Shuck and Jive


Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Princeton Theology Professor Embraces Same-Gender Marriage

I was pleased to find this article on the More Light Presbyterians web page. Dr. William Stacy Johnson of my old school, Princeton Theological Seminary, has published a book in support of gay marriage! The book is entitled,









A Time to Embrace: Same Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics.


Read the publisher's description here and download a study guide here.




Dr. Johnson served on the recent Theological Task Force. I wrote an article regarding their recommendations to the last General Assembly. I didn't like them. I wanted the GA then (and I still want) to remove what I believe are prejudicial and discriminatory policies.

However, I did admire the the views of the individual task force members and their willingness to come to some sort of unanimous decision. I am pleased that some of the members, like Johnson, are now coming out with their convictions.

To get an idea of Johnson's viewpoint, the Presbyterian Outlook published an article in 2005. If you click the More Light article you will find Johnson's six possible ways for the church to respond to gay and lesbian Christians. He begins with an example of

"...one particular type of person – a gay or lesbian whose sexual identity is firmly established, who is a baptized member in good standing of a Christian congregation, and who is involved in an exclusive, committed relationship with a partner. Where does that person fit, Johnson asked the task force, into “the grand gospel drama?”

Below are six ways of answering that question. The summaries of each view are posted. But do read the whole article for their descriptions.

1) Categorical Prohibition

CREATION: Homosexuality is a perversion of God’s intent.
REPENTANCE: Repent of being gay.
REDEMPTION: Return to the true heterosexual nature or abstain.

2) Welcoming but not Affirming

CREATION: Homosexuality is a tragedy, not a perversion.
REPENTANCE: Repent of acting gay.
REDEMPTION: Stoic acceptance of one’s faith through abstinence.

3) "It's a Justice Issue"

CREATION: Homosexuality is sinful, one of many sinful conditions.
REPENTANCE: Repent of singling out homosexuality and ignoring other sins.
REDEMPTION: Create a world in which difference no longer makes a difference.

4) It's Really a Pastoral Issue

CREATION: Homosexual orientation is morally ambiguous.
RECONCILIATION: Gay and lesbian relationships, while disobedient to Scripture in form, may actually be obedient in substance. Heterosexual relationships are imperfect too.
REDEMPTION: Exclusive, committed same-sex partnerships are better than promiscuity.

5) Welcome, Affirm and Celebrate

CREATION: Homosexuality is a fact of nature to be regarded as good.
RECONCILIATION: Gays and lesbians need to be reconciled to the goodness of their homosexual orientation.
REDEMPTION: One's sexuality is to be celebrated as God's good gift.

6
) Welcome, Affirm and Consecrate

CREATION: Homosexuality is a fact of nature not to be condemned, but is also ambiguous and needs to be rightly ordered.

RECONCILIATION: Sin does not reside in orientation but in whether one rightly orders one’s life. Our relationships are a means of grace.
REDEMPTION: One’s sexuality is to be consecrated through an exclusive, committed covenant -- blessed by the church. People, not sexuality, are the objects of our celebration.

Near the end, Johnson suggested that the task force consider the metaphor of a card game – with homosexuality being dealt as the joker. The prohibitionists would discard the homosexuality card. The definitive guidance players would hide it. The justice folks would see it as “just another card in the game.” The pastoral folks would want all the other players in the game to help the person who drew the card. The celebrationists would consider it to be a very good card. And the consecrationists would find a way consecrate the card within the game itself.

57 comments:

  1. I guess I'll quote Gomer Pyle here:
    "Well...suprise, suprise, suprise!"

    So Johnson was the guy who authored much of the PUP Report, eh?

