Homosexuality. The word stirs many reactions today. Many Christians who don’t know homosexuals personally, remain puzzled and scared by this term. Many suspect the word does not picture a reality, only an intentional perversion of God’s created order. Pat answers are easy, and when it comes to homosexuality a simple Bible-based condemnation seems all that is in order. It is easier and more convenient for us to file the word, and whatever reality it represents, away into a tidy corner — far away from our experience.
But in today’s world, we can no longer afford to ignore homosexuality. It is all around us, and if we open our eyes, we’ll see it is affecting people we rub shoulders with at work, it’s in our children’s schools, and even has entered our churches. The debate is here, and more. It’s not just a debate, there is a secret battle being waged in countless hearts around us. A battle to believe in Jesus despite personal homosexual attractions.
When the church takes a very public, vocal and aggressive stance against homosexuality and perceived encroaches on the church’s favored family ideal, we inadvertently make it hard for those among us struggling with identity questions of their own. On the other hand, when churches change their message, dismissing Biblical statements condemning homosexual practices outright, or employing some cunning and inventive “exegesis”, the core of Gospel truth is betrayed. And any message left over is spiritually bankrupt. What is needed is a careful balance between a Scriptural approach to homosexual practice as sin, and a gracious acceptance of sinners who are struggling to follow Jesus.
That balance is hard to achieve and frankly, quite rare today. Consider the words of an anonymous Christian who struggles with homosexuality:
What if the church were full of people who were loving and safe, willing to walk alongside people who struggle? What if there were people in the church who kept confidences, who took the time to be Jesus to those who struggle with homosexuality? What if the church were what God intended it to be? (pg. 113)
This perspective may be new to many of us. When is the last time that you or I have known someone struggling with homosexuality? Not one given over to it, but one who professes to be a Christian yet openly admits to struggles in this area? What would it be like to be a Christian struggling with this? Can you even be a Christian if you experience homosexual desires? Isn’t Jesus supposed to miraculously heal you of such a warped perspective?
In a new book from Zondervan, Wesley Hill bravely steps forward to share his own journey with us. In Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality Hill tells the story of his life-long struggle with homosexuality. He shares the hopes and struggles, the loneliness and longing, the despair and perplexity that is life for homosexual Christians. What Hill has to say needs to be heard throughout the church today. His honesty and candor, and his gospel-centered, graceful, hopeful perspective make the book a joy to read. He offers hope for all who struggle against sin this side of the resurrection.
The book is well-written and captivating. Hill finds the right balance in conveying what it is like to think like he does, and feel like he feels, without dragging the book down into a cesspool. He keeps the story moving and intersperses reflections on the testimony of other self-professed Christians who struggled with homosexual desires.
Hill grew up in a Christian home, went to a Christian school and went to a Christian college (Wheaton). He even pursued Christian ministry. He would appear a typical conservative-minded Christian from a loving home. But he learned as a young teenager that something was different with him. He had no sexual attraction for women, at all. Instead, his feelings were directed toward the other sex for apparently no reason that he has yet been able to discover. One story he tells captures his reality well. He was attending a dance at a friend’s wedding. A friend, set him up to dance with a gorgeous girl. And yet even in close quarter with this stunning beauty, he felt no attraction. Instead his eyes were wandering against his will to a man across the room who he couldn’t help but notice.
Hill’s story goes on throughout the book. He is still young (in his late twenties) and realizes he doesn’t have all the answers. But he hopes his story helps others like him come to grips with who they are, and the calling Christ has for them. Hill realizes that some homosexual Christians do experience a healing of their broken desires. But many do not. He writes for “homosexual persons who have tried — and are trying — to ‘become heterosexual’ and are not succeeding and wonder, for the umpteenth time, what exactly it is that God wants them to do.” (pg. 19)
Hill’s testimony of the struggle and perplexity that surrounds homosexuality, helps explain the attraction of homosexual accommodation by the Church. It’s surely easier to remain connected with one “soul-mate” than to struggle against one’s natural impulses. Hill observes:
Occasionally it strikes me again how strange it is to talk about the gospel — Christianity’s “good news” — demanding anything that would squelch my happiness, much less demanding abstinence from homosexual partnerships and homoerotic passions and activities. If the gospel really is full of hope and promise, surely it must endorse — or at least not oppose — people entering into loving, erotically expressive same-sex relationships. How could the gospel be opposed to love? (pg. 56)
Hill goes on to challenge this “easy way out.” He explains how and why abstinence from forbidden pleasures is essential to upholding the true Gospel. “One of the hardest-to-swallow, most countercultural, counterintuitive implications of the gospel is that bearing up under a difficult burden with patient perseverance is a good thing.” (pg. 71).
