was shaped by the culture that communicated it. Sometimes this may be a good thing but  this also means that there are elements that should be recognized to be a reflection of that culture at that time and not a divine truth that applies to all Christians throughout time. They are to be understood as descriptive of the Hebrew and Greek culture and not descriptive commandments or aspects of the Family of God. While truth was communicated through cultures that once existed, this does not mean that we have to replicate or reproduce the values and customs of those cultures today as we follow Jesus. So for example, just because the people of God practiced Levirate marriage does not mean all followers of Jesus should practice this today.

Fourth, the morality and ethics of the people of God change over time. Many Christians believe that there is some timeless code of morality and ethics in the Bible that all Christians must adhere to.  This is simply not true.  While some morals and ethics appear to be constants, morality and ethics do change over time.

This happens in the Bible.  For example, the Levitical laws are updated several centuries later when Deuteronomy was written.  The changes in the laws reflect changes in the society.  The people of God were no longer a semi-nomadic agrarian society but an urban society that increasingly relied less upon crops and more upon currency and debt.  The heart of these laws did not change, but their application did. God for centuries required His people to be circumcised, celebrate certain festivals and eat only certain foods.  Suddenly He no longer requires these practices of His people.

Morality and ethics have continued to change since then.  For example, several hundred years ago it was seen as completely compatible to own slaves and be a Christian.  Several decades ago it was completely compatible to be racist and sexist and be a Christian.  Did the Bible change?  No.  Society evolved and our morality and ethics expanded to changed with it.

Fifth, the standard Christian understanding of human sexuality and sexual ethics is far too narrow. Most Christian teaching on these subjects boil down to two things: If you are married and heterosexual, sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed.  If you are not married or not heterosexual, sex is a sin that nailed Jesus to the cross. Human sexuality is a much more complicated subject than this and I think a much broader understanding of it is needed.  Additionally this understanding of human sexuality leads to a ridiculously narrow, simplistic and useless sexual ethic.  I am not advocating for laxer sexual ethics because it is hard to remain celibate, I am advocating for a the development of  sexual ethics that are actually useful to people.

Let me provide an example of why I think this narrow understanding of human sexuality and sexual ethics is problematic: I know of married Christian men in recovery for sexual addiction who are “acting out” in their marriage. They treat their wives as “their vagina” and use sex as a way to avoid intimacy and avoid emotions they do not want to deal with.  This dehumanize their wives and their spouses are understandably hurt.  However, the standard Christian teaching is that they are married and heterosexual, so their sexual union is a gift from God.  I have heard Christians rebuke the wives in this situation for being frigid.  The thought is that such women should submit to her husband more because “their body is no longer their own.”  This is a sick situation that slips by and is even enabled by the standard Christian teaching of sexual ethics.

We need to think more about these issues.

Sixth, I believe sexual orientation exists along a spectrum and a homosexual orientation may be natural and biological in origin.  I believe it may also be seeded by some sort of dysfunction or abuse. While I think at times homosexual attraction is caused by sexual abuse or broken relationships with parental figures, this is not always the case. I believe that sometimes people are born with an atypical sexual orientation somewhere along the spectrum. While rare, I believe a person can be born homosexual or bisexual. There are an increasing number of studies that back this up but really this opinion comes from my experiences with homosexuals who have shared with me both types of stories.

Continue onto the next page for more…

Pages: 1 2
Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Is Homosexuality a Sin: Problems with the Truth-mine Approach

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

[Disclaimer: This blog and the posts contained within it are solely the representation of my personal thoughts and beliefs. They are in no way representative of the thoughts or beliefs of  communities or organizations I am involved in or discuss.  Such communities would include, but not be limited to, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Pasadena International House of Prayer, the School of Supernatural Ministry, the Live Bones student prayer group, Christian Assembly Church, etc.]

My previous post outlined my entire thought process regarding homosexuality for most of my life and the one that still dominates most Christians and most Churches. If someone reads the Bible to answer the question, “Is homosexuality a sin” and they read the Bible through the Truth-mine approach, they will arrive at the standard categorical condemnation of homosexuality.  There really is no alternative if the Truth-mine approach is used. Therefore, any departure from this conclusion, any alternatives that are suggested, are labelled as a departure from the infallible word of God and from Christian orthodoxy or a capitulation to secularizing forces in our culture.

I began to depart from this stance some time ago. When I came to Fuller in 2010 I already supported the homosexual right to marriage in the wider culture, a huge break from the churches I was raised in. (And something I cowardly kept silent about, though I voted against Prop 8.)  However, I still believed homosexuality was incompatible with Christianity and homosexuals who loved Christ should remain celibate and for some homosexuals and heterosexuals lifelong celibacy and singleness might in fact be what they are called to.

In a class on Christian Ethics we discussed homosexuality and alternate interpretations of the texts commonly used to condemn homosexuality, including many I brought up in my previous post. At this time I actually refused to examine the issue further.  In an email to the professor I basically stated that because there were so many verses that condemned homosexuality it was more reasonable that homosexuality was simply a sin than it was that all of these verses had been incorrectly understood so I refused to explore the alternative interpretations. (In hindsight, I believe I was partially right.) Months later, after my crisis of faith last year and coming to a new understanding of the Bible, I actually took the time to consider these alternate interpretations and questions they brought up.

Through this process I have found that there are major problems with the interpretation and application of all of these verses.  Often the Truth-mine approach to these passages involve many unspoken assumptions that never go questioned and all of them involve a very selective application and reading of the biblical texts. In this post I hope to share some of my concerns about these verses and why the answer arrived at by the Truth-mine approach is not as nearly as clear-cut as most people think it is.

Continue onto the next page as I dive into the Old Testament verses…

Pages: 1 2 3
Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The “R” Word

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

A recent video has struck a chord with many people and it has spread like wildfire through social media, getting millions of views in only a couple of days. I was originally going to refrain from commenting about it, because I feel whatever needs to be said probably already has been said, but I eventually could not resist writing about a tension I saw surrounding this entire situation.  It’s going to take a while for me to get to my main point, so lets begin shall we.

Everyone hates religion, but what do we mean by that?

First, here is the video in question, Jeff Bethke’s spoken word piece “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”:

The lyrics can be found here. 

Bethke’s words are certainly powerful, I agree with much of it and appreciate his artistic talent and the way which he communicated his message. I deeply value his ability to be transparent about his past sins. To those that know my testimony or read my blog is should come as no shock that I deeply resonated with his story of pretending to be a good church kid while concealing a sexual addiction to pornography.

