Speaking the truth in love or hate?

Note: We’re going to give this a fresh start for obvious reasons.

Okay, so let’s deal with one of the most common stones thrown at GCM Watch by its critics. Quite often these accusations of being unloving or hating homosexuals are levied in response to our writings against homosexual behavior. Generally, I torch such comments simply because they contain 100% emotionalism and 0% substance. But I want to hear from those who believe this. I also want to hear from those who believe the church in general is hateful towards homosexuals.

Is there a catch? Yes, there is. I will post the questions in response to your accusations and you have to answer them. If you want to engage in more pointless emotionalism or broad, psuedo intellectualism, your comments won’t be allowed. If you have just caught a boatload of red herrings and you want to sell a couple of them here, keep moving. If you have just purchased your straw man a new Tom Ford outfit, go walk the runway somewhere else. If you have something of substance, and can back it up with something other than “don’t judge”, “youre homophobic” or “where’s your compassion” type writebites, then the floor is yours. This is a discussion in the Christian context, so I’m not interested in hearing about some alleged hate crime by a person who’s never went to church or read the Bible in their entire lives. Im not interested in hearing your conspiracy theories about James Dobson, Tony Perkins, or Exodus. As a matter of fact, Im not interested in unproven theories at all.

If you are going to qualify your accusations of hate, you’ll have to demonstrate that in real terms and with discoverable evidence. Otherwise, I will continue believing what I have previously believed: your accusations are without merit. I’ll continue to believe your accusations are little more than childish gripes because our writings don’t affirm homosexual conduct or your affinities for homosexual sin. That’s simply a pov that I reject as valid.

Having said that, lets open the floor. Here are my questions.

1. What exactly has this site done that can be qualified as hate or hateful against homosexuals, religious or political?

2. According to the Bible, how is hate defined?

3. What neutral criteria do you use to determine if a person is speaking in hate and not in love? Be specific.

4. Explain how a nonbiased person can determine that someone is hateful against homosexuals?

5. Is strong, vocal opposition to an idea, person or organization hateful?

6. How do you interpret Ephesians 4:15?

7. By whose definition and interpretation of love is the Christian church to adhere to?

8. Are you willing to admit that it might be your personal involvement with homosexuality or your personal views that have shaped your criticisms and not any actual acts of hate?

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Speaking the truth in love or hate?

  1. Let me start by telling you that I’m a qualified psychotherapist (London, Relate) now retired. I’m therefore looking not at just what is written but also by the underlying dynamic of the writing. The sub-text if you will. It’s important to look not just at what people say but at what they do as well.

    What exactly has this site done that can be qualified as hate or hateful against homosexuals, religious or political?
    I’ll just give you one quickly snipped form previous posts. You report on Fairfax County Virginia school system uses words such as “homosexual activists” “men pretending to be women” and “homosexuality as the evil.” Each phrase is designed to hurt. You don’t use neutral language. I think that by definition this is filled with hate. These are hate-filled words and phrases designed to hurt. Far from being neutral language the sub-text if easy to read.

    According to the Bible, how is hate defined?
    There are a variety of use of the word. It depends on whether you want to go back to the original Greek of the of the New Testament or to use the Latin translation of it, or again to the Latin and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament. Hate isn’t defined as such and we can only define it ourselves by exegesis.

    What neutral criteria do you use to determine if a person is speaking in hate and not in love? Be specific.
    This is simple. Look at the motives of the speaker. If the words come from feelings of intense or passionate dislike or from a strong aversion to something then it’s hatred being expressed. Specifically ask the question of the speaker/writer. If the answer is of the “Love the sinner hate the sin” type than it’s an instance of reification -self justified reification at that and is an insight into the psychological profile of the exponent. You asked for specificity and I think I’ve given you a good clinical guideline.

    Explain how a non-biased person can determine that someone is hateful against homosexuals?
    If the intention of the writer/speaker is to hurt, disparage or condemn something then it’s likely that the action is hate inspired. Look at the result of the expression and then back at the expressor.

    Is strong, vocal opposition to an idea, person or organization hateful?
    No. In itself it is not.

    How do you interpret Ephesians 4:15?
    You mean “But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—”
    By itself it is fairly meaningless. Taking the chapter as a whole it seems to mean that if you speak with the intention of being loving then that makes you more Christ-like. It follows on from earlier Greek philosophers who thought that the intention of the speaker is more important than the spoken word.. or as Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the massage”

    7. By whose definition and interpretation of love is the Christian church to adhere to?
    That’s entirely up to the individual. It begs the question “Which Christian Church?” There are so many of them disagreeing about what the writers of the Testaments meant that it would be very hard to decide what you mean by “The Christian Church.”