    Big darned surprise! I guess the inside job that was the PUP report had to be unmasked sooner or later. Well, here it is--just more proof that the PCUSA seminaries are full of professors that have abandoned reason for madness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those six categories are an interesting way of looking at the issue. I think it is definitely true that some churches have tried to find some sort of meaningless middle position, to be found among those middle categories, which really is not satisfactory for those who believe in extending God's inclusive love to all, and it is certainly not acceptable to gays and lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Toby,

    Johnson did not author the Theological Task Force report. He was a contributor with the others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seeker,

    I find myself in category five with a nod to six.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John,

    He was one of the main writers. He was put on that group to give the intellectual heft for their project--which we now know was to bring about a way to end our constitutional standards of conduct for ordained persons in the PCUSA.

    Looks like he's just finally out of the closet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Johnson was indeed one of the main writers of the PUP report. I had him for one year of systematics and two electives. His style - phrases, etc. are evident all throughout the report. I will say that though I was on the other side of the spectrum from him, when we had many conversations about ordination standards, authority of Scripture, Christology, even politics, he listened, understood all sides, was fair to all sides, and could articulate all sides - sometimes better than those who argued against him. I found myself hoping that I could be as gracious as he when talking with those who believe differently than I.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Rev Kim!

    Welcome! I know a little about Wyoming (as a native of Wyoming's brother to the north). Beautiful country!

    Thanks for your thoughts. All the best to you in your call--and thanks for your blog!
    john

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rev Kim,

    I read your profile too hurriedly. Congratulations on your marriage! Many, many blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would certainly fall into category #1. I'm so glad that you put it at the top of the list, right where the Bible itself resides.

    Homosexuality is, without question, a perversion of God's intent. He has stated it to be so, and up until 20 odd years ago most cultures and religions of the world agreed with His assessment of this issue.

    I'm old enough to remember the days when gays and lesbians used to say "How dare you judge me! I have CHOSEN this path and you have no right to judge my choice. Only God does."

    Now, of course, they've dropped the "choice of morality" card in favor of the genetic card. "I was BORN THIS WAY. How dare you judge me for how God made me."

    Unfortunately, folks, just because one is born with an orientation toward homosexuality does not mean that it is good or that it should be embraced. The Bible tells us that EVERYONE is BORN WITH THE ABERRATION OF SIN (or to use modern language....an orientation toward sin). Does that mean that sin should be embraced as a good gift from God which we should celebrate? Of course not. Sin is sin because God declares it to be so, even when we're born with it and can't help but practice it. In the same way, homosexuality is sin because God declares it to be so, even if we're born with it and can't help but practice it.

    The solution for both, of course, is to receive the gift of Christ, who leads us to repentance of the sin, and frees us up from making a practice of our sin (including homosexuality) -- 1 John 3:8-10. I may still have the urge to steal from time to time, just as the homosexual may still have the urge to fornicate with a same-sex partner, but Christ-in-us gives us a transformation away from that (Romans 12:1,2), helping us to offer up our bodies as instruments of righteousness instead of sin (Romans 6:13,16-18).

    "You made me this way, so why are you judging me God?" just doesn't cut it with Him. Romans 9 is a good reminder of that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You know, after looking at #6, I have to say that I have a problem with it. I think I agree with you, John, about being more oriented towards #5. What I don't like about #6 is this comment:

    "To celebrate sexuality in and of itself is considered in this view to be pagan, not Christian, he said."

    I really think that Christianity needs to get over itself with respect to sexuality. Sexuality, in my view, is a good thing and needs to be celebrated. The end result of this kind of prudish mentality is seen in the case of the Catholic woman who recently lost her job as a church organist because she sold sex toys on the side. I say, good for her! The priest who fired her said that "her sale of sex toys was not "consistent with Church teachings." The idea that sexual pleasure might be inconsistent with church teachings tells us all we need to know about those teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Toby - do you know anything about the Adopting Act of 1729? The PUP report is one huge dramatic repetition of what we already know and practice as a denomination. Since the very beginnings of American Presbyterianism the debate over ordination standards has revolved around this "God is the Lord of the Conscience" but "the conscience is captive to the confessions" dialectic. The use of scruples is time honored and since the PUP report ordination processes have only gotten HARDER across the nation not easier. I know, I'm in it right now.

