Southern Gospel Sissies

Whenever I publish an academic essay, I always make a point to send copies to whomever I thank in the footnotes, and since the readers of this site are (genuinely) cited as a source of inspiration and provocation for the most recent academic article I’ve published, it seems only right and fair to pass along a copy here.

The article is my an honest attempt to take account of a complicated and fraught issue. Money quote (part of it may sound familiar to regular readers):

At its most affecting, then, white gospel music exceeds the limits of orthodox culture to control what it means or to put limits on the reach of the psychospiritual work it accomplishes.

[…]

Taken together … the evidence from beneath the pious surface of evangelical life—behind the gospel-music stage, from the back of the bus, beyond the reach of the footlights—tells an alternative story about southern gospel music and its cultural function that doesn’t (yet) definitively disrupt orthodox power structures or discredit orthodox accounts of the music’s purpose, but complicates them considerably in ways that call to mind Hubbs’ observation about “music’s function as a redeemer—or regulator—of twentieth-century homosexuals” (2004, p. 4). Indeed, rightly understood, the history of southern gospel might well be described as the record of misfits, outcasts, non-conformists, and strugglers searching for, hearing, finding, or longing after the right key in which the soul can sing.

If you are easily offended, angered, or otherwise upset by this snippet in particular or by discussions of Christianity and sexuality in general that stray from orthodox doctrine, I would recommend you avoid this article. Seriously. Just let it go right by. No pressure or hard-sell.

This is not some lame attempt at reverse psychology or a smart-aleck way of trying to drive traffic toward my work. I’d prefer more rather than fewer people read it, but I’d also like the conversation about the article to be as constructive as possible (not least of all: I’ll be revising and expanding this piece in the near future and would appreciate feedback that would help sharpen my thinking). For that to happen, people don’t have to agree with me, but they do have to want to read the article on its own (and not strictly their) terms.

Email this Post

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Gospeleer - Let’s Get Beyond Taboos (LGBT) on 15 Jul 2009 at 3:54 pm

    […] of our industry. Yet there has been no serious public discussion. Until now. Doug Harrison over at Averyfineline has opened what some will undoubtedly think of as Pandora’s Box. The discussion is now open […]

Comments

  1. Harry Peters wrote:

    No work about SG Sissies would be complete without referencing the metrosexual, Queen of SGM, EH. Actually, old Harry Peters used to think of EH as a princess, but now thinks Queen is more appropriate. Either way EH is a bigger sissy than Kirk Talley ever was.

    Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 10:03 pm

  2. Irishlad wrote:

    Harry Peters(aka Gay Pernod,it would seem from all accounts)you stop that bitchin’ now you hear!Good to have you back!

    Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 10:29 pm

  3. Irishlad wrote:

    Having read your essay i’m sorry to say 99.99999% of sg listeners/fans/diesel sniffers what ever you want to call them just won’t get you(or even want to try).You’ve went over their heads on so many levels.Pity though;alas we will all be long gone before such deeprooted entrenched thinking will ever slightly shift,i doubt it ever will.

    Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 10:59 pm

  4. Randy wrote:

    I read it. When are you going to do an article on all of the other abominable acts that are staples to a majority of SG? Greed. Adultery. Pride. Alcoholism. Gluttony. Etc.. If you’re looking for shock value, only an outsider conservative would drop a jaw.

    The majority of your readers are most likely to conclude the obvious, which is that SG = a “Christian” Broadway to the struggling/or not so much ‘churched’ homosexual. If this weren’t so, why are many of us men afraid to even use a urinal next to another at NQC for fear we might be “checked out” by another, whose sexuality is hanging in the balance?

    I will comment on your article by saying that the attraction to SG by many homosexuals (IMHO) is the result of the culture they were raised in, and due to a lack of a father-figure. I’m not saying ALL lacked father-figures, but I’d be willing to bet that many were raised by single mothers or widowers, who, if commited to church, were most likely SG fans. I conclude this, with the basis that the average gay man in SG probably grew up during SG’s highest point of popularity. Don’t agree? Why do you think Dottie Rambo and Vestal had/have such a massive homosexual fanbase?

    A fatherless child has no counteraction to the emotions the mother imparts upon him. He is bombarded with feminine qualities, but isn’t exposed to the love of a father. He is never asked to do things that would later on give him dominant male qualities, so he searches to fill that lack in a member of the same sex.

    I believe that if you are 40 or younger, the likelyhood of you growing up in a single parent household is greater and greater, the younger you are. If statistics prove it, then shouldn’t the “single mom raising a future homosexual during height of SG poularity” theory be considered? Some believe that homosexuality is more prominent in Black gospel than SG. Would my theory not have an even greater base, judging on the “single mother” side applied to the African American culture? Not being racist, but again, look at it statistically.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 12:50 pm

  5. CRAZYJOE wrote:

    I have to admit it was very difficult reading your paper. I have a sick feeling in my stomauch and a little vomit in my mouth after reading it. You have to remember that I consider homosexuality as repulsive and equal to bestiality or pedophilia. With that in mind I offer the following:

    - Interesting point regarding the stigma/alienation that gay men in gospel music receive from other gays for not renouncing and leaving the evangelical circles they travel in. Rather ironic. I always considered this persecution coming from the opposite direction.

    - I have always wondered how gays raised in the church justify their lifestyles as they are essentially committing the “unpardonable sin”. Or as you put it “the dilema”.
    It looks like to me that you just ignore the scriptures that teach us against that choice of lifestyle and just say it’s ok and call everyone who is against your lifestyle choice a hater. I have never heard a resonable or biblical explanation that justifies your lifestyle choice.

    - The section regarding the close quarters on the bus was really hard to read. I think that came from the homosexual point of view and was a very weak example. We all have our lusts and fantasies-but four men on a bus? Come on….

    - There must be a lot more gays in sogo music then I ever imagined or else this article exaggerated the issue. Maybe I just have a “Pollyanna” approach to this issue and bury my head in the sand. Wouldn’t everyone like to be a fly on the wall at the gay sogo meeting in nashville? Oh the gossip….

    This article attempted to use a scholarly and secular approach to explain spiritual things. Can’t do it. Oh btw, I still love the sinner and hate the sin. Sorry.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 1:29 pm

  6. jbb wrote:

    You need THERAPY and a lot of it……
    I could just puke.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 2:14 pm

  7. j-mo wrote:

    You guys are all overanalyzing.

    Gay guys like southern gospel music because it is full of male groups dressed up in suits and ties. The same reason they like pro-wrestling.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 2:55 pm

  8. scope wrote:

    first I must say I have only read about 1/4 of the article so far. I will read the rest, but I need to rest from the scolarly language. A couple of points on the Kirk chapter: Kirk did, and continues to have a huge drop in bookings since the incident; otherwise he would not be working as a server in a restaurant more often that singing. The stigma, or shunning, has been apparent in a couple of ways. The Singing News absolutely refused to even advertise concerts he was a part of, to the point that one promoter was told to leave Kirk’s name out and say “and others” or SN would not accept the add. It was also very apparent at George Younce’s funeral, where all of the former Cathedral members sat on the platform and sang - except for Kirk, who attended the funeral, but sat in the back of the church. That was a Gaither production, not a family decision.

    The second point is that the industry shunned him, but the audience didn’t. Where he sang, and sings, there is usually a nice crowd. The fans and friends didn’t desert Kirk. For the most part it was the business side of SG.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 2:57 pm

  9. CRAZYJOE wrote:

    ………And another thing regarding the close quarters on the bus:
    Saying four to six men in close quarters on the bus fighting the temptations of gayness is like saying all roomates are gay or 95% of all ladies in college have had lesbian experiences. I think this is just a fantasy….

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 3:17 pm

  10. wanderer wrote:

    Four of five guys spending a lot of time on a bus together makes them have homosexual fantasies? Come on!! There’s a much greater chance each of them has a Playboy under their pillow and they take a peak when no one else is looking!

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 3:56 pm

  11. Randy wrote:

    #7 SG & Pro Wrestling similar to the gay man? I can’t recall the last time I saw 4 guys in matching suits wrestling each other, but I bet it could be seen on a plethora of quartet buses!

    #9 Agreed. Quartets don’t turn you gay, but being gay might turn you quartet…

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 4:01 pm

  12. CVH wrote:

    I’ve read the entire piece (and re-read portions of it) and I’m encouraged that Doug has shared it with us. I think the areas of human sexuality, psychology and spiritual formation deserve in-depth analysis and constructive thought, regardless of one’s viewpoint on the subjects. Putting it on the blog runs the risk of the predictable comments (as we’ve already seen), but I think it’s an essay worth considering.

    I’ve known people who’ve struggled with these issues (from both sides), most recently a good friend of mine who’s played bass for a number of well-known groups through the years who, just a few months ago, came out. Scripture can be quoted, orthodoxy can be debated and a lot of nasty things can be said - but the reality is, these are very real issues to be grappled with.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 4:42 pm

  13. popeye wrote:

    Attention #8 - FYI - The decision to sit in the back at George’s funeral was a Kirk production and a Kirk decision. Do a little investigating before you present a story like that.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 5:49 pm

  14. Bystander wrote:

    #4
    I think that’s a cop-out. I think people use the whole “fatherless child” thing because they can’t explain why God would put people on the Earth, allow them to have same-sex feelings, and then not take the feelings away after the people beg Him to. Sometimes the answer is just “no” and so I think most of us think that is pretty unfair from a ‘loving’ God. Why would you put someone on Earth to purposely damn them to hell? I don’t know. I don’t know any of the answers. But I’m quite persuaded that ‘Dad wasn’t around’ doesn’t quite cut it. In my personal experience, that wasn’t the case with me or with anyone I know.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 9:54 pm

  15. Extra Ink wrote:

    #5 Randy,

    I think you’ve got a valid point. I think there are many cases of homosexuality that exist because of the no dad/absent Dad/disconnected Dad syndrome.

    Posted 08 Jul 2009 at 11:10 pm

  16. soldier wrote:

    #14, that’s like saying that prostitutes or child molesters were also endowed with God-given desires that have nothing to do with their upbringing, and that they were simply “born with” those desires, and to discriminate against them would be “unfair” and “un-loving.”

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 9:38 am

  17. soldier wrote:

    On another note, Doug himself has given indication that the Christian church or community has “hurt him” somewhere along the line, and I don’t doubt that.

    But if that “hurt” led to his current lifestyle there’s no way you could say he was “born with” it.

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 9:43 am

  18. JL wrote:

    Wow - I was bored by the time I finished the first paragraph. However, the author’s use of uncommon words made me feel inferior. Henceforth, I googled “big words to make you look smart” and from an impressive website, I submit the following:

    The topic, although trite, only exits because most people no longer accept the Word of God. If you talk about sin, and the need of repentance, you are labeled a judge, right-wing extremist, hate crime inducer, or Baptist or Pentecostal.