His main message is that religion is bad, Jesus is good and both he (Bethke) and Jesus hate religion. It is this hatred of religion that I think struck a chord with so many people and is why this video has exploded in popularity and discussion.  If Bethke just did a spoken word piece on why he loved Jesus, it would not have caused such a stir.  It is his declaration of hatred for religion that is drawing criticism, praise and conversation like a lightning rod.

This hatred of religion is nothing new.  Many people throughout history have decried religion and it has been blamed for a variety of evils and injustices in the world.  For my generation in particular it appears religion is absolutely anathema.  We are the generation that may describe ourselves as “spiritual” but never as “religious.”

This hatred is so deep that calling someone the “R” word (“religious”) is basically an accusation, not just a description.

But what do we mean when you use religion as a pejorative term or a slur? Usually, when used as a slur, this word signals someone or something that is legalistic, judgmental, performance based, hypocritical, self-righteous, homophobic, selfish, politically compromised (usually by the Republican party), graceless, violent, insecure, controlling, and conforming. I am sure some people would add or remove some of these traits and Bethke himself hits on some of these traits but not all of them, but I think this is a fair snapshot of what people having in mind when they accuse someone of being “religious.”

For the most part, it is really these negative traits that are hated when people talk of hating religion. Most people I know are not categorically against organized religion.  They are not against religious people  having a set of beliefs, or worshiping in a certain way, or gathering to pray, or reading holy books, or even treating others in a certain way as inspired by their religion. While some people might just hate organized religion, most people usually just hate these negative traits.  This is why there are even people from organized religions that talk of hating religion.  This is not as insane as it seems as someone can be part of an organized religion, but still hate these negative traits everyone else does.

The deeper issue is that many of these negative traits (legalism, judgmental attitudes, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, etc.) have become, rightly or wrongly, associated with organized religions and/or religious people.  It is believed that religious people are more prone to these traits and/or that religion actively instills these negative traits into people.

I believe this association comes from an unbalanced but not unfounded perspective. On one hand, many religious people are ordinary people who are trying to do the best they can with what they have. They do not exhibit most of these traits or take them to degrees beyond what is common to humanity. In addition to this, I know people who exhibit many of these negative traits but have nothing to do with religion or spirituality. However, on the other hand, with things like Rick Perry’s advertisement and Ted Haggard’s scandal, can we really blame people associating religion, especially Christianity, with the negative traits inherent in these situations?

Does Jesus hate religion?

Before continuing I should make two comments about Jesus and religion.

First, there are aspects of what we call “organized religion” that Jesus did not come to abolish and Jesus certainly does not hate. I do not think it can be said that Jesus came to abolish belief or public teaching or communal worship or the reading of scriptures or morality or ethics or many other aspects of organized religion. I think many bloggers and commentators who reacted against Bethke’s attack on religion were defending these aspects of religion and not the negative traits that he was really targeting.

That being said I think our modern concept of organized religion is way too narrow and compartmentalized to represent what Jesus called us to.  Organized religion often functions as just a descriptor of how someone lives in their personal life or a set personal beliefs they mentally assent to.

Jesus has claimed Lordship over our entire lives and this entire world.  Confessing Jesus as Lord is not about making sure to get your individual spot in heaven after you die.  Confessing Jesus as Lord should change every aspect of how you live, including how you treat other believers, how you treat those who are not like you, and especially how you treat your enemies. Followers of Jesus are called to be the people and family of God. In this, what followers of Jesus are called to goes far beyond the contemporary notion of an organized religion.

Second, regardless of how fair it is to associate these negative traits with religion, these traits are evil and it is fair to say Jesus does hate them. The Bible as a whole and Jesus’ teachings in particular make this abundantly clear.  Part of the reason Jesus rebuked certain religious Jews was because they were neck-deep in these traits. It was not the fact that they prayed that upset Him, but how they prayed that upset Him.  It was not the fact that they read the scriptures that upset Him, it is what they did with those scriptures and their teachings. It was not the fact that they believed in sin and morality that upset Him, it was how hypocritical they were in their application of these beliefs.

I should take the time to remind everyone that eventually some Pharisees did become followers of Jesus.  There is hope, even for people who do embody the negative traits associated with religion that God does hate. God is willing to forgive and adopt every kind of broken person into His family, including people who are recovering from hypocrisy, judgmental attitudes, homophobia, nationalism, legalism, etc.

So far I feel I have been Captain Obvious of the blogosphere, so on my next page I will share about what really prompted me to write on this topic…

Pages: 1 2 3
Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Two reasons why Martin Luther King Jr. was able to change the world.

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

Martin Luther King Jr. was not a perfect man, and I do not want to over-idealize him, but his leadership and actions changed the world.  I want to suggest at least two reasons why King, and Christians like him, have changed the world:

First, King did not suggest that equality among the races be relegated to a future hope while the status quo of the day should be submitted to. As Christians we believe that upon the return of Jesus Christ the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness and God will right every wrong.

I fear many Christians have turned this hope into an excuse for passivity and a rationale to accept the powers of darkness, evil, death and fear that drive our world. The very powers that Jesus came to free us from are submitted to, all under a very religious mask.  “Yes, one day there will be no more wars,” they say, “but that time has not yet come…(so we can turn a blind eye to wars, genocide and violence that reigns in the world today.)”

King, and others like him, refused to do this.  King did not just have ideals he hoped would be fulfilled in the future, he was willing to work towards those ideals now.  He did not give his “I have a Dream” speech and then say, “But that time has not yet come, so let’s go back to our segregated school, submit to Jim Crow laws, and ignore the Strange Fruit of black men and women being lynched in the South.”

Second, King practiced non-violence, even when it quite literally hurt him.  Jesus Christ taught that we are to love our enemies, to forgive others, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Even as He was being crucified by His enemies, he did not retaliate but prayed for their forgiveness. In addition to this, Jesus taught a “third way” to address the wrongs in the world that we should seek to change.  When faced with the evils of this world, a false dichotomy exists in terms of what our response can be. The options are often presented as either some sort of coercive or violent revolution where blood is spilled for the greater good, or non-violent passive acceptance of the way things are. Jesus engaged the political and spiritual powers of His day, but at the same time refused to go the way of violent insurrection against Rome.  Jesus taught non-violent active resistance. Injustices are addressed, but violence is not used.