Hill’s struggles bring alive the hidden suffering of Christians struggling with this sin. There is an intense loneliness. First, it is hard to share with other Christians that you struggle with this issue. Second, if you agree that abstinence is God’s will, you will pull back from non-sexual relationships with others of the same sex for fear of temptation or rejection (if they knew the real you). Finally, for those who cannot just “switch” their inbred sense of attraction, for those who cannot just “become heterosexual”, or those who through long years of effort find they cannot, these are faced with a lonely future with no possibility of waking up next to the one you love and sharing life together. Hill shared some of his personal diary notes on this point: “And don’t you think we’re wired (Genesis 2!) to want the kind of companionship that can only come through marriage?” (pg. 106).
An even more devastating point comes in Hill’s discussion of lust. He quotes Dallas Willard to the extent that to merely look (or see) and desire someone sexually is not wrong. Rather, looking to desire someone is wrong. The second glance is the one with evil intent. Hill shares what it feels like to “look and desire” in a homosexual way, and how this is even more hopeless than those who struggle against inordinate heterosexual desires:
For me and other gay people, even when we’re not willfully cultivating desire, we know that when attraction does come — most of the time, it could be as unlooked for and unwanted as it was for me that day on the dance floor at my friends’ wedding reception — it will be attraction to someone of the same sex. And in those moments, it feels as though there is no desire that isn’t lust, no attraction that isn’t illicit. I never have the moment Dallas Willard describes as “looking and desiring” when I can thank God that he made me to be attracted to women… Every attraction I experience, before I ever get to intentional, willful, indulgent desire, seems bent, broken, misshapen. I think this grieves [God], but I can’t seem to help it. (pg. 136-137)
This experience of brokenness and uncontrollable desires is not uncommon. Hill speaks for many when he writes these words. Hill quotes Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust, “There are probably nearly as many Christians with homosexual feelings who do not believe that homosexual sex is right for Christians as there are those who are advocating its acceptance.” (pg. 16)
The beauty of this book is that Hill not only describes the struggle, he also explains how he has found peace with the burden. His “life as a homosexual Christian… has simply been learning how to wait, to be patient, to endure, to bear up under an unwelcome burden for the long haul.” (pg. 50). Rather than seeing his struggles and shortcomings as “confirmations of [his] rank corruption and hypocrisy”, Hill has gradually learned to view his journey “of struggle, failure, repentance, restoration, renewal in joy, and persevering, agonized obedience — as what it looks like for the Holy Spirit to be transforming me on the basis of Christ’s cross and his Easter morning triumph over death.” (pg. 144). His insights on sanctification deserve to be quoted in full:
The Bible calls the Christian struggle against sin faith (Hebrews 12:3-4; 10:37-39). It calls the Christian fight against impure cravings holiness (Romans 6:12-13, 22). So I am trying to appropriate these biblical descriptions for myself. I am learning to look at my daily wrestling with disordered desires and call it trust. I am learning to look at my battle to keep from giving in to my temptations and call it sanctification. I am learning to see that my flawed, imperfect, yet never-giving-up faithfulness is precisely the spiritual fruit that God will praise me for on the last day, to the ultimate honor of Jesus Christ. (pg. 146)
What Christian cannot say amen to that? I found Hill’s honesty and frank discussion of his wrestlings against the sinful pull of his soul, inspiring and hope-giving even for broken heterosexuals like me. We could learn a lot from listening to homosexual Christians who are fighting to follow Jesus with a pure heart.
Hill encourages others struggling with this sin to be open about their struggles with others, to seek help, and find a church community to be a part of. Hill’s message also challenges churches today to be a community of Christ-loving people who minister with His gracious hands and loving heart to all those in need around them.
This book packs quite the punch for 160 short pages. It has opened up the struggle of what it means to be homosexual to me in a new way. It gives me hope and confidence that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does work, even for those with such a burden to bear. I pray and trust this book will make a wide impact among churches of all kinds, but especially the more conservative churches.
I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the Gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.
