IWR News
Editorials
- Seeking a better way together
- || Commentary || The real meaning of "ex-gay"
- My Turn: Marriage, biblical teachings not threatened by domestic partners
Seeking a better way together
By Chris Rowland
Oxford, Ekklesia, June 20, 2005
[". . . Less than 20 years after the death of Jesus, Jews and pagans in a city in Syria were eating together on a regular basis. Jews relaxed the rules which had hitherto maintained their identity. Experience of God, and of each other, led those men and women to new patterns of behaviour. Paul describes the behaviour of those Christians in Antioch in his Letter to the Galatians, when he stood up in defence of them to his fellow church leaders, who had suddenly got cold feet about their participation in this kind of practice. Not surprisingly such activity caused scandals to more conservative elements in the church. Representations were sent from Jerusalem asking Paul, and these newly established communities, to desist from this unscriptural behaviour. Standing up to those who did not want to rock the boat was crucial for Paul, as something important about the gospel was in danger of being sacrificed. Paul had little or no basis in scripture for his decision to support this kind of mixed dining and shared fellowship. Indeed, his opponents had all the best arguments from precedent and scripture on their side. Nevertheless, he was persuaded that the experience of God of those pagans, who had converted to Christ, corresponded to what he, and other Jewish Christians, had experienced, and was an authentic mark of God's presence. . . . Thanks to Paul, Christianity has never really been a religion that used the Bible as a code of law. In his Second Letter to the Corinthians, he writes: "The letter kills, the Spirit gives life." . . . So, basing one's attitudes towards gay and lesbian people merely on two verses from Romans and Corinthians I runs the risk of ending up with a form of religion which is based on the letter of the text - something Paul empathically opposes - rather than on what a loving God is doing in transforming lives in the present."]
|| Commentary || The real meaning of "ex-gay"
(search website under "ex-gay")
An Advocate.com exclusive
posted August 15, 2005
By The American Psychiatric Association.
[ . . . "Reparative therapy" is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions.
The following statement from the APA was provided to The Advocate in response to a request related to the story "Brainwashed No More" in the August 30, 2005, issue:
The term "reparative therapy" refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires and is used by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion" therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. . . . The most important fact about “transformational ministry” is that its view of homosexuality is not representative of the views of all people of faith. Many deeply religious people, and a number of religious congregations and denominations, are supportive and accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and their right to be protected from the discriminatory acts of others. . . . Although “transformational ministry” promotes the message that religious faith and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual sexuality are incompatible, that message is countered by the large number of outspoken clergy and people of faith who promote love and acceptance."]
My Turn: Marriage, biblical teachings not threatened by domestic partners
Editorial, posted with permission of The Juneau Empire, Juneau Alaska, December 17, 2003.
By Sara Boesser, News Services editor of the Institute for Welcoming Resources.
[ ". . . It's a Biblical disagreement, not a threat. . . . to suggest a U.S. Constitutional amendment denying same-sex marriage would make any difference at all to opposite-sex marriages just doesn't match reality. . . . Amending the U.S. Constitution for a few passages some people still choose to take literally, while not amending it for all the others - that's not Biblical consistency. It's selective bias: an attempt to enshrine some people's current religious views into the one document central to American equal freedom and pursuit of happiness that is supposed to give rights, not take them away."]
