Gaslighting is a Thing
I’d encourage you to avoid liberal categories like gaslighting. It definitely might happen, but which is more likely in our culture — a woman genuinely being manipulated, or one who just has a problem submitting?
Dan
Dan, well, actually, I have seen plenty of both. Gaslighting is a thing, and if I don’t use that term, I would have to coin a synonym. And the need for a term doesn’t disappear simply because of frequency of occurrence.
On Wives and Husbands Leaving
Do you think the permission given to wives in 1 Cor. 7 is restricted to wives? If not, it seems to give a large loophole for those gents with hearts like Hillel. Or, do you think it can be analogously applied to husbands, with the same condition that they may not remarry? Thanks!
Ty
Ty, I do think that it can be applied by analogy, and that men are sometimes confronted with impossible and intractable situations. But I also believe that husbands as a general rule have more options that should be considered and tried before a separation.
I find myself rather confused by the first in your latest series of letter posts, “So You Married a Feminist.” The fictional husband admits that his wife gets along with him and is a good mother and housekeeper . . . she just doesn’t agree with his politics on certain issues. Ok. Married couples don’t always agree, I get it. But why does that make her a feminist who must repent? Must a wife agree with every one of her husband’s political stances, in order to qualify as submissive? Is he always right, by virtue of being the man, despite her experiences that led her to different conclusions than his? Do I need to wait to read the rest of the series before worrying about any of this? Thank you for your time and attention. I’m not trying to be contentious, just looking for clarification.
Erin
Erin, no, you don’t need to wait. Each of these letters are stand-alone letters, not cumulative. I don’t believe that a wife has to agree with her husband on everything, especially politics, in order to be submissive. Submission is not the condition of having no independent thoughts. But I set this fictional scenario up in such a way as to reveal to the husband that all their disagreements had one thing in common, and it was the relationship between the sexes. And that meant that she was viewing their relationship in a very different way than he was. This is quite different than her viewing the Federal Reserve in a different way than he does, or the appointment of the next Secretary of the Interior.
Perhaps not directly related to this, but related to the #MeToo movement. The biblical requirement of two or three witnesses to prove a crime is clear, but how does that work in the context of Deut. 22:25-27? Does the Deuteronomy law not imply that, in certain contexts, the accuser’s word is assumed right and the accused is put to death on the account of one witness?
Kevin
Kevin. I don’t believe so. I hold the two/three witness principle to be a universal. In that situation, there were obviously no witnesses to the rape (especially if it didn’t happen). But if he wasn’t there, then he was somewhere else—and he may have been where two or three people give him an alibi. Or if the rape did happen, and he is questioned about it, and he breaks, then we have two witnesses—the woman and the rapist confessing. But I believe we must require independent corroboration. If we don’t, then any man is vulnerable to false accusation.
Culture War Pause
Not responding to any particular post of yours, just a general inquiry. I appreciate your insight into the things going on in our culture. Have you seen the ‘Call to pause the culture war’ RNS has been pushing lately? I have written a little blog post on it here, if you have any interest in glancing at it: link. Blessings,
Josh
Josh, thanks for the link, and I couldn’t agree with you more. “Let us both lay down our arms, you first.”
So Then
I attended the University of Idaho from 1996-2001. During that time my interactions with friends and acquaintances connected to Christ Church left me with a sour taste in my mouth. I could use the excuse that I was immature in my faith, which is true to some extent, or I could be honest and admit that I found your approach to be slightly offensive to me and greatly offensive to unbelievers. Fast forward about a dozen years. I stumbled on your blog through a link to something you had written concerning some current event, and I found that the perceived offensiveness had faded (at least in my mind). I really started to follow it closely during the 2016 Presidential primaries. I shared your disdain for Trump and found your ability to clearly articulate why you couldn’t just go with the lesser of two evils, and eventually chose a 3rd party candidate. But I found your satirical wit and rather blunt, yet reasoned writing style to be quite scrumptious when compared with my aforementioned bite-size Costco sample. I doubt your approach has mellowed all that much over the years; quite likely my tastes have migrated from PBR to some local micro-brewed scotch ale. I now thoroughly enjoy reading your stuff, even the notes on Calvinism—which I still have a hard time swallowing.
Now on to what I was actually writing for: Your Cavalcade was outstanding, I have long thought that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and child-brides, and your suggestion of adding P to the ever growing list of depraved behaviors follows that same pattern. I know you have pointed out that the church in America (and Europe), across all denominations, has been making some stupendous compromises to be more culturally relevant—most of them centered around redefining all things sexual (Revoice being a prime example). It would be easy to become discouraged while observing that any attempts to point out where we’ve gone astray or calls to repentance are ignored, justified with emotionally paralyzing scenarios, or defiantly shouted down. But something that several missionaries to Africa have shared the last couple years at my church’s annual missions conference has been encouraging. They are seeing God change hearts in Africa at an amazing rate. In fact they report the rapid growth of Christians in Africa is outpacing the rapid decline of Christians in the West. I’ve been thinking that maybe as the Western Church continues to uphold self-centered, world-pleasing multiculturalism as their idol, it will be a tad ironic when the Church in Africa overshadows the West in preaching the gospel. Then I ran across this: link. Apparently the Anglican Church in Africa is calling the rest of the Anglicans to repent for the way they have distorted the gospel, and they are doing it from Jerusalem—even in one video clip I saw an Archbishop (Okoh) from Africa calling the Archbishop of Canterbury to read the Scriptures and repent. Clearly God is sovereign and His ways are higher than our ways, so this might not be going where I think it’s going, but this will prove interesting to watch. What thoughts does a quick study of this bring to your mind? Anyway, Blessings to you and yours, and please continue to serve up tasty tidbits. Peace,
Jesse
Jesse, thanks for the kind words. I fully recognize that my writing can be an acquired taste, and am glad to have stopped bothering you. As for your larger point about global Christianity, I believe you are exactly right. There is much reason for optimism on that front, even though corrupt societies are falling apart. If you haven’t read Philip Jenkins on this, I recommend him highly. Here is a link to his The Next Christendom.