One brief personal note, too, if I may. As I read the acknowledgments, I was delighted to find many names I recognized from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis where I was a member for four years. It’s a joy to think that my former pastor John Piper and the apprentice program he and others have poured their lives into was blessed to make a positive impact in Wesley Hill’s life. It shows that conservative evangelical churches can and do minister to struggling homosexual Christians.
I pray more churches would avail themselves of resources like this book and aim to think through what a full-fledged, Biblical perspective on homosexuality really means. I cannot recommend this book any more highly.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Zondervan direct. An expanded version of this review, with additional resources, will also be available at CrossFocusedReviews.com. Also, see Zondervan’s Engaging Church blog for other reviews of this title.
Bob,
Thank you for this excellent and thorough review. This book looks like a resource that I need. I wish I’d had something like this years ago. I know that I did not handle this issue well in the early years. I know that we have had men in our church who struggled like this. I hope, by God’s grace, we can do a better job helping them in the future.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
Thanks Greg. I agree this is a great tool and opens the door to thinking about how to help those struggling with this issue.
“I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule.”
As a Protestant, I could not disagree with you more here. In fact, it is the very deficiencies of Protestant theology that have given rise to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer movement in the church. I do not see the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic church struggling with this issue; it has already been decided. Because of Protestant’s insistence on individualism (which I affirm), as well as the free church (my own baptist background) idea of a pastor without any accountability here on earth, every minister has set his or her self up as her/his very own pope. Furthermore, the GLBTQ Christian movement does not identify with any Roman Catholic except for the one and only Martin Luther. The Protestant love affair with freedom and private interpretations of the Bible sans accountability is a deficient theology, and it is the primary reason why GLBTQ congregations exist.
I will agree that Protestantism’s individualism can have such consequences. I just happen to think that Protestantism gets it right about the Gospel, whereas Catholicism and Orthodoxy don’t. That being my viewpoint, I have to caution the book on that point. This doesn’t mean I think no true Christians are to be found in those churches, but a self-reliance or ritual-reliance, even a church-reliance is not the same as Christ alone-reliance, which Protestantism at least officially stands for.
This sounds like a very good resource for both, those that are struggling with these temptations and those of us that try to minister to them.
It seems Hill has found a balance of wanting understanding and perhaps acceptance from his christian family instead of demanding rights like so often happens in the more radical element of the homosexual community.
I have often said that it is neither kind nor loving nor christian to act as homosexuality is ok.
And let me add here, sin is a part of this fallen world, I certainly have to reign in my own passions over a number of things in my life, I don’t and have never, struggled with homosexuality, and I can only imagine the difficulties in trying to balance these desires with christianity.
I have suspected for a number of years that the gradual “acceptance” of homosexuality in our culture, adds dramatically to the number of young people that “think” they may be homosexual, then act on youthful impulses, and afterwards begin to “identify” with that group, when they were simply exploring their sexuality.
Anyway good post as usual.
Thanks Greg. I agree that today, people are more likely to call their struggles by the homosexual title. That doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a reality that is homosexuality. And if there is (I think there is), then it’s part of the fallen world and no excuse for the permission to act out those desires in an out-of-bounds, Scripturally prohibited way. Just as our own inbred propensity to sin is no excuse for us to just live it up in whatever sin area that tempts us.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Greg.
Bob
Amen and amen!
Thank you for writing this post.
Christians who struggle with same-sex attractions has been an issue on the top of my list. I’ve been thinking about it. Blogging about it. Reading about it. Communicating with those who struggle with it. I’m even in the middle of reading “Washed and Waiting.”
This post was excellent and I trust the Lord will use it as a means to provoke thought in the minds of Christians and a longing to help those who struggle.
Blessings to you!
~ Heather Joy
Thanks, Heather. Glad it was a blessing. The book is fantastic.
God bless you and your interest in this matter.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
Thanks for the excellent review. This is an issue I wish was given more discussion.
That Scripture condemns homosexuality is not in question. The problem is how the Church deals with the ever-evolving climate of homosexuality in our culture. I believe strongly that collectively we’ve hurt the cause of Christ more than we’ve helped it by taking such a hardline stance.
As a conservative, it pains me to say this, but the monikers of “hateful” and “homophobic” that liberals like to pin on us, are sometimes more accurate than we care to admit. I think people tend to confuse their own disgust with homosexuality and homosexuals with the appropriate Biblical responses. As a result, we’ve alienated our mission field.
I believe your right, Jason. Thanks for sharing.