    Frankly, I'd be pretty disappointed in any candidate for ministry who didn't have any scruples.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ((I really think that Christianity needs to get over itself with respect to sexuality. Sexuality, in my view, is a good thing and needs to be celebrated.))

    I agree. And so would most Christians. But our sexuality has its limits. Even that must be brought under self-control so that we aren't mastered by it. We also must not stray into perverse ways of celebrating it, which is where the priest is apparently at.

    Perhaps Paul's words to the Corinthians can help our mystical friend:

    1 Cor 6:12-13
    All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."

    Are sex toys a perversion. Yeah, probably. Sex was designed by God to be a gift that we give to someone else, with the reciprocal benefit of being pleasered ourselves. However, to use sex toys on ourselves is to encourage lust and self-centeredness, while to use them on our partners is to suggest that I think you need more than what God has given me to find satisfaction in sex. It encourages a partner to disassociate from me and concentrate on a man-made tool. And this is a slippery slope, because it can open the door to idea that if I'm not good enough, and the toys aren't good enough either, then why not invite a third party in.

    So, sex in itself is a wonderful gift from God, but He encourages us to use it in the right context, with God-honoring boundaries, and with the right apparatus which He has already supplied.

    My hat's off to the priest!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd have to put myself in line with #6. Of course, I don't have to wrangle with church teachings, or try to reconcile myself to what I've been told is a sin. I know this: the greatest sin I can think of is denying anyone the opportunity to openly express and celebrate compassion, concern, and love for another human being, or to any number of human beings. That concern, compassion and love is what I would call "grace".

    After all, do we really have so much of these qualities floating around our world that we can pick and choose who gets to practice - or receive them? Ha!

    I know, I know. A number of you would say "that's perfectly fine for you, but it doesn't belong in the church". Again, I say "Ha!"

    Look, I understand the repugnance with which many people look upon the images of gays flaunting their sexuality - leather, feathers, drag queens, etc. It isn;t any different than when a "Rolling Thunder" group comes through, or an Amway Convention hits town. These are displays of emotion and freedom, not snap-shots of daily life. I've seen enough Gay Pride Parades to know that most of the folks bouncing around the floats in leather g-strings and studded collars don't wear them under their business suits on Monday morning.

    We need to all get passed the images on the front page and get to the living section, where people simply want to love and be loved. Honestly, the more couples we have who are interested in providing loving homes for themselves and their children, the better. It should not matter the ratio of male to female organs, folks.

    As for this comment:
    "Homosexuality is, without question, a perversion of God's intent. He has stated it to be so, and up until 20 odd years ago most cultures and religions of the world agreed with His assessment of this issue", please, please, please!

    80 years ago, people thought the flesh would rip from your skeleton if you moved in excess of 30 miles per hour. 40 years ago, Catholics were sinning if they ate meat on Fridays. Now, they are only sinning if they eat meat on Fridays during Lent, (but they can make it up, of course, with confession). I wonder: does that mean that those Catholics who slipped and ate meat on a Friday in 1955 got parole, or were they victims of "wrong place, wrong time"?

    Okay, I'm through, except for this:
    I know gay couples of my own generation who have been in deeply loving, respectful relationships for 10, 15, 25 years even. I grew up across the street from an "older" couple (they were the age I am now, back in the late 1960s) who doted on each other and made a beautiful home together. Why would anyone want to spoil that? What could possibly make you feel good, much less "Christian" about such an act?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "However, to use sex toys on ourselves is to encourage lust and self-centeredness, while to use them on our partners is to suggest that I think you need more than what God has given me to find satisfaction in sex. It encourages a partner to disassociate from me and concentrate on a man-made tool."

    The same could be said for a lot of things. When's the last time you ate macaroni and cheese with your fingers, Alan? Did God give us macaroni and cheese, or did we decide that nuts and berries just didn't take the edge off?

    Pick and choose, pick and choose. Some you win, and some you lose!

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know this could be a little income-maker for the church--that is to get into the sex toy trade. We could even consecrate them first.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You know this could be a little income-maker for the church--that is to get into the sex toy trade. We could even consecrate them first.

