In 2012 Douglas Wilson gave a two-part lecture series at the of Indiana University about what the Bible says about human sexuality, followed by a Q&A. Watch the whole thing at http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington
Removing the heart—“that’s what conversion is.”
When Christians sell books and preach sermons encouraging non-married people to embrace their “singleness” as a blessing, we are promoting the destructive effects of the sexual revolution. “Singleness” as we conceive of it in our culture is not the will of God at all. It is representative of a deeply fragmented society. Singleness in America typically means a lack of kinship connectedness. This was not the case, for example, with Jesus who was not married. He never lived alone. He went from the family home to a group of twelve close friends who shared daily life with him until he died (followers who would have never left off following him). His mother and brothers were also still involved in his life and are often mentioned. Jesus’ mother was there at his darkest hour when he died. In contrast, singleness in America often refers to a person who lives alone or in non-permanent, non-kinship relationships.— Karen Keen (via wesleyhill)
There’s general acceptance that [Jesus] existed, considerably less evidence and consensus about his life and cause of death, and zero evidence for any miraculous resurrection.—
"Zero evidence for any miraculous resurrection." That’s quite an absolutist statement you’ve got there, one that virtually nobody is prepared to defend with any degree of intellectual honesty. I’ll accept that you believe the evidence is insufficient, but denying the existence of any evidence whatsoever is pretty rich.
And you criticize Christians for their certainty… I’d say some epistemological humility is in order here.
For more info, see WhoWillStand.net.
— Ron Belgau, "Celibacy and Healing" (via wesleyhill)
Celibacy is difficult; in the monastic tradition, it is always connected with some form of community, with spiritual direction, and with disciplined prayer. At the same time, the monastic tradition is broad, and celibate community can take many forms.
In a culture like our own, which exalts sex and disparages celibacy, it is little surprise that many fail when they attempt celibacy without much support from the church, without clear models, and without practical advice in facing the challenges they face. But this may be less an indictment of celibacy, and more an indictment of the way that the ex-gay movement failed to take celibacy—which Davies and Rentzel admitted was the experience of the majority of their members—seriously, failed to seriously study the resources on celibacy available in the Christian tradition, and failed to collect and reflect on their pastoral experience with celibate members in a systematic and practical way.
One reason for this, I think, is that many Christians thought of marriage as an expression of divine healing, while celibacy was seen as merely settling for a fallen condition.
This is a serious mistake.
Often what human beings do is so horrible that we can be excused, perhaps, for thinking that all that matters is stopping it. But this is an evasion of the real horror: the heart from which the terrible actions come. In both cases, it is who we are in our thoughts, feelings, dispositions, and choices—in the inner life—that counts. Profound transformation there is the only thing that can definitively conquer outward evil. It is very hard to keep this straight. Failure to do so is a primary cause of failure to grow spiritually. Love, we hear, is patient and kind (1 Corinthians 13:4). Then we mistakenly try to be loving by acting patiently and kindly—and quickly fail. We should always do the best we can in action, of course; but little progress is to be made in that arena until we advance in love itself—the genuine inner readiness and longing to secure the good of others. Until we make significant progress there, our patience and kindness will be shallow and short-lived at best. It is love itself—not loving behavior, or even the wish or intent to love—that has the power to “always protect, always trust, always hope, put up with anything, and never quit” (1 Corinthians 13:7-8, PAR). Merely trying to act lovingly will lead to despair and to the defeat of love. It will make us angry and hopeless.— Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart (p 24)
Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.— G. K. Chesterton
When someone says they’re gay, or for that matter, lesbian or bisexual, they normally mean that, as well as being attracted to someone of the same gender, their sexual preference is one of the fundamental ways in which they see themselves. And it’s for this reason that I tend to avoid using the term. It sounds clunky to describe myself as “someone who experiences same-sex attraction”. But describing myself like this is a way for me to recognize that the kind of sexual attractions I experience are not fundamental to my identity. They are part of what I feel but are not who I am in a fundamental sense. I am far more than my sexuality.—
Take another kind of appetite. I love meat. A plate without a slab of animal on it just doesn’t feel right to me. But my love for meat does not mean I would want someone to think that “carnivore” was the primary category through which to understand me. It is part of the picture, but does not get to the heart of who I am. So I prefer to talk in terms of being someone who experiences homosexual feelings, or same-sex attraction.
Sam Allberry in the introduction to his forthcoming book, “Is God Anti-Gay?”
Read the intro for free here. Looking through the table of contents, this look like a great, succinct little book.