Ha! So true.

The coathanger illustration is extremely disturbing…

It is to bad that Anne Lamott, whose quotes have been featured here, Is a supporter of planned parenthood. It is also unfortunate that there are supporters of her books and believers that her faith is real and yet she can support such a place.

But since this quip is supposedly funny and shoots at a favorite whipping boy of this blog we can use it.

What is truly ironic is that you have love of Planned Parenthood (through support of a supposed christian Anne Lamott) and a hatred towards a brother in Christ.

Ironic, indeed.

I guess this sight doesn’t qualify as a “ministry” then. Except that its whole design is to “watch the watchdogs”, and spends as much time attacking Silva, as you claim Silva attacks others. You only read what you want to hear from both sights. Again, pathetic.

Yah well, I don’t think it says we’re calling ourselves a ministry anyways. So that’s a moot point.

Like I said, no one’s attacking Ken Silva. But if you consider this post an attack on Mr. Silva, then what do you consider his name-calling Christian-damning adventures on his sites?

Love?

Okay, fair enough Greg. I may indeed see only what I want to see, in fact, I hardly see Ken Silva’s sites at all, as I find them offensive and irrelevant.

What I want to know is, how do YOU see it all? You really haven’t explained anything, you just keep saying I only see what I want to see. I want to know exactly what I don’t see that you obviously do? What am I missing? Thanks Greg.

Peace

Joe

In Christian love for my friend and brother Ken Silva I offer this: Please Pastor/Teacher/Rev Silva please, please, for the love of all that is holy and right and good get out of ministry.

I love you, brother, and I don’t want you to be embarrassed any longer.

I plead with you.

Jerry,
So you can support murder of babies and be a Christian?

So if you demonstrate love in all other areas, yet hate babies enough to support their slaughter you can be a Christian? Huh?

I just do not get it.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, so, since you have hate for Ken Silva, Ingrid S. and me…I can see why you justify Anne Lamott’s hatred of babies- birds of a feather flock together. Romans 1-2 makes it clear that if you give support to those in sin….you are sinning yourself.

So go ahead. Laugh all you want at Ken’s expense. Mock. Jeer. Support Anne Lamont and Jim Ellis and Tony Campolo and Jay Bakker and all the other false teachers and false converts.

And keep up with that whole love thing, Jerry. You are doing great.

I don’t know of anyone here who hates Ken, Ingrid or you. They certainly hate what you do, and some believe that the “ministries” you conduct are more hellish than what they condemn, but that is not hatred for you…

Amen and Amen!

John Chisham,

Where did I say I ’support’ anyone or anything? Where did I say that I ’support’ Anne Lamott? I have never given her a cent. Nor have I ever mailed a cent to planned parenthood. But once again John Chisham, can you show me in Scripture where it says: Support for Planned Parenthood is a sin?

Seriously John. Don’t avoid the question this time. Just answer it.

John Chisham, do you drink milk? Coke? Pepsi? Do you eat food? Do you know what happens to all the money you spend on gasoline for your car? Do you pay taxes? Do you know where your tax dollars are going?

John, if I hate someone, I will say so. My enjoyment at Chris’s humor has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with enjoying a good joke. You see, for something to be funny, it has to have an element of truth to it. Besides, Chris is not hating on Brother Ken; he is showing Ken’s ministry to be what it is: an oxymoron. That is neither support for planned parenthood, nor hate for Ken.

It is truth. And you for one, since you claim to be an authority on all things truth, should see it for what it is.

jerry

Come on we all know he’s fibbing about not wanting his name mentioned (in the past and all that) but do we have to keep pissing him off? It costs us nothing to just type “Pastor Boy” or “PB”. It’s like poking a caged lion or something, why bother? He’s not going to admit he was wrong, if he wants to live thinking that he put a ban out on using his name, let him, and just use his nickname.

Costs nothing, really.

So you can support murder of babies and be a Christian?

It would be nice if people who say stuff like this spoke as vehemently against war of all kinds, poverty, hunger, economic sanctions and the USA’s refusal to forgive 3rd world debt, racism, the need for universal health care for all people, fair treatment of aliens, strangers, orphans and widows.

…fair treatment of aliens…

I couldn’t agree more!

Can’t wait for that movie.

I was just informed they’re not making an ALF movie. Now I will sulk.

There are many things in my life that incongruous from my stated beliefs. Am I a follower of Christ? Was Peter’s outright denial of Christ a deal breaker?

A serious question:

I’ve counseled young couples who were sexually active to stop or at the very least be safe. When they told me they weren’t going to stop I decided to help them be safe. Planned Parenthood provided them with condoms/birth control free of charge when I drove them there.

Right or Wrong?

