Terrified!
March 31, 2010
Today, Practically-Perfect Daughter went to get her Learner’s Permit (how can that be? She’s only, what, 6?). Last week, she got her first job. In a little over two weeks, she gets her braces off. So let’s see…
She’ll have money, transportation, and good looks.
Color me “terrified”…
The Throckmorton Files: Update 2 of 2
March 30, 2010
Because Ive been fighting fires on other fronts, and because I’ve expected this post to take some time (and because it needs to be given some time), I’ve allowed myself to put this post off for far too long. To refresh your memory, my friend Warren Throckmorton, a Christian psychologist and counselor who teaches at Grove City College, has come under heavy fire from Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, headed by Peter LaBarbera, who has apparently made it his mission to root out heresy (as he perceives it) in all things related to homosexuality. LaBarbera’s website has documented Dr. Throckmorton’s perceived backsliding, and I’ve decided to let Dr. Throckmorton speak for himself on the matter. I believe I know a lot of Warren’s heart on this complicated issue; I was his pastor for the better part of a decade and while he and I may not agree on every point, I find that the charges leveled against him are not only overkill (when there’s the perception of blood in the water, there is a segment of professing Christians who feel the need to move in for the kill, and clarity and precision and, ultimately, truth get lost in the shuffle), but in some instances, clearly misrepresent what Warren believes.
I asked Warren some questions that I feel allow him to express his own beliefs in his own words. One more aside before we get into it: in this current climate, where some well-meaning folks are being stirred up by this rabble-rousing, Warren is well-advised to say less rather than more, and I think we can all understand this, because we’ve likely all had similar experiences in life: a person is out to get us, and anything/everything that we say or do is twisted and turned into more evidence to convict us of whatever egregious sin this person has pre-determined us to be guilty of. With that in mind, a few questions:
Warren, would you classify homosexual behavior as sinful?
While I recognize and respect differing views regarding the morality of homosexual behavior, my personal view is that sexual behavior outside of marriage, including homosexual behavior, transgresses what I believe is taught by the Bible.
You’ve been criticized by some because they apparently believe you’ve “gone soft” on this issue. What is the basis for the way you approach the issue of homosexuality?
I believe that all people are formed in the image of God and as such deserve to be treated the way I want to be treated, with respect, civility and dignity. This is foundational for dealing with all people and forms a graceful response in keeping with Romans 2:4.
It’s been alleged that you believe that homosexual behavior might be OK for some people, in the sense that it’s not sinful. How do you respond to that?
My personal view would not allow for that. In my opinion, those making that allegation fail to respect the freedom to make moral choices.
Where’s the rub, then?
Counselors cannot dictate to people what they should believe. I wrote about this here: An Answer to Critics
Can you explain, in laymen’s terms, this whole “Sexual Identity Therapy Framework” that seems to be at the heart of the dispute?
These ethics codes apply to health and mental health care providers who enter into professional contracts with clients, may be receiving reimbursement for services from third party or government payers, and are often regulated by state certifying agencies. In other words, these relationships are regulated by several state and federal laws which require sensitivity to activities which could be coercive and damaging to clients of all belief systems. Christians who are professionally trained and credentialed are not exempt from these considerations because they of their religious beliefs and loyalties. The sexual identity therapy framework was written with this professional audience in mind.
As a pastor, its important to me that I tell the Biblical truth to everyone—including those struggling with homosexuality. Is there a difference, then, between how you would approach counseling in the mental health field, and how you might advise me to approach it as a pastor?
Of course, pastors and ministries are going to promote a Christian ethic. Counselors may work within the Christian framework of their clients with consent of the clients. If a counselor finds he/she cannot work within the belief system of the client, then a referral to another counselor is a viable option.
One of the more interesting charges is that you’ve lost faith in God’s ability to change people. This seems to stem from your observation that change of sexual orientation seems to be fairly rare—though not by any means unheard of. How would you address this charge?
God redeems people and makes them alive to God. That is the most profound change. I said it this way on my blog:
“Regular readers of the blog will understand the difference between the change and congruence paradigms of sexual identity ministry. The change paradigm seeks change of orientation as a goal and a standard of success. Some who hold to this paradigm believe that such change is an indicator of spiritual growth and what is known in Christian theology as sanctification i.e., becoming holy and without sin.