Biblical Authority
Any source recommendations for people struggling with the claims of modern historical-critical scholarship and text criticism that seems to undercut inerrancy? Specifically dealing with folks like Barth, Bultmann, Tillich, etc. I have had my faith in inerrancy shaken (but not destroyed) recently by folks like this, and I was wondering where I can find solid teaching that deals with these scholars honestly. I have found it somewhat in folks like Don Carson, but there don’t seem to be many out there who are tackling these schools of thought that are so influential and are growing more and more accepted in academia. I don’t take my morals or truths from the accepted standards of today’s academic tradition, but I respect their educated opinions and would like to have honest discussion with their findings and research. Thanks!
Jeeves
Jeeves, although he himself has inadequate views of biblical inspiration, I have found C.S. Lewis invaluable in puncturing the pretensions of “the assured results of modern scholarship.” And although I don’t know what your precise questions might be, I would start with a couple of basic books: F.F. Bruce has a book called The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? And J.I. Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God. This is not to agree with everything such defenders of the Scriptures might say, but I think they help wonderfully in demolishing the scholarship shine that attends so much unbelief.
E-Book Encouragement
E-Books, Galore! Doug, so is there an e-book on what Justice is and it isn’t (as defined by Scripture) in the works? Thanks!
Trey
Trey, yes, there is. I hope it will be available within a few months.
Revoice and More
There is something insidious I find about the language used in these debates about homosexuality. In particular, some of the Revoice speakers are fond of using the language of Side A and Side B Christians. Why not simply use terms as “traditional” and “progressive” to describe the positions, terms which would certainly be accurate as far as they go? I cannot help but think that using those terms would illuminate the fact that the one depends on novel and newly invented interpretations while the other is rooted in a long and deep history of Christian theology, anthropology, and biblical understanding. Hence even this Side A/ Side B language seems an attempt to normalize, flatten, or create a perceived parity, between the two positions, as if either are perfectly legitimate biblical interpretations and equally endorsed by good saints throughout the ages, and which will have no impact beyond that one, isolated, limited disagreement . . . on the level of debates over sprinkling vs immersion. It reminds me of the duplicitous way I hear people refer to the “penal substitution theory of the atonement,” as if to imply that this perspective is simply one of a variety of possible legitimate theories (just as valid as Christus Victor, Moral Influence, etc.), and as if the embrace of one over against the other wouldn’t have deep ramifications in all other areas of our theology.
Daniel
Daniel, you are exactly right. The first wave is not intended to convince everybody. The first wave is intended to make it a matter of legitimate debate, something “within the pale.” And thus far they are not winning the debate—but that is not their objective. They are gaining their objective.
A Buggy App
I downloaded your app on my iPhone 6. When I open it and start scrolling, it keeps skipping further and further down the page without me doing anything. I have a screen recording if you’re interested in seeing it. PS Under the “Book Log” where you list your “Dad’s books” you should list the book on bitterness that he wrote. I use it quite a bit in counseling. It is a great little book/booklet.
Michael
Michael, thanks for the nudge on both counts. I will pass the app bug information along, and will add the Bitterness booklet.
Cavalcadey Stuff
Re: This Cavalcade of Concupiscence Not long after reading your piece on “Adding the P,” I came across this in my inbox: Funny / not funny: you even got the TED Talk part right.
Dan
Dan, yes, it is all around us. But the TED talk jibe was not prescience on my part. I had already seen a link to that talk floating around.
On the bisexual topic from the last letters and the on the PCA French-Kissing the World: I am a bisexual man, who is church-going and in a monogamous relationship, without any celibate friend that I channel sexual energy towards, I’m completely fulfilled with my single relationship. You’re comments about bisexual people being allowed in church was quite hurtful, and the way you walked it back in your response to people’s letters was far from helpful. In your article all you did was condemn all bisexuals, you didn’t add any of the qualifiers that you did later. On the Revoice issue: I would be curious what your stance is. You are very quick to attack any attempt for the church to welcome anyone from the LGBT community, but you seem to have no solution. We live in a complex world and there are bisexual and gay and all the other type of people here, some of which God has chosen to save. What would you do with them? Would you rather ignore the issue and push them away? The PCA has at least made an attempt to deal with the complexity of the situation, for right or wrong. Also let me add that I do not think that this is officially sanctioned by the PCA, only some members. Prominent speakers such as from Covenant Seminary have expressed their disagreement with it. But all that to say, how would you deal with it? I would appreciate you putting forward a solution when you attack everyone else’s.
Kong
Kong, sorry, but I didn’t walk anything back. The fact that you take faithful monogamy as a given is hurtful and hateful to those bisexuals who do not want to be forced into a choice that permanently shuts off one half of their sexuality. Why should they have to choose, just because you are happy with having chosen? As for the message that I would have for bisexuals, it is the same as it is for everyone—repent and believe. My offered solution is the same—genuine pastoral care. Part of that pastoral care is teaching them that there is no such thing as gay and bisexual “types of people.” Past sexual practices do not define who a baptized Christian is. Christ defines that.
Let the attack begin! I live in rural Alabama and no such public schools exist anymore (if they ever actually did). Oh, yeah the school board may have such deacons and Sunday School admins on it, but the same godless information is being used to indoctrinate, including all the “woke” ideas about sexuality as the city public schools. Your suggestion that there might be a few learning institutions left that reject these new-fangled ideas and instead put forward the crown rights of Christ are better directed toward the current Christian schools, as the majority of these are also just public schools with a thin coating of “Jesus” over them.
BJ
BJ, thank you for your report from the front lines. And your point about many Christian schools is also well-taken.