Note to all: comments sometimes are delayed because my moderation settings are catching these comments (due to the terms discussed in them). Rest assured, I’ll approve your comment as soon as I have a chance to….
Bob,
Can you please tell me which books you have read and by which Catholic theologians? Because several of your statements here cause me to doubt you’ve read very many serious Catholic theologians, but have gotten your understanding of Catholicism mostly from secondary, Protestant, apologetic sources.
Bob,
A good, solid review of a touchy subject. However, just to note, I will have a response up soon about that rather unfortunate paragraph.
[...] circle who are blogging on more fundamental things; however, during a recent review of a book, Bob posted something which I found rather offensive and lacking of genuine Christian reflection: I have but one small [...]
[...] Watts responded to some problematic (and I would add theologically uninformed) statements made by R J Hayton. While RJ is on the conservative branch of the Reformed Christian tradition, anti-Catholicism is [...]
First off, I am not alone in this assessment. Consider Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones: “There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it.” (source)
Secondly, let me be clear. I respect liturgy, and am intrigued to learn more of it. I value a sacramental approach to an extent, “means of grace” terminology is helpful I believe (even though that distances me from my Baptist roots). Third, I am very keen on unity. The unity of the faith is important to me, having come from a quite sectarian, legalistic background. I don’t want to misrepresent people either.
But, you knew there was a but, I cannot extend Christian recognition to Roman Catholics quite yet.
Now, I admit, I haven’t read Catholic theologians. Recommend a good intro on the topic and I will make an attempt to do so. But I don’t think the Reformers and subsequent evangelical leaders are all totally off-base here.
The trappings of the religious system which is Catholicism conspire to cloud out the simplicity of the gospel. Veneration of the saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, the role of priests, the place the Eucharist holds, penance, beads, icons, holy objects — all of these easily vie for central place. The Pope as Father and Vicar of Christ. I can go on and on.
Galatians comes to mind, and not flippantly either. The Galatian heresy added to the Gospel. Circumcision (whether as a religious ritual marker or a religious observance or good deed) was added to the requirements. This was no light matter and called forth Paul’s sharpest rebukes. See 5:2-6 and 1:6-9.
I’m not afraid to follow Paul in this regard. If you think Paul was mistaken, then so am I. I hold the 66 books of the Bible to be my guide, not the rule of popes. I revere church tradition, and even the Reformers did. But the fathers differed on things and obscured this point over time.
This isn’t an attempt to stab people and score points. I’m trying to be careful and mark out divisions where they exist and should exist for the preservation of the gospel (Jude 3 comes to mind).
Thanks for interacting over here. I don’t mind a dialogue on this topic. Perhaps I’ll start another post tomorrow where we can take that debate, so it doesn’t steal from the issues brought up in this review concerning the matter of homosexuality.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Bob, let me blunt here,
I thank God that it is not up to either one of us to “extend Christian recognition” to anyone, but it is about Christ and Christ alone.
I consider you a Christian on the same level as Pope Benedict.
Joel,
Local churches do have a responsibility to extend or not extend recognition. The purity of the church is at stake. Texts like Rom. 16:17-18, 2 Jn. 10-11, Acts 20:28-30, Titus 3:10-11, Eph. 5:11, 1 Cor. 5:5 demand that we make determinations as best we can so that we can even apply and obey these.
Certainly it isn’t for us to make judgements independently, but Protestant churches have made corporate judgments on this matter. And so has the RCC for that matter. Each has condemned the other’s doctrine as being non-salvific. That being the case, until I’m ready to jump ship, I need to be awful slow to counter the teaching of my side of Christendom about these matters and jump to affirm what they don’t.
I am very thankful I don’t have to be the last judge. I can let God be God and hope the best for those in the Catholic church. But I can’t sit idle and recommend they just stay where they are if I really do think their church is leading them astray and confusing them about the Gospel. I really think that is the case.
I won’t keep this going. I respect much of what you stand for, Joel. There is a lot we agree on. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I guess that’s the fundamentalist side of me still speaking here. Guys like J.Greshem Machen and B.B. Warfield, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and others would still be proud of me here. Not to judge my stance by them, as you’ve got guys on your side too. But this isn’t just about me, it’s about us, a big group of us, who still are Neanderthals on this issue, I guess.
Joel, I agree with you, but for a different reason. I think Baptist/fundamentalist/free church ecclesiology is too narrow-minded.
