Andy Bearsley wrote:
> 
> Rowland Croucher <> wrote in message
> news:374E4FBA.A78808C0
> 
> > I'm always open to new understandings, I hope. At 61 I'm too young to
> > have a closed mind :-)
> 
> Great.  I look forward to challenging you.
> 
> > > 2) Do you stand by the articles on your web site?
> >
> > The ones I've written, mostly yes (but refer to sentence above). And
> > read the disclaimer on my frontpage. On the issue of homosexuality, for
> > example, I've posted articles with different points of view, as you'll
> notice...
> 
> Okay,  I'll post some that I'll ask you to confirm as being an accurate
> representation of what you think and preach.  Bear in mind I really dont
> care what you think about gays.  It's what you do about your thoughts that
> may cause a problem.  

I would hope there's some synchronicity between what I 'think' and what
I preach!

> Therefore the content of your web page is important
> because I consider it 'preaching' - particularly in the light of the
> advertising you do for it at the bottom of every message from you here.  I
> appreciate the paragraphs I'm posting here will be out of context,  but I'll
> endeavour to include as much as I can to encapsulate the point without
> either spamming with irrelevancies,  or losing the context.  I further
> recognise that you have made 'gay accepting' comments in some of your
> articles - it's likely only the caveats below I need your clarification on.

As we start, you'll have to bear in mind the following:

1. As love of God and others is the great commandment, 'acceptance/love'
is the primary attitude a follower of Jesus will exhibit - whether to
gays or to anyone else.

2. The religious enemies of Jesus were driven by an attitude of
prejudice towards those-not-like-them, and resorted to 'proof-texting'
to challenge Jesus' approach. These sorts of people are still with us
(and, in my judgment, they include some regular posters on these
newsgroups groups). They are not followers of Jesus in the sense I
understand obedient discipleship.

3. Further: for Jesus sins of the flesh were less significant/dangerous
than sins of the spirit (with Jesus' enemies it was - and is - the other
way around).

4. With Jesus, acceptance precedes repentance; with Jesus' enemies it's
the other way around. (Ask me to explain that if you wish).

5. Finally, with my limited time-constraints I'll restrict myself to the
more important matter of _principle_ rather than get into exegetical
nitty-gritties... There are others here more competent (and more
inclined) than I to do that. Besides, a lot of the biblical material (as
distinct from principle) has been debated here ad nauseum recently...

> SQ
> The point Rowland has consistently made is that homosexual orientation is
> not, in and of itself, sinful but rather the submission to that orientation
> in committing or even lusting after indecent acts. I agree that Rowland's
> statement is easily misunderstood, but it is strictly correct.
> Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant
> EQ
> 
> This isn't a quote from you,  do you accept it as an accurate portrayal of
> your position?

Roughly, yes. 
> 
> INTERIM REPORT ON SEXUALITY
> SQ
> If you believe God's Word is revealed to us in Scripture, you've got to say
> the consensus of the biblical prophets and other inspired writers is that
> sexual activity with someone of the same sex is a distortion of that which
> the Creator intended. That's clear, it seems to me.
> EQ

And it's still clear, after a couple of years. Yes. 

> SQ
> Re practising homosexuals/adulterers in the church membership. What should
> be done? They should be invited to join a support/recovery group with others
> who are struggling with the issue, and be loved as they change and grow into
> wholeness.
> EQ
> 
> There are two references here equating homosexuality with being 'abnormal'
> in a bad sense (rather than neutral sense of just being minority).  There is
> an implied need for recovery (and struggle) in the second quote.  Would you
> elaborate on that?

Any deviation from God's intention for his creatures carries the
implication of a need for change: but, note, that goes for pride, envy
etc. as well as lust. I would include all the seven deadly sins, rather
than be selective...

But if a client of mine does not wish to change, as a therapist I would
respect that, and not reject them for failing to pursue a commitment to
sexual wholeness...
 
> HOMOSEXUALITY: An Interview with Jesus
> SQ
> # Compassion focuses on needs not causes. Most did not choose to be
> homosexual. Some are struggling with guilt and self-esteem problems. Again,
> they knew I accepted and loved them, but they feel my followers don't. Why
> is that?
> EQ
> 
> See above.  There is a focus on the assumption of guilt and problems
> stemming internally from sexual orientation,  rather than emphasizing the
> source as being external.  Is that intentional?

Help me understand your 'source as external' idea...
> 
> SYNDAL BAPTIST CHURCH
> SUBMISSION TO BAPTIST UNION OF VICTORIA
> HOMOSEXUALITY
> SQ
> 4. Homosexuality is an orientation other than God intended for us. Many
> factors (including sexual abuse) may contribute towards a person having a
> homosexual orientation. Such people are lonely and feel marginalized by the
> church. So although we extend love and acceptance to them as persons, we
> will endeavour to help them move away from homosexuality and homosexual
> practice. Our church faces the challenge of providing support for them in
> this painful journey, particularly if they are HIV/AIDS sufferers.
> or in the pastoral ministry of our churches.
> EQ
> 
> Would you like to comment on the above?  There is significant focus on
> homosexual orientation as being 'bad'.

Yes, that's the implication, and I would word that differently. See
above. 
> 
> Now...
> From reading almost all the posts on your site about homosexuality, I feel
> you have quite a moderate view.  It's still weighted (in my opinion) toward
> the end of the scale that carries the baggage of homosexual orientation as
> being inherently bad,  and the positive aspects of your position tend to
> carry caveats of reform.

Just as any deviation from God's intentions for our wholeness are
'inherently bad'...

> I would say you are not preaching hate,  rather uneasiness.  Your messages
> of inclusion and acceptance were too shrouded in caveats and judgements of
> homosexual activity to qualify as anything higher than uneasiness.  You're
> also coming from the perspective of gays having a choice in pysical
> expression of their love for their partners (without going so far as to say
> they have a choice in their orientation).

That's fair enough as a summary of my view. 

> But I have to make something absolutely clear here:-  Gays are getting
> killed.  

And that's terrible... But let's pause there a moment. Is your
commitment to humankind such that you also grieve for Christians being
killed? Or Tibetans? Or mafia? 

> I firmly believe it's related to christian hate-mongering - mostly
> focussed in the USA.  There is other topic the religious coalitions in the
> US have devoted such huge resources to combatting.  I'm committed to doing
> what I can to offset some of that damage.

Yes, the religious right have a lot to answer for. But my army
experience, for example, saw gays ostracised by non-religious types. My
hunch is that most gay-bashing is a function of homophobic hate whether
fueled by religion or not...

> As an aside,  I believe religion to be nothing more than a delusion.  I
> really dont have a problem with that - believe the moon is full of marmalade
> for all I care.  I take issue with it when the delusion of religion is
> getting gay people killed.  (It gets all manner of other people killed as
> well,  I'm just making the personal decision to fight the good fight for
> gays because I'm gay)
> 
> Because of that strong anti-gay feeling running through christianity,
> homosexuality is a very powerful tool for doing several things:-  showing
> that hate,  showing the hypocrisy and contradictory nature of the delusion,
> showing the stark divisions in definition of 'christian' to the point where
> practically no christian can consider any other a Real True Christian like
> they are.

To be fair, back to the religious right in Jesus' day, and in ours, they
_may_ be motivated by hate, but my experience is that pure hate is
confined to a small minority of them, on the fringes. And those people
are disaffected for psycho-social reasons, which then are coloured by
aberrant religious convictions. The pharisees I meet today are less
motivated by pure hate than by a perverted 'cognitive dissonance': they
don't want to reject _persons_ with those persons' ideas, but they do, unwittingly.
> 
> I have a few other altruistic motives which I'm not even going to bother
> stating.

Andy, again, I have not read all your posts, but from what I read here I
wonder if this sort of irenic approach has been yours all along? If so,
some of your detractors have misread you!

Thanks for a reasonable/reasoned approach. 
> 
> Andy B.