Your logic is airtight. However as I see the trend of the Overton window the thing that used to be unthinkable but now has fringe supporters and is taken seriously as a discussion point is bestiality. That would be the next perversion to receive normalcy. Furries are not seen as perverts, just slightly kinky but otherwise ordinary neighbors. I’m not surprised if Huff Post has already interviewed someone and, with the only moral left being that it must be consensual, raised the possibility that animals willingly consent.
Luke
Luke, yes. Bestiality is certainly waiting in the wings. The second B.
On Marriage to a Feminist
I appreciate the pastoral wisdom in this, Doug. Thankfully my wife is not a feminist, but the principle of continually “growing in grace” as the head of a household remains most applicable. If there is real, supernatural heart change going on within the husbands, I suspect it will be difficult for the Christian wives to not follow suit. Thanks.
Daniel
Daniel, thanks.
Thank you for your teaching here. I completely and totally agree with the fact that I, as covenantal head, need to take responsibility for family sins before God and my family. I do, however, have two epistemological questions related to this: (1) What is the line between exercising biblical authority and being a jerk? Does it have to do with the content and scriptural viability of my leadership and requisite decision making, as well as my motivation for making what feminists and liberal Christians would consider “demands”? (2) What would I do in a position when I am trying to lead biblically and my wife will have none of it? Key people in my life have basically told me that I need to respect my wife, let her be herself, and meet somewhere in the middle. I’m not so sure this is Scriptural. I’m not married, but I have observed situations around me that have triggered these questions, and when I eventually do get married I want to start off on the right foot.
Joe
Joe, in every marriage there are multiple day-to-day opportunities to be a bona fide jerk. If you are not being a jerk in any of those situations, then when you exercise biblical authority at a necessary time, it will be hard to identify you as a jerk in that situation, because everyone knows that this is not what you are. Secondly, the key people in your life may be leading you astray. The ideal of “servant leadership” is often grossly misconstrued. There is a kind of servant leadership that does imitate Christ, but there is also a kind of servant leadership that spends a lot of mental energy lying to wives. Take this for an example. What would the key leaders in your life say about this bit of advice? “Never, ever apologize to your wife if you have done nothing wrong.” If you have done nothing wrong, and you apologize to your wife simply in order to make peace, you are trying to build a good and godly relationship on the foundation of a lie.
Oh, you don’t know how I needed to read this today—and I on the feminine side of the equation. I believe that all women since Eve are feminists at heart and it is a loving God who helps us overcome it. If I were not born again, I’m afraid of what I would be today. All praise be to God!
Melody
Melody, thank you.
Everybody’s a Critic, Part 2
Birch? Poplar? I’m seeing aspen (which however belongs in the greater poplar family).
DC
DC, take it up with Desmond.
Doug, you seem to have missed the point. Your comments about bisexuals was offensive, and sounded like you were saying that bisexual people cannot be faithful members of the church. As someone who is both bisexual and a faithful Christian I’m looking for clarification. Revoice seems to say that a bisexual person can be a a faithful members of a church given that they are in a commited monogamous heterosexual relationship. You seem to object. Now your other comments seem to suggest that you don’t understand being bisexual, which makes sense, but is also irritating given that you talk with… Read more »
I know I won’t convince you, however, some attractions are wrong. Even if never consummated physically, they are wrong. If you desire men, those attractions are wrong and can never be made right. You must repent of your wrong desires. Same with me. I am married, but if I am attracted to women not my wife, then those are wrong desires. I need to repent. My desire should be for my wife alone. Yours, too, and you shouldn’t be seeking to sanctify your sinful desires for men. They are there, and I am not denying that you have those desires,… Read more »
Right, but they are no worse. And also there are two kind of desire, lust and just natural inclination. I’m not saying that I am totally sinless in this area, but it would be lust that is wrong not the natural inclination in that direction, in my opinion ofc, I could be wrong but that’s my opinion.
“Right, but they are no worse” It depends what you mean. In both cases, the lust is sinful. No argument there. However, in mys’ example, it’s a God-given desire (man attracted to a woman) in a sinful context. It’s like eating. Eating and marital sex (the hetero kind) are God’s gifts and are necessary for us to live and reproduce. However, both can be abused in sinful ways (gluttony, adultery, fornication) Bi- or homosexuality (and the rest of the LGBTQ alphabet) are in a different category. Some struggle with it, but the only response should be repentance and mortification, not… Read more »
So I think you’re maybe a little confused about the point and vision of revoice to be honest(I know some of the people running it personally and I think you actually see almost eye to eye, although I think gay people scare them less lol) but I definitely understand what you’re saying.
No, I don’t see eye-to-eye with the Revoicers. I disagree with them strongly on many fronts. And there’s no confusion about the “queer treasure” thing. Those are their words (Grant Hartley in particular), not mine.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2018/07/will-there-be-queer-treasure-in-the-new-jerusalem-on-gay-christianity-and-revoice/
There’s nothing redeeming in queer literature, queer theory or other pseudo-academic fields, nor is there anything redeeming at “Pride” parades and events.
Also, while the Revoicers may not fear gay people, they apparently fear opposing views…that’s why they disinvited people like Peter LaBarbera, Stephen Black, Steve Camp and others after they signed up.
Lol, that’s kind of dodging the statement.
Dodging what statement? Your (false) assumption that I fear gay people? My point is the Revoicers are the ones who are dodging opposing views. And there’s evidence for that.
This reminds me a lot of a discussion with someone else here a few months ago…
JP Stewart-
Only that I think your ideas are very close to that of revoice aside from them being much more accepting. I apologize if that sounded antagonistic.
What do you mean?