I fear that Jesus teachings in regards to violence, like so many of His teachings, are simply not followed or only followed when it is convenient to do so. Many Christians, who claim to have the Spirit of God inside of them, claim that it is simply too hard to be non-violent, or will cost them too much.  Others suggest that Jesus teachings are really to highlight how imperfect we are and how much we need grace.  The practical implications of this is that people live their lives however they want and thank Jesus for their salvation and grace. Jesus teachings are widely ignored and not surprisingly we live exactly like the rest of the world does.

King, and other like him, refused to do this.  King took the teachings of Jesus regarding non-violence and justice seriously. He refused to lead a movement against white people but against injustice. He refused to say violence and coercion gets things done, and our enemies are using it, so should we. He refused to just thank Jesus for forgiving his sins as he went about an ordinary life, even an ordinary life as a pastor.

Followers of Jesus, if you want to change the world, or your country, or your city, or your family, or your community of friends you do not have to be perfect, but you have to do at least two things: work towards our future hope now, do not let our future hope make you passive in the present, and obey all of Jesus’ teaching, even and especially when it goes against the way the world works.

 

Posted in Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Is Homosexuality a Sin?: Approaching the Issue and the Bible through the “Truth mine” Approach

Posted on January 14, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

[Disclaimer: This blog and the posts contained within it are solely the representation of my personal thoughts and beliefs. They are in no way representative of the thoughts or beliefs of  communities or organizations I am involved in or discuss.  Such communities would include, but not be limited to, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Pasadena International House of Prayer, the School of Supernatural Ministry, the Live Bones student prayer group, Christian Assembly Church, etc.]

When the question, “is homosexuality a sin?” arises I fear that most Christians actually do not turn to the Bible.  They turn to whatever answer dominates their church’s culture and what their leaders have taught them. That answer is usually that homosexuality is always a sin. This, often coupled with an undercurrent of ignorance or outright homophobia in our culture, is usually as far as many Christians think about this issue.

When and where the Bible is actually consulted on this issue, it is usually approached as a Truth-mine because this is the most common approach to the Bible present in Christianity.  The goal in this method is to find a timeless eternal truth from God that is then turned into the one true biblical or one true Christian answer to this question that ends all debate and discussion forever.

When seeking to answer this question, this approach leads to an examination of less than ten passages in the Bible.  The following are the passages that have been traditionally associated with homosexuality, and a brief overview and any pertinent rationale, explanations, or arguments that are commonly associated with them.

Genesis 1-3 and “God’s Original Intent”: Many Christians would suggest that from Genesis 1-3, the story of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall of humanity, that God’s intention was for humans to be heterosexual. Adam was not complete and Eve was created to be his perfect match.  It is also from heterosexual unions that children come from. It is reasoned that the ideal that God put before us in Creation was monogamous, married heterosexual unions. This is summed up in the slogan “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” that abounded in the Prop 8 discussion in California. From this mindset, homosexuality is always regarded abnormal. It must have only existed after the Fall and if someone experiences homosexual attraction, this is a result of sin or abuse. They categorically reject that homosexuality might have arisen naturally or biologically. I have heard many Christians teach this mentality and explain that homosexuality is always the result of sexual abuse, broken relationships with one’s parents, a personal choice, etc. even if the homosexual person does not admit to any of these being part of their story.  This is really shoddy logic as it creates a situation where this hypothesis cannot be disproved. If homosexual admits to some of these being part of their stories, that is used to explain their orientation, but if a does not have a story of abuse or personal choice, the homosexual must be lying.

Gen 19, Jude 1:5-7, and Sodom and Gomorrah: The biblical text most people think of when they think of homosexuality in the Bible is the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. The traditional reading of the text goes something like this: Two male angels from God visited Lot, the brother of Abraham, and the evil homosexual men of Sodom wanted to have sex with these male visitors. This sin was so abhorrent to the LORD that God called down fire and sulfur to destroy them.  Jude recounts this later when warning of the judgment of God and talks about how Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them were judged because, “[they] indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh.”

The Levitical Texts: Two verses from Leviticus appear to unambiguously condemn sex acts between two men. In reading these verses it should be noted that in the Hebrew language, “to lie with” is a euphemism for “to have sex with.”

Leviticus 18:22 reads, “22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 reads, “13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

These are two major passages that Christians turn to in condemning homosexuality.  Sex between two men is directly called an abomination in the eyes of God, so clearly it is sin and incompatible with Christianity.

The “sodomite” passage in Deuteronomy: Deuteronomy 23:17 reads, “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.”

Instead of cult prostitute some older translations have “sodomite” for the second half regarding the sons of Israel. While many newer translations of the Bible avoid this because of advances in Ancient Near Eastern studies and studies of the Hebrew language, a small minority of Christians still apply this passage to homosexuality.

Unnatural Relations in Romans: Romans 1:26-27 reads, “26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

This passage equates “degrading passion,” with same-sex attraction and “indecent acts” with same-gender sex-acts. The entire thrust of this passage is that such things would lead to punishment.

No Homosexuals in the Kingdom of God: In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul writes, “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

In this passage homosexuals are identified as sinners along with a variety of other well-known sinners all of whom will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Many Christians would suggest that this is a clear sign that homosexuality is a sin alongside stealing, being covetous or committing adultery.

Lawless and Rebellious Homosexuals: In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 Paul writes, “8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

In this passage homosexuals are identified with a long list of other people who are “lawless and rebellious” including people who kill (not just disrespect) their parents and liars.  Homosexuals are labeled as “contrary to sound teaching” and they are, in this passage, someone that the law is to be used on in order to instruct them.

So is homosexuality a sin?

The conclusion always reached, the conclusion that has to be reached when the Truth-mine approach is utilized on this issue, is that homosexuality is always a sin and is incompatible with Christianity.  Christians cannot be homosexuals any more than they can be liars, murderers, people who kill their parents, etc.  Homosexual attraction is a “degrading passion” that is an abomination before the LORD and something that He has declared is worthy of the death penalty. While some Christian churches are blatantly homophobic, many Christian churches that condemn homosexuality would still welcome homosexuals but on the condition that must change by either reorienting to heterosexuality or become celibate.

On a personal note, this is where I was at for most of my young life.  This was the “eternal truth” I was taught from God’s infallible Word regarding homosexuality in various churches, youth groups and classes.  As I got older my position on this issue has changed dramatically for two main reasons.

First, I grew up.  As I experienced more of life, as I interacted with other Christian traditions, and as I befriended a number of homosexuals the black and white categories  taught to me by the Christian Church regarding homosexuality (and just about everything else) rather naturally fell apart in the face of life experience that came with age.