    Brilliant idea!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You know this could be a little income-maker for the church--that is to get into the sex toy trade. We could even consecrate them first."

    I think the Boston Diocese tried that line already (only they called them "Altar Boys"). They lost on the deal. Big time. I wouldn't go there, if I were you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, I'm officially outta here. I've heard enough foolish talk. John can't seem to post anything of his own, and others here just enjoy mocking the things that are close to the heart of God.

    I'm reminded of God's Word in the Proverbs as I've interacted with you:

    "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom." Proverbs 1:7

    "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?" Proverbs 1:22

    "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them." Proverbs 1:32

    And then, as if to remind me that this is not the company I should be keeping He showed me this:

    "The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame." Proverbs 3:35

    "A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself (which is what I'm about to do), but the heart of fools blurts out folly (which is what you folks love to do)." Proverbs 12:23

    "He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm." Proverbs 13:20

    Which is why I'm outta here. Bye!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm fascinated that the items posted here (and elsewhere) about homosexuality seem to get the most comments. Why are we so intrugued by the idea of other people's sexuality?

    Also, Alan, I am sorry I offended you. I only wished to point out the lack of logic in your arguments. It seems to me it is often better to do so with humor than with rancor. If that is mockery, and I am a fool, so be it. I hardly ever eat macaroni and cheese, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, I'm officially outta here.

    Gosh, I'm gonna miss him...

    I've heard enough foolish talk.

    I feel the same way.

    John can't seem to post anything of his own

    as opposed to quoting the bible with a literal interpretation as a response to exactly everything.

    and others here just enjoy mocking the things that are close to the heart of God.

    That works both ways; I seem to remember you mocking things others thought were close to the heart of God; from another thread you said: "it's still kind of fun gettin' under their skin." Yep, I hate that you have to leave, best of luck condemning others to the fiery pits this weekend; take care.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ah, Bobby. It is hardly a foolish adventure to defend the Word of God from those who seek to spin it to their own advantage and tear it apart until it no longer resembles anything that came out of our Father's mouth.

    And as for quoting the Bible for absolutely everything, that's not quite true, is it. If you go back and re-read my posts you'll see that I use the Bible to buttress my arguments, but I don't just quote Bible verses and leave it sit there. And why wouldn't I do that? I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, reflecting His heart and will in all matters to which He speaks. There is no higher authority than Him, and He speaks well for Himself!

    John, on the other hand, seems to get his thoughts from theological spin doctors, not from the Highest Source. And he posts very little that isn't right off the pages of his latest guru.

    And as for me mocking things that others thought were close to God's heart, I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find that anywhere in my posts. I have tried to persuade people of my position, but I have certainly not been flippant with the things that are clearly offensive to God, as some above have done. My reference to "getting under their skins" was simply an acknowledgement that it can be enjoyable to watch arrogant skeptics and scoffers squirm when the truth of God's Word starts to burrow under their skin. But at no time have I mocked people for their views. Yes, I have certainly challenged Mr. Shuck to allow God to speak to his heart and think for himself instead of just turning to the spin doctors for more ways to twist and dodge, but that doesn't constitute mockery.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey there! Alan must be from Minnesota, dontcha know. It takes at least three times for a Minnesotan to actually leave after he says "Good bye".

    Oh, geez. There I go mocking again. I'm a goner, oh hey.

    ReplyDelete
  24. **"How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?" Proverbs 1:22

    "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them." Proverbs 1:32

    "The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame." Proverbs 3:35

    "A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself (which is what I'm about to do), but the heart of fools blurts out folly (which is what you folks love to do)." Proverbs 12:23

    "He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm." Proverbs 13:20**

    I would find all those quotes interesting, because it kind of contradicts earlier posts were we're told that the cross is foolish to the wise, or that we're relying on our own wisdom. Because the Proverbs quotes don't specify how someone is wise, or why -- it says what the wise and the foolish do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not sure how we define mockery here, but I feel this is a good example:
    "YOu're not likely to get a straight answer out of this guy. He's all rhetoric and doubt. Reminds me a lot of the Democrats. They find it easy to tear things down, but provide no real answers....no real meat to chew on."
    I, who just spent the last four and a half years working on an undergraduate degree in history and philosophy (writing and defending a thesis for the latter) am certainly offended by statements such as this. Especially when 'real meat' has been offered and never responded to. Criticism of others is fine, when valid, but let's not go for the splinter in someone else's eye when we have a log in our own.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Criticism of others is fine, when valid, but let's not go for the splinter in someone else's eye when we have a log in our own.