Kong, no apologies necessary. The “much more accepting” part is the problem. Should we be much more accepting of pedophiles because “they might be born that way”? http://caldronpool.com/tedx-speaker-says-pedophilia-is-a-natural-sexual-orientation/ If pedophiles had huge support from academia, pop culture, the mainstream media, etc., I’m sure we’d see more studies suggesting that. But they don’t have a lobby like Big Gay. The same is true for incest, bestiality, racists, domestic partner abusers, etc. Given enough funding, interest, researchers and data, they can always find studies to suggest the desired outcome. In addition to ex-gay ministries, this would be a sobering presentation at Revoice… Read more »
There are natural tendancies that are bad and others that are good, and others that are unimportant, we just disagree on which catigory homosexuality falls into. And I personally don’t know what I think yet. I’m not sure what the point of this article is? I have heard the argument that being gay leads to a horrible life but it is always supported by outlying case studies. The stories also are always told in a sinister tone that I’m not at all sure is nessisary, anyway, what is the take away from this? . I know many happy gay people… Read more »
Did you read the article, Malik? How do you know it’s an “outlying case study”? No academic journal or mainstream media publication will do a thorough study on it. It’s way too much of an un-PC topic. I know plenty of medical professionals who can vouch for parts of it, especially those who work in ERs.
The main reason I posted it was to show a very real and undesirable side of homosexuality–one that’s not shown on sitcoms or movies. The gruesome details aren’t what makes it a sin, but it shows the consequences of relations God never intended.
I guess.
Have you ever actually talked to them or tried to understand their actual position, read about their position etc? One of the speakers wrote the longest work in print on why the Leviticus passages on homosexual activity being wrong still apply.
Kong, I haven’t talked to them personally. I doubt they’d let me in their conference if they knew my views. I’ve read about their positions and it hasn’t changed my mind at all. I realize they believe in celibacy, but other churches/denominations have tried their approach and quickly dropped the celibacy part. Once you allow “couples” and recognize/celebrate their identity, that’s the next step.
Alright, I mean I think you should give them a chance, they are far less liberal than it sounds like you think, and I would suggest researching them more but fair enough if that’s what you think.
There are not degrees of sin/wrong-ness. Something is sin or it is Holy. Yes, the world can be binary in this way. In fact, if it’s not Holy, it’s a sin. Simple, no? People find it comforting that sexual sin isn’t as heinous as, say, murder or something violently non-consensual. Consent does not make something Holy. An inside employee can consent to conspiracy in robbing a company, but this doesn’t make the act Holy. If REVOICE was about encouraging “commited monogamous heterosexual relationships”, who would object? I doubt that it would be Pastor Wilson. That must not be the objectionable… Read more »
This concept of “natural inclination” runs deep in the thought process here. There’s an attempt to make the desires of the brain some type of immutable characteristic like eye color or ear size. Shall we say the same of the pedophile or the rapist who targets college cheerleaders wearing red skirts? I mean, that’s just what their brains respond to and that’s how they derive fulfillment, joy and happiness in life. Love is love and the heart wants what it wants, right? These are unHoly arguments. What is the standard? Committed monogamous heterosexual sexual relationship – singular. Who set the… Read more »
“A solution would be a ministry/mission targeted to the LGBT community that helps them recognize and throw off the identity that shuns Holiness in relationships. The ministry would help them recognize their need for the Gospel of Christ and how incompatible the two identities are.”
That would fall under “reparative therapy” which the Revoice crowd doesn’t like. It’s why none of their presenters identify as “ex-gay” and why they disinvited ex-gays who signed up as attendees to the conference. Gagnon covered this in his 7th point:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-facebook-penalty-box.html
There is one of these in STL, first light.
Do you live in STL?
Yeah, that’s how I know of revoice and first light originally.
“So I’m attracted to multiple sexes but part of my sexuality isn’t going unfulfilled.”
That is your self-description. I believe that Doug’s point is that if someone other than you, someone who by your account is in the minority, feels like the only way he can express his bi-sexuality is to express both aspects at will, that person is “condemned” by the idea of monogamy to be unable to express his sexual orientation. And what exactly would be categorically wrong with that position, unless some orientations are wrong?
By no means am I saying every inclination is right, many men have an inclination to have sex withas many women as possible but you can’t do that of course. Basically my point is that being that bisexual people are very capable and often naturally inclined to live biblically I found his comments about bisexual people offensive and ignorant.
Am I missing your point?
Kong, I don’t really understand bisexuality, yet I don’t want to be offensive and ignorant. However, once a bisexual man determines to live biblically and enters into Christian marriage with a woman, why does he still need to see himself, or publicly identify himself, as bisexual? I think this is something that many of us find hard to understand. I think it can strike people as clinging too much to a former identity which might possibly, occasionally lead someone into temptation. It sounds a bit like keeping one’s options open.