Second, I started critically thinking about my theology and actually examined the verses used to condemn homosexuality and found that even within the Truth-mine approach to scripture, these arguments and conclusions are problematic.

In my next post I want to present some of my questions and concerns that came up about these verses as I read and studied them.

Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Is Homosexuality a Sin?: Introduction

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

[Disclaimer: This blog and the posts contained within it are solely the representation of my personal thoughts and beliefs. They are in no way representative of the thoughts or beliefs of  communities or organizations I am involved in or discuss.  Such communities would include, but not be limited to, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Pasadena International House of Prayer, the School of Supernatural Ministry, the Live Bones student prayer group, Christian Assembly Church, etc.]

[In a previous post I have explained that most common approach to the Bible I have encountered in Christianity is the “Truth mine” approach.  In this approach the Bible is “mined” for timeless and eternal truths that govern Christian belief and behavior. I then have pointed out why this approach to the Bible is highly problematic for a number of reasons. I have suggested it would be better to read the Bible as Revelation from and about God and an Invitation to participate in His ongoing story of redemption.

How one approaches the Bible, how one chooses to interpret it, certainly impacts what you learn from the Bible and how you apply it in your daily life.  So what does it look like to approach the Bible as Revelation and Invitation as compared to approaching it as a Truth mine?  What will be different?

To answer this question the next several posts are going to examine the question “Is homosexuality a sin?” I will attempt to answer this question through both approaches to scripture so that they can be held up side by side. Hopefully by examining one issue in more detail my words about interpretation will come into focus.

But why am I focusing on homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a very polarizing issue that many Christian leaders, speakers and many of my fellow seminarians (the people who should be leading the discussion) do not want to touch with a ten foot pole.

In a recent article it was revealed that Sojourners refused to accept an add from an LGBT group that hopes to promote LGBT equality in churches because, “Sojourner’s position is to avoid taking sides on the issue…” Sojourners is one of the most progressive voices in Christianity that has taken a stance on many major issues that have cut across the grain of the status quo.  They have taken a side on divisive issues such as war, poverty, social justice, race, etc.  But on this one issue, their stance is to avoid taking a side.

In an article in the Semi (the Fuller newspaper) Randal F. reported that, “In the last three years, punk pastor Jay Bakker has led a public campaign with The American Family Outing in an effort to recruit prominent Evangelical pastors to affirm homosexuality in their churches. Notably, Bakker visited Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Bill Hybels and Fuller alum Rob Bell asking for their televised support. So far, none of these pastors have done so.”

The point I want to highlight is this: Rob Bell, who does not even believe in Hell, will not affirm homosexuality.  Apparently breaking with Christian tradition on the issue of Hell was not a big deal, but affirming homosexuality is simply too controversial for Bell.

No one wants to get near this issue.

Here at Fuller a number of students will voice their support for the LGBT community or advocate for the acceptance of LGBT people into the church, but only secretly and privately.  Many are well aware that their blogs, status updates, and conversations might be screened by future employers and many future employers (a.k.a. churches and denominations) are decidedly not welcoming to the LGBT community. (The recent issue in the Semi was a rather rare exception to this.)

On this issue I believe fear silences many people on both sides and it is fear that prevents the very dialogue that needs to happen.  I know fear is what kept me quiet at my home church for many years on this issue when I struggled with the blatant hatred of homosexuals promoted there. Here at Fuller the exact opposite is true. No one wrote into the Semi with an article that condemned homosexuality because that is not a popular opinion to have here at Fuller.

When fear silences dialogue all that is left over are the extreme voices that are trying to bludgeon their point home, not meet other people in civil dialogue and conversation.  These voices, on both sides, are often very hate-filled people hoping to accomplish an agenda that often has little to do with homosexuality, sexuality or Jesus.

I have previously written that dialogue should abound where dogma has reigned and I think this is one issue where that is very true.  That is why I have chosen to examine it while I flesh out my thoughts on interpretation more.

My overall aim in the next several posts is three-fold. First, I want to show the implications of how we choose to read the Bible. Second, I want to contribute my best understanding of the intersection between, God, sexuality, homosexuality and sin as this is an ongoing conversation that is happening at Fuller, especially in regards to our community standards. Third, I would hope to deal with this topic as compassionately and tactfully as possible because I realize it is a deeply personal issue to certain people on every side of the debate and I am an outsider writing about something that has deeply impacted the lives of others.

Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Transparency in the Family of God: Some barriers to transparency and how to overcome them.

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

While I firmly believe transparency should be sought after by followers of Jesus and the Family of God I realize there are some barriers that often keep people and the community from this.  I want to talk about a handful of common ones and suggest some basic solutions.

One barrier is that many let their embarrassment or guilt about what they have done keep them from being transparent about their sin. Occasionally this embarrassment is avoided by talk of how immodest or inappropriate it would be to talk openly about certain sins.  While I agree there is a time and a place to deal with evil and certain issues, talk of privacy, modesty or propriety is often used to mask the denial and/or avoidance that is really going on.

This barrier is not something new. In regards to why some avoided public confession Tertullian wrote…

Yet most men either shun [public confession], as being a public exposure of themselves, or else defer it from day to day. I presume (as being) more mindful of modesty than of salvation; just like men who, having contracted some malady in the more private parts of the body, avoid the privity of physicians, and so perish with their own bashfulness…Truly you are honorable in your modesty; bearing an open forehead for sinning, but an abashed one for deprecating!

Tertullian, albeit with a bit of a mocking tone, points out that some people are so embarrassed by their sins that avoid transparency, which is required to deal with sin.  Their “modesty” keep them from confessing their sins, but their “modesty” apparently was not enough to keep them from actually committing the sin in the first place. This barrier is all too common in the church and sadly the insane status quo in many Christian churches, if you really come down to it, is that you can do anything you want as long as you do not talk about it.

One barrier is that people genuinely misunderstand gossip and slander. Gossip and slander is taken very seriously in the Bible and followers of Jesus should be concerned with avoiding these sins. However, these sins are often misunderstood and this muddles the transparency needed in the Family of God.

On one hand the confusion in natural as both can deal with the revelation or exposure of sin.  Additionally theses terms are commonly misused with ulterior motives. Some accuse people who expose their sins of slander or gossip in an effort to enforce codes of silence and hide their sin.  On the other end of the spectrum some gossip and slander but feign to be rightly dealing with evil.  So what is the truth of the matter?