    The statements “homosexuals are born that way” has a moiety of truth, in that we are born into sin, and we chose the sins we partake of.

    The attack on people, regardless of the sin, during their personal reparation is pretty distasteful and distinctly lugubrious (even if they are a public figure).

    We need to inculcate Jesus and the salvation that He offers.

    Before fundamental christian living takes an evanescent downward spiral, we should pray those who oppose God’s word are saved, or their hegemony is short-lived.

    Those who support sin, hubris in their efforts to thwart morals, will answer to Him.

    Finally, I should have heeded the authors warning, as the article has such poppycock that should be expurgated.

    I apologize for being loquacious in my blogging. My entire blog can be recapitulated by saying “I felt the article was bunk.”

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 3:08 pm

  19. JLL wrote:

    Great essay, Doug! It really made me want to see that play. I’ve seen “Sordid Lives” (loved it!) and your essay has piqued my interest in Shores’ other works.

    As for the commenters who were sickened or nauseated–you were warned, were you not? In bold print, no less!

    As for the attraction to SG music in the gay community–I really think it boils down to how you were raised. I’m not sure a gay man raised outside of the church or outside of SG culture would have the same connection to the music. I believe it’s a case of “you can take the boy out of the church, but you can’t take the church out of the boy.” If you were raised in an evangelical environment, the connection to the music and the spirituality definitely stays with you. Maybe some gays have become so bitter toward organized religion and have felt so alienated from evangelical culture that they can leave it behind–I certainly can’t. But I am questioned constantly by heterosexual friends who absolutely cannot understand my connection to and deep abiding love for “The Church” and it’s music. I just tell them that it is a part of me–simple as that.

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 3:10 pm

  20. Yeah... wrote:

    I guess I’ll always wonder why that article was even written. As well, I’ll remain curious as to why a link for it was even included here. And yes, despite reading the disclaimer and knowing what I was in for, I still waded through the language. A part of me had to smile at the thesaurus-like and self-aggrandizing verbiage; so common to those who love being viewed as intellectuals. But, the bigger part of me was sickened and saddened, as I had to wonder all the way through it, what was behind the writing.

    Was it to stun your readers that there’s some secret enclave of homosexuals in the sgm industry who meet each year? Was it to try and portray (very weakly) that just because guys ride a bus as a group that they’re really just closet gay men? Was the link provided so that we would be amazed that a blog ostensibly about southern Gospel music could be linked to trashy theater where the “F word” is quoted as commonly as one breathes air? I guess I’ll never know.

    But this I do know: if the author writes all this as part of a spiritual journey, in which he’s trying to get to know the God of his childhood and find His salvation, then I join many ex-readers of this blog in promising to pray towards that end. For, at the end of the day, that will be the only remedy available to keep him from eternal ruin; just as it’s the only ticket any of us sinners have to avoid the judgment of a very holy God. A God who is never mocked in the end, and a God who hates sin, but loves the sinner. No matter how much one might try to disparage that truth, it is just that. Short of accepting God’s greatest Gift, His Son, this essay was just sad. Built on a flawed premise, littered with many false assumptions, and the overwhelming sense that I had while plowing through it was only sadness.

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 4:30 pm

  21. Bystander wrote:

    #16
    I disagree with you.
    I don’t think homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation any more than heterosexuality is. Or prostitution. Maybe it is, maybe you’re right. Maybe gluttony is, too. I mean, if sin is sin and all.
    Regardless, I maintain that it is a cop-out to dismiss thought and chalk the hard stuff up to “it’s his Dad’s fault,” or “it’s her Mom’s fault.” I’d wager (another sin, I know) that there are throngs of really good-intentioned parents out there who have watched their children go in directions which were completely opposite to that which they were raised.

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 4:42 pm

  22. Geno wrote:

    JLL, I agree completely and couldn’t have said it better. I am an older man who has never really been able to come to terms with it. I grew up with a wonderful father, as did probably most of us. I wish these idiots that think we are not born that way had to live my life for a while, especially in my younger years. Also, why would gay teenagers commit suicide at a rate two or three times that of their straight friends if they really had a choice? I wish these guys would realize that they might as well be the ones pulling the trigger.

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 4:48 pm

  23. BUICK wrote:

    The article was unnecessarily difficult. A sign of a good education is the ability to make a complex argument easy to understand. A sign of an insecure mind is the need to make a simple assertion complex - in the hopes of dazzling the masses. I’m dazed but not dazzled and certainly wasn’t taken in by the pomposity.

    Having said that about the (lack of) style of the prose, I will also say that my father was a physically abused son and a physically abusive dad. He was also a minister. But I am heterosexual; I love the church and I love the Lord Jesus Christ. One’s upbringing may make him vulnerable to certain temptations but it does not make yielding inevitable.

    Finally, we all struggle with temptation. Some have found easy, socially acceptable excuses to try to explain their sin. Others have learned to confess their sin, repent (turn from) it and soldier on. Those sins I have confessed and from which I have turned are often still tempting but that does not give me license to commit them, any more than a same-sex attraction gives someone else license to act on that temptation. We ALL must resist temptation. The specifics of our temptations vary but the ability to resist does not. If that were not so, then Scripture is shot through with lies and not reliable revelation of anything other than the opinions of some dead dudes from long ago and far away.

    Posted 09 Jul 2009 at 11:13 pm

  24. Kyle wrote:

    I must say that over the years, as more information about our webmaster here has come to light (voluntarily or otherwise), the irony is not lost on me that one of the most [in]famous websites in the SG industry is run and moderated by an openly (and seemingly unashamed) homosexual man.

    I have seen fans, artists, and industry insiders and outsiders of all shapes and sizes (and apparently orientations) active on this site, even after they were aware of Doug’s being gay. They spend their time bashing homosexuals and complain of how they should have no place in SG music (or Christianity as a whole, in some instances), and yet they continue to keep this very site active in doing so. Talk about a paradox!

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 12:24 am

  25. Jake wrote:

    AMEN, Buick (#23)!

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 7:10 am

  26. RDB wrote:

    The article was definitely complex and, put it down to inferior intellect if you like, but I don’t feel that there was actually that strong a thread of argument running through it - more a collection of impressions and ruminations chasing after meaning.

    My personal desire would be to have a live and let live attitude about these things. However, I won’t abandon Biblical frameworks for understanding the world just because society presents problems which are supposed to be beyond the capability of scripture to manage.

    Ironically, I think homosexuality plays too large a role in both the minds of those who despise it and those who embrace it in these matters. Certainly if sexual discipline in heterosexual matters is minimal than it is not surprising that discipline in homosexual matters is missing as well. I don’t think there is anything inextricably complex about it beyond the rationalizations we all bring to our individual situations.

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 10:01 am

  27. quartet-man wrote:

    #24 Mr. Kyle, I am sure there is some bashing here, but I just see a lot of us stating God’s word on the matter and I stand by what I have said. I have to give Doug credit though, not only does he bring up some interesting topics, have some interesting observations and has this site. He is rare in that he will let things be posted here that I am sure he strongly disagrees with. Many people on that side would edit out things they didn’t approve of. Before some argue that Doug does censor, well I am sure he does some. As the site owner, he is held responsible for what is said here. So, he won’t approve certain things. Now, I can’t say that he doesn’t censor out things he shouldn’t (since I don’t see them), but I have seen things here that he didn’t censor that I am sure others might have.

    As far as my comment about topics and comments made above. I am not saying I agree with them all, or that they are all great or maybe even all should be put here, but he has had some gold here too. We find ourselves on opposite ends on several things, but that is how it goes. We haven’t gotten into any arguments or anything. :D

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 11:11 am

  28. JLL wrote:

    I agree that the essay was complex and somewhat difficult, but we should remember that Doug didn’t write this for “Entertainment Weekly” or “People,” he wrote an academic essay for a scholarly journal. Such publications are not necessarily a light read (which probably explains why I haven’t gone to graduate school—yet)!

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 2:12 pm

  29. Andy wrote:

    i didnt know Doug was a homosexual… how do you guys figure this out… Doug, did you post that:)

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 3:39 pm

  30. Butch wrote:

    Jonathon Wilburn is going to flip when he finds his name is used in the context of a homosexual topic; I can’t blame him. Based on the arguments presented here, I guess if I have an inherent propensity to lay around like a back alley cat, it’s okay. You know, I was just born that way; so why not? Doug, I think it’s time for me to delete this blog off of my favorites.

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 3:47 pm

  31. onemadeupmind wrote:

    #29-The author of the article (Doug, I presume) that was presented speaks of his homosexuality.

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 4:25 pm

  32. RDB wrote:

    I know the fact of Doug being homosexual has made me seriously reconsider visiting this blog. However, I decided not to let that sway my decision because it is not uncommon for people to be engaging in unrepentant lifestyles of various sorts and I can’t simply avoid all interaction with them. I must continue to judge this blog, based on content. Sure, it is useful to evaluate the content in what is known about Doug (and the fact of his homosexuality explains something about the manner in which he interacts with religion and the gospel). But ultimately it is the content which determines whether I visit here, and how much. The day the content is no longer valuable to me is the day I stop coming. I’ve almost been there, a few times, when Doug lets his guard down too much and starts to portray hostility toward things which deserve respect, if not more than respect.

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 4:33 pm

  33. quartet-man wrote:

    #31 There were other times before then (I haven’t read the article) that it apparently was at least hinted at. He never said (I guess until now.)

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 5:35 pm

  34. GRM wrote:

    I agree with others that this article was difficult to read. What good was accomplished in writing it in the first place. I am quite aware that you own the site, and have a right to write and post as you wish. It would seem that your article for the publication would be sufficient for your reason to write it, but to post the link on this forum???? What good was accomplished… other than to inform your readers that you, the owner of this website was “out”. Did it help Gospel Music?

    “…since the readers of this site are (genuinely) cited as a source of inspiration and provocation for the most recent academic article I’ve published…” - you were inspired by the readers of this forum for such an article?

    There’s good and bad in all walks of life…but do we have to dwell so much of the bad? This certainly did not make the situation in reference any better, nor will it clean up the Gospel Music Industry.

    I’m appauled that the ower of such a well-known and informative site would stoop to this writing, even on your own site.

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 10:55 pm

  35. matt wrote:

    This sexuality stuff is boring already. God will be the final judge in this and everything else.

    Mark Trammell trio has a new tenor. That is more interesting.

    Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 11:46 pm

  36. SGmusician wrote:

    Does anyone still doubt the underlying intent of Doug Harrison after reading this article? I did not find it hard to read (I guess I can attribute that to my education) but I did find it to be flawed, irrelevant, and lacking in any depth of scholarly research that would be worthy of publication in a scholarly magazine (In this case, not one worth mentioning). Trying to draw a parallel between the brotherhood felt by quartet members to the homosexual lifestyle was a complete joke and I find the comparison laughable. The fact that the writer of this article is gayer than a wiffle ball helmet is one thing, but to present this pitiful excuse for an essay as some kind of indepth look at homosexuality in SG is more than just a stretch. The essay starts off negating the quality of the research within by the admission of lack of material and the obvious bias of the writer. True research should always aproach a subject without having a predetermined leaning to one result or another. I have not been to this site in a very long time. I heard about this post, so I decided to check it out. After reading through the article, I have a filling that many that read that article will also withdraw their support of this particular site. The following line says so much about the intent of this article.

    “In addition to the formal analysis of gospel music—its lyrics, musical form, and performances—my scholarly approach to southern gospel situates the music within the broader contexts of contemporary Protestant evangelicalism, particularly evangelicals’ struggle to balance their commitment to notionally absolute doctrines against the practical need for theological and cultural flexibility if religion is to remain relevant.”

    Doug seems to feel that the church or Christianity needs to change or evolve to validate his life. The intent is not to make the music or the religion relevant, but to make his own viewpoint and his lifestyle relevant. The only way Christianity or the music that reflects such will ever remain relevant is to remain true to the message (”absolute doctrines”) it represents. There will always be conflict between what the world sees as relevant and what Christianity sees as relevant. I guess the question posed to Doug should be relative to what? My guess from reading the article is his answer in simple terms would be his ideology. Another thing I feel I must point out about that statement. Cultural flexibility has nothing to do with moral flexibility (which more adequately describes what Doug is really aiming for). Homosexuality is not a cultural, racial, or physical issue. It is a moral issue just like any other sin. There is therefor no need for “theological and cultural flexibility” because all people of all cultures (homosexuality is not a culture) are loved and called by God to repentance, thus the command to go into all nations preaching the gospel (truth/good news). All people of all cultures are called to die to their old selves and be reborn into the new identity that they recieve in the blood of Jesus. We are called to leave our sinful nature behind. That includes homosexuality.
    In my humble opinion, this article is a great picture of someone struggling with what the book of James calls being “double minded”. This is an example of someone trying to validate their own serving of two masters. It can’t happen, won’t happen. God expects all or nothing, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” In this case, Doug’s sexuality is the god he has placed before God to such an extent that he is trying to justify his sin and redefine it as a characteristic or lifestyle. Many have done that, even some in SG. Let’s face it, SG is made up of people that are just as flawed and just as sinful as any of the rest of us. Everyone has temptations, some deal with sexual temptations, some alcohol or drugs, some with money, and etc. Temptations are not removed at repentance, but should be used as a tool to strengthen our walk with Christ as we daily learn to overcome those temptations and that part of our lives becomes smaller while God gets bigger in our lives than the temptations. Doug and others that try to justify this particular temptation of homosexuality and present it as a character trait are merely trying to hang on to the temptation. They are still living in their sin and for their sin instead of truly repenting and walking in the life God has called them to. The sadder part is they even blame God for their own sinful nature saying “God made me this way”. They don’t see sins ability to create destruciton. The answer to “God made me this way” is “No, sin made you that way and in this time, the sin that made you this way is your god.” Its very simple, God wants all of your life. Some get to the point that they become to “educated” to see that. They begin to worship other things including the ability to use big words to say absolutely nothing of substance. This brings us to where Doug Harrsion seems to be in his life and this is what is reflected in this essay.

    For what its worth, that is what I got from this particular “essay” or “article” whichever you prefer. I have been away from this site for a long time. After having read this post and this “essay”, I will be away for a lot longer now. This site no longer warrants any credibility.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 1:52 am

  37. rr wrote:

    How pathetic!

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 1:57 am

  38. SWhalen wrote:

    #23 – very well said.
    I read the entire article and would describe any implied linkage between homosexuality and SG, religion, bus sharing )or even the male “intimacy” developed through daily living and working with other men” to be a fabrication for Doug to try and understand his own sexuality in light of his chosen Christianity and music.
    Is the married heterosexual SG singer who commits adultery just being the way he was born? Is it any less a struggle? How about the one who desires a drink? The answer is yes - we are all born with sinful desires and all Christians try their best to hide their shortcomings from other.
    I submit that the difference is that the true Christian has a battle going on within himself. When the Holy Spirit occupies a person with a sinful nature, there must be a battle going on (Gal 5). Being gay (or an adulterer, thief, etc.) is incompatible with the Christian life and those who claim otherwise deceive themselves.
    OK, with all that said, I am unconvinced that the gay lifestyle is as prevalent in SG music as implied - the evidence presented is flimsy at best (IMO).
    With all the articles and comments about lousy pay, long absences from family, etc., a more interesting article would be - why are SOME who do not intend to follow Christ and the Scriptures so intent on remaining a part of the SG scene and getting up on a stage to proclaim the benefits of a life they are not (and do not intend on) living. Isn’t that just as hypocritical as living in the proverbial closet?

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 2:26 am

  39. SGNsider wrote:

    C’mon people. The gay “lifestyle” isn’t prevalent in SG music. But the gay “in-denial or hiding” lifestyle is. Is it some fantasy or gay agenda to ride the bus with a bunch of guys? Of course not. It’s really for no other reason than the heterosexual agenda for singing SG music. And that would be the “I’m really in this for the attention that I’m not talented enough to get elsewhere” lifestyle. Which would include the article author and the keeper of this blog.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 10:45 am

  40. matt wrote:

    I think I’m going to write a scholarly article on how many heterosexuals there are in SG riding buses together, and how easy it is to resist becoming homosexual. And whatabout an article on how being that close to other guys would only serve to make one even more heterosexual??

    Anyways, enough of this sex shit.

    Good posts 36 and 38.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 11:07 am

  41. Lisa wrote:

    “In this context, Mark’s angry soliloquy sounds like a re-voicing of Shores’ own outrage at the way anti-gay evangelicalism not only rejects the homosexual, but also dispossesses him of the intellectual and emotional resources needed to redirect the evangelistic impulse into a more humane reform agenda.”

    I read that and thought a long time before I posted. I’ve lost 3 gay friends to suicide, because their families or the whole community they grew up in turned against them…because they were “unsavable.”

    Part of the pain of that loss colors my perception of a fundamental Christian viewpoint. In “Angels In America,” the protagonists who were gay were also from the most restrictive of moral upbringings. Part of what drives that play is the internal conflict, as it does in this one.

    Since Romans is fairly clear that “…nothing…can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus” and Jesus was pretty direct in saying that we were to judge not, lest we be judged–how can we sit here and be judgmental, against either the author, or the original paper? None of us have a corner on the market of perfection, but I have to say this–as a fairly recent convert, if the person who helped bring me to the foot of the cross were as crabby as some of the folks who have posted here sound, I’d not have come back from buddhism!

    They–the universal they, not specific individuals–will notknow until they hear. They won’t hear unless they have a person willing to tell them. That person has to be willing NOT to judge in a harsh manner. That’s not what I hear, here.

    The article is a great job, Doug. Keep writing, I’d love to read more.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 12:39 pm

  42. RDB wrote:

    It’s practically impossible to speak about subject like these in a sane manner.

    I don’t agree with Doug’s arguments to the degree that he presents much of an argument inhis article. On the other hand, there is a little too much venom in the responses against the argument. It is definitely true that a gay person in evangelical society has few credible resources to turn too, when the reaction of many will be knee-jerk loathing. So the tendency of many to assume that something is wrong with the loathers rather than the homosexuals is not as preposterous as it may seem - even though I ultimately think it’s wrong.

    “Truth” and “love” are both essential in this debate and usually one gets dropped quickly enough. Frankly, one without the other is a caricature and a mockery, neither “truth” nor “love”.

    ——–

    Hmmm, I’ve posted 3 times now. Wonder if Doug is going to have close this conversation down?

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 1:36 pm

  43. Videoguy wrote:

    This site has officially jumped the shark. A very fine line no longer exists.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 1:53 pm

  44. SGNsider wrote:

    Oh, BTW. There are as many if not more in the “offices” than on the buses.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 3:06 pm

  45. SGmusician wrote:

    #41 Lisa,

    No one on here is saying that people living a homosexual lifestyle are unsavable. They are just as savable as someone living a drunken lifestyle. The 3 friends you lost that happen to be homosexual had far deeper issues than just the percieved rejection they felt from family and others over their “lifestyle” choices. That should never color your viewpoint on the validity of what is right and wrong or what God ordains and what He disdains.

    Romans is very clear that nothing has the power to seperate us from the love of God, however you need to look at that in context. The love of God is capable of reaching to us in the pits of the deepest darkest sin imaginable, but for salvation to take place that love has to be accepted and repentance has to take place. If salvation were based on the love of God only, there would have been no need for Jesus to die on a cross to be a sacrafice for our sins so that we may live above those sins.

    Finally, the argument about judging and the idea of accountability are two different things. We are called to not judge or hold someone to standards that we ourselves are incapable of achieving (that is what the judge not lest you be judged is referring to). We are called in many instances to confront sin, fight it, and call each other’s attention to it when we find someone living a lie. We are called to be a reflection of God. God loves people, so should we. God hates sin, so should we. I have no hatred against Doug, nor toward anyone else who choses to live in the sin of homosexuality, but I do have hatred toward the sin. That is the nature of Christ within me rejecting the sin that is so destructive to the Doug’s life. That is an instance where love (born in the holy spirit) for a fellow human being is manifesting itself in such a way that shows so much concern for the person and the well being of that person that it in turn targets and feels hatred toward the sin that the person is choosing to allow to keep that person from the love of God. Again, nothing can seperate and keep you from where God’s love can reach, but it is up to you to accept that love that God is extending toward you. Relationships can never be one sided. A relationship that is one sided will not last. God’s word is clear about the result of sin. His judgement is going to be harsh toward the sin. But then again, it is the sin that is bringing the judgement on them and not God’s love. In a sense, the boundaries have already be laid. The consequences have already been clearly outlined for us in God’s word. It is up to us to decide what we will recieve in judgement. We can choose grace by accepting Christ and turning from our sin, or we choose eternal damnation by rejecting Christ and living in sin. That is the choice. It is very simple, yet some make it so hard by trying to negotiate and water down God’s word.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 3:18 pm

  46. suzanne wrote:

    call me nosy or whatever, but there have been so many references to gays in sgm on this site, why not name them all and be done with it? We all know about Kirk Talley, but who else is on the list? Are you insinuating that EH is gay?