Yeah, it’s kind of hard to explain, but a few reasons that it matters I can explain. One is that for me personally growing up there were lots of things about me that were really confusing, that being bi completely explains. So when I realized (and accepted) that I was bi it felt like kinda of becoming at peace with myself. Before I didn’t understand myself and was at odds with lots of things. After it kind of eased the tension if that makes sense. And keeping it part of my identity is really freeing just because of our culture.… Read more »
Kong,
I encourage you to re-read what you’ve written here. Please see where your faith, your identity, your treasure has been placed. Where you think you have found peace, you have expressed a type of love for your malady. See how you credit this as “free-ing”. Your conscience is being convicted by the Spirit and you’re finding a way to alleviate the conflict–by turning away from Holy Sexual practices. I encourage you to read what you’ve written/felt and study the following: http://www.familyministries.com/schemes.html
That’s probably a fair critique but also remember that we are only talking about LGBT issues so those are going to seem very inflated, those are the only things you know about me. That’s not like my identity as a human or anything
Yes, we’re only discussing LGBT issues and they are inflated. They’re the only issues that have been raised in this conversation. Distracting from the LGBT issues is one way to take the pressure off the conversation. The principles that I’ve explained work for any sin that then people want to cling to or justify as Holy-ish (because it’s consensual, or free-ing, or not hurting anybody or my rights, or etc…). Kong: “That’s not like my identity as a human or anything” ” And keeping it part of my identity is really freeing just because of our culture.” Who’s culture? The… Read more »
Try to understand what I said, not try to see inconsistencies. It’s not my whole identity, it’s a part of it, and that’s the part that we are talking about, so it is going to seem all encompassing. It’s freeing from the box culture would put me in as a young male. It changes the label to something that lets them see me a little more accurately and lets me be more genuine. Other parts of my identity would be Christian etc. I don’t really define myself be lots of stuff often so it’s Hart to find any other labels.… Read more »
Kong, I appreciate your sincerity and honesty in this conversation. Yes, culture does look down upon young males in general and has certain expectations that are overwhelming. Being male and having a son, I empathize. I’d assert that freedom comes from living inside the truth of our creation, our complementary roles, and dealing with sin as it enters our lives via repentance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgKYPLjXl70 When we try to swim against the tide of our creation, we find the stress of that struggle unbearable. So, something has to give: we will deny the truth of our humanity and our role in the… Read more »
Catching up on posts because I was out of town, but had to comment here. Kong says: ” So when I realized (and accepted) that I was bi it felt like kinda of becoming at peace with myself.” Being at peace with your sin is the exact opposite of being at peace with God. Kong, I don’t know if you are still following this comment thread or not, but if you are let me echo some of the others here and (maybe) reinforce or clarify them. If you think you are a Christian, the Bible says you are wrong. I… Read more »
Also i think it isn’t wrong to have to orientation but definitely wrong to act on many of them. For a different example some people are more inclined to violence, that’s not wrong to be born that way but it’s wrong to be violent
What if an orientation was towards pre-pubescent children, or toward animals, or toward dead people? But one did not act on it.
Wouldn’t you think that to even feel like that, that there must be something broken? Something askew?
Yeah some tendencies are broken, some aren’t. I don’t like meat, most people here probably do, nothing wrong with either of those. A tendency for violence or any of the things you mentioned is a broken thing. But where we disagree is if homosexual tendencies are broken, and to be honest in some ways I don’t have an opinion yet, still thinking thru it and if they would exist in a perfect world.
I find it strange that you raise the possibility that the desire for something that is always and everywhere a sin might not be broken. If a desire can never be fulfilled without violating God’s law, how can that desire be a good one? There is nothing good except that which conforms to God’s character and gives glory to Him.
Ah fair point. I’m still deciding whether or not I think homosexuality is wrong, so this would be a logical inconsistency stemming from me not knowing what I think about the more basic point. If it is wrong then it definitely is broken, as you say, but if it’s fine then odviously the desire isn’t broken.
However couldn’t someone have a broken desire, but not sin?
Kong, why would you think homosexuality is wrong?
If God says it is?
Yes, if God says it is that would be one sure way to know it is wrong. Something must make you at least suspect God says homosexuality is wrong. What is that?
Bible overarching themes and specific verses.
That’s more than a little evidence isn’t it? Being honest with yourself, given what you know you actually more than “at least suspect”, and really you are not still deciding.
Yes, someone could have a broken desire and not sin, but if the desire is truly broken he would need to acknowledge it as such. But I was addressing your suggestion that the desire might not be broken.
At the risk of sounding dismissive, which is not what I intend, it doesn’t really matter whether you think homosexual acts are wrong. It matters what God says.
Yes of course, and by what I think imean what I believe God says and thinks on the matter. I’m not making the decision but trying to figure out what decision was made by God if that’s a good way to say it.
Kong, that is the Catholic position–that the desire is disordered but not sinful as long as it is strenuously resisted, even in one’s fantasy life. I am not sure that, in practical terms, that offers much consolation to the person struggling with unwanted homosexual desires. It is very difficult to be strongly attracted to somebody yet not sin even mentally. I’m an old lady and even I know that!
Jill, I linked to this article in another comment, but it’s hidden unless you expand my comment. You may not want to read it (it’s graphic and brutal), but it’s from an ex-gay who’s now a devout Catholic. Along with unusually high domestic abuse rates, it’s part of the bi/homosexual lifestyle that Hollywood, the MSM, Revoice, etc. leave out:
http://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/
Well, you certainly warned me, JP, so it’s my own fault that I sat down to read it while waiting for the veggie burgers to cook. And promptly lost my appetite, especially for veggie burgers that are not very appetizing to begin with! The anonymous sex he described sounded brutal, degrading, and soul-destroying. Sometimes I think that I live in a pleasant mental world where everyone is kind and gentle and civilized. Do you remember the Crosby Stills & Nash song Our House? That is my mental picture of gay romance–sitting by the fire, the two cats in the yard,… Read more »
Yep, big fan of CSN&Y. I like “Our House” but I’m partial to “Suite Judy Blue Eyes,” “4 + 20” and a few others.
I’m afraid your “two guys by the fire” view is the common one. I don’t expect “Bathhouse Blues” to be the next dark series on Netflix.
Jill,
“I was shocked to learn, however, that the group with the highest incidence of domestic violence (distinguished from emotional abuse) is lesbians.”
I am not shocked. Have you not seen the news reports showing liberal women protesting? And then the furore that erupts when a man hits a woman who physically attacked him? Many women are hardly “sugar and spice and everything nice”.
Kong, Perhaps this will help clarify things. Do you believe that sexual inclinations, whatever they may be, are unchangeably implanted into us from birth or somewhere close to birth? If yes, I hasten to note two things. One, you do not have biblical support for this idea, and two, it is simply illogical (perhaps even hateful) to ask that person to forego expressing that sexual inclination. If no, then I hasten to note two things. One, you have no logical category to call yourself bi-sexual, since sexual inclinations can change, and two, as a Christian who has temptations toward same… Read more »
So I think that sexuality can change somewhat, kinda of a mix of nature and nurture for some people, but it’s also pretty clear that many people are simply how they are, in that their sexuality is very set.
No I don’t have biblical support for this, but there is a lot of evidence for it, which is called general revelation and I believe we are called to use that. Also I have personal experience to go by.