    Sometimes, when one is called on being guilty of the very thing one accuses others of, it is easy to go into spin mode to protect the ego. It is much harder to say, "You know, you're right, I did do that." Maybe there is passage in Proverbs somewhere that addresses this issue. :)

    The use of the word arrogant to characterize others is also interesting. I, for one, have already been consigned to eternal hellfire, and now we have learned that God's word is burrowing under the skins of the "skeptics" who read this blog. Of course, statements like that are not arrogant in the least. Nahhh...

    One might also note that the scabies parasite also burrows under people's skins.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oy.

    I see we have biblical literalism at it's worst on display here.

    In regards to the meat of the post, I'd say I'm closer to position 5 than 6, myself.

    Sex isn't bad - no matter what a bunch of men in dresses or 2000+ year old tribal literature says. We should celebrate ourselves as God made us. It's her perrogative, after all. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. C'mon Eileen.

    No "biblical literalists" here have said sex is bad. In fact, we're the ones who recovered the literal (and quite lascivious) reading of Song of Songs because we refuse to gnosticize...I mean, allegorize the text to make it palatable. Just because unbridled sexual expression is in vogue now - so that the gnosticizers...I mean, allegorizers can revel in it - doesn't mean that it was always so.

    The Song is wisdom's reflection on the joyful and mysterious nature of love between a man and a woman within the institution of marriage. The frequent assertion that the Song is a celebration of human love per se fails utterly to reckon with the canonical context. Nowhere is human love in itself celebrated in wisdom literature, nor in the whole Old Testament for that matter.

    "Wisdom, not love, is divine, yet love between a man and his wife is an inextinguishable force within human experience, 'strong as death', which the sage seeks to understand (cf. Prov. 5.15ff.). The writer simply assumes the Hebrew order of the family as a part of the given order of his society, and seeks to explore and unravel its mysteries from within" (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 575).

    The poet affirms the virtue of chastity in the young lovers (4:12; 6:3; 7:10-13; 8:10) which makes a striking contrast with the self-destructive bent of sexual mores in many societies historically. The Bible gives no place to premarital or extramarital behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Matt. 5:27-28; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:13, 18; Eph. 5:3). Scriptural warnings are plain enough: God will judge all who are sexually immoral (1 Cor. 6:9, 18-20; Heb 13:4b). Recent studies disclosing the harmful emotional, psychological, and lethal physical side effects of sexual license within and outside marriage only confirm the wisdom of biblical teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree with alan 100%. Hey John! Where are you? This is your blog and you have yet to say anything of real relevence. And NO! you should not sell sex toys on the side. You would slip further than you already have.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris,
    This is exactly what I was trying to get at in the other blog about fantasy religion. If you are truly a biblical literallist, meaning everything in the bible is LITERALLY true, then statements like:
    1 I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys.
    ...just don't make any sense.
    When the lover says, "Your eyes are doves." We know better than to say that the eyes of the lover are LITERALLY white-winged birds. We know when we read things like this, because they would be too fantastic if they were literal, the literature is using simile or metaphor to say something else. So why should we take EVERYTHING in the bible literally? Why not take the things that sound too fantastic as metaphor for some other message? That seems like the most rational interpretation. I don't think I'm using the word 'literal' too strongly, I'm just using the literal definition.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dunstan,

    Your denunciation shows me one thing: you know absolutely nothing about what it means to be a biblical literalist.

