This causes me to once again reflect on the false dichotomy imposed by our postmodern friends. The implication from JB is that where there are boundaries there is shame and that this is often sourced through the Church (i.e., doctrine). He even states, "My church took the traditional perspective of no sex before marriage and shamed people who did." But in that he doesn't note that the first part would be Biblical while the second would not. The more I read of JB the more I find someone who is wounded and rather than returning to the true love of Christ who enables freedom in obedience embraces a world without God's rule under a false notion of what love truly is.
JB tells one commenter who rightly reads his post that his is false conclusion and states that he will not respond to the questions raised. But another commenter who JB doesn't bother to correct reads he properly ... "My parents were pretty open about sex, and I was raised without church, so no real source for shame. It can't be the only reason I'm ambi-sexual, but it feels pretty natural to me to choose my partners based on things other than gender." Notice the Church and boundaries are seen as the source of shame ... and note the pride in the resulting multiple sexual relations with both genders.
Folks, we need to fight this error. We can hold to both Truth and Love. In fact, I would proffer that without true Truth there can be no true Love. Shame is never the result of this. If done by the Spirit, the result is either rebellion or freedom. Often those in rebellion confuse that with shame but ...
Technorati Tags: sexuality
No comments:
Post a Comment