Chris B wrote:

No. He went to Virginia Theological Seminary - probably the best known Evangelical Seminary in the USA, and grew up in an a standard Protestant Episcopal Church. His background is 100% evangelical. He even supports lay presidency and is opposed to wearing chasubles. Fancy that?

I didn’t say he was educated at a fundamentalist college, I said he had a fundamentalist background (as he describes it). I am speaking of his upbringing. And presuming to allow him to describe it. Fancy that?

Everything Spong writes of evangelicalism shows he certainly either does not understand it, or is unwilling to represent it as it is understood by proponents before demolishing some way of thinking mostly foreign to us.

So either he does not understand evangelicalism as distinct from fundamentalism, or he is wilfully misrepresenting it and thus is a liar with no integrity. I chose to give him the most generous assumption. A luxury he has never afforded my fellow evangelicals.

Anyway...Dani, there is actually far less understanding in scientific circles of the causes of left-handedness than the causes of homosexuality. Yet we no longer anathematise left-handed people. The scientific data suggests that homosexuality is a combination of genetic predisposition, hormonal influences in utero (influencing brain structure), and early childhood development. I think I’d be on pretty safe ground representing that as a consensus viewpoint, although I’m not a scientist.

Christopher could you please reference some of the studies and data you are referring to?

I too am not a scientist but much of the information I have been reading lately and hearing from other people is that there is less and less evidence that homosexuality is genetically predisposed than the gay lobby and media continue to report.

Ultimately however, I don’t see how it matters in a discussion of whether active homosexuality is incomptabile with godly living. Even if science could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that homosexuality was a genetic predispostion it still does not mean that people are compelled to act upon that disposition.

God asks the same thing of me, as a single heterosexual woman, as he asks of a man or woman with same sex attraction. That is to abstain from sexual activity. My heterosexuality (whether genetically programmed or not) does not mean I must automatically act upon it by engaging in extra-marital sexual activity. I have a choice and I am choosing not to do so (God grant me the ability to continue in that choice). Men and women with same sex attraction have the same ability to choose to act upon that attraction. And so ultimately I don’t see how the ‘genetically programmed’ arguement really comes to bear on the issue.

Edit: - PS. Apologies in advance for taking a tangent that has already been discussed to death on this board.

God asks the same thing of me, as a single heterosexual woman, as he asks of a man or woman with same sex attraction. That is to abstain from sexual activity. My heterosexuality (whether genetically programmed or not) does not mean I must automatically act upon it by engaging in extra-marital sexual activity.

Yes, but you have the opportunity to meet someone with whom you want to express self-giving love in a committed, loving, life-long relationship. A homosexual person, according to you, can never, ever have the same opportunity. “Evidence” purporting to “prove” that homosexuality is a “choice” is, for the most part, funded by organisations which have already reached this conclusion, like NARTH which has been disendorsed by the American Psychoanalytical Organisation. According to this article , the following organisations agree that homosexuality is an natural part of the human sexual spectrum.
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

They are all American, but I imagine most Australian similar groups have the same views. I know of no reputable psychological organisation that endorses a view that homosexuality is an acquired or chosen illness. Given this, you are basically denying any chance of sexual relationship to gay and lesbian people, unless they go and get “cured” - which, incidentally, according to the research of Lee Beckstead generally has the result of - “No substantial or generalized heterosexual arousal was reported, and participants were not able to modify their tendency to be attracted to the same sex”.

Imagine what it must be like, Dani, to be told that God intends you to never, ever, under any circumstances, have an intimate relationship with another person which is expressed physically - and you will get an idea why so many gay and lesbian Christians are agitating for reform.

I didn’t say he was educated at a fundamentalist college, I said he had a fundamentalist background (as he describes it). I am speaking of his upbringing. And presuming to allow him to describe it. Fancy that?

Everything Spong writes of evangelicalism shows he certainly either does not understand it, or is unwilling to represent it as it is understood by proponents before demolishing some way of thinking mostly foreign to us.

Spong uses the term fundamentalism to include people who are literalist, and who think that the bible is the written word of God. Yes, that is not the classic definition of the term - which I realise has a precise historical meaning. As Spong himself is essentially evangelical in his theologising (*ducks for cover*) he is hardly going to go around attacking evangelicals is he? Also, bear in mind that the hyper-calvinist version of evangelicalism practised in Sydney is not the same as evangelicalism in other places. Spong in his current manifestation has moved beyond evangelicalism, but he certainly began his ministering life as an evangelical - though more in the mould of European protestants than English Calvinists or Wesleyans.