For me I understand gossip to be pointless/purposeless discussion about people and things that are often embarrassing to others. If I am chatting with someone about another person’s messy divorce with no reason, that is gossip. However, if I am discussing another person’s messy divorce with the actual goal of figuring out how to be support and love them in the situation that is, to me, another thing entirely.

In regards to transparency, I would suggest exposing sin with no purpose I would generally consider gossip. So for example, if a person confessed a sin to me and I exposed them unnecessarily, this would be gossip.  However, if another person commits the same sin, I confront them about it and they are unrepentant and I inform leaders in the Family of God, this is not gossip. The second situation had a purpose while the first did not.

Slander is simply false accusations.  If I simply suspect someone of an evil and accuse them this is slander.  If I falsely accuse someone just to hurt or embarrass them this is slander. In some cases I would suggest insinuating an accusation without ever quite saying it would still be slander.  However, if I witness a sin and rightly accuse them this is not slander. Now for practical reasons I may not make an accusation without additional witnesses or proof, or I may never make the accusation public, but I try not to just let things be swept under the rug never to be dealt with. I would also never make an accusation without first talking to the person directly about what I saw, or what I thought I saw.

One barrier is that the family of God is often not a safe place for people to be transparent. This is really probably the biggest issue. Transparency is dangerous and sometimes the reaction of other people to the disclosure of sin is horrifying. In many situations people do not confess their sins or talk about their issues because they have a justified fear concerning how the Family of God will react.

In regards to this Tertullian wrote…

[The time where public confession is seriously dangerous], is when it is a butt for jeering speech in the presence of insulters, where one man raises himself on his neighbor’s ruin, where there is upward clambering over the prostrate.  But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear, joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father. Why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member, (1 Cor 12:26) it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in laboring for the remedy. In a company of two is the church (Matt 28: 20) but the church is [Christ’s Body]. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren’s knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy. (Emphasis mine)

The rhetorical question Tertullian asks to make his point I would actually answer this way: People flee from being transparent with other followers of Jesus because so often other followers of Jesus do derisively cheer at the failings of other followers of Jesus. How often has the Family of God treated followers of Jesus whose sins are exposed like the scoffers Tertullian talked about instead of the Body of Christ he so beautifully described? How many times have followers of Jesus climbed over and gloated over the failures of other Christians to make themselves feel more righteous? How many times have we seen the very people who should weep with sinners, intercede for sinners, and work with sinners towards a solution instead turn on the sinner, vilify them, mock them and then kick them out of the community? Who would want to be transparent in this sort of environment?

I think this lack of safety in the church comes from a lack of understanding. I fear that many followers of Jesus simply do not understand grace, sin and the Body of Christ. They think their righteousness comes through their behavior and not through faith in God.  They think some sins count less than other sins. They have a low level of ownership in the Family of God and the lives of other followers. They view themselves as in essentially in competition with other followers of Jesus rather than being part of the same Body.

Where these misunderstanding prevail, self-righteousness is the only path many followers of Jesus have to fulfill their need to feel righteous and believe they are good people. They are exhorted to be righteous by the Bible and their own conscience but cannot get their on their own, so they get their by gloating over the failures of others. In this environment the exposure of someone else’s sin, especially if that sin is seen as worse than yours, is an opportunity for self-righteousness that far too many pounce upon.  The inner logic is something like this: “I might be struggling with pornography but at least I did not cheat on my wife like that guy!”

Major failings in the community, or better yet in another Christian community, often function as a sort of self-righteousness sacrifice.  People whose “big” sins are exposed are thoroughly vilified, and their lives, their families and their reputation are sacrificed, so the whole community can feel better about themselves. These situations usually go far beyond what the Bible requires and are not restorative in their purpose or intent but are inherently malicious and misguided.

So what are some solutions to these barriers?

From a doctrinal or theological perspective a right understanding of sin, grace, the family of God, forgiveness, gossip and slander may help some or resolve some of these barriers.  Some of these barriers stem from incorrect beliefs in the community.  Something as simple as some open conversations about this issues can be very helpful.

From a practical perspective,  modelling transparency and living out these theological and doctrinal realities goes a long way in breaking down these barriers.  When and where followers of Jesus are only transparent in secret or not transparent at all, all that is publicly visible is success and victory.  This creates a false atmosphere where it looks like everyone is walking in victory and enjoying great success.  People who are dealing with sin issues or other problems wrongly feel that they are the only ones struggling and try to deal with it in secret for fear of being found out, singled out, or faced with people who cannot relate.  However, by people being transparent about what is going on, publicly, especially in leadership, this false atmosphere can be demolished and make it okay for others to be transparent.

Ultimately though, personal and spiritual maturity blasts most of these barriers out of the water.  If a person has spent time cultivating a relationship with Jesus and is attentive to the Holy Spirit they do not need to have guidelines to know what gossip is and what transparency is, they will intuitively know the difference.  Mature persons intuitively navigate the tension of dealing with evil in a loving manner.  Mature persons cannot be silenced by false talk about modesty or privacy and do not seek to use these as excuses for their own evils.

I really think one of the appeals of maintaining a secretive and not-transparent atmosphere in the Family of God is that it allows for immaturity to continue. Secrecy sets the bar low because secrecy requires very little of us.  It does not require the maturity that dealing with conflict and sin does. At the end of the day, I think in many cases the solution to many of these barriers is for us to call each other to a higher standard and grow deeper in our own relationship with God and grow in our ability to live in unity with one another.

Readers, what do you all think?  Am I off my rocker?  Am I onto something?

Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Transparency in the Family of God: My beliefs.

Posted on January 6, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

I believe followers of Jesus and the Family of God are inherently required to be transparent. In some cases this means being transparent with one other follower of Jesus or a select few trusted people, but other times it is required to be more publicly transparent. Because of this, while wisdom and discernment is required to navigate the tension on this issue, I think all followers of Jesus should err on the side of transparency and even public transparency. I do not believe this is a personal optional commitment that some believers make, I think this is part of being the Family of God.

To explain this further and respond to some of the concerns I want to explore three more ideas in more detail.  First, I believe it is impossible for followers of Jesus and the Family of God to deal with sin and bring about change without being transparent.  Second, followers of Jesus are simply not promised a “right to privacy” regarding their sins.  Third, I believe that the fact that exposing and dealing with sin can be painful and embarrassing cannot be used as an excuse to maintain secrecy about an issue.

Occasionally I will be referring to an unlikely source that I have found helpful on this issue: Tertullian.  Tertullian was a leader in the early church, around the close of the 2nd century AD, and his writing concerning why people avoided the public confession required in his day by the church proved helpful as I thought through this issue. So let’s begin.