I have learned a great deal from Christian brothers of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox varieties.
Sorry Erik, your post ended up in the spam bin for some reason.
My comment on Joel’s blog didn’t take, not sure why. I’ll post it here:
It appears that the Roman Catholic Church says the same of me:
From the Council of Trent:
On Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
On Baptism
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
On the Eucharist
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
On Penance
CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.
On the Mass
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
Where is the angst about their declarations about what I believe and my standing before God? The RCC has not reversed Trent yet.
Bob,
I (as a Protestant)would like to recommend that you read Scott Hahn, any book by Hahn, and then tell me if Catholic theology lacks scripture, especially his The Father Who Keeps His Promises.
Bob, you went to spam for some reason. If you are noticing that on blogs which you are not a member that your comments are going to spam, contact akismet. They can actually fix this. Haven’t read anything else…
Bob, here is my response to your first response (cross-posted, of course)
Here is my take to this response – I am thankful that neither you nor are give Christian recognition. While I note your verses supplied on your blog (a great blog and I recommend it – I will continue to say that because I don’t want readers and other commentators to think otherwise) deal with members of local congregations who are causing divisions, not about extending Christian recognition. What did Christ say? Did Christ separate out those with different doctrine? As a matter of fact, it may be best said that during the writing of the New Testament, doctrines abounded, and even for centuries later, there was a generous orthodoxy. I’m not talking about Gnosticism v Christianity here, but allowing those who hold to Jesus is Lord and Humility and claim to be Christian to be recognized as standing and falling on their own merits, and not only our issues with their doctrine.
Someone is saved, whether or not they can accurately define how it happened.
I note that many of the things you mentioned, (and for most if not all, I’d agree) Rome and the East allows for Tradition. The Trinity is developed by Tradition as was the Canon. As was many things even within Protestantism. How then, even if we disagree, deny to others their, pardon the pun here, rites and because of that, say that they are not Christian? I don’t supposed that we biblically can, to be honest.
The Galatian heresy was undoing the Gospel by making Gentiles become Jews. The Catholics aren’t do that. Adding to the Gospel is requiring someone believe a certain way about a doctrine in order to be saved. There is nothing that I’ve done which saved me – it was Christ – so adding that I have to be either circumcised or believe in justification by faith alone is adding to that Gospel.
No, you are correct – the Scriptures are to be the rule and guide of faith – and even in Rome, they are. In the East they are, but they do allow Tradition to sometimes overrule that, and the such. Doesn’t mean that they have undermined the work of Christ on the cross, does it?
I agree about not recommending churches without precautions, but Bob, you went further than that an insinuated that the whole of the Communions weren’t Christian.
I’ll have to check out Scott Hahn sometime. I do plan on that.
But now to Joel, in one place here you admit that addition to the Gospel is adding additional requirements. So if that’s the definition that drew Paul’s ire in Galatia, why shouldn’t that be applied to Rome? See my quotes from Trent above where they clearly add to the Gospel and anathemaize those who don’t believe those points of doctrine.
Taking their system at its own word, it adds to the Gospel, hence my warnings.
I’m going to get a main post out of this when I have time later today to do some posting. First a rush to work and a training session….
But, Bob, so does your system or any system really, if we go by your understanding of adding too. Further, considering that Paul’s context was radically different, it is not good, polite hear, to assign to Galatians Roman Doctrine. As I note, read Vatican II.
[...] who are blogging on some-more elemental things; however, during a new examination of a book, Bob posted something which we found rather descent and lacking of genuine Christian reflection: I have though one tiny [...]
Here’s my post re: the Catholic issue. Please revert to the topic of the review in further comments here.
Great post on a difficult and sensitive topic. It would seem that us being born sinful this would also plague us. The beauty of the Gospel is we are accepted by Christ’s finished work and that changes us.
[...] pleased to announce that Zondervan has agreed to let me give away one copy of the book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill. Click the title above to read my recent review and learn more about this excellent [...]
[...] My review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality [...]
[...] It is sad, however, thatBob makes one passing comment and gets ripped unmercifully and unjustly. Let’s be honest, we can deal with out doctrinal differences in a different way. [...]
[...] Baker Book House Church Connection Against Nothingness Searching for Meaning and Purpose Fundamentally Reformed and a [...]