“On the other hand, the congruence paradigm seeks alignment with ones understanding of Christian teaching. Change in the direction of essential attractions is viewed as infrequent and may actually be better described as better behavioral control. A smaller subset of those people may change their attractions in a more dramatic and abrupt manner. This latter experience may be more common among women than men. Whether it happens or not is not deemed important to the objective of congruence. An assumption is that essential human desires are not likely to change much in this life and so the objective is to align behavior and will to Christian teachings. The congruence paradigm defines change in ideological terms with meaningful cognitive and behavioral implications. Being converted to Christianity or experiencing a recommitment to ones faith is a profound change and from the perspective of my Christian tradition is the most important kind of change.
“So this accusation that I have lost my faith in God’s ability to change people is flat wrong. It also ignores the body of my work and efforts to bring evangelical concerns to the professions. I have been working to make the professional bodies aware that religious identity is powerful and for many evangelicals so vital that it overwhelms all other considerations.
“The chair of the recent American Psychological Association task force on sexual orientation acknowledged this in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, entitled A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity:
“‘We’re not trying to encourage people to become ex-gay, said Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA’s task force on the issue. ‘But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else.’”
So I make sure I get it, it seems that what you’re saying is that for some folks, those who advocate what you term a change paradigm, a person with homosexual attractions must no longer feel those attractions in order to grow in sanctification, whereas your belief in a congruence paradigm means that you consider it less important and not to be expected as normative that an individual’s orientation would change, but rather that that individual would bring his behavior in line with the Bible’s prohibition on homosexual activity. Did I get that right?
Yes, for the person who holds to the conservative Christian view, the congruence approach would stress alignment of behavior with Christian teaching.
Finally, a hot-button issue in contemporary American society is the whole idea of “gay marriage”. Where do you come down on that issue?
I oppose same-sex marriage but believe the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions. Eventually, I suspect the Supreme Court will decide this issue as a matter of law.
Thanks, Warren, for answering those questions.
Well, folks, there you have it, straight from the doctor’s mouth. Now, we might have a disagreement or two; personally, I’m not settled yet on the issue of “civil unions”; I think my preference would be that the government would get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. You may not like his stance on some other things, but everything he’s said seems eminently-reasonable to me. He believes in God’s power to change individuals (as do I)—no “change” in his position there. It’s his professional observation—and he’s far more qualified than either myself or Peter LaBarbera—that most people do not change as to their sexual desires. It’s his position—and mine—that that fact alone has nothing to do with a person’s sanctification, in the same way that an unmarried heterosexual widower—Scripturally-prohibited from a sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage—can “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ”, despite being wired—sometimes, powerfully tempted—toward a sexual liaison. Professional counselors have codes of ethics by which they have to abide—and a Christian counselor under that authority is no less bound to those codes of ethics than any other.
And so, to answer Mr. LaBarbera and others whom, it would seem, want to shed a lot of heat—but not necessarily a lot of light—on this sensitive subject, it’s been good to hear Dr. Throckmorton out. Seems like we’d sure save ourselves a lot of trouble if we’d be more careful to listen, and less quick to condemn on the basis of half-truths…
The Definition of “Too Much Time on His Hands”
March 30, 2010
What I’d Ask Amy Grant
March 30, 2010
Can of worms alert: if you’re not in the mood to get into something that might get uncomfortable, perhaps you’d better go here. Have a nice day.
My daughter’s favorite radio station is The Fish 104.7. It’s a nice-enough joint, I guess; I listen along sometimes. I will even play real, real nice and resist the incredible urge to do a riff on their tag line: “Safe for the Whole Family”. I won’t even ask the question, “is Jesus really safe?” Or, maybe I just did…but go write your own post; that’s not what this one is about. No, instead of opening that can of worms, I’m going to open a different one, brought on by The Fish’s promotion of Amy Grant, who’s in town at Family Christian Stores—resist, Byron, resist the urge to do a riff on how much is “Christian” about Family Christian Stores—OK, urge resisted, that can of worms left to be opened by somebody else.
Ah, Ms. Grant. A little history, here: when I went off to Bible college, I believe the first cassette (remember those?) I purchased was Ms. Grant’s first album, a self-titled offering that was what I think you’d call “Bubblegum Pop” as to its styling, a fun little thing with some songs that ranged from the silly (“There’s a grape, grape joy in Jesus, in the vineyard of the Lord”) to the more serious, I guess (“The Lord has a will, and I have a need, to follow that will…”). Funny…go looking for that album now, and you get the new, updated cover art (considerably more flattering than the original cover art—but I’ve reproduced the latter). At any rate, 
I loved Amy, scarfed up her stuff, overlooked some things that I didn’t care for so much. After all, Amy was my age (she turns 50 this year, two-and-a-half months after I hit that same milestone; I’m going out on a limb to say that she wears those nearly-50-years a little better than do I, though if I had her stylists and beauty consultants…never mind). To this day, if you asked me what albums I loved the most, of all I’ve ever owned, I’d have to put “Straight Ahead” and “Lead Me On” very, very high on that list.