We disagree on sexual inclinations changing so we definitely disagree on me having no logical catigory to call myself bisexual.
Kong, “No I don’t have biblical support for this, but there is a lot of evidence for it, which is called general revelation and I believe we are called to use that. Also I have personal experience to go by.” Who calls “a lot of evidence” “general revelation”? Regardless, why should a Christian’s belief be based on such? Of course, one can always consider one’s own “personal experience” as being sufficient to justify whatever one wants to believe, ignoring the evidence that God accepts only those that meet His standard. Will you believe and follow God, or will you believe… Read more »
The Bible doesn’t tell us about say atoms or how deep the ocean is in certian places, but that doesn’t mean we can never know those things. So we should definitely examine what the Bible says, but if it doesn’t tell use whether or not gay people are born that way or not (I haven’t seen a passage talking about it) then I believe we can look elsewhere for the answer, and their are studies about it. Also on the point about personal experience, do you think we should all ignore our personal experience? Don’t you believe some things because… Read more »
Kong, I wouid hate to start a dogpile here, you are in hostile territory so kudos for coming to chat. However, you should really question your ideas of orientation essentialism. Sexual orientation as an inborn immutable characteristic of individuals is simple false, and it is a destructive ideology. People have different proclivities certainly, but they aren’t partaking in some plaonic category of “homosexual” or “bisexual.” Achilles and hercules weren’t bi, they were just horney (fictional) dudes. There are many cultures where sexual contact with both sexes is normative, and pretry much everyone participates. Our categories are an expression of our… Read more »
Okay, I mean I disagree, in my opinion they are pretty set,and I think it is a helpful ideology not a destructive one. You’ll have to actually give some reasons that you think I’m wrong rather than only asserting it.
Yeah I know I’m in hostile territory. It’s hard to not upset people as this is such a contentious issue. As long as people know that I’m not at all trying to be antagonistic hopefully it’ll be fine????
Kong,
I provided the link to obviate the need to provide a long tedious argument.
Ah my bad, I’ll read it when I get a chance.
Okay I read it. Yeah this is something I’ve thought about a little and agree with to a certian extent. I think I make different and much more liberal conclusions to the fact than this guy, ones that might make you a bit upset.
Kong,
I’m not sure what you mean by liberal here, but I assure you that your conclusions won’t upset me. You don’t need to worry on my account.
What did you disagree with? The history of “orientation.” The history of human sexuality? Something else?
Okay well this is sure to start a dogpile, and I’ll never be taken seriously on this forum if I comment here again, but ah well :). I’ve thought about this a lot recently, kind of doing a thought expirement about if we could have a society without gender or sexuality. I actually commented an article in the last troll teusday about native American culture, and how their get see worked very different from ours. People were talking about the difference between bi and pan and I was trying to explain it, but I think people had stopped reading the… Read more »
Kong, could you link to a couple of articles? I don’t think I am remotely understanding this! Which is supposed to be the modern invention: sexual orientation, gender awareness, or gender roles? Or all three? I think a lot of people who are sexually conventional and conservative would support the idea of getting rid of the idea of a fixed sexual orientation. As Demo said in his post, that is a fairly recent invention. I don’t think that fixed gender roles are always and necessarily a good thing, especially for the outliers who don’t, and really can’t, conform to them.… Read more »
Yeah for sure!! Here is one about native American genders. https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/api/amp/indiancountrytoday/archive/two-spirits-one-heart-five-genders-9UH_xnbfVEWQHWkjNn0rQQ/ This isn’t exactly what I mean but it’s a close example, very close. Have you ever seen a person, not known their gender, and it kind of bothered you? Like not hateful but like it made it hard to interact with them? That’s why I like thinking about gender neutral everything, because we treat people completely different based on gender, and I really dislike that, like our scociety is so based around gender that we can’t interact with someone without using it. Also the modern invention is sexual orientation,… Read more »
“Also one more note is that I’m not sure that if everyone was treated in a gender neutral environment that there would be a significant difference career wise between the sexes. ”
I think you’d find the evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. Throughout the world, the more freedom from gender roles women get, the more consistently they flock to certain career paths over others. It’s only in societies with comparatively very little freedom at all that we see anything resembling gender parity in a workplace.
Okay????
Kong, I used to overestimate the influence of environment in steering men and women toward our socially approved gender roles. But a kind person directed me to a lot of research that had never come my way. That very young female chimps reach for dolls, and male chimps reach for balls and sticks. That juvenile rhesus monkey males reach for wheeled toys; females reach for plush stuffed animals. That, as with human children, girls will often play equally with boy and girl toys, but boys tend to avoid girl toys. That young male chimps use a stick the same way… Read more »
Okay that makes sence, I do believe that there are differences but I also think our culture balloons them and that stereotypws are harmful.
“Yeah I know I’m in hostile territory. It’s hard to not upset people as this is such a contentious issue. As long as people know that I’m not at all trying to be antagonistic hopefully it’ll be fine????”
If this is a genuine goal, you should probably stop claiming Doug’s comments were “offensive” while sneaking into every other comment that you think the people here are somehow just being “unaccepting”.
That really wasn’t my intent at all, I would appreciate you pointing me to the comments which sound like that. I know there was one which I have already apologized for, were there others?
And it definitely is a genuine goal.
I hope I’m not just jumping in unwanted, but my background may be helpful. and far be it for me to speak for Pastor Wilson…. but I think what he was getting at was simply this: In what sense, really, ought we define or label someone who is committed to a monogamous, heterosexual union as “bisexual”? We define people by their temptations? By that logic, I might label myself as “polyamorous,” since I in truth have real temptations toward inappropriate relations with others outside of my wife, even though I choose not to act on such temptations? I am living… Read more »
That makes a lot of sence. Something to think about for me for sure.
Lest there be any confusion, that is a different BJ than me. Though, I can’t say I disagree with his conclusions.