    Biblical literalists are people who hold to inerrancy and practice the grammatico-historial method of reading the Scriptures literarily.

    If it's written like history, treat it like history.

    If it's written like a poem, read it like a poem.

    That's what John Calvin and Martin Luther did, and it's why their commentaries are still widely useful today. See if the commentaries of similar 'higher' critics will hold up as well...

    I think your confusion stems from the sort of backwoods, unlettered, simplistic reading of Christians who have little training in hermeneutics and often none in original languages (not that these make you infallible). Believe it or not, there was a time in America when most people believed the Bible was literally true without believe silly stuff about grasshoppers being helicopters and monsters coming out of bodies of water. You just wouldn't know it since Hal Lindsey and the rest got in print.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So if I determine that the Gospels are written as a mythology, I read them as a mythology? I'm OK with that (as are a few folks in the Jesus Seminar).

    ReplyDelete
  34. If there is further confusion over biblical literalism, wikipedia has a rough & ready analysis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalist) Apparently there are different kinds; I am most familiar with the first of the ones described in the article. It seems to me, if we are going to be precise in our language, that the first is the most correct definition for that phrase, given the common usage of 'literal'. Good ol' Wittgenstein was right, problems in philosophy are merely problems in figuring out how we use our language.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. All right, kids. This is certainly educational and entertaining. I think we have all made our points. I am trying to keep this blog at pg-13.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Our of respect for your concerns, John, I have deleted my last two comments.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You didn't have to do that, Seeker. But ok. I also deleted Chris' post with the link to the adam and eve store.

    However, this leads to me think about a topic regarding sexual ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Great...and I was hoping to run a little side business and post it in the Sunday bulletin.

    I always marvel at where people will draw the line on sex and sexuality once the Biblical standards are dropped.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Chris,

    Read my latest post. I don't regard it as dropping "biblical standards" but you may feel differently.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mystical, darn it, I didn't read the second post in time before you removed it. The first one was a hoot (though maybe not PG-13; it would have been PG-13 if it contained graphic violence, but alas, you were talking about sex).

    ReplyDelete
  42. I read most of the bible as myth or allegory Chris.

    Even the more historical parts of the bible, IMO, were written for specific people within a specific cultural context.

    We are an evolving species. Ethically, morally - I think this is part of God's plan.

    Otherwise, we might still be burning people with birthmark's at the stake, or using water torture to drive the devil out of the mentally ill.

    Passages in the bible on sexuality were written within a cultural/tribal context.

    The Bible contains truth, but not I don't believe everything in the Bible to be literally true, nor do I believe it all to be the inpsired word of God.

    If it appeared, miraculously, in a fully written form, perhaps I'd give more pause to the an inerrant nature.

    Man was involved, and I don't think any man has yet appeared on earth who is capable of fully comprehending the divine.

    Even Christ had to constantly hammer at the apostles to get them to under stand things which were beyond their ability to understand.

    I agree to disagree with you on it.

    I think, in terms of human sexuality, that the bible is being held up as an idol by some Christians, and being used as a club, instead of as a guide.

    Again...my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Here are the results for the comments on this post! The contestants with the correct answers (also known as the sheep, the righteous, and the saints) include:

    mystical seeker, aric clark, snad, bobby, heather, dunstan, eileen, rev kim, and of course myself.

    Congratulations! You are our winners and will receive your eternal reward!

    The goats, unrighteous, and sinners include:

    toby brown, alan harstone, chris (as usual), and shellybear.

    So sorry. You gave the wrong answers and will be going down to the fiery pit.

    Thanks for playing!

    I did feel like a bit of a prude with my pg-13 censorship. Sexuality is an important thing to talk about. Many if not most folks learn about sexuality from peers and porn sites. Not necessarily the best places. One would think the church should be open to this discussion. I am all for it, except not on my blog. : ) Just kidding, kinda.

    It is the way most Americans feel about nuclear reactors and prisons. Yes! Build more! In North Dakota!