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 4:04 pm

  47. Derrick wrote:

    GOSPEL MUSICS BIGGEST NAME DROPPER EXPOSED JASON CRABB I am so tired of hearing him name drop. He never opens his mouth that he isnt plugging someone he knows or has ASKED to work with him. Nobody asked to work with him. They had to beg and pay these people good money to get involved with him. What a joke- If he would stop and look back at every interview in th last year–HE has lost it. Name dropping, fake and disconnected

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 4:26 pm

  48. onemadeupmind wrote:

    #47-Derrick, and you know this because……………

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 4:58 pm

  49. Derrick wrote:

    My gosh I live in America and I listen to his name dropping till I am about to puke and whats sad is I like him. I just dont like name dropping

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 5:39 pm

  50. Jake wrote:

    Suzanne (#46) — Every now and then someone on this blog will make some nasty insinuation about EH. It must be jealousy. Ernie has been married since the early 90s, and for the first 10 years or so he travelled with his father-in-law (George Younce). I think it is ridiculous.

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 8:43 pm

  51. Dread Pirate Roberts wrote:

    wasn’t going to comment on this thread, but #36 “gayer than a wiffle ball helmet ” that is just funny!

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 9:21 pm

  52. onemadeupmind wrote:

    49-Quoting post #47, “GOSPEL MUSICS BIGGEST NAME DROPPER EXPOSED JASON CRABB I am so tired of hearing him name drop. He never opens his mouth that he isnt plugging someone he knows or has ASKED to work with him. Nobody asked to work with him. They had to beg and pay these people good money to get involved with him. What a joke- If he would stop and look back at every interview in th last year–HE has lost it. Name dropping, fake and disconnected,”

    SO, you’re saying that you’ve seen every interview, saw every program, attended every concert, heard every radio show, read every printed article? Are you like Santa Clause? You know everything about him all the time?

    Is he name dropping or just merely recognizing the people he works with, etc.

    You name drop to make yourself look better to someone else. Jason doesn’t need that. He’s already a star in the gospel genre as well as a rising star in other genre’s as well.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me…..I’m just saying…

    Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 9:23 pm

  53. Wade wrote:

    Jake… Kirk Talley was married before if I am not mistaken and he traveled on a bus with George Younce for MANY years too… When do you think George knew.

    I like Kirk and I knew for many years while he was with The Cats… but still… I KNOW A MAN WHO CAN still helped lead ppl to the Lord and TOUCHED many lives including my own… and I am about as Hetro as they come!!

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 3:37 am

  54. gabriella422001 wrote:

    Well, all the gay implications all the time…this is what they make somebody like me do….I always wonder if when I listen to some people if I am listening to someone with false doctrine. then I just quit listening period. I think the gay is ok thing is false doctrine that might accidently send somebody in the opposite direction of heaven. I got my own sins however and I get worried about that also. If somebody is saved, gay or not, they are going to heaven right? but then, aren’t we supposed to try to live in a way that doesn’t promote sin? Aren’t we supposed to love people? Will somebody tell me what to do? I believe the only way to heaven is thru Jesus and we are all sinners in ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. But to ACTIVELY PROMOTE a sinful lifestyle is another thing altogether. Therefore, I am in a quandary. Cause I really listen to what people say, I don’t just pick and chose to hear what I want to hear, and sometimes what I hear is ruining listening to SG Music or Christian Music for that matter and has for years. Cause I think maybe its falsehood. I worry about what God is thinking about things. There, thats my spiel for today. I’m worried all the time. Too bad, cause I like music too. Promoting gayhood is the same thing to me as promoting adultery, or promoting stealing, or lying, or cussing, or whatever…its not legalism, its just got consequences and thats what I’m worried about for people.

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 10:40 am

  55. Brett wrote:

    The thing about Kirk is he never slept with another of the same sex. He admitted he has same sex attraction which he helps fight by the Grace of God everyday.

    It really boils down to this verse, Let God be true and every man a liar. Romans 3:4

    Regardless of men having feelings or what man’s opinion is or if you “feel” he created you gay, what does God word say about it, that is the question!

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 2:35 pm

  56. Drock wrote:

    I come with joy to meet my Lord,
    forgiven, loved, and free,
    in awe and wonder to recall
    his life laid down for me.

    I come with Christians far and near
    to find, as all are fed,
    the new community of love
    in Christ’s communion bread.

    As Christ breaks bread and bids us share,
    each proud division ends.
    That love that made us makes us one,
    and strangers now are friends.

    I really think that a greater emphasis should be placed on the reconciling love of God. Gay or straight, in him we are one body.

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 3:13 pm

  57. JR wrote:

    Wade: George knew! He called Kirk a “cute little thing” on the Reunion CD!

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 3:34 pm

  58. SGmusician wrote:

    #56 Drock,
    You said:

    “Gay or straight, in him we are one body.”

    Wrong. The one body are those that are in communion with Him. Sin seperates us from God. Gay can not be part of the body. Someone who is tempted by homosexuality can, but living in homosexuality is just as sinful as living under the addiction of alcohol. Neither are part of the body of Christ. We need to learn the difference from temptation and sin and the difference between living with temptation and defining ourselves by the sin that results from falling to the temptation. There is no such thing as a gay christian. The two words are completely contradictory to each other. This subject is not one that can be settled by us just all getting together and having a Kum Ba Ya moment. The truth sometimes hurts and is sometimes uncomfortable, but the truth is always the truth and never can be anything but.

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 5:10 pm

  59. Lisa wrote:

    #45 SGMusician:
    i was addressing two separate things in my post, and should have delineated it as such…one is the literary criticism in the paper written by Mr. Anderson.

    The second was directly stating that the pain of the loss of my friends: one of whom committed suicide specifically because he was TOLD he was unsavable…I know this ’cause his mother let me read the note he left. The other two had basically been turned out of their families and church communities because they came out of the closet. Both took their own lives within a year.

    I’m aware of the differences between judging and being held accountable. I’m also aware of the differences between the sinner and the sin. But I will say again: the universal “they” won’t HEAR, until they feel a modicum of SAFETY. The person who turned me back to Christianity after a trip into Buddhism was someone I felt safe with.

    In Post #58, you state: “There is no such thing as a gay christian. The two words are completely contradictory to each other.”

    I would beg to differ. Being tempted by same sex, and remaining celibate and being tempted by opposite sex and remaining celibate are the same thing. In one case, it’s called homosexuality, in the other, it’s either fornication or adultery, depending on marital status.
    Do you actually suppose there’s a point in time when a parent can say–”Now when you grow up, you’re only going to want the opposite sex” ?? I’m pretty sure the three I knew (and I know a good many more, because of my previous profession in the beauty industry) who gave up their fights would have given a great deal to have been told that.

    Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 9:36 pm

  60. SGmusician wrote:

    #59 Lisa,

    In regards to the friend you lost and the note you read, if the person was emotionally disturbed enough to take their own life, then how much do you take their “suicide note” at face value? Do you just accept that what they wrote as everything to know about the situation or do you look for true meaning in why they would have taken their own life? Suicide is never just about rejection alone, but usually has a component of self-hating or feelings of worthlessness in the mix. You have to really hate/dislike yourself to decide to take your own life, and if this person was truly at peace about their “sexuality” rejection by family for such choices alone is probably not enough to push them to taking their own life. In any case, I am sorry for your loss.

    In respect to how we as Christians are to deal with the sinner and the sin, we are always to love the sinner, but we hate the sin. That is the very nature of Christ and that is what I have presented in posts on this subject. The person that God used to help you back to Christianity gained your respect by their approach, but it was God that turned you back. He may have used the person as a messenger, and He wants to use us all like that, but salvation rest in Him alone. They were not judgemental, but introduced or reintroduced you to a God that had the power to radically change your life. The sinner should always find a loving hand from the Christian, but the sin should always be repelled/uncomfortable by the presence of Christ in us. As a representative of Christ, they should find both the love of Christ and the rejection of sin in us.

    Finally, you said this.

    “Being tempted by same sex, and remaining celibate and being tempted by opposite sex and remaining celibate are the same thing. In one case, it’s called homosexuality, in the other, it’s either fornication or adultery, depending on marital status.”

    That is inaccurate. As I have stated many times before, there is a huge difference between temptation and sin. Temptation will never cease. If someone is tempted by homosexuality, that is a battle they have to fight. But to designate themselves as “gay” is accepting defeat by the temptation. Furthermore, heterosexuality is God’s plan for creation. Therefore, the desire of such in itself is natural and not sinful. To fall to temptation outside of marriage or to commit adultry is sinful. Also, here is another observation. God’s word only ordain’s heterosexual marriage. God’s word explicitely prohibits sex outside of marriage. Therefor, any homosexual act is sinful on two fronts, the homosexuality and the fornication. Just an interesting side note for ya.

    To answer your question:

    Do you actually suppose there’s a point in time when a parent can say–”Now when you grow up, you’re only going to want the opposite sex” ??

    There is no particular point for a parent to tell their child what is right and wrong. A parent has to constantly train up their child and live right and wrong in front of the child. That does not mean the temptation will not come, but as a child grows, they have to see and learn how temptation has to be fought and not given in to. The principal of free will comes into play also. Just because you train someone to know right from wrong does not take away their freedom to choose right or wrong.

    With all of this said, here is why I say there is no such thing as a gay Christian. Christianity is defined by the image of the One the word represents. To be a Christian is to be Christ like. You do not define Christians by their temptations, because they are living above and overcoming those temptations with the help of Christ who lives in them. So, as such, there is no such thing as an alcoholic Christian, a drug addicted Christian, a pedophilic Christian, etc… There is a such thing as a Christian who happens to be recovering from all of those things, but a Christian is someone who’s sins are under the blood, removed as far as the east is from the west to be remembered no more. They still struggle with temptation, that is how they grow (by with the help of God not falling to that temptation). But they are no longer defined by the sin they are supposed to have left at the cross. So I’ll say it again. There is no such thing as a gay Christian. The homosexual identity is in total contradiction to the identity and image of Christ.

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 12:50 am

  61. Jake wrote:

    Wade (#53) — I think it is a real stretch to think George Younce would have stood idly by and watched his own daughter suffer if she was married to someone who was gay. When it’s family — especially a man’s own daughter — they are going to react quite differently than they would for a co-worker or acquaintance.

    Bottom line — all these insinuations about EH being gay are, in my opinion, baseless, cruel, and just outright mean. He is clearly a happily married man who travels with a group of married men with kids. If anyone doesn’t like their style or success, there are plenty of other groups to follow, but let’s stop trying to make insinuations that are just outright lies.

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 7:34 am

  62. wanderer wrote:

    #57. George called Scott a cute little thing too on Campmeetin’ Live. I don’t think you can go by that.