Glad you cleared that up! I was thinking to myself, When did he move to Alabama? I thought he lived in Kentucky (or thereabouts) in the beautiful hill country.
FYI my app does the same thing, scrolls like crazy when not touching it. I thought it was just my phone but apparently not.
Regarding the article “ so you married a feminist”, I really don’t understand why a wife being upset about the “MeToo Movement, the wage gap, and a sex scandal in a church across town would elicit a response from the husband that would result in a quarrel. I would think that he would agree with his wife that such goings on are sinful. The word Feminist has different meanings to different people. Rachael Den Hollander took a major stand in bringing down a sex offender, certainly no one can doubt her credentials of being a Godly woman.
MeToo: Female accuser is always right, due process and witnesses not necessary
Wage gap :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-sowell-takes-down-the-gender-wage-gap
Sex scandal across town:May be two sides and more to the story than it seems
No need for the husband to be acquiescing and simply agree with Mrs. Right on these matters.
Even when the accused is arrested and convicted in a court of law?
Leslie, I think you would need to be more specific here. After all, Jesus was arrested and convicted in a court of law. Obviously that doesn’t mean that every man condemned is innocent, but if we’re going to talk about hypothetical situations, we need to understand our own terms.
Do you mean when objective evidence proves the accused’s guilt? I don’t think anyone here would argue with you on that. Unfortunately, very, very rarely is feminism ever attached to such a case.
Unfortunately because of the viewpoint you just presented it is very hard to bring people( mainly men) to justice. For example , the amount of testimony and the length of time it took to bring Larry Nasser to justice. The attempt to cover up that whole scenario is still ongoing. Unfortunately women who complain or try to do something about injustice are called Feminists. Some are some aren’t. And some who aren’t become feminists because they are not taken seriously .CIhUE
What viewpoint did I express Leslie? I asked you to be more specific. I don’t see how that constitutes a viewpoint. The sad fact is that sexual crimes are very difficult to prove. That this is the case makes them all the more heinous, but it does not absolve the rights of the accused. “Unfortunately women who complain or try to do something about injustice are called Feminists.” Do you have any examples? This is, again, a little too ambiguous to handle directly. What does “try to do something” mean? Certainly not all women who accuse a man of a… Read more »
Rachael Den Hollander
Ok. Googling around to try and get a complete picture, since you didn’t provide one and I didn’t follow this case as it unfolded at more than a surface level. Near as I can tell, and this is admittedly after very little research, the only real complaint about her treatment as an accuser is the kind of treatment that literally every person who’s name goes into the news gets. “I lost every shred of privacy. When a new friend searched my name online or added me as a friend on Facebook, the most intimate details of my life became available… Read more »
Google further. And educate yourself on what is happening in the church and in the world.
“…educate yourself on what is happening in the church and in the world.”
As in the church copying the world, with #metoo witch hunts putting hipster progressives into positions of power (SBC)? Combine it with LGBTQ lite and race hustling, and you’ve got the whole intersectionality mafia trying to run Biblical traditionalists out of conservative churches/denominations.
Leslie, that isn’t a point of view. That’s just condescension. It isn’t my fault that you completely failed to in any way adequately explain what point you were trying to make. If you’d like to make a point about her, please do. It is not my burden to figure out what your argument is on your behalf. In a fair and rational discussion, you don’t get to just submit your conclusions as assumed. You have to make a case for them. If you can’t, maybe you should ask yourself why you’re taking these conclusions for granted?
Sorry JP. I saw her post and just had to reply, not even noticing that you had the matter firmly in hand.k Always give kudos to a Thomas Sowell link.
Denhollander just had a baby girl a few days ago. I think I read she is her fourth child
“MeToo Movement” Because it’s predicated on the immoral presupposition that we should believe everything bad women say about men, without scrutiny. ” the wage gap” Because it doesn’t exist. They come up with the number by comparing all male wages and all female wages without accounting for *any* other variable. It also happens to be that men work more total hours than women, which obviously will change how much they make collectively. Men are more likely to take a job they hate just for the money, take a college degree they don’t care about just for money, relocate for a… Read more »
Sometimes that kind of argument arises from differences between the sexes rather than from feminism. There are conversations that it is more emotionally satisfying for women to have with their girlfriends rather than their husbands. I tried very hard to curb this tendency in myself, usually successfully, but women can get upset when their husbands’ emotional response to some reported outrage doesn’t match their own. “What do you mean there are two sides? How can there be two sides? Don’t you care about what happened to her? Don’t you care that the man who does your root canals left his… Read more »
Women, as a group, tend to personalize events that don’t directly involve them in a way that men don’t. It’s not a bad thing. It’s also why they tend to be more empathetic in situations where men fail. It does lead to some fundamental misunderstandings in conversation. My own obstacle with my wife is that she’s a very subtextual speaker, and I am *NOT*. So if I am listing options, like “So we’re going to Sam and Janie’s house this Sunday. If we leave early we can go to…..” She interprets this to mean “I want to leave Sam and… Read more »
Justin, I think it often enough is a bad thing that women tend to personalize events that don’t directly involve them, even while it is good thing that they are relatively likely to be empathetic.
Of course, your wife may not be *entirely* wrong about your wanting to leave Sam and Janie’s house early. She might be misreading that you dislike them when you that is not the case, but obviously you are thinking about other options for spending your time that appeal to you as much as being with Sam and Janie.