    My latest post speaks about sexuality and sexual ethics. Please play again! But, please no links to porn sites and keep your language a tad elevated.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well you know, John, I did take pains to use a certain quaint euphemism for a particular part of the female anatomy in the postings I deleted. :)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Seeker,

    You are the greatest! Your post was delightfully and passionately written and should return in some form. Maybe I can set up a blog outtakes?

    I am glad you are here! : )

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wow! I won! I won! Do I have to pay taxes on that prize this year?

    ReplyDelete
  47. John,
    How dare you say that I am going to the firey pits! I am not the one who is changing the Bible to fit my needs. You can't just pick and choose what the Bible says. It is black and white! And you along with others are caught holding the gray crayon. It is YOU my friend, who will end up in the firey pits. And you will be responsible for all the others you are leading astray. I think you are crazy, and I can't beleive the city of Elizabethton let you come here to destroy your congregation. They need to wake up and realize the crap you feed them. I think you are a strong supporter because you are bisexual. And you want to consecrate sex toys inside your church? Yes, I can believe that of you. You're sick and I do not and will not EVER believe that you were called by God into the ministry. This has MAN written all over it. You need to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, who was killed and on the third day rose again.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It was a joke, Shellybear. I do not believe that you or anyone will go down to the fiery pits. And no, I won't be selling sex toys at the church, consecrated or not; and no I am not bisexual (not that there is anything wrong with that).

    Peace,
    j

    ReplyDelete
  49. To use a metaphor relevant to this thread, I wonder why are Christianity and humor so often such uncomfortable bed-mates? It is possible for people to disagree with each other and actually retain a sense of humor. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Actually, John, if you've feed the poor and given water to the thirsty, I think you stand a pretty good chance of avoiding the 'fiery pits.'

    Shellybear, if you truly want others to follow as you do, do you think your latest comment is going to covince them? I can understand your fears, but it does nothing to showcase the grace of God.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks Heather for the sheep and goats reminder of Matthew 25. This is all off topic, but as much as I like Matthew's emphasis on compassion and justice for the least of these, I really wish he hadn't couched it in the metaphor of judgment--the "gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness" and so forth.

    It really is from Matthew more than any other gospel or NT writing, for that matter, that we get the image of eternal punishment.

    I think Christianity, and humanity, will be better off without that threat, which, in my view is mythological fiction anyway.

    Peace to all!
    j

    ReplyDelete
  52. John,

    **I really wish he hadn't couched it in the metaphor of judgment--the "gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness" and so forth. **

    I actually kind of understand the gnashing of teeth and outer darkness. When someone is in a place where they can disregard helping others, and put him/herself as of primary importance, it is like being in darkness. It's also like being trapped in hatred and contempt, and if exiled from love, it would cause gnashing of teeth. I don't see it as literal punishment, but what an attitude like that would eventually feel like. After all, one can only behave like that for so long. I see God's ultimate goal as reconcilation and redemption, and in order to take part in that, the disregard for others has to fall away.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thanks Heather,

    Well said. I think that can apply not just to individuals but societies as well.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Heather and John,
    Good works alone do not get you into Heaven. You have to be saved.

    I do applaud John and his church for being a part of Food for the Multitude, as I have told him before.

    It is the food for the soul that is lacking. You can't just ignore the book of Romans people! Just because it interferes with your life, it is still a part of the Bible. Picking and choosing will get you straight to hell.

    You can make fun and joke around all you want to, but there is some things that are not funny.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Heather,
    All of this talk of homosexuality and sex toys.......

    Where is the grace of God in that?

    And maybe you should read the last few lines of my comment AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I feel like Sally Field at the Oscars: "You like me, you really like me!" It has been a long time since this heathen has been told he will receive his eternal reward, thank you. There may be hope for me after all.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Shelley,

    You need to relax about John a little. He's playin' a little cat and mouse game with us. John reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell. He likes to provoke people and get a rise out of them. A little twisted, but it gets him the attention he seems to crave.

    Don't worry about John's opinions so much. God knows you're right, and in the end He's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete