Christian Group Behavior (Episode 44)

[NH Baritone]

I'm curious as to how you would counsel "your un-named monogamous Christian gay couple"? I assume you wouldn't try to talk them out of either their Christian beliefs or their homosexuality, despite the obvious conflicts produced for them by being both, so what would you do to "help" them?

Would you provide them counseling on the teachings of the Bible and how it should be interpreted and applied to them - something clearly outside your realm of expertise and responsibility as a therapist - or would you refer them to someone you know who is qualified and really good at such things, or what? I'm really curious as to how you would handle this without letting either your own sexual orientation or your own anti-theism interfere and "bias" your approach with them. Or would you let it interfere, but 'legitimately'?

You're obviously concerned and unhappy with Scott's approach - to help them come to their own conclusions and do their own wrestling with their feelings and frustrations after "researching" the teachings of their belief system (Christianity) - so what do you propose as an alternative?

Jim

I'll come back to this later (I'm on my way to work and just synchronizing the iPod before I take the dog for a walk), but two things come to mind now:

1. If a gay couple were to come to me for Christian spiritual advice, I'd refer them to the Episcopal priest next door. First, for him, Christianity did not stop developing at the close of the first century, A.D., and he encourages people not just to go read English versions of the Bible, but rather to look at reason and their own experience. I might also suggest that they read some of Malcolm Boyd's books, Troy Perry's books, John Boswell's books, or Mel White's Stranger at the Gate. (There are others that I can't think of at the moment.)

2. If they came to see me with a mental health issue, and it appeared that they were conflicted about a particular parish that they were attending, then I MIGHT (this is all speculation about an un-named couple) explore with them how they decide each week to keep attending a place where they emerge feeling rejected and ridiculed. Naturally, their answers would help dictate how next we would proceed.

I've seen a number of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Church of Christ members through the years. Each of these denominations have a "unique" approach to salvation, the first and last rather exclusive in their theology. They often on their own listen to their own experience and begin to question how much they have to swallow of the church's theology in order to participate in the church's community. People often have a way of compartmentalizing parts of their church's teaching so that they can live connected lives. I never question that choice, but more than once that sort of walled-off thinking has brought a client back to see me years later.

Gotta go!

[JustJim]

I'll come back to this later (I'm on my way to work and just synchronizing the iPod before I take the dog for a walk), but two things come to mind now:

1. If a gay couple were to come to me for Christian spiritual advice, I'd refer them to the Episcopal priest next door. First, for him, Christianity did not stop developing at the close of the first century, A.D., and he encourages people not just to go read English versions of the Bible, but rather to look at reason and their own experience. I might also suggest that they read some of Malcolm Boyd's books, Troy Perry's books, John Boswell's books, or Mel White's Stranger at the Gate. (There are others that I can't think of at the moment.)

2. If they came to see me with a mental health issue, and it appeared that they were conflicted about a particular parish that they were attending, then I MIGHT (this is all speculation about an un-named couple) explore with them how they decide each week to keep attending a place where they emerge feeling rejected and ridiculed. Naturally, their answers would help dictate how next we would proceed.

I've seen a number of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Church of Christ members through the years. Each of these denominations have a "unique" approach to salvation, the first and last rather exclusive in their theology. They often on their own listen to their own experience and begin to question how much they have to swallow of the church's theology in order to participate in the church's community. People often have a way of compartmentalizing parts of their church's teaching so that they can live connected lives. I never question that choice, but more than once that sort of walled-off thinking has brought a client back to see me years later.

Gotta go!

No need to come back to this later. You more than amply answered my questions. I'm not looking for a dissertation - just the things you answered already.

Frankly, I don't see very much difference between what you say your Episcopal priest next door might do for the couple and what Scott has said he would do. Scott also is, so far as traditional Christianity is concerned, far beyond the first century of Christian thought, and that's very clear in his posts and his podcasts. You just went into more detail on some of the specifics of additional things you'd recommend for them to read. Scott also recommended they read the Bible (if their native language is English, that'd probably be the easiest version for them to read) and that they look at reason and their own experience. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he also would recommend additional readings, but didn't take the time to specifically list any of them in his posts (perhaps because it's superfluous to the points he was making/answering).

Excellent idea for your second point (about possible mental health issues). I especially like the idea of exploring with them their decision to keep going back to a place where they feel ridiculed and rejected, if that's what they're experiencing. "Doc - it hurts when I do this!"

Anyhow, thanks for answering so quickly!

Jim

[ScottBarger]

Simply put, you have justified reaching opposing conclusions by looking at the same two passages of the New Testament.

This statement is incorrect, NH. I did not "justify" reaching opposing conclusions, I offered what I consider to be biblical instruction of how to behave when people disagree on moral issues.

You have allowed both conclusions to exist unchallenged.

Again, not what I said. I think ideas SHOULD be challenged and that there ought to be dialog between disagreeing parties. But, like I have said, this issue is very complex and will take a lot of time to work out within the church community. During this time of "working things out" I think there ought to be an abundance of grace, humility, and selflessness exhibited by both sides. There is no need, use, or reason for harsh rhetoric on EITHER side of this issue. Quite frankly I find it repulsive regardless of of who spews it. I think the Bible teaches it is unacceptable, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

So regarding my un-named monogamous Christian gay couple, if you allow for them to independently "conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus," then it is equally acceptable for you and your fellow Christians to reach the conclusion that homosexuality is impermissible, even when they are living up to the same behavioral standards you promote for all Christians.

Correct. But this does not rule out harmony, forbearance, and a healthy relationship between both sides.

You ambivalence here serves as no guidance at all,

I disagree.

but instead leaves you open for tarring from both sides and praise from neither.

Kind of like Jesus, don't you think?

What's more, given the climate of vigorous and pervasive socio-religious antipathy toward gay people, your indecisiveness gives effective tacit endorsement to the anti-gay conclusions.

I disagree. I don't think the issue is as binary as that.

Let me give an example: It was never sufficient in the segregated South to say, "I don't care if black folks vote or not." In order for justice to prevail, one had to vociferously promote black voter registration, the repeal of Jim Crow laws, and the dismantling of the segregation infrastructure. I am proud that my father did exactly that from his Tennessee pulpit. You may not endorse anti-gay legislation, but your ambivalence suggests that you are not standing up to the authorities, either within your own congregation or the society at large, who are trying to install anti-gay discrimination into the state and Federal constitutions. As a matter of fact, you would tell them that they "MAY" be exactly right. And these are the very ones who are engaging in "stoning" the gay community.

You seem to be mixing the concepts of "moral teaching within Christianity" with "Civil rights." Like I said before, I oppose any legislation that prohibits consenting adults from entering into legally binding relationships (be that marriage, adoption, power of attorney, whatever) based on sexual orientation. I am by no means an "activist" (I have three children, it's all I can do to keep up with the laundry at times), but I do what I can, when I can to help my church family form healthier, more biblical attitudes towards issues like these. It seems as though this isn't enough for you (and I can't say that I blame you) but it is what I have to offer at his point in my life.

Come on, Scott! It's woefully insufficient to say, "Don't call them fags."

I agree.

Choosing not to endorse "ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists" differs immensely from actively and convincingly condemning not only the words they use but the logic they employ. You have spent large amounts of time & bandwidth simply straddling the fence, instead of stating "clearly" that there is no place within your congregation for discrimination against morally upright, monogamous, Christian gay couples. (It was not hard to notice that you skirted the topic of same-sex weddings, a sign of true equality, within your congregation.)

It is easy to indict me (and my church family) from the outside, NH. I think if we knew each other more personally, or if you spent any time with the people in my church, you might feel differently about us, but I guess this is one of the shortfalls of cyber-bickering...you never have to look a person in the eyes when you call them a close-minded bigot.

Recall that I asked you whether gay couples, those who engage in the same level of commitment & behavior as you and your wife do, can be considered to have a relationship equal to your own marriage in the church. After sneakily insinuating that there is some moral connection between monogamous gay couples and "pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality" (a tactic frequently employed by "ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists"),

Untrue. Please reread my post and subsequent explanation.

Yes, this angers me. But it also saddens me that above all else you fear offending your conservative constituency[...]

Yes I am afraid, damn afraid. Conservative Evangelicals can be scary!

[...]i.e., those who would prefer that gay people didn't even exist.

It isn't true that all conservative Christians prefer that homosexuals didn't exist. This is going to come across as self-gratifying and defensive but I'll share the story anyway. I taught on this issue a year or so ago, and we were focusing on the attitude the church community ought to have towards people outside the church community. I spent some time talking about homosexuality and how I think Jesus would want us to handle it. Afterward an acquaintance of mine approached me, she is a lesbian. My stomach sank, because I didn't know she was there, and didn't want to make her feel objectified or demeaned. Her comment was, "This is the first sermon I have heard in years that hasn't pissed me off. Thank you."

I walked away from that experience thinking that I was at least doing something right. I'm sorry that you don't agree and feel that my efforts are inadequate (I get that a lot). But I am not sure how else to explain myself via internet communication. I'd love to buy you a drink some time, if we ever meet in person. Perhaps then we could reach a greater understanding of the each other.

Until then...here ya go------->

[NH Baritone]

Hi, Scott.

If we keep responding to everything the other writes, we'll end up filling up the entire internet. So here' I've picked up on some of the points I think you still have failed to understand.

Simply put, you have justified reaching opposing conclusions by looking at the same two passages of the New Testament.

This statement is incorrect, NH. I did not "justify" reaching opposing conclusions, I offered what I consider to be biblical instruction of how to behave when people disagree on moral issues.
[ BIG SNIP ]

So regarding my un-named monogamous Christian gay couple, if you allow for them to independently "conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus," then it is equally acceptable for you and your fellow Christians to reach the conclusion that homosexuality is impermissible, even when they are living up to the same behavioral standards you promote for all Christians.

Correct. But this does not rule out harmony, forbearance, and a healthy relationship between both sides.

Uhh, Scott? If you didn't "justify reaching opposing conclusions," then how was my follow-up paraphrasing "correct" when I said you give permission for opposing groups to find homosexuality both permissible and impermissible? The last I checked, permissible and impermissible would be considered "opposing conclusions."

I recognize that you are attempting to civilize the debate. But it doesn't seem to matter that, for the sake of not stirring the pot, your responses to the Christian gay couple was so inadequate as to leave them dismally without guidance. And the same would be true of your congregation. At least JustJim had the curiosity to ask what I would do if some equivalent event occurred in my office. In my response, I noted several books & authors that I think would bring insight to such a couple. The only thing you were suggesting was "read the Bible." Somehow, I wager they taught you more than that in Seminary. At least I hope they did; otherwise you overpaid for that education.

Oh, and by the way, as long as you are making statements like this one ...

I am not entirely convinced that the Bible explicitly prohibits homosexuality for the follower of Jesus

... I urge you not to volunteer to referee the debates.

Not being "entirely convinced" that I am a despicable demoniac doesn't exactly ring of fairness on your part. I will admit that it amounts to more doubt than emits from James Dobson, but only barely. To make a point, I considered handing you an equivalent appraisal of your own moral character, but I found myself too polite to post such a reprehensible statement about anyone.

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} - {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} - {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} - {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

Like I said before, I oppose any legislation that prohibits consenting adults from entering into legally binding relationships (be that marriage, adoption, power of attorney, whatever) based on sexual orientation. I am by no means an "activist" (I have three children, it's all I can do to keep up with the laundry at times), but I do what I can, when I can to help my church family form healthier, more biblical attitudes towards issues like these. It seems as though this isn't enough for you (and I can't say that I blame you) but it is what I have to offer at his point in my life.

Contrast this with what you actually wrote:

I have repeatedly commented that I think some form of civil union ought to be allowed for gay couples.

"Some form of civil union ought to be allowed" sounds half-hearted and ill-considered, unlike your clarification. Do you remember earlier in this thread when you were defending "heterosexual marriage" as the model for God's relationship with humanity, and I pointed out that it was simply "marriage," not "heterosexual marriage"? I know you're "in flux," but you're harder to pin down than a mythic moth on meth. You oppose denying gay folks the right to marry, but you don't support gay marriage. How long can you sit on that fence before it gives you a wedgy?

I hope you will understand that, with your earlier negation of the validity/value of same-sex marriage and later use of a well-watered-down comment about civil unions, this dialogue has sounded like the absolute best I could expect of you is, "You, there! Go sit in the back of the bus. And don't hold hands!" Again, my question has consistently been about equality between same-sex couples and different-sex couples.

Recall that I asked you whether gay couples, those who engage in the same level of commitment & behavior as you and your wife do, can be considered to have a relationship equal to your own marriage in the church. After sneakily insinuating that there is some moral connection between monogamous gay couples and "pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality" (a tactic frequently employed by "ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists"),

Untrue. Please reread my post and subsequent explanation.

Oh, I read it, seething all the while. I just don't think you get it. Mentioning "pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality" in the context of a discussion of homosexuality is the moral equivalent of using the "N" word. You cannot make any more horrid comparison in any context. You could have used gluttony, adultery, cheating on income taxes, stealing pens from the office, or even drunkenness, and it would aroused far less ire. Your argument fades into the background when you make use of those terms and disregard the implications: "Gay people can't love one another; they just are getting their rocks off. And they'll victimize anyone, including your children, to do it." If I can convince you never to ever again use those terms in a conversation about same-sex couples, then this dialogue will have been worthwhile.

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} - {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} - {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

Finally,

this issue is very complex and will take a lot of time to work out within the church community. During this time of "working things out" I think there ought to be an abundance of grace, humility, and selflessness exhibited by both sides. There is no need, use, or reason for harsh rhetoric on EITHER side of this issue. Quite frankly I find it repulsive regardless of of who spews it. I think the Bible teaches it is unacceptable, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

I can only quote Hubert Humphrey here: "There are those who say to you - we are rushing this issue of civil rights. I say we are 172 years late." So long as you hide behind dogma to deny equality of relationships for gay couples who live by the same morals as you espouse for married straight couples, then you are promoting straight supremacy. And asking gay folks to be patient with that is like asking us to wait while you consult your congregation about whether you can take the faggots out of the stocks. You are carrying the goddamn key; open the lock!

[ScottBarger]

OK, NH, you got me. I am very bad at my job.

I explained why I brought up other sexual behavior, I could not have used gluttony, or stealing pens because the discussion was concerning justifying sexual behavior based on its similarity to heterosexuality. I tried to explain that, but failed. My overly simplistic, superstition-riddled, bible-deluded brain was simply unable to transcend to your level. Sorry about that, I take it back and will retreat to my shameful corner of bigotry with my tail tucked firmly between my legs (tucked in such a way so as not to offend neither the heterosexual nor homosexual sensibilities of the reader)

As per your recommendation I have withdrawn all my applications to referee debates between pro/gay and anti/gay persons, and instead am devoting my efforts into demeaning people who are wrestling with the issue and unsure of how to proceed. They ought to be ashamed of their wedgie-laden fence riding, it is really repulsive, thanks for enlightening me.

Also, thank you for exorcising self-restraint and not handing me a well-deserved appraisal of my own moral character, I know I deserve it.

I have obviously failed to represent my viewpoint in anything that resembles effective and meaningful dialog. For the life of me, I cannot think of any other way to try. So I won't. You have made it quite clear that you have little respect for me, my educational experience, my belief system, or my struggle with this issue. On top of that you seem to have zero tolerance for anything but your own point of view and I don't have the time, energy, or mental prowess to change that.

You have been up front with what you think of my efforts to navigate this issue, and seem to have doubts about my effectiveness as a pastor. I am certain I can't change your mind, but if your concerns persist feel free to contact my church elder team (theoffice@nhcchome.com) and petition for my dismissal. You won't be the first and certainly won't be the last.

Thanks for your time, it was certainly more than I deserved.

[JustJim]

OK, NH, you got me. I am very bad at my job.

I explained why I brought up other sexual behavior, I could not have used gluttony, or stealing pens because the discussion was concerning justifying sexual behavior based on its similarity to heterosexuality. I tried to explain that, but failed. My overly simplistic, superstition-riddled, bible-deluded brain was simply unable to transcend to your level. Sorry about that, I take it back and will retreat to my shameful corner of bigotry with my tail tucked firmly between my legs (tucked in such a way so as not to offend neither the heterosexual nor homosexual sensibilities of the reader)

As per your recommendation I have withdrawn all my applications to referee debates between pro/gay and anti/gay persons, and instead am devoting my efforts into demeaning people who are wrestling with the issue and unsure of how to proceed. They ought to be ashamed of their wedgie-laden fence riding, it is really repulsive, thanks for enlightening me.

Also, thank you for exorcising self-restraint and not handing me a well-deserved appraisal of my own moral character, I know I deserve it.

I have obviously failed to represent my viewpoint in anything that resembles effective and meaningful dialog. For the life of me, I cannot think of any other way to try. So I won't. You have made it quite clear that you have little respect for me, my educational experience, my belief system, or my struggle with this issue. On top of that you seem to have zero tolerance for anything but your own point of view and I don't have the time, energy, or mental prowess to change that.

You have been up front with what you think of my efforts to navigate this issue, and seem to have doubts about my effectiveness as a pastor. I am certain I can't change your mind, but if your concerns persist feel free to contact my church elder team (theoffice@nhcchome.com) and petition for my dismissal. You won't be the first and certainly won't be the last.

Thanks for your time, it was certainly more than I deserved.

Scott,

Although I've enjoyed reading nearly everything you've posted on the forum, I found this one especially smile-provoking. Now I think NHB will have to stop saying you don't understand him, since you obviously have him down pat! Thanks!

Jim

[NH Baritone]

OK, NH, you got me. I am very bad at my job.

I explained why I brought up other sexual behavior, I could not have used gluttony, or stealing pens because the discussion was concerning justifying sexual behavior based on its similarity to heterosexuality. I tried to explain that, but failed. My overly simplistic, superstition-riddled, bible-deluded brain was simply unable to transcend to your level. Sorry about that, I take it back and will retreat to my shameful corner of bigotry with my tail tucked firmly between my legs (tucked in such a way so as not to offend neither the heterosexual nor homosexual sensibilities of the reader)

As per your recommendation I have withdrawn all my applications to referee debates between pro/gay and anti/gay persons, and instead am devoting my efforts into demeaning people who are wrestling with the issue and unsure of how to proceed. They ought to be ashamed of their wedgie-laden fence riding, it is really repulsive, thanks for enlightening me.

Also, thank you for exorcising self-restraint and not handing me a well-deserved appraisal of my own moral character, I know I deserve it.

I have obviously failed to represent my viewpoint in anything that resembles effective and meaningful dialog. For the life of me, I cannot think of any other way to try. So I won't. You have made it quite clear that you have little respect for me, my educational experience, my belief system, or my struggle with this issue. On top of that you seem to have zero tolerance for anything but your own point of view and I don't have the time, energy, or mental prowess to change that.

You have been up front with what you think of my efforts to navigate this issue, and seem to have doubts about my effectiveness as a pastor. I am certain I can't change your mind, but if your concerns persist feel free to contact my church elder team (theoffice@nhcchome.com) and petition for my dismissal. You won't be the first and certainly won't be the last.

Thanks for your time, it was certainly more than I deserved.

HEADLINE: Pastor self-flagellates when criticized by atheist.

hmm... Are you proud of yourself for that one?

There's nothing there to respond to. The conversation is now officially roadkill.

But at least Jim (and a few others, I'm sure) got a giggle out of it.

PS: For the record, you as a person have not been my target, only your arguments and the sources of them.

[Rian]

I thought you had some good posts, Scott, and expressed your honest journey with a difficult and divisive issue in an open and vulnerable way.

Clearly you're just evil, though

[whoosanightowl]

Scott,
I too appreciate the way in which you have attempted to handle this difficult topic and think you've done a pretty good job, considering.
NHB,
I understand your frustration, yet I think your personal experiences and deep feelings of having been treated unfairly and even with contempt by some Christians, are getting in the way of your being able to acknowledge Scott's position as a Christian pastor who is trying, in the best way he knows how, to build bridges of understanding and acceptance of the gay community while remaining faithful to what he truly believes is morally right or wrong according to his interpretation of the bible. He is torn because he doesn't want to condemn homosexuality any more than he would gluttony or working on the sabbath, yet he can't condone it entirely because the fact is that all these things are wrong according to at least some passages in the bible, which may or may not be relevant today. Straddling the fence is better than not even getting close enough to peek over it, and it's probably a bit painful for him as well, so please give him credit for trying at least, even if it's not as far as you'd like him to come.

[ScottBarger]

So, after posting the above I was out for a pint with a few friends from church. I told them how frustrating it was not to be able to communicate clearly and in a meaningful way what I feel about this issue. I asked them what they would do if they were having the same dialog with a gay friend. One guy responded this way, "I would just love 'em, man. The moral teaching of the Bible assumes relationships between people. Relationships are vitally important to the spiritual journey of a Christian and you will probably never come to any kind of common ground about the issue of homosexuality, if you don't love the homosexual you are talking to. Jesus said to love all people...so, I would start by loving them and move on from there."

I agreed. I think this is why this conversation has been so frustrating to me...much of what I think about this issue depends on a relationship that I am not sure I could ever have over the internet. I am not sure i know how to love NHB when the extent of our relationship is this dialog. It's frustrating for me, because I think he WOULD see my side a bit better if we had a meaningful relationship.

Just an addendum, off to bed for me.

[NH Baritone]

Scott & Sue:

I think you are both saying essentially the same thing, although I think Sue may have gotten slightly closer to the nailhead.

Scott's idea was that eventually he could convince me to "see [his] side a bit better." In other words, love for him may have an ulterior motive, perhaps a hidden agenda. It is one of the problems I have with the Christian interpretation of "love." Ostensibly, they love not out of a deep commitment to human beings, but because they have been "commanded" in a book to do so. And there is inevitably a third party built into the Christian relationship: They love others to please God. This strikes me as fraught with double-speak, because there's a divided loyalty from the beginning.

And that's where Sue has the more pertinent observation: Scott cannot simply love, because he has conflicting goals:

to build bridges of understanding and acceptance of the gay community while remaining faithful to what he truly believes is morally right or wrong according to his interpretation of the bible.

In other words, Scott has shown himself, at least until this most recent post, to be more loyal to Bible than to building a bridge, i.e., a relationship.

From my perspective, my meta position was that I expected Scott (from hearing him speak on the podcast) to have exactly that loyalty. And so I was intent on pointing out how this position causes genuine harm, when in fact millions of other Christians have reached a different position that actually builds that bridge.

I'm also aware that many other church members will reject the Christian who faithfully embraces the equality of gay people. (That's why I posted the a comment about the Lambeth Conference earlier.) Scott's sub tabula comments have suggested that he frequently looks over his shoulder to ensure he hasn't offended some other believer.

One of my larger goals in life, however, is to lay the anxiety over an issue squarely upon the lap of the person who actually owns it. If I voluntarily carry someone else's worry for them, it does me no good, and convinces them that they have done nothing to burden me. In this ecclesiastical conflict, I think the people who own the anxiety are those who are rigidly focusing on the Bible, not those who are trying to open the church fully to Christian gay people. They're willing to sacrifice love for the sake of dogma.

(And inevitably there are those who would like to accept the divided loyalties issue without resolving it so that people can simply get along. Those peacemakers' worries arise for a variety of reasons, but inevitably one of them is that they have been in denial over how severe their friends' judgment can be. It is said that when elephants fight, the ground suffers. Sadly, the peacemakers are the ground under a pair of fighting elephants.)

So the upshot is that if love is the goal, then I think a bridge is almost inevitable. If, however, dogma is the goal, then a bridge is simply an accident, and usually develops between people who already share the same dogma. And as much as I pointed out Scott and I have in common, dogma is not something we share.

[JustJim]

It is one of the problems I have with the Christian interpretation of "love." Ostensibly, they love not out of a deep commitment to human beings, but because they have been "commanded" in a book to do so.

I find it almost unfathomable that someone with your Christian background and education could possibly believe this is even close to an accurate assessment of Christian love. It's so far from reality as to appear to be an intentional misinterpretation. It has been my experience (and education) that Christians believe they love because they were created in love - "in the image of God". And since "God is Love", love is "built into" their very beings. It has nothing to do with having been "commanded in a book to do so".

Their book does tell them, among other things related to love, how to love (as in "“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself..." or in Jesus' many admonitions to care for the poor and sick and weak and his frequent demonstrations of what it means to live a life of loving God and others....) Are you sure you attended a seminary? A Christian one? Were you paying attention?

I don't know, NH, but it sure seems to me that your posts smack so heavily of bias against Christianity in general and Scott in particular that you're just about incapable of understanding what he is trying to communicate, let alone his motives in doing so. I get a completely different read on Scott, and I think others do, too. It just looks to me like you're "out to get him" at any cost, and can't accept that he could have anything honest and worthwhile to say.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong....

Jim

[NH Baritone]

Jim,

Yep, you're wrong.

Scott is charming, reflective, & self-effacing. His arguments & defenses of them, however, show more concern for dogma than for relationships.

And my comments regarding love go to the original topic of the podcast: Christians as a group love no more than anyone else.

And my X-Christian credentials:
• Son, grandson, nephew & cousin of Methodist ministers. IOW, I grew up in the parsonage.

• Jesus-freak (Campus Crusade) in high school.

• Religion major at small Methodist college (magna cum laude), 4.0 GPA in my major, 3.8 overall,

• Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, DC, class of 1980, but dropped out after 1st year. All classes pass-fail. I passed 'em all.

Is that enough of my resume?

[JustJim]

Jim,

Yep, you're wrong.

I don't think so, but if I am, it's neither the first nor the last time, I'm sure.

Scott is charming, reflective, & self-effacing.

Yes he is, isn't he? Wouldn't it be nice if more of us were like that....

His arguments & defenses of them, however, show more concern for dogma than for relationships.

Not to me, they don't. I see concern for both, but where they conflict, I see him leaning strongly to the side of the relationships. And he makes that very clear, in my opinion.

And my comments regarding love go to the original topic of the podcast: Christians as a group love no more than anyone else.

You said your problem was with "the Christian interpretation of love" - not with Scott's interpretation or with the original topic of the podcast (which was "Christian Group Behavior", not "Christians as a group love no more than anyone else.")

And my X-Christian credentials:
• Son, grandson, nephew & cousin of Methodist ministers. IOW, I grew up in the parsonage.

• Jesus-freak (Campus Crusade) in high school.

• Religion major at small Methodist college (magna cum laude), 4.0 GPA in my major, 3.8 overall,

• Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, DC, class of 1980, but dropped out after 1st year. All classes pass-fail. I passed 'em all.

Is that enough of my resume?

All the credentials in the world are meaningless if you didn't learn anything while earning/collecting them. In this case, you didn't miss the boat on Christian love - you missed the entire fleet!

Jim

[NH Baritone]

Aye-Aye, Admiral!



By the way, Jim, what exactly is your denominational background?