As Spong himself is essentially evangelical in his theologising (*ducks for cover*) he is hardly going to go around attacking evangelicals is he? Also, bear in mind that the hyper-calvinist version of evangelicalism practised in Sydney is not the same as evangelicalism in other places. Spong in his current manifestation has moved beyond evangelicalism, but he certainly began his ministering life as an evangelical - though more in the mould of European protestants than English Calvinists or Wesleyans.

I can’t believe you’re still trying to peddle the nonsense of Spong being evangelical. We have all read his denials of the possibility that God could reveal himself, thus discounting the Christ-event as God’s self-disclosure. He is not even Christian, let alone evangelical.

He is so aggressively pushing the edges of liberalism in the Anglican Church (except in the true sense of the word ‘liberal’) that even many real liberals are reluctant to have him around.

Incidentally, most evangelicals I know in Sydney are not hyper-calvinist.

Matthew, might I suggest you reread Chris’ post.

Spong in his current manifestation has moved beyond evangelicalism, but he certainly began his ministering life as an evangelical - though more in the mould of European protestants than English Calvinists or Wesleyans.

Chris’ point is that Spong started off as an evangelical, and still uses methods associated with evangelical hermeneutics to argue his point.

What that point is, is irrelevant. We all know Spong isn’t evangelical. But it is possible to start off somewhere and go somewhere else, using methods learnt in the initial stage of the journey.

Incidentally, most evangelicals I know in Sydney are not hyper-calvinist.

My apologies. I meant extremist-ultra-Calvinist. I hope I did not offend any hyper-Calvinists with that comment.

Thanks Nunc, correction taken.

I don’t think Spong has so much moved beyond evangelicalism as abandoned it, indeed abandoned Christianity itself.

And I still disagree with Chris that Spong is ‘essentially evangelical in his theologising’.

I agree it is possible to move somewhere else, using methods learned in the initial stages of the journey.

Where those so-called ‘evangelical’ methods are in Spong’s denials of every basic point of the Christian faith (including Christ as God’s self-disclosure), is a fascinating question.

My apologies. I meant extremist-ultra-Calvinist. I hope I did not offend any hyper-Calvinists with that comment.

Whatever you meant by the calvinism comment, Chris, you were still wrong. I am not a ‘calvinist’, I have consciously refused to align myself wholesale with anyone else’s expression of doctrine, preferring to allow it to be shaped and reshaped by scripture, without any pre-determined loyalties to someone else’s understanding of it. Furthermore, even those people I know who do consider themselves ‘calvinists’ will generally have some reservations about some aspects of Calvinist theology, not additions to it. If anything, some of the practices of Sydney Diocese could be more easily subjected to accusations of Arminian tendencies.

Thanks for your response Chris.

Yes, but you have the opportunity to meet someone with whom you want to express self-giving love in a committed, loving, life-long relationship. A homosexual person, according to you, can never, ever have the same opportunity....Imagine what it must be like, Dani, to be told that God intends you to never, ever, under any circumstances, have an intimate relationship with another person which is expressed physically - and you will get an idea why so many gay and lesbian Christians are agitating for reform.

I’m not excluding homosexual men and women from having the opportunity to experience ‘self-giving love in a committed, loving life-long relationship’ at all. If you look at the description of that relationship I think you’ll see that, as Christians, we all should strive to have those types of relationships with people of the opposite and same sex.

It is as you state later on, a sub-set of that type of relationship which expresses itself sexually which is of concern to us here.

However, what makes us think that it is our inalienable right to have that type of relationship (ie. an intimate sexual relationship with another individual)? Why do we expect that it is our due to be given the opportunity to experience such a relationship. Certainly, as a heterosexual single girl I do have the possibility that at some point in my future I may experience that type of relationship.  But that possibility is a blessing from God - not my due from Him. God has given me the possibility, not the expectation or guarantee.

And so whilst I do not negate the fact that it can be difficult, frustrating, hurtful and upsetting to have an unfulfilled desire to experience an intimate relationship which is expressed physically , the reality is that there are many individuals whom God intends never to experience such. We are made complete in Christ, not in our relationships (sexual or otherwise) with other people and we should remember that the fact we may enjoy such relationships is because of God’s graciousness.

According to this article, the following organisations agree that homosexuality is an natural part of the human sexual spectrum.

Chris, there is no mention of any sort of inherent genetic disposition or ‘gay gene’. It simply states that homosexual orientation (and thus it’s activity) is not a mental disorder. Well in many cases thieving, lying and adultery are not behaviours due to mental disorders either. It doesn’t automatically make them morally justifiable or genetically predisposed.

Declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness is not akin to jumping up and down and saying that it is due to a gay gene in your makeup.