To avoid rabbit trails the couples involved were both of legal age. The first couple was 17 and 16 and the second couple was 18 and 17.

23 & 31: Joe, it’s true PB has created this situation, and as he’s been exposed as dishonest and a bully (more times than we can count), you know all you need to know about him. So does everybody else.

I’ve accused PB of denying certain others the same grace that he claims for himself.

When you say something like:

Your free cost is way too high a price for me.

in regards to cutting PB some slack about his name, aren’t you doing the same thing PB does?

Romans 5:8

I think it time to let the whole name-gate drop.

In other words, it’s not about me “hitting back” as Joe C put it. It’s about life continuing on as normal because this whole thing is silly. So when I address him, it will be with his name. The name his parents gave him. If he doesn’t want his name out there he can always stop commenting and blogging.

Chris-

Your gracious move probably instilled in them a deep sense of trust and faith in the church. They will no doubt feel more safe and secure in the future to come to you (or another pastor) for help and guidance because you listened and cared in ways that most would not.

it could have gone very different, I’m sure. You could have told them how terrible they were, made them feel shame and guilt, and sent them away with no one they can trust or confide in about sex and about how to be safe. And they probably would never step foot in a church again.

Not enough information to make a definitive call; what is your position, why are they coming to you, what is your relationship to them?

I’m their youth pastor.

Assuming this is a pastoral role, they are openly flaunting their sexual sin as well as defying your biblical role as their spiritual authorities.

I’m not certain that it’s “flaunting”. The one instance (which is pretty close to other)The girl came to me first and I encouraged her that we should ALL talk. When her boyfriend came in I counseled both of them to STOP. Additionally I told both of them that their parents should be informed. His relationship is good with mom and dad. Her dad is not involved, her mom is an abusive bi-polar personality. After 3 meetings of counseling them to “be on guard”. Don’t put themselves in positions to compromise their commitment. And her finally thinking she was pregnant. I drove them to planned parenthood for a pregnancy test, sexual counseling, and birth control. All of which was free of charge.

How should I have handled it?

Chris-

I think every case is different. Personally I think you did the right thing. If I were in your shoes I’d probably do the same.

What is worth commending, I think, is the willingness of this girl to come forward and confide in you. Obviously you are doing ministry in such a way that garners the trust of the people in your care. And obviously they feel safe enough with you to be brutally honest, even if that means confessing they have no desire to stop their sin. Obviously they are going to need someone in their life whom they trust that can continually lay their lives alongside the story of the gospel. The way you handled this ensures you can do that with them.

RE 44:

I do not mean to say “This is what you should have done…” I can only offer what I think I would have done based on what knowledge I have. And I say “think” because, when faced with the situation, I may act differently.

Regarding “flaunting” – I admit this is a very strong word – maybe too strong. Yet, if they come to you as your Pastor, and you graciously, lovingly, trustingly and safely tell them to stop – and they tell you they will not… it appears to me they are flaunting their sin. I am assuming there is little or no trying to stop involved.

I cannot think of a scenario in which I would drive a teenaged unmarried couple to PP for birth control.

I cannot think of a scenario in which I would drive a teenaged unmarried couple to PP for birth control.

Why?

So you think the better response as their pastor is to do nothing? Since you know they are going to continue with or without your consent why would you not wish them to at the very least be safe and educated about what they are doing? By doing so you ensure they will KNOW you really care and that your care is not conditional. IOW, you only care about them as long as they do what you say.

I liken this to the other debates we have had about loving without agenda. Do we dig fresh water wells for people in Africa only insofar as they accept our Christ? What if they reject our appeals to the gospel? What if they spit in our face and say, “I dont’ believe in your God.” Do we then pull the plug as it regards our care for their well being and safety?

Do we dig fresh water wells for people in Africa only insofar as they accept our Christ? What if they reject our appeals to the gospel? What if they spit in our face and say, “I dont’ believe in your God.” Do we then pull the plug as it regards our care for their well being and safety?

No, we do not… we give the proverbial cups of cold water in the name of Jesus – no strings attached.

Is there no way to educate them, is there no way to care for them, is there no way to love and minister to them without the appearance of tacit approval?

Maybe. But in a case where it seems obvious they are going to continue and the girl expresses concern about being pregnant than I see no reason why the pastor she has confided in shouldn’t take her to a place where she (and he) can be educated and helped.

I have no doubt that Chris (or you or I) in so doing would make it very clear that this does not mean approval. However, I do not see the benefit of sending them off on their own to deal with this. They came to Chris for a reason. Perhaps they have no where else to go?

If a heroine addict came to me and told me he or she was sharing needles and had no intention of stopping right now I’d take him or her to get sterile needles.

Would you take the water wells away from the people that reject Christ? Or would you continue to sit and suffer with them?

Would you take the water wells away from the people that reject Christ? Or would you continue to sit and suffer with them?

cf. 52

Phil,

I could see scenarios where teens are not aware of the dangers… so education is always a good option; though I’m not sure PP is a good source.

I could see scenarios where teens are not aware of the dangers… so education is always a good option; though I’m not sure PP is a good source.

That’s what I was meaning to say, but I think it came out convoluted. I don’t have a problem with sex-ed in and of itself. But I think if a teenage couple is old enough to engage in sex, they should be responsible enough to take whatever measures they need to.

Would you take the water wells away from the people that reject Christ? Or would you continue to sit and suffer with them?

At the mental hospital where I work we talk with the kids all the time about the difference between rights and privileges. Having water is a basic human right, having sex is a desire/privilege. Your comparison is not apples to apples.

Chad,

You said: “Well, PP isn’t encouraging people to “murder babies.”"

Actually, yes they are, and they make a lot of money doing it. You can parse their “counseling” any way you want, but in the end, they still advocate for murdering God’s created being. Oh, they may not always present it as the first option, but they are undoubtedly tools of the devil intent on destroying human life. Have no doubt about it.

You asked: “As a parent, if your teenage son came to you and said they are having sex with their girlfriend and had no desire to stop, would you make sure he was using condoms and being safe?”

No, I would not provide condoms for my child. I would not allow my teenage son in my house under my authority to see, date, or otherwise spend time with a woman whom he was openly having sexual relations with, with no repentance. It really is that simple. To send him out the door with a condom in hand rather than to take steps to control the sin refuses to control is simply and openly enabling his sin.

No, I would not provide condoms for my child. I would not allow my teenage son in my house under my authority to see, date, or otherwise spend time with a woman whom he was openly having sexual relations with, with no repentance. It really is that simple. To send him out the door with a condom in hand rather than to take steps to control the sin refuses to control is simply and openly enabling his sin.

Eric,

Great approach. And one day some pastor or therapist will find your son in their office or on their couch.

While PP counsels in such a way that I never would, lets not make them out to be the “death panels” the right is raving about today.

And my guess is they will trust him even more than they first did. My guess is that when they have other issues in their lives they will come to chris.

Trying to keep is general; if someone ignores me when I point out their obvious sin, when they choose to continue pursuing what they want regardless of basic biblical teaching… I suspect they will only come to me if I tell them what they want to hear.

Neil is worried about giving “tacit approval” to their lifestyle. If a tribe rejects our Christ and the gospel message and yet we stick around loving them, building wells, hospital clinics, giving food, etc., are we not giving “tacit approval” of the lives they have chosen to lead?

In the same way, if Chris decides to stick around with an unmarried couple who decides this is the life they wish to lead and he, as their pastor, ensures that as they do so they be safe and educated about what they are choosing to do, I see a comparison to the above.

In both cases (the tribe and the couple) the trust and respect is earned in such a way that the gospel is not shut off but space is made available for the Spirit to work.

No, helping them in general does not show approval… not if they know our disapproval and not if we refuse to participate in the things they do that are not biblical.

In other words, feed them but do not help them build a mosque.

The caparison fails.

Well, I am an odd ball – I don’t think anything is a “right.” not from a Christian view point, at least.

Fair enough. Can we agree that the Bible calls us to give those without water, water?

72 – yes, of course.

75- huh?
That question is a direct parallel to this issue.

75- huh?
That question is a direct parallel to this issue.

The role of the pastor verses the role of the parent… similar, but different.

RE 69:

The the parable of the prodigal son teaches us that parents should give children condoms – who knew?

As a parent, if your teenage son came to you and said they are having sex with their girlfriend and had no desire to stop, would you make sure he was using condoms and being safe?

Would I make sure – probably not. I would certainly discuss with him or her the risks involved, and I would make sure they understood what potential consequences there were. Other than that, I think that babying someone too much (i.e., trying to make sure he can’t harm himself) is borne out of the same attitude as Puritanism. It’s trying to control people. And even parents at some point need to realize that they are not the ones in control of their children’s lives.

So yes the father in the parable of the Prodigal Father, gave the son the inheritance, but He didn’t follow him into town, make sure he was eating right, had a place to sleep, etc. He let him have his freedom, and it was very destructive to the son. That wasn’t the father’s fault, though.

I also would note that if my son was old enough to be having sex and didn’t know that sex could lead to pregnancy or STD by the time he was having sex, I would have failed at parenting somewhere along the way.

Chad #69. Your ability to create false analogies never ceases to amaze.

The father gave him his inheritance early. Money is neutral, a condom is not. The son (a free agent) freely chose to sin. The father is not responsible for his son’s choices. The son could just have easily chosen to feed the poor with his inheritance. The father allowed the son to suffer the consequences of his own decision and it was, in fact, the consequences of his son that brought the son to repentance, something Chris’ actions are at best postoning, at worse circumventing.

#72 and #74.
This to me is the difference in the issues. I see where you are coming from but water is something we are told to make sure people have. Condoms…the ability to have sex outside of marriage…not so much. That’s my problem with the analogy.

So yes the father in the parable of the Prodigal Father, gave the son the inheritance, but He didn’t follow him into town, make sure he was eating right, had a place to sleep, etc. He let him have his freedom, and it was very destructive to the son. That wasn’t the father’s fault, though.

Phil,

I assume Chris isn’t in the bedroom watching them have sex and giving instructions. He gave them their inheritance a condom.

And as you say, it isn’t the father’s, nor Chris’, fault.

But the son returned to the father.

And these kids will probably return to Chris.

And if you truly wouldn’t inquire of your son if he were being careful and using a condom when he confessed that he is actively having sex, or that you would not insist that he do that and be responsible, well, I have a hard time believing that.

And Neil, re: 82 – I think you are in denial.

So who is right? The parent who makes sure his son is using a condom or the pastor who does? What is the parent is also a pastor? What if they are my kids?

According to you, Neil, someone is wrong in this scenario. Which is it?

And Neil, re: 82 – I think you are in denial.

So who is right? The parent who makes sure his son is using a condom or the pastor who does? What is the parent is also a pastor? What if they are my kids?

According to you, Neil, someone is wrong in this scenario. Which is it?

RE 83 – I think you meant.

Again, you are adding even more scenarios. I will deal with but the one… since the role of a parent and the role of a pastor are different. Or should I tell the Children’s Pastor he may now spank any child in the church – because, what the parents can do the pastor can do?

The father gave him his inheritance early. Money is neutral, a condom is not.

Condoms are neutral… but when buying them for an unmarried couple on minors, it no longer is.

The parable of the Prodigal Son teaches a bigger (and different) picture.

Let’s not muddy the waters, Neil.

That is why I wanted to stick to one scenario, not the three you have interjected. If other wish to answer fine, I have chosen to stick to one.

So in your world view a Christian parent is justified to give their son or daughter a condom and insist they be safe in going about what they are doing.

But a pastor, in your mind, can never do such a thing.

Am I reading you correctly?

No, since I have not answered the question as it pertains to parents, you are not free to make these assumptions.

No, by introducing “spanking” you are muddying the waters.

This line is worth pursuing, despite your objections.

What are some of the good reasons why you as a parent might buy your son a condom? Serioulsy. Why might that be a feasible option for you as a Christian parent who loves their kid?

No, by introducing “spanking” you are muddying the waters.

This line is worth pursuing, despite your objections.

I did not muddy the water, I simply gave another scenario where a pastor should not do something a parent may – because of their different roles.

You said:

If you as a parent would do something out of love and concern for your kids and yet not expect a pastor to do the same, well…. that is a problem.

All I am saying is that there are things parents do out of love that pastors should not do… spanking is but one example.

Chad,

25 comments ago I said I was not going to address the issue as a parent. If you and others want to, I’m fine with that, but I said I was limiting my participation to one issue, not the two.

Chad,
A number of our last interactions here have reminded me of this verse:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.

Now, I’m not trying accusing you of being a Pharisee, lol, but it does seem that you are asking a lot of loaded questions with the intentions of trapping us. It seems that you are more and more concerned about trying to prove us wrong for whatever reason.

I’m sure that there are many of these things that we don’t see eye to eye on, and some of them are worth discussing, but frankly, it’s no fun discussing something with someone when they’re constantly trying to set traps up for you to walk into. Setting up these hypothetical scenarios really gets anyone nowhere in these discussions.

Phil – I’m sorry you see it that way.

The way I see it is that many of you around here call “foul” or call something “strawman” more often than not because your worldview is under question.

It’s easier to just do like PB does and not answer the questions.

If you notice, I answer every question asked of me. I don’t run from tough issues, even if they do force me to question what I have held to be true.

Phil – I simply said I have a hard time believing that. I’m being honest. Sorry if that bugs you.

What is even more difficult, which you seem to care little about, is asking a question over and over again only to hear: I’m not going to answer you. How can meaningful discussion happen there? Yet you say nothing to Neil about it.

Yet you would if PB did it. As you all would.

Phil – where did Neil address the question?

He never answered it as you just did.

Chris –
sorry dude, I tried.

I think you did the right thing.

peace.
Chad

Chad,

You said, “I have more respect for Eric who admitted he’d more or less disown his son before giving him a condom. At least he is consistent, if not graceless.”

Your personal attack on me is entirely unchristian and epitomizes gracelessness. To characterize my statement that I would disallow my teenage son to see a woman whom he was openly having sex with as “disowning” my son is about as open a lie as you could tell. I really pity the church that you pastor. Your lack of grace and wisdom is astounding. If the way you show “respect” for someone is to insult and lie about them, then don’t bother to show me any “respect”.

As to your previous comment that my son will end up confiding in some pastor or counselor instead of me, you clearly fail to understand what John Hughes is clearly explaining, namely that we are called to be faithful and obedient, not pragmatic and disobedient. Also, you make the uncalled-for assumption that I would merely command that my son not see that woman and leave it at that. I made no such statement or insinuation.

Wow what a fire storm…

I intentionally left out specifics so as not to steer the dialogue. I honestly wanted to know others thoughts. Not wanting to address everything I think John H. concisely summed up the problematic nature of the issue.

What does the Bible say? It’s pretty clear. DO NOT participate in deeds of darkness.

Agreed…But this happens all the time not specifically about sex.

(1) You cannot be responsible for the actions of others.

Agreed

(2) You are responsible for your own actions.

Agreed

(3) Be faithul to God’s word/God’s way.

Agreed

(4) Trust God to work in the lives of others.

Well many Christians don’t trust God to work in the lives of others. See Legalism for proof.

Chris, in my opinion and understanding, has not been faithful to God’s way in this instance.

I struggled deeply and prayerfully about what to do. This was not a rash/quick decision it was over the course of 6 weeks.

He is not trusting God to work through the consequences of these kids sin but is mistakenly thinking that his enabeling of their sin is constituting love for these kids ased on some potential for some future “ministry” opportunities.

Not exactly my thoughts but potentially a small motivating factor. I consider this a little like God instructing Jonah to go to Nineveh but then God doesn’t destroy Nineveh he restores Nineveh which pisses Jonah off.

My biggest motivating factor is I have kids in my ministry who regularly bring their daughter to youth group. Most of the kids I minister to are sexual active and I really don’t want to have to change diapers in between worship songs.

I find it interesting that many in the Christian community look down their noses at the pregnant teenager but do little to prevent it.

For a little more disclosure my wife is a social worker who for 2 years counseled teen moms. So I’m a little closer to the situation than most ever will be. Not saying anyone here but believe me I’ve been shouted down and judged because I chose to walk with them as opposed to demanding of them.

Another question: Who here is still a virgin or got married as a virgin? Masturbation? Porn? Let me start…

No. Yes. Yes.

No. Yes. Yes.

you without sin, cast the first stone.

Eric, my door is wide open. Heave away.

“My biggest motivating factor is I have kids in my ministry who regularly bring their daughter to youth group. Most of the kids I minister to are sexual active and I really don’t want to have to change diapers in between worship songs.”

I hope that was a joke. If not, how very sad that that would be your biggest motivating factor.

Chris – I’m pretty sure Paul C was referring to me. I’m the pastor he loves to hate

Don’t be so vague Paul who do you refer too?

Actually Chris – for the record I was not referring to you at all. I was being specific when I said “one in particular”. I was speaking of Chad (as he knows very well). I appreciate you wrestling with this.

You made the wrong decision, but we all do at times. However, I do not question your calling as a result of this instance.

Hey Chris, thanks for your transparancy. You have a hard job, I’m sure there is much more to the story and you didn’t act in a vacuum. You love for these kids is evident. All I can say is its not kosher in the bigger scheme of things to contravene one portion of Scripture in order to accomplish another. What may seem a “bigger” or “smaller” sin to us may have far reaching consequences that we cannot possibly see. It’s safer to just trust totally in God and walk the narrow path (as has been revealed to us and for which we are responsible) and leave the rest in God’s hands.

I would have told those kids I love you, here is God’s way, your way is sin. I don’t condone it, but I love you and know what your are going through and with God’s help you can overcome this. And that’s where I would have ended my participation.

But I don’t have your responsibility and burdens so I’m only judging the action and not you as a person. .

My deepest respect for what you do! It’s hard, I know.

The issue of the parent counseling their child in THIS issue is no different from a pastor doing the same. The only reason I can assume you would not want to discuss the two matters is because you realize the incongruency of your position. – Chad

It is beyond me how you cannot see the difference between the role of the parent and the role of a pastor in THIS issue.

While I cannot change you assumptions I resent you saying it is because I realize the incongruity of my position.

I REALIZE NO SUCH INCONGRUITY!

THE FORMER I HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO ADDRESS!

Drat. Chris, my bad. I am getting you and Chad confused as to who wrote what. Dipping in and out at work.

My apologies to you both. Chad is the father of false dichotomies of course (but that statement was a false dichotomy).

Chad is the father of false dichotomies of course

Yeah, of course, John H. And Chris is my son.

You guys just love to label people, don’t ya? Must make you feel pretty good about yourself, huh?

Sure, [Chad] can point out inconsistencies or whatever, but once you start saying you know what we would or wouldn’t do, then you’ve crossed into the area of claiming to have the ability to read our minds.

The same goes for claiming to know why I choose not to address a different scenario- even when I have given my reasons.

Now who is arguing unfairly?

I say I will not address a different scenario because the considerations are different – and what is your response?

You deny my stated reason and assume it is because I feel some incongruity with my position.

So, to be consistent – I should assume it’s acceptable for pastors to spank children within the church as well… because we cannot withhold from the pastor the right to do the same things the parents would do out of love.

nevermind – I see that you think saying you aren’t going to answer something is “addressing” the question.

And how does that lend to honest discussion? – Chad

As Phil pointed out, I addressed by giving the reasons I would not answer the scenario… one scenario at a time.

I guess to call it a fair and honest discussion means every player must fully address every scenario introduced – even if they are seen as completely separate issues.

So then name them.

Well, for one you can let someone know you love them while still pointing out that you believe what they’re doing is wrong.

I agree there are other options, and there is not some bar that when exceeded determines THIS is wrong and THAT is right.

Life isn’t that easy.

nor is ministry.

And no one here has claimed that life or ministry is easy. I believe a lot of us here have served in ministry in various capacities, so I wouldn’t expect anyone to really dispute that.

Most of you commenting I get the sense are living in your head. on paper you have nice theories about right and wrong but in the midst of it all, like Chris is, you really have no idea. Your nice formulas break down rapidly.

Well, like I said before, I’ve worked in campus ministry, so I used to dealing with a slightly older age group. And, by the way, the school I’m at was just voted the #1 party school in the country. So yeah, I have no real life experience with any of these issues…

So Neil’s response is to not address real issues. Let’s pretend they are not similar.

It’s your word against his. You made a claim that he didn’t agree with. No pretending at all.

Others here just throw out big words to label someone, as if by labeling someone we can then distance ourselves from them and not have to hear what they say.

Others just judge you as a false teacher/pastor or a follower of Satan and think that settles it.

So what are the other options? And as you explore those, how can you say that going to get condoms after those options are explored is universally wrong?

It sounds like you’re just frustrated that more people don’t agree with you. I think various people had made good arguments against the whole condom thing, but if you don’t agree with them, that’s fine.

For the most part, people haven’t condemned Chris for his decision. Frankly, I applaud for having guts to even talk about it here.

Chris,

As I assumed from the start there is a lot more to the story than the simplistic scenario you laid out. And I highly appreciate the position you are in and your goals.

Chad: Others here just throw out big words to label someone, as if by labeling someone we can then distance ourselves from them and not have to hear what they say.

Not only do **you** not hear what others say but even if you do hear them you don’t believe them when they sincerely say it.

The only time you believe someone is listening to your argument is when they agree with it. If they don’t agree with you then they have not heard you in your world view because of course your logic is inescapable and your conclusions iron-clad. Hmmm, where have we seen this mindset before?

142; I could care less about agreeing on everything, John H. You obviously dont know me at all if that is what you think.

What i do care about is HONEST disagreement. And when people don’t dialog by answering honest questions that is not honest disagreement. When people judge other people just because they disagree with them on certain important issues, as you all do repeatedly to me, you are not showing you are capable of honest disagreement.

All I am saying is that there are things parents do out of love that pastors should not do – Neil

It is the “out of love” that I want to explore.

You seem to think that parents, out of love, might do certain things or respond to certain situations that a pastor may not.

I want to know why you think that.

Granted, some parents think they are spanking their child “out of love.” As a pastor, I would not do that because I don’t think that is a good idea. I would counsel the parent that there are better ways to discipline in love.

But each case is different.

You seem to imply that “out of love” a parent may see their child and knowing the situation feel it best in this case for this kid to buy them condoms to ensure their safety. I wonder why you don’t grant a pastor, or in this case, a youth pastor, the ability and authority to love in the same way. Why is it “love” when the parent does it but “unChristian” when a pastor does it for the same reasons? Chad

To be precise, I did not say it was unChristian – I said I could not think of a scenario in which I would.

To be precise, I did not say a pastor could not do it out of “love”for his flock – I have no doubt this was Chris’ motivation to be sure.

I do not think it is the role of a pastor (at least not THIS pastor) to provide the means of birth-control to someone’s minor children – just like I do not think it is the role of the pastor to spank someone’s child.

It is an issue of roles. That is my position. You have the choice of believing me in this, or you ,may pursue your course and assume I am just backed into a corner and am a liar trying to save face… I hope you choose the former.

For you to deny my stated reasons and insert your own makes me question whether you really care to engage on a conversation – or are you just wanting to piss people off?

Well, I refuse to address that question.

Hey Neil, maybe people wouldn’t jump to their own conclusions if you actually answered a question.

I gave you my reason – I see them as different scenarios based on the roles of a parent vs the roles of a pastor.

It’s not for lack of answer you jumped to this conclusion, it’s for lack of accepting what I stated as my reason. To jump to your conclusion of “why” I would not address the scenario, you must first reject my actual statement of “why” I would not address the scenario.

I do not think it is the role of a pastor (at least not THIS pastor) to provide the means of birth-control to someone’s minor children – just like I do not think it is the role of the pastor to spank someone’s child.

Neil I can I appreciate that but what in cases of non-existent parenting?

To be precise, I did not say a pastor could not do it out of “love”for his flock – I have no doubt this was Chris’ motivation to be sure.

That is my point as well, Neil. And apparently you feel that a parent may, out of love, do what you seem to feel a pastor should not do for the same reasons.

I think you are wrong on that in this scenario, since Chris seemed clear in his statement that godly, helpful parents are a non-issue here. So in the absence of a parent doing this “out of love” they turn to their pastor. I think Chris did what any loving parent, or pastor, might do in this given situation. And I have no doubt that it was after much prayer and discussion.

My beef with some of you is you tend to think in these universal, black and white terms. It’s not that easy.

Furthermore, I must add, what Chris did I would argue is NOT right in other circumstances. I can think of many instances where this action would be unwise. But my faith in Chris, and even given the limited knowledge I have on this issue, I commend him and this couple to God’s grace and think Chris did the hard, right thing.

chris – I actually find these types of discussions (versus theory-discussions) beneficial and thank you for opening it up despite the heat you’ve taken.

Amazing that you have taken pause to reflect on your decision, wrestle with it and question it when Chad, without nary a thought, jumps in to support this original decision.

Unless he’s in the midst of a firestorm and at the center of controversy, he’s not happy. And he’ll argue being wrong to the very end…

…apparently you feel that a parent may, out of love, do what you seem to feel a pastor should not do for the same reasons.

No apparently, no seem to about it.

I say: There are things that a parent can do out of love to their child that a pastor ought not.

Now, you may disagree with this, but please do not just dismiss it and insert your own motivations.

Paul? your ass is showing…again.

My beef with some of you is you tend to think in these universal, black and white terms. It’s not that easy.

This charge cuts both ways… as you were the first to just jump on board an say Chris was “right” – no questions asked, no issued explored. As far as you were concerned it was an easy “yes”

I am the one arguing it’s not that easy.

Phil –
I agree that such a scenario as you describe would be different. But as Chris stated very early in all this (and why I trusted his judgment), parents were not part of the picture.

A good pastor is going to know his flock.

I am not going to buy condoms for any tom dick or harry that walks in my door. Let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt here and assume we are all striving to seek God’s best and to lead God’s children in ways that are life giving rather than death-serving, yeah?

You guys (not so much you Phil or Neil) are so quick to jump all over someone and judge their ability to pastor or even their faith in God over how they might handle a complex situation. These are not easy issues and they have no easy answers. I would not buy condoms for the average teen couple I would see in my setting because 1) I know all their parents intimately and well enough that I would talk to ALL of them and 2) all the youth of my church have involved, engaged parents and I would not usurp their parental rights and 3) I live in rural southern America where this sort of thing isn’t all that common.

Now, if my next church is in the inner city and I am dealing with teen age pregnancy left and right and have lots of kids in my care who have no parents or parents that don’t give a damn, then my pastoral role takes on a new light. In such a scenario I could see myself taking someone to a clinic to get tested or to get condoms or to counsel in how to be safe as they have the sex they are bound to have with or without my consent. I’d want them to feel that the church is the ONE place that will accept them and offer them grace and peace since EVERYONE else in their lives has only shit on them.

if that is wrong, so be it. none of you have to come to my church.

As far as you were concerned it was an easy “yes”

And that’s the amazing observation in all of this. A man who lacks judgment even though the original person clearly – and honestly – questions his decision. Of course, Chad tries to backtrack a little after chris’ honest admission…

Now, if my next church is in the inner city and I am dealing with teen age pregnancy left and right and have lots of kids in my care who have no parents or parents that don’t give a damn, then my pastoral role takes on a new light. In such a scenario I could see myself taking someone to a clinic to get tested or to get condoms or to counsel in how to be safe as they have the sex they are bound to have with or without my consent. I’d want them to feel that the church is the ONE place that will accept them and offer them grace and peace since EVERYONE else in their lives has only shit on them.

Now, this is a scenario where I “may” take similar action. So I will amend my previous comment that I could not think of any scenario in which…

Though it took a lot of additional descriptives to come to that point… descriptives without which that I would not come to that point – so easily

I do not think it is the role of a pastor (at least not THIS pastor) to provide the means of birth-control to someone’s minor children – just like I do not think it is the role of the pastor to spank someone’s child.

Neil I can I appreciate that but what in cases of non-existent parenting?

My default position would be that the pastor should not under any circumstances – then I would allow for exceptions.

Re 167,

That’s cool, and if you had more knowledge to worj from I can accept that.

Do you understand my points in 151, 153, 156, and 159?

Chad: These are not easy issues and they have no easy answers.

Wow – and yet you broke a land-speed record giving your assent. Fascinating.

You guys (not so much you Phil or Neil) are so quick to jump all over someone and judge their ability to pastor or even their faith in God over how they might handle a complex situation.

I think chris was commended, despite the fact that people disagreed with him. Again – a false argument.

Wow – and yet you broke a land-speed record giving your assent. Fascinating.

for the last time: Because I know Chris and trust his judgment – and I know where his heart is.

Had YOU asked the exact same question I would want a whole lot of details before offering my opinion.

I think chris was commended, despite the fact that people disagreed with him. Again – a false argument.

I wasn’t talking about chris.

for the last time: Because I know Chris and trust his judgment – and I know where his heart is.

Nice backtracking… The scenario was fairly straightforward: Chris asked whether he did the right or wrong thing.

He did the wrong thing (but with the intent to help in a difficult situation). All of us make mistakes in similar situations. But he has the integrity to question his decision. You – on the other hand – just jumped into the pool. Now you claim it’s because you “know where his heart is.”

If he – who probably knows himself better than you -questions his judgment, why were you so eager to not even bat an eye but instead give whole-hearted consent? That’s the issue here. We’re not talking about “where his heart is” but about what is right and what is wrong.

Paul C, this may come as a surprise to you, but I don’t care the slightest what you think about this.

You say Chris was wrong. I disagree and gave my reasons why.

now, make yourself feel good by calling me a false teacher or whatever gets you off. I’m not listening.

grace and peace, chris, neil and phil.

As well Chad,

Well this all came to a somewhat conclusion…somewhat amicably. lol…

Chris, for the record, God bless you for stepping in the gap and making a hard choice. It’s tough doing ministry, for sure.

Joe

Neil – rest assured it was because of your charitable spirit (I admire that), not because of Chad cutting you slack. One false move and you might be pushed over the abyss like the some of us who are don’t suffer fools as gladly. Even with your humble approach, he still digs into you whenever he can (calling you PB and other things). Again – I admire your consistent charity and patience. Commendable.

The point remains Paul C., he did call me those things, he did twist my meanings, yet in the end we acknowledged the “strengths” in each others arguments and agreed to disagree.

Now – if I were their youth pastor (and I’m not faulting Chris here – I wasn’t with him), I would have gone and picked up a pregnancy kit – purchasing it myself,

I thought about this but opted not to. Reason? They told me the weren’t going to stop having sex. So I opted to take them to PP were they would get a pregnancy test and birth control.

if need be, and educated them myself on the issues involved. I would not have taken them to PP, nor provided condoms,

PP requires that you sit through their program to get any assistance whatsoever. We discussed the “wrong” notions on the way home and my wife also counseled them.

though I would have counseled them to inform their parents (at least the stable ones),

Which I did.

and let them (the parents) decide what further action would be taken, if any.

Which eventually happened.

Chad,

As far as I can tell Chris L. just addressed various points with counter points. No need to get snarky at him.

Chris L.,

Ya know, speaking of those objections Pastorboy raised against Warren – he never did acknowledge or address the fact that they were so easily dismantled.

chris – just an honest question.

As a youth pastor do you feel pressure to compromise in order to win the kids over to your side in certain situations, perhaps more than a pastor might? Not trying to trap you, just gain an unvarnished understanding here.

…so that creates pressure to “show results”.

Wow. Who knew an innocent joke about AM would turn into such a serious, searching conversation. I praise all of you for your openness and willingness to communicate without devolving into stupidity and fighting. Good job.

This is how a blog thread should be.

Well Jerry, it looked a little touch and go for about 100 comments there…got a lot better though

The comment John quoted in 195 came from Chad.

Yes it sure did. Can’t keep you two guys separated. Sorry. Hey Chad 195.