Thank you for your excellent review. Hill’s mention of the struggles of those who are Roman Catholic is not seemingly to endorse their theology, but to point to the struggle and how each of the people he referenced found solace in the Scriptures and how that worked itself out in their lives. Hill is a Calvinist himself, as I understand it. (I’m friends with his younger brother.)
I do understand the hesitation in citing others not from the Reformed tradition and what this potentially does…but as I thought through what examples of people wrestling with homosexual sin in their lives we have in the Reformed camp, I came up with zero. We just don’t talk about it on “our side of the Tiber.”
Reading Wes’ book was like reading my own story. I gave my copy to my dad for him to read because of it. Every pastor should read this book.
Wow, thanks for jumping in here, Dave. You are absolutely correct with the “zero” comment. I thought maybe a caution should have been in order since he quotes them extensively. But the faith of those individuals and their struggles and continuing to be faithful – that is excellent and worth including in your book. So I’m glad he did include their stories.
Glad to hear you were blessed by the book, and you offer another example that Wes’ story is not unique. There are many who need our support in this matter.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Thanks, Bob. I look forward to reading other articles on your blog when I have some time to do so. Just finished the first five chapters in Bavinck’s second volume of Reformed Dogmatics. Now I have to read 2 chapters in Stott’s book on preaching and write 6 pages between the two reading assignments. Ah, seminary. Gotta love it.
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to Orthodox, because the Orthodox are not Greek, as the common misconception goes. There are some Orthodox who are Greek, but not all are Greek, and hardly the majority. Second, the Orthodox don’t have a doctrine of justification, and third, the Orthodox do not preach that works save, but only faith saves. Faith and works cannot be separated. Without faith works are insufficient. Without works, faith is not complete but fractured and false.
Theological delusions? Hmmm…Not going to go to deep into the false ideology of individualism and other problems that has never truly existed in Christianity, because Christianity means community, not individualism. Unus Christianus, nullus Christianus. I would extend it to be, individual Christian is no Christian.
AP, seriously. Let’s keep the comments to the actual substance of the post. It was about Wes’ book.
Actually, it would probably be more correct to say that Christ saves.
AP and others,
Let’s comment about the Catholicism / Orthodoxy remark on this post, and keep the comments here devoted to the book itself.
Reminder to everyone following this thread: Don’t forget to enter my giveaway for a free copy of this book. Zondervan will mail a copy to the winner of my giveaway contest. Details here.
Just so others know, some discussion of this book review is also happening here: http://sharperiron.org/article/book-review-washed-and-waiting-reflections-christian-faithfulness-and-homosexuality
[...] my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill [...]
[...] Guide to Understanding Homosexuality edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche (Harvest House) and Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill (Zonderva…. Both books demonstrate concern and awareness of the plight of people struggling with same-sex [...]
[...] heterosexual attractions? And will we stand against the sin rather than those caught up in it? Read my review for more on this [...]
[...] Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill [...]
[...] with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the [...]
[...] our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know [...]
[...] As most Christians undoubtedly will express dismay at this turn of events, we must be especially careful as to how we react publicly. We must be careful as to how our words and actions will be perceived too, because we care about giving a faithful and clear witness to a watching world. Too often, we have allowed our opposition to the homosexual agenda, to come across as a mean-spirit against homosexual people. And while we are right to be concerned at loose definitions of homophobia and the desire of some to classify orthodox Christian teaching as hate speech, there nonetheless has been homophobia and hate speech in some sectors of Christianity. Furthermore, our strong opposition to homosexual marriage can be misunderstood to convey that the Church really is all about controlling others and seeking to gain and keep onto political power in its desire to impose morality on others. Rather than evincing compassion and understanding toward those struggling with homosexual desires, our actions and sometimes our attitudes say that we are better than them. We are normal, they are not. And if they just quit misbehaving they could be like the rest of us decent heterosexual beings. But isn’t this the opposite of the gospel’s fundamental truth that you can’t save yourself, and that only by God’s grace can we overcome our innate desires (present in everyone’s fallen heart) toward evil? Christianity is not about external morality and do-it-yourself reform; it begins and ends with Christ on the cross and a gospel of grace. As we interact with those in the workplace and our communities who consider themselves homosexuals, let us ponder anew how we can call them to a life of self-denial that is ultimately worth it because of the glory of our Savior and the glorious gospel of His grace for sinners. For more posts on homosexuality from a biblical perspective, see these earlier posts. I would also highly recommend Wesley Hill’s book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. [...]