    8. Are you willing to admit that it might be your personal involvement with homosexuality or your personal views that have shaped your criticisms and not any actual acts of hate?
    No. It’s part of a professional skill to be able to take the “I” out of such discourse. No therapist can work effectively without such skills.

  2. Tony, when it comes to the bible your answers become somewhat ambiguous. Im just wondering why that is. You even called Eph 4:16 “meaningless by itself”. Yet, Paul said that all scripture (collectively and individually) is given by inspiration of God. That’s a theologically dangerous position to have when you can relegate any scripture meaningless in any context.

    Having said that, let me respond to just a few of the assertions you brought up.

    (1) Where in the bible does it tell me to use “neutral language” and what is its purpose? I find it interesting that in a world that wants to “keep it real” being real is rejected when it doesnt play to the current social ideology. Particularly on issue relating to homosexuality and gender (per the gay community) there is this demand not to say what is our reality but to acquiese to their reality which if truth be told isnt reality. You say my choice of words are “designed to hurt”. But they are a reflection of uncensored reality.
    If in your view they do not relect the worldview you desire for yourself, that I choose to use them to emphasize my point and sharpen my word picture does not indicate hate.

    (2) Again, I ask what is wrong with having an intense dislike for something? Are you asking holocaust survivors not to have intense dislike for their experiences in nazi Germany? Would you chastise or penalize American blacks for having an intense dislike for racism? Why then is the Christian’s intense dislike for homosexuality and sexual immorality so out of the question? Your answer presumes to know the motives of the speaker. This is impossible and reads into a person’s words based on one’s own predisposed dislike for such words, not the motives of the speaker/writer.

    (3) If any Christian church calling itself a Christian church but does not adhere to the scriptures, they are not Christian but just a group of religious people who like using the name. In plain words, disagreement does not mean disobedience. The church Im speaking of is the one which is faithful to the scriptures. The one that was birthed by Jesus Christ on Calvary. This is not a denominational reference. Hopefully that clears up your misconceptions about the church Im referring to.

    (4) I’m sure your professional skills serve you well in the secular world, but are they equally applicable theologically? I wonder what you would have said to Jesus when he declared to the pharisees, “I and the father are one”. Would you have professionally advised him delete the “I” so as not to upset the pharisees and thus have a smoother discourse with them? They attempted to stone him for those words. John 10:22-33

  3. You wrote at the start of this “If you are going to qualify your accusations of hate, you’ll have to demonstrate that in real terms and with discoverable evidence.”

    I think that the first part of my post covered this. I defined hate by exegesis and located one statement that was congruent with this in your posts. In you second post you agree with this definition by using it. We reached agreement on what we mean. That’s a point to both of us. Now we can continue.

    You refer to your usages as a reflection of uncensored reality. That’s a big role you give yourself. The claim to be able to iterate reality is not one that I’d claim and I think you may want to rethink this. Something along the lines of “my perception” might work – but to claim to be able to define reality is something no philosopher has ever made

    Let’s continue.

    “If in your view they do not reflect the worldview you desire for yourself, that I choose to use them to emphasize my point and sharpen my word picture does not indicate hate.”

    My view does not come in to it. We are looking, at your invitation, at your writings. The emphasis and each “word picture” you use falls within that definition we arrived at and which you do not dispute, namely “ feelings of intense or passionate dislike or from a strong aversion to something.” You write from a basis of hate.

    Nothing is wrong with hate. How it’s expressed… maybe that’s a different matter. I was for many years profoundly Christian and I do not recognize anything Christ-like in your writing. Paul, yes, but not Christ.

    Now I hate broccoli and racism, but on a sliding scale. I avoid broccoli and fight racism, but I do both, I hope, with gentleness. I don’t call for the execution of broccoli growers or racists.

    You hate. It’s a fact. We agree on this. You write, ”Your answer presumes to know the motives of the speaker.” but that this is “impossible.” Not so! Both of us can know the motives of a writer from their words and context. It’s a common human skill and it is what makes communication possible. True some people lie effectively but we use our skills to tease out purpose and motive from what they express. I’m quite neutral about words and neither like nor dislike them. Motives and purpose, yes, those I feel strongly about.

    Don’t be so afraid of admitting to hate. Don’t think it a bad thing – just be honest about it and temper the feeling with good intention.

    Let’s move on.