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 8:21 am

  63. SG Obzerver wrote:

    #55 sed - “The thing about Kirk is he never slept with another of the same sex.”

    From the book of Wayne chapter 2 verse 1…”yeah…and monkeys might fly out of my butt”

    IMHO of course.

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 8:46 am

  64. Smile God Loves You wrote:

    Does it really matter if they were born that way or not? We were all born into sin, according to the Bible. That’s why we have to be “Born Again”.

    So “nature” or “nurture” who cares? Once you are born again “old things are passed away, behold all things become new”. There is a change. You abhor sin and avoid it. Do you mess up? Sure, that’s the human part…but it’s not something you revel in. You continually try to stregthen yourself against the temptation, whether it be homosexuality, adultery, greed, lust, gluttony…sin is sin and as a Christian you work every day to fight the temptations and get as far away from the “old man” and as close to “Christ-like” as you can get.

    It’s so simple…yet we manage to make it complicated by trying to justify our “little” sins, but then it becomes complicated when we are justifying our little sins and someone has a “big” sin, them some smart alec says that there are no “little sins or big sins” in God’s eyes. That messes our theology up, because we justified our continual sinning by saying “God forgives me before I ever sin” or something to that effect. That’s why we can keep breaking his commandments (adultery, putting other “gods before HIM, covetness,etc) and feel justified. But when someone comes along with a “gross” sin or one that we find descpicable we look like idiots trying to defend our stance against it. We know God is against it but if we come down too hard on them then we have to look at ourselves and see how far off we really are. (Which we should be doing anyway)

    Whatever happened to “abstain from the very APPEARNCE of evil” or like Paul “should I dwell in sin, God forbid”?

    Yes, we aren’t perfect. Yes, we will sin. Thank God, we have an advocate…

    …But, my God is big enough to save me in my sins and (again, according to the Bible) save me FROM my sins. Is yours?

    Praying for you Doug…

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 11:07 am

  65. scope wrote:

    #63 Unless you yourself has slept with Kirk, you are no position to contradict what he has said. I know Kirk, and don’t doubt for a second that while attracted to men, he has never acted on that attraction.

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 2:31 pm

  66. j-mo wrote:

    #62, are you suggesting Scott Fowler is gay?

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 3:12 pm

  67. Andy wrote:

    #65… Come on… Hasnt acted on it… I doubt that. He wouldnt have gone through what he has to “restore” himself, if he wasnt deep into sin.

    By the way… Gay is a cop=out word. I believe that my King James Bible calls them Sodomites

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 3:30 pm

  68. suzanne wrote:

    Thank you Jake, I think it is downright evil to accuse someone like EH of being gay. I know that he has been married to Lisa for many years, why let the devil get the best of you in reporting this trash? I have a feeling that the person who wrote that article is just downright jealous of EH, as well as Bill Gaither. Matt. 7:1-3 does come to my mind.

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 4:34 pm

  69. Wade wrote:

    If I were Kirk Talley I might say the same thing if I ever wanted to be able to sing in most churches.

    I love Kirk and hope to be able to do a service with him soon to some of my friends who are not as closed minded as some of you.

    Some of you folks are unbelievable.

    Your small minds would be blown if you knew how many men who ARE MARRIED with kids who do the homosexual thing. They are scared to death about being outted. They are miserable in their lives and wish EVERY DAY they did not have the feelings.

    It would be easier for CVH to turn off his feelings for Suzan Speer and mine for say Amy Grant for these men to turn this feelings off.

    BUT PLEASE SOMEBODY EVEN dr joe blow or any one explain to me this… in the bible where most of the ppl who use to justify their harsh judgment towards gay ppl there are also a LONG LIST of OTHER TYPES of ppl who will not inherit the kingdom.

    What about those ppl???? If you are an adultery, glutton, or a drunk ridden person will all those people miss out too??? Even if you love the Lord and acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God???

    Are you going to have to ask for ALL your sins to be forgiven the split second right before you die to make it???

    As far as suffering Jake, some of these men are great Dads, providers and even Husbands in most ppls opinions. They just have a freak they can’t shake.

    The way some women are about desiring SECURITY they might even know and turn the other way because they do everything else right in their lives.

    Kinda of like being married to a woman that has OCD or maybe bitchy ever now and then. It will drive you crazy sometimes, but when taken in balance and managed well you would still love her and want to be married to her.

    I take this article as Dr. DH’s way of trying to tell you folks he loves the music, loves the Lord and wants you to know the turmoil that he has in his life and the life of the other men that have this attraction.

    FOLKS ATTRACTION is something you CAN’T HELP!! Have you not ever been attracted to someone who it did not make sense on the surface but it was just something you felt??

    While I am a little tired of this subject and would like to talk about the music too… it is A BIG ISSUE and if you are a person who thinks your favorite Gospel singer is or has to be near perfect you would be SERIOUSLY DISAPPOINTED!!

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 5:23 pm

  70. Joe wrote:

    OK, Wade- you asked; I’ll try to give you an answer. I’ve been away from this site for maybe a month, and have not missed it at all. Posts like this are why. I read the responses, without reading the link Doug posted.

    First, SGmusician has written some of the most brilliant Scriptural posts I’ve ever read here. Kudos.

    Now then, Wade…you asked about what Scripture says about all the “others” who will miss Heaven. Nothing of what I say is worth anything, so I will quote HIM (the final Authority)…

    “Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob-these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NCV)

    (Heaven)…”…nothing unclean and no one who does shameful things or tells lies will ever go into it…” (Rev. 21:27 NCV)

    I will point out once more for all, that God the Creator and Christ the Savior have both gone on record, in both testaments, as stating clearly that the ONLY Heaven-condoned sexual relations between ANY human beings, are between a male husband and his female wife. God said it in Genesis 2:24. Jesus quoted Him word-for-word in Matt. 19:5.
    These 2 passages alone should end most of the nonsensical discussion about “human sexuality” here.

    “Do not be deceived. God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” (Gal. 6:7 NKJV)

    Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 11:24 pm

  71. SGmusician wrote:

    # 69 Wade,

    I’ll do my best to answer your questions and make it as clear as possible.

    Anyone living in sin will “miss out” on the kingdom of Heaven. You can claim to love the Lord and acknowledge Jesus all you want, but it takes knowing Him to have salvation. Salvation is about way more than knowing about Jesus, it is about knowing Jesus. Salvation is more than just simply stating the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, it is repenting (turning from) of sin and allowing the life of Jesus to be reflected and lived in you by the Holy Spirit. There are a lot of people who acknowledge Jesus that are going to bust Hell wide open because they do not know Him and are not allowing Him to live in them or giving Him control of every aspect of their lives by seeking His will.

    I think that word “acknowledge” has caused a lot of problems for so many people because in today’s world it means so much less than what it may have in the past. I can acknowledge all day long that cigarettes cause cancer, but until I stop smoking I am in danger of getting cancer and putting my life at risk. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. That means as long as I am sinning I am in danger of Hell or eternal separation from God. Sin is what separates us from God.

    Does all of this mean you need to be some kind of paranoid person afraid that you are going to make a mistake and get smote for it? No! You see, there is a huge difference between mistakes and sins. You hit your hand with a hammer and let out an unflattering word, mistake. Its definitely not polite and does nothing to ease the pain or further your walk with Christ, but that is probably not going to condemn you to Hell because you still have the flesh to deal with. It does mean you need to spend more time with Christ and learn to be more like Him every day. In the examples you gave, there is a big difference between recognizing beauty and lusting or committing adultery. There is a huge difference between eating a slice of pizza and hammering down two large with everything and a two liter coke. There is a huge difference between drinking a glass of wine with dinner and getting so hammered that your body and mind are under the control of the alcohol.

    The bottom line is, sin is something you chose to do. You decide you know better than God and place that desire before His desire for your life. You try to displace God as God. Sin has a lot to do with idolatry (thou shalt have no other gods before Me). With that in mind, if God condemns it, then you must leave it alone to truly reflect His image. In a sense, you have to love what God loves and hate what God hates. In the same manner, we are to love each other as God loves us and hate the sins that are keeping each other from a relationship with God just as He hates those sins.

    Those that are dealing with homosexual attraction are dealing with it because of the innate nature of the flesh to sin. We are all born predisposed to sin, but Jesus died and rose again so we could live above that sin and that sinful nature. That is why we have to be “REBORN”. They may wish those “feelings” (which are nothing more than temptations) were taken from them. Hey, so does an alcoholic or drug addict. The temptation is not going to be taken away. It is something you have to learn to live above. The temptation to sin is no stronger for a homosexual than it is for a heterosexual. God is clear that sex outside of marriage is sin and He (through His word) is also clear that the only type of marriage He ordains is man and woman.

    We have had huge disagreements before. I don’t know that this will mean a hill of beans to you, but this is as straight forward as I can be with this issue without beating you over the head with scripture. All of this can be backed up with the Word of God. The main point is, if you are a Christian, you will reflect Christ and His morality and ethics. To reflect anything to the contrary is to distort the image or to reflect something else totally (sin).

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 12:02 am

  72. Irishlad wrote:

    Wade,you take a break now, i can tell that last post took a lot out of you,however i couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 12:47 am

  73. quartet-man wrote:

    #66 J-mo, of course they weren’t saying that (at least as I perceived the comment.) I am nearly 100% sure I am right, but of course since I never said it, I cannot speak for them, However, in my opinion, what they WERE saying was that someone made the comment that EH was gay and used George’s calling him a cute little thing as supposed evidence. Now, I cannot say whether they were trying to be funny or not. However, the point was made that this isn’t really evidence because if that were proof, then he called Scott Fowler the same thing and obviously he isn’t, or if that were true apparently he was too. Basically, Scott was used to show how inaccurate that “proof” was. IMHO of course.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 7:16 am

  74. quartet-man wrote:

    #69 Wade, we’ve been through this before. We have the power to resist temptation. No one ever promised we wouldn’t be tempted. Christ was tempted (heterosexually I am sure) and never succumbed to it. So, there is a way. It is the same with homosexuality. I don’t know for sure why that particular temptation is there, but we straight people are tempted too. We single people see attractive women and are to say “no” unless we are married to them. Sometimes married people are tempted by other people besides their spouses. There are other temptations. Some, for some reason get tempted by children. Of course right now most people know that is wrong. I have grave concerns about that changing in the future or at least the age of consent being changed. Even now it appears too many people try to understand and support the guilty more than the victim. That is a whole other conversation. My point is, that we all have temptations and I would say crosses to bear. Adam and Eve screwed up our lives by their actions, but from our design we were presented with options in whether to do right or wrong.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 7:24 am

  75. wanderer wrote:

    #66. No I am not suggesting Scott Fowler is gay. That was not my intention. Someone said George called Kirk a cute little thing and suggested because of that remark he knew about Kirk’s situation. I was trying to say he called Scott a cute little thing too, so I don’t think that remark necessarily means George knew. Those closest to the situation often are the last to know. Kirk has stated publicly that his ex-wife didn’t know. Scott Fowler if you’re reading this and I’ve caused you some discomfort because of that remark above being misunderstood, please forgive me.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:26 am

  76. wanderer wrote:

    #69 Wade:
    We are all sinners, but there is a difference in sinning and not caring about it and being broken and truly sorry for what you’ve done ( and not just because you got caught). A gentleman in my church told me about 3 years ago he did not struggle with porn or gambling or overeating or drinking, but rather he fought the temptation to do drugs on a daily basis. But he fought it hard. I believe God smiles on someone like that. If he had told me he smoked up on a daily basis and had a God will forgive me anyways attitude, then it would be a different story. Same thing with the gay thing. I don’t deny these are real feelings these people have, I have no doubt that Ray Boltz really was on anti-depressants, but giving in doesn’t justify it. A thief has real feelings of a need to steal too, but that doesn’t mean he should give in to the temptation. Am I being small minded? Not if the word of God says it’s wrong.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:37 am

  77. mark forester wrote:

    I think this thread and site have become a huge pile of crap.