John, my example of my wife was certainly not my example of this trait being used in a positive way. I would agree that it is often a bad thing that women tend to personalize events, but often does not mean exclusively. Men tend to be more cold and clinical in examining a situation, but again, while that’s often a wise course of action, it isn’t universal. Some situations are of significant enough moral importance that we ought to personalize them. Personal separation from a problem can lead to pragmatism, and being pragmatic where one needs to be fiercely ideological… Read more »
One thing I think you were getting at is, whatever it is that causes women to over-personalize (which among other things strikes me as narcissistic) it is the same thing that causes them to be more empathetic than men, and better than men in that respect. Is it necessary, or even helpful, to personalize morally important issues in order to rightly address them? Of course, women can and do manage to be rational and objective in assessing problems in the certain contexts, and doing that doesn’t necessarily exclude empathy. Think of health care providers. However, when it comes to what… Read more »
John, I think that often women personalize, it comes from insecurity, desire to please and a fuzzier commnication style I don’t speak for all women, but personalizing a moral dilemma helps me to form my thoughts by seeing how my decision will affect real people. More women than men tend to think in analogies. I think that while professional women have been trained to override their natural thinking style, it is often quite different from how men evaluate issues and reach decisions But going back to Justin’s example about leaving the party early to run an errand. When I was… Read more »
Jill,
I’m a little puzzled where the concept of an errand to the hardware store came from. It seems to be an assumption on your part. Perhaps your response would have been different if he had said, “If we leave early, we can go to the matinee performance of Madama Butterfly”.
Those things have been fully culture warred and are now all about “the narrative”. The wife is supporting the wrong narrative, so she is bad and needs to change.
Leslie, I have found that the label feminist is now so broadly applied that it has come to mean a person, attitude, or political stance that the speaker disapproves of. “She’s a feminist” doesn’t tell us whether she wants to smash the patriarchy or whether she thinks that there’s nothing wrong with women running for public office. She could be Germaine Greer or she could be some nice Christian lady who wants to get a job outside the home for a few hours a week. You just can’t tell because it’s become a term of abuse, like fascist or communist.… Read more »
Jeeves, If I may… The specific article of Lewis that I imagine Pastor Wilson was referencing was “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”, alternately called “Fern-seed and elephants”. It is easy to find, I searched and here is one site where you can read it (https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/08/cs-lewis-modern-theology-and-biblical.html) Lewis takes Bultmann and the rest to task in this article and handily (and rightly) eviscerates them. His bottom line observation is that all these great sounding theories of the modern critical scholars and all sound very compelling and eriudite, until someone points out…. that they are ludicrously blinded to what ought to be obvious… Read more »
Gaslighting may be a thing, but I think it terribly outdated. Nearly everyone I know uses electric lighting nowadays.
Revoice is following the Human Rights Campaign’s playbook for Christian LGBTQ propaganda pretty closely. You can download it for free here:
https://www.hrc.org/resources/a-christian-conversation-guide
Hint: the long game isn’t celibacy and a recognition of homosexual activities as sin.
In case there’s any doubt, Kong = Malik using a spellchecker. Notice he said: “I actually commented an article in the last troll teusday about native American culture, and how their get see worked very different from ours.” Search for the words “native Americans” here:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/simple-title-letters-will-suffice.html
The STL reference also gave it away. See here:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/abettors-with-letters.html
In both cases, he talked about knowing progressive Reformed types in the St. Louis area. I’m not sure why the name change was necessary…maybe changing names has something to do with gender fluidity?
you can link to comments. Use #comment_number at the end of the hyperlink
Thanks. If there’s a particular question, I’ll do that.
Try appending “#comment-nnnnnn” after “.html” to create the link a link to a known comment number. For example, https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/abettors-with-letters.html#comment-216128
That works (at least it gets very close in my browser), but I am perplexed as to why this commenting system does not allow an easy way to create such a link.
Malik made a similar point,(it’s a common point to talk about native American gender). I was talking about a point I made a couple days ago, I’m having trouble finding it, it was about pan vs. bi. And the post you linked to is from a while back.
We both live in stl I guess, but I don’t know him.
You both have a St. Louis connection (even abbreviating it the same), make nearly identical arguments re: LGBTQ, have very similar writing styles and online personalities, and both misspell the word “since” the same way (hopefully this works, bethyada):
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/and-so-the-letters-keep-coming.html#218867
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/abettors-with-letters.html#216072
I’m not convinced (convenced?).
No, not working. All the links on the comments are to the blog (dougwils.com), not the blog section.
Well, from a strategic standpoint, he did get absolutely crushed whenever he tried to fault Christians for not being adequately forgiving or generous on a given political point, and someone, my memory says OKR, but probably others, nailed him to the wall on ignoring the Bible on homosexuality wherever he saw fit. Changing names is sensible if he wants to speak without past rhetoric being called into question under the standards he imposes today.
Unless Kong tells us he is Malik, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that possibility. However, they certainly have many strong similarities.
Presuming they are different people, I think it points out that a significant part of the US population has the types of beliefs and attitudes that Kong and Malik both exhibit. That is, don’t judge anybody, sexuality is relative, faith beliefs are relative, believe your own experiences or those of others rather than the Bible, etc. I suspect that Kong and Malik are typical, not atypical, of those under 25, maybe even 30.
There are just too many similarities. We’re already in a very small world: people who write letters to DW then comment heavily on the post (Malik and Kong have done both). Then you have a young, progressive Reformed type who disagrees with practically everyone here on LGBTQ issues. That’s on top of the many other unusual similarities I mentioned. “Makes sence” is a real giveaway. It’s not a common misspelling like “lose” and “loose,” and is especially unusual for a site like this. Below are the linked comments from both (thanks OKR). STL https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/abettors-with-letters.html#comment-216128 https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/and-so-the-letters-keep-coming.html#comment-218802 “makes sence” https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/and-so-the-letters-keep-coming.html#comment-218867 https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/abettors-with-letters.html#comment-216072 Native… Read more »
“That is, don’t judge anybody, sexuality is relative, faith beliefs are relative,”
Of course Malik had the typical leftist double standard on the first one. He had no problem judging white male Trump supporters who oppose immigration.
The main reason this is a problem (if Kong=Malik) is that he’s not operating in good faith and is wasting our time. If I knew it was Malik, I wouldn’t have written more than a sentence or two. Many of us have gone multiple rounds with him already. There’s nothing else that needs to be said unless his views have changed substantially.