To the first point, I believe transparency is always necessary to deal with sin issues and bring about change.

On a personal level if you are in denial about what is going in your life, if you are too arrogant to admit you are not perfect, if you are too fearful of the reaction of your community, or if you are for whatever reason unable to be transparent with at least one other person you will not change. If you confess your sins to God you may be forgiven, but you will probably continue to sin. Have we not all experienced times where sins we have confessed to Jesus only to continue to commit the same sin?

There is simply something that happens when we finally are able to swallow our pride or our fear, drop our pretenses and let someone else know what is really going on.  Spiritually speaking, at the very least this fulfills the exhortation of James 3 to confess our sins to one another.  Practically speaking, at the very least it invites accountability, support and a fresh perspective on the situation from at least one other person.

This is just as true on a communal level.  If the Family of God maintains codes of silence and avoids talking about issues, if followers of Jesus refuse to talk about and deal with what is going on in their community, the issues and evils within the community will persist. Ask any dysfunctional family: secrecy is not the pathway to change.

Tertullian’s writing highlights two important points in regards to this issue…

First, Tertullian writes…

I give no place to bashfulness when I am a gainer by its loss…Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! If we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgment of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par?  Is it better to be damned in secret than absolved in public?…

Many shun transparency for fear of what others people will say or think.  Yet God already knows what we did and it is God who will ultimately judge us and God to whom we are ultimately accountable. So why not confess our sins and be forgiven? Even if the worst should happen, and people around us shun us, ridicule us, break-friendship with us over what we have done, it would still be better to confess our sins and be reconciled to God than to maintain the approval and acceptance of other humans through deception but continue sinning against God.

Later Tertullian adds…

Miserable it is to be cut, and cauterized, and racked with the pungency of some (medicinal) powder: still, the things which heal by unpleasant means do, by the benefit of the cure, excuse their own offensiveness, and make present injury bearable for the sake of the [healing they will eventually bring].

Tertullian points out that the pain of transparency is far outweighed by what we gain from it. Tertullian does not suggest transparency will be fun or easy, but like a medical procedure that is painful or repulsive, transparency is worth it because of the healing and forgiveness it brings.  What we have to gain by transparency far outweighs anything that would hold us back from it.

In short, while secrecy may be easier or help us avoid the pain of embarrassment or exposure, it invites stagnation and our sins will most likely continue. What we push away and deny we are doomed to repeat. Transparency may not be fun or easy, but it is required to bring about the forgiveness of our sins and change in our lives. What we acknowledge and accept we can deal with and God can work in our weakness and brokenness.

Second, the scriptures never talk about a right to privacy and they certainly do not suggest followers of Jesus have a right to privacy regarding the sins they have committed.

A right to privacy is a modern concept.  Not surprisingly nothing is said about it in the scriptures. We are not guaranteed that we have a right to run our personal affairs however we see fit, with no commentary or intervention from the family, and we certainly are not promised that we have a right to privacy to sins that we commit. I would actually suggest that a follower of Jesus should expect less privacy if they join the Family of God. Let me explain what I mean.

If I saw a random stranger at the supermarket cuss out their children I’m probably not going to talk to them about it.  However, if my cousin cusses out their children, we are certainly going to have a talk about it. What is the variable that changes my reaction?  The answer is simple: ownership.

With my family I have a stake in the lives of my family members and they have a stake in mine because, like it or not, we are blood and we are in this together.  How they live their life inherently impacts and reflects upon me and vice versa. With a stranger I feel no such ownership and at the end of the day the consequences, good or bad, of how they choose their life will be on them and theirs. This is why I would address the issue with my cousin but not with a stranger.

If you join the Family of God, you are no longer some stranger, but a member of the Family. More people, not less, will have a vested interest in how you live your life.  Now I’m not saying other followers of Jesus a right to install hidden cameras in your house or read your diary (healthy families have healthy boundaries), but you cannot brush off the concerns of other followers of Jesus or leaders by suggesting you have a right to privacy, by accusing them of meddling in your affairs, and by stating they have no right to involve themselves in how you conduct your personal business.  Your affairs are now family affairs. If you do not want the added scrutiny and involvement, don’t get baptized.

I almost feel it does not need to be said, but nowhere in scripture does it suggest that Followers of Jesus have a right to privacy about the sins they have committed.  Obviously I would expect the Family of God to be loving in how it deals with evil, and this would not mean exposing sins without any purpose or in an unloving manner, but Jesus does not say that we can sin and that are owed some right to secrecy regarding those sins. This just is not part of following Jesus or being the Family of God.

Third, the fact that exposing and dealing with sin can be painful and embarrassing cannot be used as an excuse to maintain secrecy about an issue.

Some might suggest that certain sins should be kept secret because exposing the sin may cause more harm than good. For example, what if you caught your pastor in an affair? Exposing this affair might lead to divorce(s), children growing up in broken homes, a split church and a tarnished reputation of the church and of Jesus. Should you keep this sin a secret because exposing it might hurt too many people? Should transparency be compromised to avoid the pain and consequences of exposing sin? Let us say a sin is exposed against the wishes of the perpetrator.  In a similar vein, could the perpetrator ever hold the person who exposed them accountable for the emotional pain or other consequences of having their sin exposed?

Tertullian again wrote something that I think is helpful…

But you say [in objection to going to public confession], “It is a miserable thing thus to come to [public confession]” yes, for evil does bring to misery; but where repentance is to be made, the misery ceases, because it is turned into something salutary. (Emphasis mine.)

Evil does bring misery.  Dealing with evil is painful and messy.  It is a horrible feeling when our evil deeds are exposed.  It is horrible to see other followers confess things that wrench your heart. It is horrible to see a secret sin exposed against the wishes of an unrepentant perpetrator. But this is part of the devastation of sin.

Part of the pain of sin is the pain it causes when it is exposed and dealt with. Sin gets you coming and going as it were.  Not only is there a right guilt about committing an evil act but there is a second cut as it where when we decide to deal with it.

Because part of the pain of sin comes from dealing with it I do not believe one can ever use this pain as a rational for continuing to keep issues secret. To suggest that an evil should be kept secret in an attempt to avoid the full consequences of that evil is, in my mind, trying to do evil that some good may come.  This sort of logic has no place in the Family of God.