    You cannot just define what a Christian Church is by yourself. This is Orwellian newspeak. Definitions come from an agreement and consensus.

    Yes, I think that my skills are applicable in all aspects of life. There’s no real division between secular and theological areas except by artificial segregation. We use logic, insight and experience in both.

    Sarcasm such as “I wonder what you would have said to Jesus when he declared to the Pharisees, “I and the father are one”. Would you have professionally advised him delete the “I” so as not to upset the pharisees and thus have a smoother discourse with them?” doesn’t belong here. What are you attempting to do? I read that this is dismissive, uncourteous and disparaging.

    My professional response would have been simply “Tell me more.” I think you misunderstand the therapeutic dialectic. Therapy consists of helping a client or patient find out what is true for them, not the therapist.

    John 10:22-33 “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” That is precisely what you are doing in the hate passages of your writing. To throw stones, hurt and injure people.

  4. Tony, let me get my bearings. Are you personally accusing GCM Watch of being a site of alleged hate? Like I said to Paul, Im not looking for a sideline pundit. If this is your personal conviction, please make that plain.

    We reached agreement on what we mean”

    No, we havent agreed to any of the assertions you have made, only read them and commented on them. So let’s not make any leap of logic that you and I are on agreement on anything so far.

    Now that you know that, I’d like to respond to several of these new points you’ve raised.

    If Im understanding you no person on earth today is capable of defining their reality? You state that its a claim no “philosopher” has ever made. Perhaps you are right, but I am no philosopher, nor am I speaking in philosophical context. That statement by you makes me think we are talking apples and oranges here.

    Ahhh, a point of agreement. Finally. There is nothing wrong with hate. Hate is in the eye of the beholder based on their own preconceived ideas and perhaps experiences. I hate cole slaw. To the degree that I dont even like looking at it. Yet, to another cole slaw is a food which brings joy to their taste buds. Am I to condemn the one who enjoys it because I hate it? While this is acceptable in the human to human relationship, it is much different in our relationship with God. When God declares hatred for something we dont minimize it or refute it because of our affinity for it. We accept his will and conform to it.

    Does God hate? What does the record say?

    Malachi 2:16 ‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel.”
    Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth
    Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity
    Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
    Amos 5:15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

    The expression of hate as you noted is where the problem lies. But accusations against the site because of our fervent and consistent denunciation of homosexuality and the gay christian theology is based on a congruent basis with scripture. Which we have demonstrated also on a consistent basis. If gay christians or you dont like it, that does not qualify it as hate unless such hate is ONLY defined by them and universally accepted by all, including God and the scriptures.

    Not so! Both of us can know the motives of a writer from their words and context. It’s a common human skill and it is what makes communication possible.

    Very interesting tactic to state no individual can define their reality, but then claim a person’s motive’s can be easily discerned simply from their writing. I’ll bet its because agreeing to one would flatten your previous arguements, but I digress. Tony, we have a entire legal industry in this country whose sole job to argue what the framers of the constitution meant when they wrote what they wrote. We even have judges to judge between the two conflicting opinions. And sometimes justice is still not reached. Interpretation is common, but what a person’s motives and meanings were, are up for grabs with no full assurance of agreement. If you dont believe me, why are we even having this discussion? Even with scripture, we are required to engage several disciplines in order to arrive at a balanced interpretation of the writers who were powered by the Divine. Gay christians question the motivation of Paul when he wrote forcefully against homosexuality. Some say it was because of his own so-called “internalized homophobia”. Yet, I believe he was motivated because of a deep love for God’s truth.
    So who’s right, Tony?

    Tony, if you cant handle sarcasm, just say so. You threw up your professionalism as some sort of end all criteria that you couldnt possibly be wrong about what you are saying. I took a shot at it with sarcasm. Arent you mature enough to deal with sarcasm? And if not, then what other acceptable forms of common literary usage might offend you? List them and I’ll try my best to avoid them so as not to sidetrack you.

    I dont misunderstand the therapeutic dialectic. It is simply inapplicable here. Why? Because Jesus was not a therapist or clinical practioner. He operated in the power of the Spirit! He was the Savior and Lord. Vastly different. But again we may be arguing apples and oranges…

    Finally, since John 10 is not to your liking, David killed Goliath with a stone, the Pharisees killed the truthteller Stephen with stones and Jesus referred to himself as an indestructible stone which he built the church on. Any hate comparisons in those?

  5. This all began because you were upset about “accusations of being unloving or hating homosexuals “ and you ask “Are you personally accusing GCM Watch of being a site of alleged hate?”