And again in classifying something as in the ‘natural’ range of human behaviour does not automatically mean it is morally justifiable- because after all our sinfulness is exhibited in this so called ‘natural’ range of human behaviour. It is ‘natural’ human behaviour for us to act selfishly at the expense or others resulting in hurt and pain for them. It doesn’t make it ‘right’ or ‘godly’ behaviour.

And before you call me homophobic please go and read my comments on this and other threads on this forum.

I really apologise if people think I am rehashing very old ground here (because I feel myself I am: particularly regarding the 2nd half of this post). Would it be better to move this tangent the thread I linked to? Sometimes I cross over the line from having productive discussion to futile debate so can I please encourage you all to keep me accountable to the former and alert me to when I am exhibiting the latter?

:)

[quote author="Chris B"]Also, bear in mind that the hyper-calvinist version of evangelicalism practised in Sydney is not the same as evangelicalism in other places.

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]Incidentally, most evangelicals I know in Sydney are not hyper-calvinist.

My apologies. I meant extremist-ultra-Calvinist. I hope I did not offend any hyper-Calvinists with that comment.

Whatever my take on Calvin, rest assured I find any sneering, sarcastic, slanderous bout of name calling highly offensive from anyone claiming to be a Christian - no matter which side they represent and which side they oppose. Let’s remember some of the basics of Christian behaviour as we go about discussing our differences here.

I was going to leave this thread well alone, but this is hilarious

Spong’s approach is like a member of the Melbourne Football Club Committee who decides that playing soccer is more satisfying than playing Australian Rules Football and he decides to change the Club. This member, with his agenda for ‘reform’, begins to argue that the rules of Aussie football should be changed to those of soccer: the number of players should be reduced, the playing field should be rectangular not oval shaped, a round ball should be used, the goal posts reduced to two, a goal to count as one point and no marking or handball is allowed! After all, we must ‘move with the times’ and most of the world agrees that soccer is ‘the accepted code’!

Traditional Melbourne Football Club supporters are not impressed, but they are accused of being ‘fundamentalists’. A heated exchange erupts on the Footy Show. When asked why, if he finds the rules of soccer more satisfying than Aussie football does he not join a soccer club, the reform-minded member replies that he is committed to playing Aussie football and that his views are neither pro-soccer nor anti-Aussie rules, but a new Australian Rules Football for a new age!

Can you imagine that the supporters of the Melbourne Football Club, the true singers of ‘the red and the blue’, the ones who have been dubbed ‘traditionalist’ and ‘fundamentalist’ will remain cool, calm and collected? Not likely, mate! Confusion, consternation and questions of integrity would reign.

As a born & bred AFL nut, I can follow this analogy all too well.

Glenn

Glenn, great analogy. One problem though, a fundamentalist Melbourne supporter? Haven’t seen one for a long time.

Glenn, I appreciate your post, but I really must take objection to your tone.  These reformers are lovely people who really have the good of AFL at heart.  AFL cannot exist in a modern world where offside rules are the way people think.  And besides it is only your interpretation of the rules that says it should be played a certain way.  There could be other interpretations of the rules that could be equally valid. Don’t you opress me! These rules were written in a way that was bound to a specific culture and tradition and now that we are no lnger in that time they are difficult to apply to a modern game. The rules were really more to refute other games than to lay down a specific code for playing AFL.

Can’t we just learn to all play on the same field together?  After all we all have the same referee and are all going toward the same end of the paddock.. does it really matter that some chase the round ball while others the oblong one?

Rowen, whose committment to the game is not altered by my complete refusal to recognise any of it’s fundamentals :)

Very drole, Rowan, very drole.

Bishop Harrower’s article is great - but also check out, I recommend - the article he refers to by Rowan Williams about Spong’s theology.

I found it quite encouraging to read his reasonably robust defence of the faith once delivered unto the saints:

If Spong’s theology basically “represents a level of confusion and misinterpretation that I find astonishing” - in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, why is he given a pulpit in so many churches?

Surelly Spong’s defenders in this chatroom will leap to his aid against that arch-fundamentalist cleric, Dr Rowan Williams.

Indeed, Alan!!

*Thunderous Applause* for both John Harrower and Rowan Williams for showing up the irrelevant nonsense that is John Spong’s teachings.

Not being a soccer or an AFL girl I don’t think I appreciated the illustration to it’s full extent. Now if it had been about rugby… well that would be a different story (only 10 more sleeps till I see the big game in Melbourne! Yay!).

However, getting back to the matter at hand I thought this paragraph of Harrower’s article pretty much summed it all up.

Spong’s is a ‘designer theology’: if you don’t like that which has been handed down faithfully, then fashion theology after your own image. His theology is primarily therapeutic and idolatrous in putting human thoughts and opinions before God’s revelation.

Well said!