Additionally, I believe this means that ultimately the responsibility for the pain of the sin being exposed or any consequences of sin is on the people who perpetrated the sin. You cannot commit a sin and then blame the person who exposes it for the consequences of the sin that you committed. I could not have an affair, destroy my marriage, destroy the lives of my kids, destroy my church and then blame the person who exposed it. There might be a situation where a sin was unnecessarily exposed or exposed in an unloving manner, but even in these situations, if the accusation is true, if you had not sinned there would never have been a problem in the first place.

In my next and final post on this subject I want to talk about some barriers to transparency in the Family of God I have seen and hopefully provide some constructive thoughts on how to overcome them.

Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Transparency in the Family of God: The tension.

Posted on January 4, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

Dysfunctional families always share a core set of rules that everyone is required to obey.  One of the central rules is a rule to not talk.  This code of silence keeps family members from talking about what is going on and what they are seeing and experiencing.  While Asian families are notorious for this, every culture has their own formulation of the saying “Do not air the family’s dirty laundry in public.” While it is possible and at times desirable to healthily deal with certain issues in private, in dysfunctional families this rule really functions as a way to enforce a communal denial of what is going on so that no one has to actually deal with or even look at the family’s issues. “Do not air the family’s dirty laundry in public” really means “Pretend like everything is okay, even when it is not.”As long as the silence is maintained the issues continue and individuals and the community continue to be hurt.

I am all to familiar with this “sweep-everything-under-the-rug-and-do-not-talk-about-it” approach to life because this is how my own family operated. Most of my life was not surprisingly marked by a lot of duplicity and denial. However, since 2008 I have been incredibly open about sin issues and other problems in my life.  This has not been fun or easy but it has led to dramatic change in my heart and in my behavior. Bitter transparency has bought incredible freedom and healing.

While many Christians have applauded this transparency, and some have even reported being emboldened to be more honest by my example, I have also had Christians strongly react against it. This is not really a surprise.  Sadly I have found that codes of silence are all to common in churches as well. Various Christian communities have their own formulation of the saying “Do not air your dirty laundry in public,” and denial and secrecy masquerade as propriety and privacy. If someone breaks the code of silence, they are often pressured to stop talking or outright accused of gossip or a slander.

For example, when I referenced a scandal that had divided my home church I was twice censured and told not to talk about it further. I was not bringing this scandal up in a casual or flippant manner, nor was I attacking or making judgments on anyone involved, everyone in the group I was talking to knew about it and it was public knowledge by this time. It had even been featured in our local newspaper years before. To this day you can go and visit the two churches that resulted from this scandal.

Another example was the comments I received from Christians when I decided to write about my relationship with my Ex on my blog.  Some believed that talking about my relationship with my Ex with anyone or writing about it online was categorically inappropriate and I was engaged in gossip or slander, regardless of whatever I said or wrote. Some suggested secrecy should be maintained if the truth would in any way embarrass or hurt her. Others even directly stated that even if my Ex had done something legitimately evil or villainous to me she deserved her right to privacy.

These and many other situations have frustrated me to no end. I find it mind boggling that followers of Jesus, who are called to walk in the light and worship God in spirit and in truth, appear so fond of secrecy and silence. Why does the Family of God in so many ways function like my family of origin on this issue? (To be clear, this is not a good thing.)

However, I do recognize that the issue of transparency is not black and white issue and there is a tension. From surveying all of scripture it appears that on one hand followers of Jesus are to confess their sin and address sin issues in their communities.  There are times where this is to be done inter-personally and privately and usually this is preferred. However, there are also times where it is necessary to involve and inform other people of the situation. When evil is being exposed in these cases, possibly to people who previously did not know about this, this is not to be confused with gossip or slander. (See 2 Sam 12, James 5, 1 John 1, 3 John 1, Eph 5, Luke 17, Matt 18, 1 Tim 5, etc.)

On the other hand, when attempting to deal with evil and sins within their community, followers of Jesus should do so in the most wise and loving manner possible. Transparency is always needed when dealing with sin, as you have to at least confess your sin and be transparent with one other person, but it is not always necessary to make every sin common public knowledge. The scriptures many time warn about the power of words and Followers of Jesus should not be careless with their words, even if they are talking about something true. Followers of Jesus are not free to make baseless accusations or spread malicious rumors. Gossip and slander are to be taken seriously and avoided. Exposing sins should not be done with no purpose or with ulterior motives, such as stirring up trouble or exacting revenge on the person who committed those evils. (See Prov 20, Romans 1, Rom 12, 2 Cor 12, 1 Tim 3, Jam 3 1 John 2, etc.)

In short, sins should not be hidden, but not every sin needs to be made public knowledge.  Sins and evils should always be addressed but we are also called to be wise and loving in this process.

So how far do we take transparency?

The extremes appear clear.  Obviously is you found out someone was sexually abusing children they could not say, “You can’t expose my sin because I have a right to privacy and exposing this sin would embarrass me and hurt my feelings. If you expose me you’ll be unloving to me and sinning so you have to keep this a secret.” On the other end of the spectrum if a thirteen year old boy confessed a struggle with pornography I think most people would intuitively know there is no need for this to end up in the church bulletin next week and this sin could and should be kept secret as it is being dealt with.

But what about that gray middle? How do we determine what is on what end of the spectrum? Do we strive for transparency across the board?  Do we strive for transparency on some issues but not others? (And if so, how do we differentiate between the two)  Do we strive to respect people’s privacy unless it is absolutely necessary? (And if so, when do we decide when it is necessary?) Do followers of Jesus have a right to privacy regarding the sins they have committed or are committing?

In my next post I will provide my thoughts on this issue and explain my reasoning.

Posted in Faith, Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A New (Year’s) vision for my life…

Posted on January 1, 2012 by Speakfaithfully

This is how I feel right now.

Over Christmas break I spent a lot of time with connecting with God and dealing with many of the issues that arose from my descent into depression in November and December. After some major revelations, some highs and lows, and making a number of healthy choices I am at a much better place.  In fact, I am at the best place that I have been in a long time.

In many ways my first year at seminary was the worst year of my life.  The next year was spent trying to recover from it and getting my feet back under me.  After this summer and especially after this time of Christmas break I finally feel that that season is done with and I am ready for what God has for me now.

One of the things that happened over this break was God invited me to take my own advice and start writing out what I want to see happen in my life. As my first post of 2012, I thought I would share some of those dreams and visions instead of the New Years resolutions I never set.

Some will be fulfilled in 2012, some will start to be fulfilled in 2012 and I’m sure others will not happen until much later.