    Yes. Not just alleged. It is a hate site.

    This is the fundamental. You run a hate site. The God, through the Bible, tells you to hate – so you do. Indeed, you are obliged to do so. That’s the reason for the site. Stop pussyfooting around and be brave enough to accept it. Stop defending yourself against accusations of hatred. You hate everything that that God tells you to. That’s fine. Do just that. You run it on the fundamental instructions that you think God gives you in the Bible. Hate gay people. You do it very well and should take pride in that hatred. It brings you closer to God.

    Now don’t pretend to be shocked and tell me that you love the sinner and hate the sin. That you love gay people and that you have lots of friends who are gay. What you do is express hatred at them directly and believe you have biblical authority – even demands – to do so. You know the word of God and go about doing it. You and God hate gay people. No refutation from me. I agree. The God of the Bible hates gay people and will send them to hell.

    It isn’t consistent to state that “fervent and consistent denunciation of homosexuality and the gay christian theology is based on a congruent basis with scripture … that does not qualify it as hate unless such hate is ONLY defined by them and universally accepted by all, including God and the scriptures.”

    You just defined “ fervent and consistent denunciation of homosexuality” as hate as it is defined by them, you accept it and so, you say, does god and the scriptures.

    What are you arguing about? I agree with you. Your God hates gays, the scriptures tell you to hate gays, you hate gay. Your site proclaims it.

    Here’s the rub, you want to be God-like but not Christ-like.

    YOU also break rules of debate
    You misquote in an attempt to prove your point. Go back and read what I wrote. I did not write that “no person on earth today is capable of defining their reality” I wrote “The claim to be able to iterate reality is not one that I’d claim and I think you may want to rethink this.” Each of us can define our reality but not reality itself as the experience will differ from person to person. We can, however, work together to try and define reality more closely.

    You use sarcasm instead of argument, and then when I point it out throw in a silly defense about my professionalism and the playground “What’s the matter? Can’t take it?”Joke if you want. Sarcasm is juvenile and unworthy of you. I bring in professional skills in the same way that you bring in your pastoral and academic skills. Don’t dismiss them. It’s just plain rude.

    These really are, I’m sure you’ll admit, a little disgraceful.

  6. No, Tony wrong again. I’m far from being as you characterized it “upset”. This is but one of the diverse issues that arise in the course of my duty to preach the gospel without respect of persons. Even Jesus acknowleged his “haters” and told us that if they hated him, they (those who refuse to accept his Lordship) would indeed hate us also. Thus, hatred of my work is an expected reaction which causes me no loss of peace.

    Thankfully, you have openly stated your hate for this site so I know that your comments, unfortunately, are colored by this sentiment.

    Im not sure that you intended to, but you also revealed your hatred for God. Its evident in your words. Im not sure why you would hate someone who sacrificed his life for you, but I know that no amount of professional therapy can save you from your sins, only faith in Christ.

    I have rarely –if ever– used the Christian cliche “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Though true in its context, its nonetheless a cliche I avoid. There are much more vibrant ways to express this foundational truth of scripture I prefer to use. You do err in your attempt to separate God and Christ. They are one and they agree in one. My desire to be like my heavenly Father creates no shadows behind my desire to be more like my Savior and Lord.

    Again, you made your profession front and center in your opening statement. I have not fronted any qualifications per se in this discussion (not a formal debate). I dont disrespect what you do, just want you to know it is not applicable in this discussion. I stated in the post that this discussion was in the Christian context. That means that I intend to bring to bear the scripture as the guiding focus of my views. If you dont want to discuss in that context, then youre welcome to excuse yourself.

    I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. But does your clarification really change anything? I guess your bottom line is you want me to stop doing what I do and saying what I say. And perhaps even the way I say it. I believe my reality is what the scriptures tell me it is. And it is not hate nor hateful to fight against sin. Its not hate nor hateful to defend the integrity of the church. Its not hate nor hateful to be opposed to what God is opposed to and affirm what God has affirmed. That’s my reality and I see no need to change it when it would be denying the what I know to be true. Now, if you want to call it hate, then that’s your reality and you run with it, if it makes your life more fulfilling.

    So, Tony where does that leave you and your accusations of hate? Back at square one.

  7. Oh Dear!

    You seem to have strayed badly off the topic. Suddenly it’s all about me. This is getting tiresome.

    It was, if you remember about “accusations of being unloving or hating homosexuals.” – not about me.