At any rate, I stuck with Amy, even when she admitted that sometimes she was…well, let’s say she used a word that indicated she sometimes felt in a way that would indicate she’d like to have sex (shocking! Christians sometimes feel that way? My word…), and even when she said that she enjoyed a beer sometimes (what? A Christian? No!). I’ve seen her in concert on several occasions, and on the last occasion, at a Christmas concert sometime in the late 90′s, I actually got to go backstage and meet her, had my picture taken with her, etc. Yeah, there we are, me and Ame, smiling like old buds. 
We make quite the couple, eh? Golly, did I look like a goof…
OK, so holding all that history in mind, fast-forward to a few years ago. Amy and her husband of many years, Gary Chapman (saw ‘em in concert, in Roanoke, when they toured together, prior to them being husband and wife; in keeping with the theme of “Amy is just a step behind Byron Harvey in life”, she and Gary were married the day after Karen and I), had had some marital struggles, fueled in part by some serious substance issues Gary was dealing with (and about which he has been candid, to his credit). We’re all sinners; we all struggle with stuff; Jesus loves us all in spite of, not because of, our junk. Gary and Amy are no different in that respect.
But Amy chose to divorce Gary. Now, in one very real sense, that’s just none of my business, or yours. None…in one sense. What goes on in their home doesn’t affect me, except that any time a professed Christian marriage fails, it’s a shame, and casts a negative light on the name and cause of Christ. Her rationale was the oft-repeated refrain of “irreconcilable differences”, and I’ll again use exemplary restraint with regard to my feelings on that term, except to say that in a marriage between Christians, there is no such thing. I say that granting immediately that it certainly “takes two to tango” when it comes to marriage, that there is such a thing as an “innocent party” (not a “perfect party”, of course, but in our parlance, an “innocent” one), that marriage is tough enough when two sinners are married to each other in Christ, and it’s gotta be just incredibly difficult under other circumstances. But back to the point of this paragraph: in one sense, the circumstances of their divorce is none of my business.
But in another sense, the circumstances of their divorce is very much my business, and the business of every Christian who does things like listen to The Fish 104.7, or who frequents Family Christian Stores, etc., and it is this: while Christians, sadly, get divorced all the time, the standard is higher for those who would profess to stand and sing—or teach—or preach—for Christ. Now, I’m open to the argument that the standard isn’t as high for someone such as, say, Ms. Grant as it is for me in that regard; I’m not sure I buy it, but I’m open to it. Fair enough. But what I’m not open to is the uncritical acceptance and promotion of any person—Amy Grant, Billy Graham, Byron Harvey, anybody—as a qualified and fitting promoter of Christian faith. And that’s where the rub comes in. But I’m still not ready to answer the question I raised in the post’s title, because I want to be perfectly, crystal clear before I do:
- I do not in any way, shape, or form sit in judgment upon Ms. Grant’s eternal soul. In fact, I accept her profession of Jesus as Savior. One might argue that there is evidence to the contrary, but there’s evidence to the contrary in every Christian’s life—mine included—and so this post is categorically not about calling her salvation into question.
- I do not claim to have detailed knowledge of her circumstances. What I have are questions, nothing more and nothing less, questions which have never, to the best of my understanding, ever been answered (and I have sought answers; that’s a different post). Questions which ought to be asked of Ms. Grant, yea, of anybody in this situation. I do not have answers—but the questions need to be asked, at least before uncritical allegiance is given.
- I do not make the claim that Ms. Grant’s subsequent remarriage to Vince Gill constitutes adultery. I’ll refer you to the previous bullet point. It might constitute adultery, but it’s possible that she had Biblical grounds to divorce Mr. Chapman; I simply don’t know. Do know this: if she didn’t have such grounds, then she is living in an adulterous situation. Once again, let me be clear: there are many, many professing Christians who are in this situation, and many, many professing Christians who have repented of that sin, and it is my counsel to them—and to Ms. Grant, if this is her situation—to remain now in that situation, because another divorce is not the answer. But my point is, I don’t know.