    I think it is a terrible shame that some people call themselves Christians and then would spread the rumor, lies and hateful speech found here.

    To repeatedly say the things like Ernie is Gay is increidbly wicked. Besides the utter dumbness of the suggestion….it is also a sin to be so reckless.

    For some reason there is a small group of people that decided when he came on the scene witht he Cats to dislike him. Those same people have made fun of him and acted like idiots ever since.

    Of course , all he has done is gone on and built the biggest fan base and sold out concerts and sold more cd’s than any group outside of gaither in sg.

    He can laugh all the way to the bank while you pathetic jealous, pithy morons make yourself feel important by posting your little lies on here and then giggle behind your keyboards while eating the lasagna your mommy brought down to the room she lets you have in the basement.

    You don’t have to like his singing, clothing or his stage movements….but he is kicking your butt in every aspect of the sg game and he’ll take your fat butt in basketball too.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:53 am

  78. Joe wrote:

    Quartet-man; I agree with most of what you have just written, but take exception to one point you made.

    You said “Christ was tempted (heterosexually I am sure) and never succumbed to it.”

    This is a Scripturally-incorrect statement. It clearly states in James 1:13 “God cannot be tempted by evil”.

    There are at least two kinds of “tests”. After a bridge is completed, the engineers test it, before allowing the public on it. Not to prove it can fail, but to demonstrate that it cannot. All “tests” of Christ were to show that He could not sin, that He could not fail.
    There is not a hint in Scripture that would suggest He was tempted to sexual sin, as you have suggested.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:54 am

  79. Kitten wrote:

    All this stuff about gays and trying to justify a gay lifestyle is enough to make me puke.

    !@#^&(*#^
    @)(*#^^*
    _(*&(*&&(@

    Ah, that feels better.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:13 am

  80. Lisa wrote:

    (sigh)

    Thanks Wade.

    My point, and I did have one, is that for many, many people…the temptation is what I referred to as being gay. There is NO temptation to women at all. Just to men. AND IT NEVER GOES AWAY.
    Paul had a thorn in his side, and asked 3 times that it be taken away. He was told that “Grace was sufficient.”

    I’ve never said it was right, nor have I said we’re to tolerate the sin. I HAVE said that the tone I’ve heard in some of these posts would have left me feeling just as abandoned as the person who tells me that because I don’t speak in tongues I’m not “TRULY SAVED.”

    Softer in tone was Jesus when He said to the woman caught in adultery “…neither do I condemn you. GO AND SIN NO MORE.”

    The universal they will not hear unless they know they are cared for FIRST.

    My goodness.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:14 am

  81. suzanne wrote:

    #77, thank you, I couldn’t have said it better myself!

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:12 pm

  82. j-mo wrote:

    #77

    My dad could beat up your dad.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:17 pm

  83. JLL wrote:

    If Lisa and/or Wade ran a church, I think I’d like to attend.

    I’m pleased that some of the posters have mentioned other sins that will prevent one from entering the kingdom of Heaven, but I’m still confused as to why homosexuality is the one that gets everyone all riled up. If drunkenness is a sin that will keep you out of Heaven, why is there no push by the Church to outlaw alcoholic beverages? If churches are so concerned about the “sanctity of marriage” why is there no push to make divorce illegal (or at least more difficult to obtain)? A divorced and remarried person can still be welcomed into the arms of most churches (and upon many southern gospel stages), but someone “tainted” by the sin of homosexuality is a virtual outcast forever. CrazyJoe in post #5 even likened it to the “unpardonable sin” which I recall as being very different. Why is homosexuality the one sin that seems to be a whole lot more repugnant to the majority of the posters than all the other sins that are discussed much more frequently in the Bible?

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:35 pm

  84. quartet-man wrote:

    #78 Thanks, Joe. Yeah, God cannot be tempted by evil, you are correct. However, He came down in human form like us even though He was the Son of God. I don’t mean that He was looking at women and lusting or anything. I just meant that He had to deal with the same issues we have to deal with since He was human, but overcame them. He showed us it could be done when seeking the Father. Thanks for pointing that out and giving me a chance to clarify.

    Also, in my sleepiness and hurriedness this morning, I also made another error. The comment about Scott was in reference to George calling KIRK a cute little thing, not Ernie. I had read that days ago and forgot that it was Kirk. I guess I thought Ernie since he gets accused of it so much. (Even though I never heard George call Ernie a cute little thing to the best of my knowledge. :-) )

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:58 pm

  85. JM wrote:

    From generation to generation, the Church experiences a pressure from society to negotiate “selected sins” from the category of intolerable to subjective. This may stem from multiple roots; however, I believe that society, in general, has some degree of appreciation and even begrudging respect for positive moral and ethical values. When I was a child (50’s-60’s), the “selected sin” was alcohol and drug use. It was “justified” by suggesting that limited use would not impair an individual or their functional abilities. Nowadays, it’s difficult to find many homes in Evangelical-land without a few cans of beer or a couple bottles of wine. Not making a judgment…just a observation. My parent’s generation believed that if you smoked, drank, danced, played cards or ran around with girls who did, you were courting eternal damnation. As the years have passed, we now look back on those “unenlightened days” and wonder how they could have possibily been so uptight and starched. However, I would quickly offer that to develop a gambler or a drunk, you must have the first drink or play the first hand of poker. Temptation is NOT sin. Only in conceeding to the temptation do we have sin. Society begrudgingly accords the Church some respect for promoting a sober, orderly lifestyle. They think we’re awfully uptight about the issue of sin, but they conceed that some taboos are likely constructive for a healthy society.

    This brings us back to alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality has become this generation’s drug and alcohol abuse. This expression of sexuality has been with us since the days of Lot and perhaps before. However, until the last 50 years or so, no one tried to take it from the pages of an Abnormal Psychology textbook and put it into our Evangelical churches! Sin will always be sin. That won’t change, regardless of all the justifiers and revisionists found throughout the lost world. The issue has been framed around the principle of civil rights and our attempt to deny fellow citizens their “God-given” societal standing. We now have gay clergy and seek to further ordain and sustain the influence of homosexuality within the Church. I take a pragmatic view of this pressure to bring gay brothers and sisters into communion. Like so many other influences and evils, I likely cannot prevent them; however, as a member of the Church, I MUST speak out against the acceptance of any/all sin within the Christian community. Among so many other signs, this is just another that indicates that we best be about our Father’s business, for the days are growing scarce and eternity awaits. I pray for my gay friends; but, I also pray for my own tendencies toward a lack of self-discipline and love. May God strive in all of our hearts and show us a better way.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 4:34 pm

  86. Andy wrote:

    Can we change the subject, please! Hey, whats going on with Guy Penrod… any updates?

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 6:10 pm

  87. quartet-man wrote:

    #83, going to a church that says you can do anything you want anytime you want isn’t going to do people any good in the long run. Sure it might mike them feel better now, but when they die it is too late. Most kids wouldn’t like dangerous toys taken away or to be scolded or punished for playing in the street, but doing so is the best thing for them as the other possibility is a whole lot worse.

    There are definitely other sins. I think homosexuality gets hit for several reasons. First of all, it has been out of the shadows more recently. Divorce was considered horrible years ago, but unfortunately has become too commonplace. Second of all, there seems to be a huge push in forcing acceptance of homosexuality, which means people HAVE to rise up against it since it is being made an issue. Third, of course this isn’t fair, but homosexuality is something a lot don’t deal with, so it is easier to stand against it. Now, many of us will stand against any, but I am sure there are some who do homosexuality since it isn’t some they have dealt with.

    It also doesn’t help homosexuals that God talked about how abhorrent it was or the story of Sodom and Gommorah.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 6:12 pm

  88. Joe wrote:

    JLL- you have asked a very interesting question. I will give you a few possible answers.

    1. Not all sins in Scripture are called “an abomination”. Homosexuality is. You would need to find which other ones might be, as well.

    2. There is no active world-wide agenda to get every man, woman, and child to tolerate and accept adultery, alcoholism, pedophilia, murder, rape, incest, extortion, or divorce. But there most definitely IS a world-wide push to make this aberrational lifestyle “accepted and acceptable” by everyone. Books are already in some US elementary schools, teaching 3rd-graders about “My Two Moms” and “My Two Dads”.

    3. There is no sin movement in the world so closely associated with the concept of PRIDE, as is homosexuality. And pride is one thing mentioned several times in Scripture, as being something God detests and hates. In fact, when Ezekiel likens rebellious Israel to the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrha (Ezek. 16:49-50), he lists the sin of pride first, and the abomination of homosexuality last.

    4. If you carefully study Paul’s discussion in Romans 1 of man moving as far away from his Creator as possible, turning things upside down (making the creature more important than the Creator- the concepts behind secular humanism and the New Age movement today), he examples homosexuality as the “crowning sin” in this movement away from God.

    Sin is sin. One sin will keep a human out of Heaven forever. But there ARE degrees of punishment. Eternity for the Christ-rejecter will actually be worse for some, than for others- Christ clearly taught this concept. God never annihilated two entire cities for drunkenness.

    ALL sin must be punished. ALL sin can be forgiven. But if a man or woman is truly saved, they are made of God as a new creation. Old things are passed away. All things are become new. THIS is why there is no such thing as a “Christian homosexual”.

    And the only cure for homosexuality is being washed in the blood of the Savior (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 6:13 pm

  89. Wade wrote:

    Thanks JLL… actually working on it… you any place close to Chattanooga?? If so and have facebook holla at me click on my name to go to my profile.

    Lisa… I agree.

    dr. joe & sgmusician… sincerely thanks for your input. dr joe watch out… it was actually you several weeks back that challenged me to KNOW WHY I BELIEVE what I Believe. I have been taking you up on it.

    The problem I have with the take that dr joe & sgmusician have is it all seems so arbitrary. dr joe has called it a pattern… sgmusician says as long as you feel bad about it and seems to picking & choosing some. LIKE I SAID ARBITRARY!! I can’t find any work close to PATTERN in my studies. I can find much about grace and how God loves us and can forgive us no matter what we do. He certainly forgave David and even blessed him afterwards.

    So while I REALLY DO APPRECIATE the verses and have been reading them… there is still a long list of other things mentioned in passages that most gay ppl get pounded with…. that would mean that every one that was fat, drank to catch a buzz, ever gave in to the temptation of some one they should not have sex with, maybe even smoked dope to help a medical condition like anxiety, insomnia & to relieve the side effect of cancer treatment are all going to hell!!!

    With all the other verses and well educated bible scholars that talk about grace and we all acknowledge we are ALL sinners I don’t see how your take could be correct.

    Nobody has answered the question about how anybody can ever control ATTRACTION. I could not switch. I personally know people who TRY and even go OVERBOARD trying to do everything not to appear gay.

    I do know this. I have been trying to live a better life. I know that the better I live the easier it seems to resist some of the things I have done before and I certainly feel worse about them now. But I don’t see a time I would ever not be tempted to do some of the things I have done and still do.

    I am still human. I know some of the things I do are wrong… I FEEL TERRIBLE about them after I do them. Sometimes even DURING. I even know before I do them I should not. But I still give in no matter how hard I try.

    I think God is alot like me as far as being a Dad. I tell my son not to do things. But I know as soon as I tell him he will and am not even surprised when he does. I wished he did not do it. I might even discipline him for it… but I don’t hate him or cast him out of my house. Sometimes I even giggle about it.

    I know when I tell him not to play near the stream and get muddy I know with out a shadow of a doubt that if his 3 other boy cousins are here that is where they are going as soon as they ride the bikes out of the yard. So I make sure he has his OLD play shows on.

    I know when I tell him not to play with the matches or not to put anything in the electric wall socket I know he will. Now he does not do those 2 as much because he has been burnt and shocked enough to know it hurts… but while he was here with me this summer he did them both.

    But I don’t cast him out and tell him he is stupid. I just know some things a kid has to learn. I will not be able to protect him from everything. I TELL HIM and WISHED a million times he would listen to me when I tell him but I still know.

    I think God is alot like that!!

    What do y’all say???

    ALL OF YA!!!

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 7:55 pm

  90. BUICK wrote:

    To those who believe that homosexual activity (not just same-sex attraction but homosexual acts) is not sin because some people are just wired that way:
    -Are there any other acts, specifically condemned in Scripture, on which you think I could get a pass? Homosexuality is not a temptation to me but maybe I can get a mulligan on something else.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:36 pm

  91. BUICK wrote:

    JLL (#83) - I, for one, am not all riled up about the topic of homosexuality. It just happens to have been the subject of Doug’s “scholarly” paper and, thus, the focus of this thread. If Doug were to write an academic paper about gluttony in SGmusic, we could discuss that. We might be talking about Tony Gore, Lulu Roman and a few others. But since he wrote the paper about those whom HE (rather pejoratively, IMO) has chosen to call “queers”, that is what we have replied to.

    JLL, if you will post some other subject on YOUR blog, maybe we can all go there and comment on it. In the meantime, don’t criticize those who have chosen to stay on topic.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:38 pm

  92. SGmusician wrote:

    #89 Wade,

    I notice a difference in attitude and tone in your response from earlier discussions we have had. I commend you on that. However, I still think it would be wise if you went back to my earlier post in this particular thread and read them fully. You would see that I am in no way saying, “as long as you feel bad about it” nor am I “picking and choosing” sins. Sin is sin, bottom line.

    You mention grace. God’s grace is sufficient to forgive any sin, but grace is something that has to be received. There is no sin to great for God to forgive or that the blood of Jesus is not capable of washing away. If we recognize homosexuality as sin ( as you seem to finally be coming to grips with) then we have to recognize that through the blood of Jesus, that sin can be overcame, forgiven, removed. The main problem most have is in the process of letting go of their own sin. Many try to allow God to be God of parts of their lives, but they try to withhold certain areas from Him because those sins are a “security blanket.” These people define themselves by the sin. They see it as some defining characteristic and don’t really want God changing those things because they are afraid of what that new person is going to be like. The concept of holiness is foreign to the flesh, yet we are called to holy living. God made that possible through the blood of Jesus.

    You said, “that would mean that every one that was fat, drank to catch a buzz, ever gave in to temptation of someone they should not have sex with, ever smoked dope to help a medical condition … are going to hell”. If those sins are not under the blood, then they are in danger of Hell. I will outline each case you presented and explain why.

    Let’s use fat to describe gluttony. Let’s also make sure we are clear that we mean obese and not just a little heavy set or a few pounds over “ideal” weight. We are taught by God’s word that He indwells the temple and that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefor we should treat our bodies with the same respect that is commanded of the temple. But it goes deeper than that. Addiction to anything is placing that thing ahead of God and therefor breaks the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”.

    Alcohol is a fun one. Anyone that ever tells you that the wine they refer to in the Bible was not fermented is giving you a line. However, the word is clear that you should not allow yourself to become drunk or controlled by the drink. Again, getting drunk is giving over control of your mind to something other than God. Drinking to get that buzz is worshiping a feeling or trying to avoid reality. In either case, that buzz has become more important for the moment than God to the person. Therefor, it is sin.

    Adultery and fornication are easy ones. It takes a conscious decision to sleep with someone ( unless you are drunk off your rocker or stoned). In either one of those cases, drunk or stoned, you have already fallen to sin and are now just seeing how many you can rack up at a time. If you believe in God’s word, then to have sex outside of God’s ordained marriage is to make a conscious decision to break His commands. It is disobedience, yet its worse, it is again placing self before God making self an idol.

    The dope thing is also another easy one. Anytime you give control of your mind to something, you are allowing that substance to be your idol. You are allowing that substance to be your god. Very few that smoke dope do so for medical reasons/comfort. Those that do come to realize that the comfort they feel momentarily is not enough and they find themselves addicted to drugs on top of the illness they are suffering, so it is better that they not have went down that path to begin with.

    God does see us in much the same way as you see your son. But in the same way that your son will grow up and become accountable for his own actions and suffer the consequences of his own actions, the same happens with us in God’s eyes. Kids grow up and make decisions that parents are not necessarily proud of. That does not mean they love them any less. God is the same way. Hell is not a situation where God is saying He does not love you. His word says that He would like us all to be saved. Salvation is our choice however. He’s already paid the price. We have to make the step to claim it (even though we are unworthy). Hell is the consequence of sin. God does not condemn anyone to Hell. Their sin condemns them to Hell. God loved us enough to make a way through the blood of His Son for us to be forgiven of sin and for the sin to be removed. That is the good news. Does that mean we will live perfect lives, no. But we are to live a life of repentance. We are to walk daily with Christ obeying the Word of the Lord and allowing that Word to be lived through us. When we do that, those temptations become small. They do not go away.

    One final thought. Earlier there was some disagreement as to whether or not Jesus was tempted. Matthew 4 is pretty clear on this issue. Now, in context, for Jesus to have had the full humanity experience, temptation had to be part of it. It is amazing if you think about it. We serve a God who loved us so much to lower Himself to be like us to die for us so that we might be saved and might have the opportunity to spend eternity in fellowship with Him. Jesus had to be tempted and had to overcome temptation to be the blameless sacrifice that was needed on the cross.

    I apologize for the lengthiness of this response. You asked some very valid questions in this discussion and did so in a much more respectable way than I am familiar with you using in the past. I commend you for that, and I commend you for taking the time to start reading and examining more. Keep it up. Maybe there is hope for old Wade yet, LOL!

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:35 am

  93. Randy wrote:

    How are homosexuality and bestiality alike in a sexual respect? They are both abnormal sexual relationships. Neither can pro-create. Neither participants in each activity are born to genetically be attracted to the same sex, or animal. However, you would be shocked to hear of a man wanting to marry a dog who he has been having an intimate sexual relationship with for years. Or a 40 year old woman wanting to marry a 5 year old boy who she has been having sex with for 2 years.

    Would these things be considered sick and messed up? Would these people be considered to be sexually “screwed up” and “mentally unstable”? Of course. So, what makes a homosexual disreguard the fact that he is just as “messed up” in his abnormal sexual relationship?

    If your argument is a genetic thing, then argue genetics for serial killers, partakers of bestiality, rapists and child molesters. Sure, their activities are uncommon for the rest of us, but should we argue that they, too, just have genetic problems and have a right to do what they please because that’s a part of their genetic makeup?

    Should we fight for Child-Adult marriage rights and Animal-Human marriage rights? Fight for the right to kill for the murderers? Hook them up with the suicidal, so both sides can have an “out” and it won’t be wrong, but rather “consent”? Where do we draw the line?

    Homosexuality is a choice based on the effects of events that the person has experienced early in life. Just like a murderer. Just like a thief. Just like any sinner who has been effected by the ‘bad’ in life and given into temptation.

    The biggest part to a homosexual getting help is to realize they weren’t born that way. Bad things or unusual circumstances happened that caused them to make their choice of sexuality. It is a sin, just like so many other things we are ALL guilty of. And God (with our determination and love for Him) is the only one who can help us untwist the twisted within us.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 2:57 am

  94. quartet-man wrote:

    Something else I meant to put in my post is that homosexuality is generally a continual sin. Some other sins are not that way. At least not unless we make a conscious decision to do them repeatedly. For instance, slipping and committing adultery (which is bad and can ruin lives) is horrible. Yet, it is different than making a decision to keep doing it because we are made that way and can’t help ourselves.

    Wade, I have to say, your most recent post shows a better attitude than some of your others. :-) We still disagree on several things, but unlike some in the past, you are not “in your face” or taunting / sarcastic etc.