    I’m perfectly happy to discuss things in the context of biblical teaching and I have consistently done so.

    Lets go back to the topic. Again.

    The website you run operates under the auspices of your contextual reading and exegesis of the the Bible.

    Both your God and you hate homosexuals.

    I’ve quoted from your site to point out just one incidence of this. We’ve both quoted from the Bible to point many instances out. Quod erat demonstrandum. What is left to argue about?

    You run a hate site. My hatreds have nothing to do with the original argument.

    I don’t want you to stop doing what you do. It’s very useful, just try and state clearly that you do what you do through a righteous hared.

    You’re almost there, just take the last step.

  8. DL FOster writes: “I guess your bottom line is you want me to stop doing what I do and saying what I say.”

    Joe replies: Acutally no, I don’t want you to stop doing what you do, I want you to change “the method” and the tone of what you do. There is more than one strategy to meet a need. That has been the point all along!

  9. Let me give you a wake up call. Let me, let you hear yourself in a different light. What if we heard all you exact statements but your were a muslim? Would you still sound reasonable and justified?

    It would sound like this:

    “Its not hate nor hateful to defend the integrity of the church. Its not hate nor hateful to be opposed to what Allah is opposed to and affirm what Allah has affirmed. That’s my reality and I see no need to change it when it would be denying the what I know to be true. Now, if you want to call it hate, then that’s your reality and you run with it, if it makes your life more fulfilling. ”

    Doesn’t sound as reasonable or rational when you change just a few words does it. Wonder why that is DL?

  10. I dont begrude any muslim what they believe. I dont believe its truth, and have no problem saying that, but at the end of the day they own it not me.

    As a matter of face, I dont begrudge any atheist what they dont beleive. If you beleive something you should be committed to it and be ready to defend it.

    That used to be an honorable thing.

    I certaininly believe in the Bible, in God who is its author and every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. There’s no need to change it, rearrange it or apologize for it. Not only do I believe it, but my life is wholly tied up in it. His Word is both a lamp and a light.
    And…its a sword

    And I still cant understand why such demands for changing my beliefs are necessary without those who demand it changing theirs. To me, thats total arrogance.

    @ Tony: see you back at square one.

  11. You’re confusing me with Joe Brummer.

    I’m still waiting for a reply.

    I’ll repeat my post.

    Oh Dear!

    You seem to have strayed badly off the topic. Suddenly it’s all about me. This is getting tiresome.

    It was, if you remember about “accusations of being unloving or hating homosexuals.” – not about me.

    I’m perfectly happy to discuss things in the context of biblical teaching and I have consistently done so.

    Lets go back to the topic. Again.

    The website you run operates under the auspices of your contextual reading and exegesis of the Bible.

    Both your God and you hate homosexuals.

    I’ve quoted from your site to point out just one incidence of this. We’ve both quoted from the Bible to point many instances out. Quod erat demonstrandum. What is left to argue about?

    You run a hate site. My hatreds have nothing to do with the original argument.

    I don’t want you to stop doing what you do. It’s very useful, just try and state clearly that you do what you do through a righteous hared.

    You’re almost there, just take the last step.

  12. DL Foster writes: And I still cant understand why such demands for changing my beliefs are necessary without those who demand it changing theirs. To me, thats total arrogance.

    Joe replies:

    You believe the bible as it is written literally. You would also like others to believe that with you. You would us to believe that snakes talk, men live to be hundreds of years old and that a man lived in the belly of a large fish for three days. Those things are very irrational and yes, I would like you to change your beliefs. Call that arrogance or call it fear. It is both. I am terrified that there are people out there who believe this stuff.

  13. Youre terrified??
    You should be. The terror of hellfire and eternal separation from God should be enough to cause anyone to turn away from their sins.

  14. So, are you saying we should be scared into believing?

    Oddly, I am not at all scared of “hellfire” because I don’t believe in it. I don’t believe in anything of the supernatural and devil’s, demons, angels, and gods are about the same as fairies, unicorns and big foot. All supernatural beings that have no evidence.

    I will add to that, and I am always willing to test the premise to all ends. One cannot “choose” to believe in anything. Either you do or you don’t, but one cannot just decide to believe.

  15. Have you given up on the debate?

    GCMW: Tony, other than my wife and children, I try not to let any one person dominate my time and attention. Perhaps there are others who would like to talk with you. That’s perfectly fine with me.

  16. All supernatural beings that have no evidence

    Not all – John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Is this True or is it False? Was there Knowledge (word – root word logos – logic- devine knowledge) in the begining?

    or do you subscribe to this In the beginning there were particles and the impersonal laws of nature and physics.