And that’s just the point: I don’t know. You don’t know. And some things about the situation, I don’t care to know, don’t deserve to know, shouldn’t know. But prior to encouraging my daughter to listen to Ms. Grant’s music; prior to buying her music myself (and I’m sure it’s beautiful, particularly given my educated hunch that she’s mellowed musically through the years, matching my mellowed tastes); prior to endorsing her in doing what she’s doing, there are some questions that, in my judgment, need to be answered. Indeed, the failure to ask such questions strikes me as a prime example of one of the most devastating plagues currently…plaguing…the evangelical movement in America: an appalling lack of discernment. Ironically, The Fish 104.7 was soliciting “Questions for Amy Grant” this morning.
So you know, I was a good boy…
But here are the questions I’d ask Amy Grant:
- Amy, did you have Biblical grounds to divorce Gary Chapman? I won’t go here into what those grounds are; those of you who are believers probably (hopefully) have some idea of what they might be, even if we might differ on certain particulars. Now obviously, if her answer were “yes”, most of the follow-up questions would be rendered moot. I’ll actually assume a “yes” answer for the next question, and a “no” answer for the rest.
- Amy, was your relationship with Vince Gill completely aboveboard during your marriage to Mr. Chapman, and would an independent, knowledgeable observer of it agree that it was? Again, I stress that I do not know the answer; these are questions, folks. I raise this one, though, because her former husband has suggested this not to be the case. He could be lying. He could be bitter. But isn’t the question worth asking?
- Assuming a “no” to the first question (as I will do from here on out), Amy, what kind of accountability to a local church—and its leadership—was in place in your life during the period that led up to, and included, your divorce—and did you submit yourselves fully to this authority? This question is critical, and ought to be critical for all believers: under whose authority—real, legitimate, Biblical authority with teeth in it—do you live? Are you part of a church, Christian, that is willing (if need be, perish the thought) to kick you out? If not, you have two legitimate options: one, demand of leadership that it changes its ways such that it becomes a church willing to kick people out, or two, leave that church and find a real one. Yes, you heard me.
- Amy, did a church work with you through the process of repentance, confession, and restoration—and then did that church pronounce you restored, and ready again to minister publicly? If so, what church is that? There is not a bone in my body that believes that a divorced person is forever disqualified from ministering, depending on the circumstances, of course (which again, we won’t get into here). But when a person sins so publicly, there must be real repentance and restoration; absent and until this, the person is disqualified from holding such a public position of Christian leadership (check that: delete “public”).
- Amy, particularly given your high profile, do you have an ongoing accountability relationship even now with a church/its leadership whereby you are held accountable? This question relates to the possibility that she’d fall again into the same sin—and to what would keep her from again tarnishing the reputation of Christ in this way (again, I’m only assuming a “no” to the first question, not making any judgment).
- One more question, Amy (and I ask this to any Christian radio station/publisher/bookseller that would promote her): if a young lady were facing the exact same circumstances as you did in your marriage to Gary, would you counsel her to take the same action you did—and can you justify this Biblically? This goes to questions of “hero worship”, and to her current fidelity to the Scriptures. If Ms. Grant is indeed ministering for the Lord, then she must be in line with clear Bible teaching. This question goes to that.
The deeper point isn’t really about Amy Grant at all; it’s rather about some other things:
- Our obsession as evangelicals with the bigger, the “better”, the more glamorous, the “we’re as hip and cool as the world”—and the way that causes us to gloss over and/or excuse failings in the lives of our “heroes”;
- The lack of accountability on the parts of so many of our “heroes”, our “Christian radio stations”, our publishing houses, our “Christian” booksellers;
- The glaring lack of discernment that is being fostered by some of the above, and complicit in this are a good percentage of churches and Christian leaders that just look the other way, at best;
- The woeful ecclesiology of many (dare I say, most?) Christians, such that the local church is effectively superfluous.
I tried once to address some of these issues with several different folks, including a church that was hosting her concert in the Pittsburgh area (I got what was, effectively, a pleasant brush-off). I tried to address them with the general manager of the Pittsburgh equivalent of The Fish 104.7; for my trouble, I got the nastiest email I’ve ever received in my life (and frankly, it’s not even close). I tried a couple of other routes—but everybody wants to sweep questions like these under the rug. It’s easier just to turn the music up and sing along, apparently…
I want to close with a few words directed toward Amy Grant (not that I believe she’s reading—though she oughta be, right? If so, hey Amy! Remember me?): first, I rejoice in the common salvation that I believe we share in Jesus Christ. I do not hesitate to call her “sister”. Second, I am thankful for how her music ministered to me for many, many years. “Grape, Grape Joy in Jesus” didn’t do much for me, but Michael Card’s “El Shaddai” played in my head over and over; “Sing Your Praise to the Lord” reminded me to do just that; about 2/3 of the Lead Me On album hit me from every which angle and both ministered to me and pummeled me around a little bit. And I could go on in that regard, though time has faded some of those songs from memory, and it’s been years since I’ve listened. Third, her gifts and talents can, and will, be used by God as they have been. God uses frail people such as us, warts and all. If He can use me… Fourth, these questions, if she’s never answered them (and I’m not aware that she has), need to be answered, and maybe some more. What a testimony of God’s grace could be wrought from “coming clean” on these issues. Finally, God’s grace is where it’s at; it’s what it’s all about. It’s available and lavish and undeserved and costly and free at the same time, and without it, we’re all sunk. With it, the words of “1974″ ring again so true:
Purer than the sky,
Behind the rain.
Falling down all around us,
Calling out from a boundless love.
Love had lit a fire;
We were the flame.
Burning into the darkness,
Shining out from inside us.
Stay with me.
Make it ever new,
So time will not undo,
As the years go by,
How I need to see
That’s still me.
“Unfriended”
March 29, 2010
I got “unfriended” from Facebook the other day—by a guy I consider a friend, and he had the guts to write and tell me why. An aside before I get into that: I’ve never “unfriended” anybody, but I’ve “friended” people whom I really have to stretch to call “friends”, not that I have anything against them, but because the connection is so tenuous that…well, I might do some “unfriending” myself. I don’t accept every friend request; if I honestly don’t know the person from Adam’s housemaid, then I ignore the friend request, which I did twice in the past day. Some folks, of course, “friend” every person who requests it, even if they have never had any connection with the person. I don’t get that. I don’t know why anybody would want to “friend” me if I have zero connection with the person; I sure don’t.
But I digress. As I said, this friend “unfriended” me over some of the posts I’ve made on this blog, not because they’re on this blog, but because through a utility known as Wordbook, my blog posts—including this one—will be automatically published to Facebook. He comes from a different political persuasion than do I (hey, he needs to read what I write, huh?), but his point was that in some posts, I’ve gone over the line in my terminology, in using what he calls “intemperate language”, and what particularly cheeses him is the fact that on Facebook, some (not a lot) of my friends are kids, but even there, my posts show up on the sites of all my friends, and are thus seen by friends of friends, many more of whom are likely kids. That’s his beef.
And he’s right.
I went back and looked at two months’ worth of posts, and found two posts that, in my mind, clearly went over the line in this regard. They have both been removed. Both were posted in my frustration, in relation to Obamacare, and I have made no secret of the fact that while I very much favor health care reform, wholeheartedly oppose this plan, for a variety of reasons. All well and good—but it is incumbent upon me to phrase my opposition—even as I might employ cynicism and other rhetorical devices—in such a way that I maintain appropriate respect for the principles involved. Even when I believe they have acted dishonestly, or have breached integrity—and I have plenty of examples which I’d point to to prove, to my satisfaction, that this has been the case—I still need to be careful in my language. I have not been, in at least those two examples, and thus they’re gone, though one can’t put the cat very well back into the bag vis a vis Facebook. Further, I’m engaged in a great, constructive conversation with my “unfriend”, in which I’ve asked him to look through his lens and give me additional feedback. Funny…my “unfriend” is acting like a true friend in doing this for me…
And so, I’m going to try, given this perspective, to apply a new test to the wording of my posts: call it the “Little Eyes are Reading on Facebook” test. I’ll still be strong in my criticism of whatever needs criticizing, IMHO—but I’m going to try to do a better job of engaging in it in a civil manner. Funny…or sad…I decry the devolution of civility in public discourse—but maybe I’ve done some things to contribute to it. I’m sorry for that.
James reminds us that the tongue is a mighty flame, and a great fire can be kindled by it. The pen—or the pixel—is as well. That’s something we all could stand to remember, be our ideology conservative, liberal, libertarian, you name it. I know I need to. Thanks, “unfriend”, and I look forward to our ongoing conversation—even if I need to be further taken to the woodshed…
Yeah, it’s the Conservatives Who are the Nasty Ones
March 26, 2010
Listen to the loving, tolerant words of some liberal named Mike Malloy.
Who?
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