    I would love to see God work in your life. This is sincere and is not said as “holier than thou” or anything. I want Him to work more in my life too. I am certainly not all that I should be and am a work in progress. I know I fall short. I could just see God use you greatly and miraculously. How cool would that be.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 7:24 am

  95. quartet-man wrote:

    #92 I am glad you recognized Wade’s change in attitude too. You and Joe (and probably others I am forgetting) have made great posts here. I meant to say that earlier. Thanks for going through Wade’s list. I simply didn’t have the time. I think we have gone through some in the past though. Thanks too for explaining better what I was trying to say about Jesus’s temptations. The devil tried to tempt Jesus and the Word talks about no temptation has seized us but what is common to man. Jesus was closer to God than any of us, and stronger to resist. I don’t know what might or anything that was truly a temptation to Him, but he had the same attempts at doing so I am sure. The devil tried to tempt His disobeying God, to show His power too soon, to not depend on God for food etc. Perhaps He was hungry and was tempted to give in. He never showed it and came back at him with scripture. However, He showed that it is possible to not give in regardless of whether he was tempted at all to not do so.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 10:11 am

  96. quartet-man wrote:

    #92, I see you used the same scripture reference I was thinking of. :)

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 10:13 am

  97. Smile God Loves You wrote:

    1 Peter 4:18 says “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the unGodly and the sinner appear”.

    Wade (anyone else) you said God was alot like a father who “laughs” at times when his children are disobedient. How does this verse and many others like it, fit into that way of thinking? I’m not being sarcastic here. I truly would love for the Bible to be “looser” on some things i just can’t find it.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 3:52 pm

  98. Joe wrote:

    Smile-

    You are so, so correct. I believe that there is much more to sin than any of us realize. Proverbs states that even the thought of foolishness is sin.

    Wade HAS changed. More sober and sensible-less silly and sarcastic. But your point as to what he has written is well-taken, and he needs to think very seriously about it..

    God gives His people a simple 2-word command. BE HOLY (1 Peter 1:15-16). It is repeated in both testaments. It is not an option, or a considered way of life. It is a command, to prove new life. Those who are either unwilling or unable to so do, yet say they are Christians, are proving that there is no fruit, because there is no root. God has righteously high standards, and we forget all about those. All we seem to care about anymore is fitting Him into our standards, and that’s good enough. And by the way, don’t you DARE judge me!

    The national anthem of hell is “I Did It My Way”. We seem to have arrived at Judges 21:25 all over again.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 5:39 pm

  99. Lisa wrote:

    “Let’s use fat to describe gluttony. Let’s also make sure we are clear that we mean obese and not just a little heavy set or a few pounds over “ideal” weight. We are taught by God’s word that He indwells the temple and that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefor we should treat our bodies with the same respect that is commanded of the temple. But it goes deeper than that. Addiction to anything is placing that thing ahead of God and therefor breaks the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”.”

    Okay, so here ya go: I am five feet and two inches tall. I weigh an ASTONISHING 210 lbs. I walk every day, my blood glucose and blood pressure are within normal ranges, so are my HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. My MD says I am so strapping healthy that he could throw up. For 15 years, (I am 44) I was told over and over that I am obese, that I am unhealthy, that I am in church terms a glutton.

    Except I’m not. I eat three fairly healthy meals a day, very few snacks, no alcohol and I do not smoke. I do not sleep around. I am a very feminine female, who happens to like men quite a lot, yet I have been tagged as all SORTS of things!!!

    I am a unfortunate product of a genetically stocky family. Despite my PRODIGIOUS size, I can still carry off an hourglass silhouette, because that’s how I’m built.

    Not everyone who is fat is a glutton, any more than everyone who is blond(e) is dumb. Some of us have genetic issues.

    PLEASE y’all. If God looks at the heart–why are we so hung on the outside???

    ANY of the things that have been listed are NOT THE BUSINESS OF US ON THIS PLANET…THEY ARE THE BUSINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND GOD.

    Should we not leave it there??

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 8:57 pm

  100. SGmusician wrote:

    #99 Lisa,

    The only reason I used the word fat to describe gluttony is because that is what Wade was referring to when he used the word fat. Don’t be so sensitive. If you are in good health, your weight is a product of your genetics (and that can be proven), and you don’t make a habit of being addicted to food (eating a large Papa Johns pizza regularly in one sitting), then the quote of mine you referenced was not referring to you was it? Don’t get upset and use words out of context. That is why I specifically outline that what I was referring to was the ADDICTION that is gluttony. You should not use scripture out of context, and you should also not use quotes out of context. That just lowers the validity of your argument. Go back and reread the quote again, and you’ll see that I was careful to delineate the difference.

    To answer your question though. You stated:

    ANY of the things that have been listed are NOT THE BUSINESS OF US ON THIS PLANET…THEY ARE THE BUSINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND GOD.

    Should we not leave it there??

    The answer is no. Why, because it is not just between the individual and God. You see, not only are we called to be accountable to each other, we are also called to uphold the image we are supposed to be reflecting. When someone is claiming to be a reflection of that image, and the image they are claiming to be a reflection of is not being reflected, it is up to us as brothers and sisters in Christ to call them on it (hold them accountable). Not only that, when they are claiming to reflect that same image that we are supposed to be reflecting and they are not doing so, it reflects badly on us. It tarnishes or distorts the image. It is up to us as Christians to not only reflect the image properly, but to set the record straight so that a proper representation is available.

    Now, to be clear, I have family members that fall into the same category as you. Their genetic makeup makes them in danger of gaining 5 pounds if they eat a peppermint or smell a chocolate chip cookie, LOL! Are they gluttons, no. The point is, you do your best to take care of the temple. Put God first in your life.

    I would dare say that nearly everything we have discussed would not be an issue if everyone knew how to follow two simple principles.

    “Love the Lord thy God with all your Heart”

    “Love thy neighbor as thyself”

    Those two principles can solve so many of these issues if people would learn what it truly means to apply them.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 10:15 pm

  101. SGmusician wrote:

    I do believe this site has outlived its usefulness. As I said in my first post on this issue, the credibility of this site has dramatically collapsed with the posting of this article by Doug. I will now begin my absence from this site. I have clearly stated the truth, and feel I have done so in a clear and precise way that was easy to understand. I would like to say thanks to those who have provided support and backup. I must now be an example of what I preach. I will not support and condone such actions as those taken by our moderator.

    Wade,

    Again, I am happy you are taking a closer look and I am genuinely very excited to see a new attitude and approach from you. Keep it up.

    Lisa,

    I hope I was not too harsh in my last response to you. My main point is, my words are to be taken at face value and in context. Never try to read anything into them that is not there. That is unfair, and I would not do the same to you and do not believe I have. Welcome back to the Christian walk. It is an interesting one, and one that requires growth. I pray that God will reveal His word and purpose for your life in a very real and understandable way. Maybe oneday God will use you to be instrumental in the conversion of many Buddhist. Keep searching for truth. You will find it in the Word of God. (Bible) Everything there is absolute truth.

    Doug,

    I am praying for you. You are a gifted wordsmith. It is always a shame to see talent that is being so diminished by the destructiveness of a blatantly sinful life. I pray that you have a life changing experience with God who is capable of not only saving you, but delivering you from your sins. The temptations you face will never fully go away, and they aren’t meant to go away. But we are not called to live or be defined by our temptations now are we? I wish you the best. Again, I am praying for you.

    SGmusician

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 10:53 pm

  102. BUICK wrote:

    Since my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, I’ve decided to make mine a mega-church. My basement is really large and I’ve added a bay window. I now have a dome on top, too. But, I take no meds of any sort (OTC or Rx), I can out-work most people half my age. My mind remains sharp (at least I think it does). I don’t think the Lord will measure my care of His temple based on some medical chart. He will evaluate my stewardship of this body based on what I could have done with it. And Lisa (#99) I believe that is true for all of us: what have we done compared to what we were capable of doing. Sounds like you are doing just fine and I admire your seemingly secure self-image.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 11:39 pm

  103. Smile God Loves You wrote:

    Gluttony I don’t believe has to be related to size. It’s about lack of self-control. Just because you have a super high metabolism and you can eat anything you want doesn’t mean you should eat yourself sick at every meal -that’s gluttony. Usually size and gluttony go hand in hand but if you are healthy, watch what you eat and excercise I don’t think you are gluttenous-no matter what your size. Again it’s about “crucifying” the flesh not cursing a body type.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 11:29 am

  104. Marsandonel wrote:

    Nearly one hundred posts and hardly a genuine word about the precious unmerited favor of God.

    Scripture can be quoted and opinions postured but when the rubber meets the road Christians are to be known by the love they demonstrate.

    Remove the plank before attempting to pull slivers. The attitudes of “knowing the answer to questions never faced” is judging. Judging is placing oneself above someone else so one can take authority over them. Parsing words of scripture to justify judging does not assist the person being judged.

    There is very little posted here that woos hurting searching people to turn to God. God is represented as an authoritian eager to punish rather than the One who desire relationship with us.

    Doug demonstrated courage to live with integrity by posting his essay. Integrity won this round.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 11:56 am

  105. JLL wrote:

    re:#91

    Buick,

    If I were criticizing people for commenting on the topic at hand, I certainly wouldn’t be commenting myself. I was wondering why most churches and/or conservative organizations as a whole tend to focus on homosexuality as opposed to other sins, not the commenters on this particular thread.

    Marsandonel, thank you so much! You put into words exactly what I have been thinking reading this thread.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 2:11 pm

  106. Yeah... wrote:

    Marsandonel - How sad that after so many good posts, you had to post that drivel. I quote you: “Remove the plank before attempting to pull slivers. The attitudes of “knowing the answer to questions never faced” is judging. Judging is placing oneself above someone else so one can take authority over them. Parsing words of scripture to justify judging does not assist the person being judged.” Evidently you believe that quoting Scripture is akin to parsing it. And your “definition” of judging is judgmental in and of itself. As I’ve read the remarks here, they aren’t the words of a person judging another… They’re simply the quotes of God Himself, not one person sitting in judgment over another. You’ve missed the entire point of it all. Sad.

    As I also take my leave of a blog that was once quite excellent, I must also mention you, Wade. I join all of the others who have complimented you on what seems to be a very different and excellent attitude. May God bless you as you study, and we pray that your search will result in the greatest joy and fulfillment in your life.

    As I said before, Prof. Harrison, I will be praying that you indeed come to know and experience the saving grace of God. I wish you the best, and promise that I’ll pray for you regularly. You have so much potential, and while I leave here with a sense of sadness that it’s being so wasted by your chosen lifestyle, I also realize that no one is outside of the reach of a loving God.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 2:22 pm

  107. quartet-man wrote:

    #105 JLL, I made a comment earlier on reasons why I think it is. For the record though, homosexuality doesn’t get mentioned hardly at all at my church nor other sins like abortion, adultery, fornication etc. Sometimes they might be alluded to within a sermon or in relation to something else, but not often. That isn’t to say we agree with them or won’t speak out against them, just we have sermons about many other things too.

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 1:17 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

*

*


« RIP, MJ
Songs and Celebrity in American Music »