    These particles, uncaused and undirected somehow became very complex living stuff.

    …and some of these complex living stuffs or things started to imagine there was a God: but the more intelligent complex living stuff thankfully discovered evolution.

    and then consider whether this is True – verse ,b>14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    If John 1 is True – and all the scientific evidence points in that direction – somebody is gonna have a problem – namely those walking in darkness and those who continue to define what is and what is not considered Knowledge. In other words – they hold the keys to Truth. To give away that authority (that power) would indeed be a blow to their philosophy – not their science. I hope you got that – it’s very important. Think about it Joe – Science by its very definition excludes God – which is perfectly OK with me. But what if, and it most assuredly does, all the scientific evidence points to a creator or what folks today call an Intelligent Designer? Then what?

    Will you change your postion? your philosophy?

    The world wants you to buy into its wisdom – and God will most assuredly let you buy it. God will not force you to accept His Truths, but you will absolutely Know – Exactly what you have rejected! You will have rejected John One and replaced it with unthinking matter – uncaused itself to poof itself into thinking matter i.e you and I! There was no Knowledge (the word) in the beginning just stuff. That my friend is what I call blind faith!

  17. DL
    I was reminded of Martin Luther’s words recently – If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

    You brother, keep teaching and speaking the Truth! God’s blessings!

    GCMW: Thanks Mark, you know that I will. Its better to obey God than man. Thats a non negoitable for me.

  18. Mark,
    I don’t even understand your comments. No, John 1:1 is not true of false. It is meaningless unless you can prove the bible is the word of god without using the bible, otherwise it is just words. True or false, it is meaningless to making me believe in god.

    First you have to convince me the idea of god is plausable, then you need to convince me your is any better than the others. Challenge for you Mark: Explain to me why the story of Christ is not unique? Why are there other stories just like his but 1000 years before him? Virgin birth, December 25th birthday, crucified, died, rose three days later, none of those points of the story is unique to christians. WHY?

  19. Ok Joe, you had your say, Mark has had his. We’re not going to go down that road again. I’ve already had to redesignate this post once. Stick to the subject matter or face deletion.

  20. I can’t believe it!

    You gave up!

    Come on. It only takes 5 minutes!

    Or, are we left to think that you have no defense?

  21. GCMW, I don’t think that you are spewing hatred of Gays or homosexuality. I think that some of the comments do come across as being condesending or damning which is fine. This is how you fell and what God is leading you to do. Jesus did not bite his tougue when correcting someones behavior or actions. My question is this, This site is apart of your ministry and as a minister how do you feel that your site is aiding in the deliverance of homosexuals in the body of Christ? just a question

  22. DS, yes there is a distinction to be noted and it has a dual intent which is both offensive and defensive.
    Its model comes from Nehemiah in his rebuilding of the wall. The wall needed to be repaired so that Jerusalem could be rebuilt and repopulated in peace. But with no walls, enemies could attack the work and thus Jerusalem would never be restored. That was Nehemiah’s core mission.

    Here’s the story.

    Therefore our ministry is both a sword and a trowel. One is to fight enemies of the truth which have actively worked to conceal and distort the truth about deliverance from homosexuality and the other is to help those who are seeking that truth. Trust me when I say both are well engaged and I make no apologies for either.

    Thanks for asking

  23. Hi, GCM!

    Love your site, intent, content, etc., visit it almost daily. Appreciate your personal testimony. Read your feature article. Bought your book.

    However (uh-oh!), I have found that your comments and responses are occasionally condescending, sarcastic, maybe even a little petty (sometimes).

    As an evangelical, Spirit-filled Christ-follower with an absolute Truth worldview found in the Bible, I am on your side as it relates to homosexuality and all its issues. Better yet, we are both on the Lord’s side. But I think we can speak/share Truth without sarcasm, condescension, smugness, etc. and it still be just as effective. Perhaps even more so. Excuse my French, but the “butt-naked” Truth is more powerful and effective than any dull-edged literary sword.

    This is just for your consideration, my brother. A little constructive criticism shared in love. Keep on doing what you do — you have a cheerleader in Texas!

  24. Hi Cherrie, thanks for all your support. And criticism welcome.

    In some posts I admit there will be smatterings of occasional sarcasm, smugness, condescension and pettiness than others.

    Its just humanity creeping out. And…you know there’s a whole lotta “Alamo” in us Texans.

Comments are closed.