In Reply to: Re: Has anyone read this book? posted by OldtimerToo on August 06, 2004 at 16:26:14:
From a mainstream evangelical Christian point of view, choices I have made in my life pretty much put me in the "lost soul" category. What you term "pro-homosexuality" would be probably one of those choices, although I don't know what you mean by that term. From what I've posted here lately, my position is that I favor the right of human self-determination.
Guess what? I also believe heterosexuals should get decide for themselves whether or not they want to enjoy the social & economic privileges that come with marriage, a secular institution that is regulated by the state first and foremost and secondarily by some churches, but not all. I don't discriminate between homosexuals, bisexuals, ambisexuals, trans-sexuals and trans-gendered, or heterosexuals and queers on the fundamental human right of self-determination, and I believe in the separation of church and state.
I'm not a psychologist, but I am well-versed in theories of social psychology. My PhD is in social work. I do mental health services research. By "mental health services" I mean evidence-based treatment of brain diseases (like schizophrenia, bipolar disease) that substantially impact human normative behavior and social functioning. I do a lot of statistical analysis, and I am trained in scientific method. I don't believe that the constructions of reality derived through scientific method are the only intellectual realities that matter, but they are the only ones that are provable.
I'm not really that interested in tinkering with what I call the "secrets of the soul" or the mysteries of the psyche. However, I would agree that there are some basics of good mental health that many people need to learn about, and I don't think that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means an individual has automatically acquired good mental health habits any more than s/he has acquired good physical health habits as a consequence of that particular spiritual awakening or subsequent training in scripture and doctrine.
I'm not willing to speculate on who is or is not a "true" Christian. I don't believe I have been given the right to judge who another person is in the sight of God. So I don't get into speculating about whether people in The Family are Christians or not. It gets back to that pesky self-determination thing--you get to determine for yourself what you are or who you think you are. If you say you're a Christian, I'll take your word for it--even if you don't act the way I believe Christians are supposed to act. Lucky for you, I don't happen to think my understanding of scripture and Christian faith has given me property rights on truth.
In my ethical system, no one but me & my Higher Power gets to determine who I am or what I am in the sight of God. If you believe your particular understanding of scripture or infilling of the Spirit gives you the ability or authority to make a judgement about whether I am really a true Christian or in fact a lost soul who dabbles in gnosticism, fine and good, but be aware that I may feel annoyed by what I perceive as arrogant behavior on your part. And if that annoyance reaches the point that I feel like you may be a insensitive blockhead about respecting boundaries, then I'm going to remind you about where the boundaries are.
Whether or not a person is an atheist, a true Christian, a lost soul, a Family disciple, a homosexual, a Republican, or a Viet Nam vet again the war, I believe that certain rules of human decency and civilized behavior apply to every last one of us. One of those rules is this: We all get to live with the consequences of our behavior and our choices in life. The more civil the behavior and decent the choices, the better the consequences.
Being born again as a "new man in Christ" doesn't give anyone an automatic white robe of civility and decency. Buddhists can be civil and decent. In fact, most practicing Buddhists I've met are better at being civil than many evangelical Christians. But I'd say that about Canadians, too, and very few of them are Buddhists. So apparently, being civil has more to do with cultural identity than with religious affiliation.
The point is, anyone can be civil and decent, even Republicans and Viet Nam Vets against the war. We each have to learn how to respect each other's boundaries, and while we're in the process of learning about those boundaries, we all have to live with some the consequences of our misinformed choices and lapses in judgement.