  • I want a consistent healthy relationship with God. I want as many experiences of His goodness and Love that I know that I am loved regardless of my circumstances and I do not let my present circumstances dictate what I believe about His character.
  • I think I finally get that this whole faith thing is about a relationship with God and knowing Him.  I really do not care about being right anymore.  I just want to be in love.  To be completely honest, right now I think I like God and sometimes I trust Him.  I want to have more experiences with Him so that I am more and more excited to know Him and more willing to trust Him.
  • I want to grow out of a Slave identity with God.  I think I am stepping into being a Friend of God but I would really like to “get” my identity as a Son of God and as a Lover of God.
  • I would like to be in a healthy romantic relationship with a woman who I am attracted to spiritually, physically and intellectually and is attracted to me in the same ways.
  • I would like to be married to a woman who I am attracted to spiritually, physically and intellectually and is attracted to me in the same ways. (In intentionally separated this from the one above because I do not agree with the mindset that every romantic relationship must end up in marriage or it is a failure.  Maybe I have two or three long-term relationships with amazing women before I end up married.  Healthy long-term relationships can be incredibly healing and incredibly growing as well as fun!  Those are good enough ends in and of themselves.)
  • I want to have children some day and be a father.  I am open to adoption.  I really want to have physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually healthy children that thrive.
  • I want to have a fully healed body.  Specifically I want to be free from my arthritis and my problems with vision.  These are long-standing health issues that have bugged me or caused me physical pain for some time.
  • I want  to have a fully healed mind. While I want to make sure mourning, lamenting and sadness are accepted as legitimate responses to difficult parts of life, I want to be free from the raging pessimism that at times over takes me.  I want to be free from the negativity that says my body will never be healed, I will always be in physical pain, I will never get married, or my marriage will be bad, and that if I have children they will experience major difficulties, birth defects or die tragically, etc.
  • I want a fully healed heart.  I want to be completely free from the irrational fears of being hurt in relationships that keep me from receiving love from family, friends and romantic relationships. I want to be free from my fear of rejection.
  • I want to be free from my fear of failure. Fear of failure is probably the worst thing in my life right now.  If I do not think I will be completely competent or successful at something I often choose not to try.  I choose to fail because of my fear of failure.  This fear is so strong some times I cannot even attempt the most simple, basic, or safe things that would not stump even an insecure thirteen year old.  It keeps me from exploring more of life and I hate it.  This needs to go.
  • I want to be free from my fear of my own emotions. Sometimes the thing I am most deathly afraid of is my emotions.  I have it in the back of my head that if I feel sadness or anger that is bad, no one will help me with them, or they will never end.  I run to distraction and addiction instead of dealing with them, or dealing with the things that they point to.
  • I want to healthily navigate the fact that I am (and it is good to be) interdependent upon other people but not be co-dependent on them.  I want to healthily see that some people who love me actually want to help me meet my needs and when I am in a hard place, but also know it is not their responsibility to take care of all my needs.
  • I want restored relationship with my immediate family. I did not have the family I wanted growing up but I want to work towards it now, at least with my immediate family.  I want them to know who I am and love me and I want to actually know them and have a relationship with them.
  • I want to be a person who is incredibly encouraging and affirming to other people.  When people walk away from interacting with me, I want them to feel better about themselves, not walk away thinking I am a cool guy.
  • I want a stable fulfilling job or jobs that really utilize all my gifts.  I want to be doing something that I feel I was made to do.
  • I want to be financially stable.  I do not care about jet skis or holiday trips to Europe but I want to be able to comfortably provide for the legitimate needs of my family. I do not want to be in borderline poverty all the time.  I do not want to scrape by.  I do not want to have to fund raise.
  • I want to be a published author and write a book or books that change people’s lives.  It would be nice to actually make money off of this, but I would definitely settle for writing words that just help people.
  • I want to do restorative work with people. I want to help people who have been discarded by society and by the Church.  I want to help addicts, abuse survivors and people on the margins, because those are the people who need help.
  • I want to work with and in Native American communities in some way for at least some season of my life.  God loves the Native American and First Nations people.  The governments of the U.S. and Canada as well as the Christian Church need to deal with this dark chapter of our history that in many ways continues to this day, and deal with the consequences of colonization that happened on these shores.
  • I want to grow in my spiritual gifts and my understanding of the spiritual realm and my authority as a follower of Jesus.  I want to have increasingly accurate prophetic words that help people.  I want to pray for healing and see it happen.  I want supernatural wisdom and discernment.
  • I want to understand the appeal of hipster fashion. (Okay this is a joke.  But when did super tight jeans and porno-mustaches become attractive for guys?  Is it ironic?  Yes.  Does it make me want to be your friend?  No. And who the hell decided to make plaid the new black.  Are we all studying to be lumberjacks?)
  • I want a healthy family of friends.  I do not want to have a large pool of shallow acquaintances.  I want people who will be there for me and know me well.  I want to be there for other people who know me well.
  • I want a restored heart to the Body of Christ. I hate the Christian religious system and there are many churches and Christians that in no way represent Jesus Christ.  That being said I cannot be a spiritual nomad or orphan.  God did not adopt so that I could run around and try to figure this life out on my own.  I need to have a restored heart to the Body of Christ, at least to the extent that I can plug-in and connect somewhere.
  • I want a heart that is prone to be thankful for what I have, not prone to feel slighted because of what I do not have.  I want to be thankful for everything I have and all the opportunities before me that very few in this world get. I want to pursue every opportunity I have been afforded without shame but also recognize that most of the world would kill to have the life I have right now, including all of my problems.
  • I want to continue to say “I am free enough to want everything I say and do to reveal me as I am.  I love being seen as I am.”  I never want to go back to a place where I feel I have to put on a False Self to be accepted by other people.
  • I want to free from any sense of entitlement.  I want to let go of the belief that every other person is supposed to trust me, treat me with respect, see me as special and love me.
  • I want to continue to be increasingly comfortable in my own skin and never return to a place where I am comparing my life to the life of others.
  • I want to humbly acknowledge that everything that God brings into my life as somehow legitimate.  I want to integrate all of my experiences, both good and bad, instead of interrupting them, distracting myself from them, or running from them.

After writing these down in my iPhone I literally had a renewed sense of hope in my life.  It was odd that such a simple behavior of answering the question, “What do you want for your life?” could give me hope in place of a lot of pessimism and negativity.

So readers…what are some dreams for your life?

P.S.  While life has not and will not be problem free, it also is and will be pretty freaking amazing. 🙂

Posted in Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments