Luca Was Gay

You mean to tell me that GLBTIXYZPDQ activists would try to shout-out or name call or do anything it took to silence any opposition? Shocking ...

I saw this posted on Leander Harding’s blog last month. It has a melody that
stays with you. I found myself humming “Luca era ga ay” for days. That must be awful hard for the inclusive segment to take. No only is the message one they abhor, but the song stays in your head for days…

Marie

For gay activists, sexuality is “fluid,” but unlike actual fluids, flows in only one direction.

Your “orientation” can change, but only from straight to gay. Anyone can “come out,” but no one can ever “come in.” Sort of a reverse Hotel California.

Wow! Courageous. Of course the message won’t be a surprise to those who have ex-gay friends, of which I have more than one.

Greg,
Isn’t that how TEc works sorta? You can voluntarily come in but you cannot voluntarily get out without penalty of a suit!

Yeh—I can sorta see why progressive activists wouldn’t like this song very much.

There were protests at the Sex and the City seminar sponsored by Anglican Mainstream.  Speakers were psychologist, Joseph Nicolosi; psychiatrist, Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.;  and
JONAH President Arthur Goldberg.

Articles:
Dr. Nicolosi’s talk (summarized by David Virtue) http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=9860
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=9891
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=9901

Video, audio:
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=197&avap=1
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=198&avap=1
(site has multiple links to conference interviews and other topical articles)

Testimonies of other men and women who have changed:
http://www.vimeo.com/2369922
http://vimeo.com/2530780
http://vimeo.com/2591054
http://vimeo.com/2343239
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10082

A researcher changed his position and now says it is possible to change:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/april/20.94.html

Awesome song

Povia had an earlier hit which speaks of the wonder children have (no surprise that the same person should sing about this too), and how he wishes he had the same wonder. This translation is obviously a bit rough in places, but I found myself very touched by reading it along with the music:
http://www.beginningwithi.com/comments/2007/02/04/learn-italian-in-song-i-bambini-fanno-ooh/

That’s a great anthem for experience over objective truth.

The song reflects post-modern ideas that homosexualism in built on. Luca tells his story and that’s all that matters to him; no one can tell him what he is at his core. The gay movement doesn’t want stories like this told, but in the end its all just individuals’ experiences.

Luca’s reaction to the idea he stands condemned under the Law will be much like the gay activist who wanted to prevent Povia from singing.

Right on, Texex.  Salvation, like identity, cannot be found in a sexual relationship - homo or hetero.  I watched the video when Dr. Harding first posted it and after some time to think about this young man’s experience, I realized he had replaced his mis-directed desires and dis-orientation with a woman instead of Jesus Christ.  That is a shaky foundation for living over the long haul.  Earthly loves and relationships can and do fail, he’s still not on solid ground for forming a strong identity.

Our only true identity and wholeness will always only be found in God restoring our souls, in taking up the Cross and crucifying the flesh, in being reborn and renewed in the likeness of Jesus Christ.  It is then that we become the men and women we were created to be.  The emptiness our parents could not fill, is filled through worship and communion with Christ and in the koinonia communion with others in His Church.
It is the cruelest thing when a church betrays the truth and her Lord and affirms wounds, symptoms, lies, evil and sin instead of loving people to health, healing, righteousness, peace and freedom.

Psychologists and therapists say, ‘We are wounded in isolation and cannot heal outside of community.’ and ‘Truth is what heals.’  ‘Refusing to face the shameful painful truth is the root of emotional distress and instability.’  Goes right along with Romans 1.

Or, since he explicitly mentions God as the foundation for his beliefs in the beginning of the song, he’s simply telling the story of what vehicles God used to deliver him from a life of sin. Not sure texex or GA/FL what there is to find fault with here. The man is an artist not a theologian and he is expressing, quite well, the deep transformation that has taken place in his life. And it is a good thing…not a bad one.

Well, Matt Kennedy, your comments may or may not be valid.

I myself would have preferred that he simply sing that catchy melody to the wonderful and inspiring words of the Westminster Confession.

Most doctrine and theology can be summed up by that inspiring document, and I see no reason why we can’t simply go ahead and use art and music to proclaim the gospel—as perfectly expressed by the Westminster Confession—to full effect.

Either that, or the 39 Articles should most likely be the substance of most of the things we sing about or visually enact.  I could even find myself enjoying liturgical dance, I think, if only its content were the 39 Articles.

Matt+ - What are you saying?  Are you saying sex outside of marriage is ok and that God used it in Luca’s case to transform him from homo to hetero?  I’ve heard that kind of talk from TEC people, ‘god brought me a new relationship…’ etc., but I never thought I’d hear it from you.
This is not funny, Sarah.  I am serious.

RE: “Are you saying sex outside of marriage is ok and that God used it in Luca’s case to transform him from homo to hetero?”

Yep—that’s what Matt is saying I’m sure.

Or . . . he could have been saying that God used Luca’s love for someone to transform him, even though one of the aspects of that love, sex before marriage, was wrong to engage in.

I wonder which one it will be?  We all wait for Matt’s response with bated breath.  Which could it be?

Matt+ - What are you saying? 

“Are you saying sex outside of marriage is ok”

Um. No.

Do we know he had sex outside of marriage wiht this woman?

“and that God used it in Luca’s case to transform him from homo to hetero?”

God may have used the woman and Povia may have had sex with her but I am very certain God can use one without condoning the other. We often use the things and people God brings into our lives in sinful ways…and yet God’s grace still works through them…amazing stuff that grace.

“I’ve heard that kind of talk from TEC people, ‘god brought me a new relationship…’ etc., but I never thought I’d hear it from you.”

Oh, well then let me say it very clearly. I think God brings people into relationships and that he uses relationships as vehicles for his grace. We can, nevertheless, and do certainly act sinfully within those relationships, as I said above.

“This is not funny, Sarah.  I am serious.”

I thought it was funny.

I resent that either of you thought I was making a joke about something so important as art, art’s content and substance, and the 39 Articles.

Really.

Can none of you take anything seriously?

It wouldn’t be especially difficult to set the 39 articles to Anglican chant. Coming up with a Praise Band, Contemporary Christian version might be more challenging.

While we’re at it, Calvin’s Institutes could be made into a really fine opera.

As for the song in the OP, bravissimo!

As I recall, the lyrics said she undressed him and he gave her and her love the credit for his change. 

I do take this matter very seriously in the light of statistics and testimonies of crisis pregnancy center directors that more ‘evangelical’ teens are sleeping together than any other group and consequently are having abortions as non-professing Christians.
Oh, and the term for ‘Christian sex’ is anything but outright int-rc—rse including o—- s-x.

While we’re at it, Calvin’s Institutes could be made into a really fine opera.

Opera?!  Oh, this is beyond the pale.  Nothing less than a Tenth Symphony by Beethoven would suffice to contain the Institutes.  Great doctrine requires a great means of musical conveyance.

carl

Actually, Sarah, liturgical dance is repugnant. Somber and reverent liturgical interpretive movement without music is acceptable.

Maybe she undressed him in a metaphorical sense.  Maybe she unpeeled the gay facade to reveal his God-intended self.

As I said, I don’t see any justification for assuming a sexual relationship. The undressing could very well be metaphorical and I think you are overly sexualizing the “love” he sings about.

“I do take this matter very seriously in the light of statistics and testimonies of crisis pregnancy center directors that more ‘evangelical’ teens are sleeping together than any other group and consequently are having abortions as non-professing Christians.”

Yes. It is terrible. I agree. But I also wonder why on earth you would import that tragic situation into this song about coming out of a homosexual way of life since, in fact, this song does not glorify premarital sex nor has anyone on this thread suggested that pre-marital sex is good.

“Oh, and the term for ‘Christian sex’ is anything but outright int-rc—rse including o—- s-x”

huh? Have no idea where that came from…were you responding to another commenter?

liturgical dance is repugnant

That is a matter of personal taste..! Poorly done dance is no more repugnant than shoddy liturgy, or off key singing, but, well done it can be very tasteful and convey a powerful message.

Blessings

Seraph

Look… guys…

Dude got nekkid with a beautiful woman and saw the error of his gay ways. It happens. We should celebrate the return of this prodigal son, not bend ourselves into metaphorical pretzels over how he got here. Newman was a slave trader. Saul persecuted Christians. Surely we can give Luca a pass on his roll in the hay.

Matt+ - All he says is he believes in God, therefore human opinions don’t matter… and then he looks deep within himself for truth. It’s a catchy song and a good story - and I’m always a fan of Euro-pop - but I’m not sure the message here is on target.

Matt+ - My original point is:  Unless the Lord (and His Word, Psalm 119) is the center and anchor of this young man’s life (or any other person’s life for that matter) he could, in the promiscuous climate of our age, swing back into promiscuity.

There are conflicting messages and the church is failing to supply the means to show the more excellent, joyful, way of real love, truth, life, freedom.  Lately, I have heard a number of pretty vague, erroneous, and irresponsible evangelical/charismatic sermons and radio programs on the topic of sex.  Our Anglican church and the RC in town are teaching Theology of the Body to the young people.  We had a similar class several years ago for adult Sunday School.

I asked you to clarify what you were saying.  You did. Thanks.

“Look… guys… Dude got nekkid with a beautiful woman” 

Greg, there is a lot more to it than just recreational sex without consequence…even if it’s a ‘committed relationship’. 

Sin always harms.
Theology of the Body for beginners, p. 33 (paraphrasing JPII) “The sexual embrace is meant to image and express divine love.  Anything less is a counterfeit that not only fails to satisfy, but wounds us terribly.”

Sexual sin, maybe all sin, is self and other wounding. 

I have worked in and studied inner healing prayer ministry and psychology.  Past sexual relationships may not show for decades, but what we do changes us (words, thoughts and actions change the chemistry, structure and function of the brain) and the effects will affect us and our relationships, our choices, in the hardness of our hearts.  People are left with emotional and spiritual bonds or connections with their former partners and many of these young people cannot name them all.  All this has to be cleaned up…(the housecleaning Jesus talked about) before Christ can really rule in their hearts.  Before they can give themselves fully in marriage.

The past physical and emotional unions must be renounced and their power broken in prayer…or it can destroy a marriage union…both to a human or to Christ.

A couple of quotes to support my position here:

One old Catholic priest told a friend of mine: “90% of the engaged couples I am counseling are living together.”

Psychology professor (secular university) told our class:
“Statistics show that a couple that live together before marriage are twice as likely to divorce.” “Sexual activity before marriage increases likelihood of divorce.” “First marriages, 50% failure rate.  Second marriages 80% failure rate.  It goes up from there.”

My working hypothesis: ‘If a person will sin with a person, they are more likely to sin against them.’

What’s wrong with abstinence, you guys?  I know in the African-american culture before the sexual revolution, the belief was a person would ‘go crazy without sex.’  Then, that population had the most out of wedlock babies.  Now, the African-Americans have the most abortions.  During the 40 Days for Life campaign we saw this in the clients that arrived at the abortion facility.  A growing number of married couples are having abortions after two or three live births for economic reasons. I’ll never forget the look on one young father’s face.  Imagine the effect in their spiritual and emotional lives and in their marriage and on their other children.

The way to prevent abortion is to learn the value of building relationships through mutual esteem, honor, respect, through committment, gradual spiritual and emotional koinonia kinship, and the value of saving physical and emotional intimacy for the fulfillment of the marriage union which is God’s design and purpose.

Yes, Texex, he did say he believes in God. He may be an orthodox Calvinist for all we know since he did not elaborate beyond saying that God is the foundation of his beliefs with regard to homosexuality.

The point is, the song was not about Christian doctrine.

The song is about his own experience. And that is a good thing. It is intended to be a work of art (whether you think it is good art or not)—not a doctrinal dissertation or even a testimony. It is simply his own story detailing his transformation.

When he says that he “looked inside himself for answers” he was specifically referring to his attempt to understand whether his homosexual behavior was something essential to his nature and when he examined his past and what led him into that way of life, he realized that he was not, in fact necessarily or naturally gay.

That is called self-examination. It is a good thing.

I would expect the same of any Christian penitent.

We wonder why evangelical art, music, literature is so bad—this poor guy can’t even sing a song about a GOOD thing…coming out of homosexuality…without being whacked for not including the 4 spiritual laws.

Dude got nekkid with a beautiful woman and saw the error of his gay ways

Sure like that is the likeliest thing to happen!!! And all lesbians need is a roll in the hay with a stud muffin to have their eyes open…! Dream on! 

Bessings

Seraph

Sure like that is the likeliest thing to happen!!!

Um…. I didn’t comment on how likely it was for the population in general… but that’s what THIS guy himself is saying.

GLBT individuals just hate it when one of their supposed own retract their life style and call it sinful & wrong! It is so ......convicting of their claims! Hard to be legit when many come away and say it’s not what they make it out to be or try and convince people it is!

RE: “without being whacked for not including the 4 spiritual laws.”

Matt, no self-respecting Calvinist would sing about the four spiritual laws.  Get real!  Those are basically Baptist, let’s face it, and have way too much simplicity for anything that is really really truly Reformed, not to mention the whiff of free will that is implied in one of them.

I’m with Ralph—the Institutes are what really need to be done to either opera or as Carl said something along the lines of Beethoven’s Ninth.

That will add the sort of stirring emotion that people need to feel—and frankly should feel—when reading those Institutes.

what a wonderful song….and if all they want is to be accepted what is the problem with this song…they want you to join their world

#33 - ” I didn’t comment on how likely it was for the population in general… but that’s what THIS guy himself is saying.”

There it is in a convenient capsule: The ‘My Experience Model’ (TM) that is bringing down western culture and the mainline churches.
A - I tell my story.  B - You listen. C - We dialogue.  D - Now, it’s all ok.  We have good vibes.  We affirm each other’s experience.  We gather at the table and everyone’s happy.  I get to go on doing what I want and believing my pluriform free-form truths.

The theology at this site excellent and sharp, no one could ask for more.  However, in the translation of doctrine and theology into pastoral care and practical application something - something extremely vital - seems to be missing if this thread is any example. 

If we do not walk out the word, our faith is incomplete, barren, fruitless.  We have to take the plain meaning of the Scriptures and live them, make them incarnate in us. 

What you are suggesting, that spiritual principle and Scripture be ignored, winked at in the case of Luca…sounds so very familiar.  I can’t believe you two, Greg and Matt+ are saying what you are saying.  ‘A roll in the hay, getting nekkid…’  To paraphrase your comments: The ends justify the means.

What I see in this thread of comments is just another everyday commonplace descent into relativism.

With all due respect.

[33] Um…. I didn’t comment on how likely it was for the population in general… but that’s what THIS guy himself is saying.

[34] GLBT individuals just hate it when one of their supposed own retract their life style and call it sinful & wrong!

The straight life holds a lot of attractives for same sex attracted people wether they be Christian or not; social and familial acceptance, religious ideals, the possibility of a “normal” life and family.

This song could speak to the reality/desires of many. Some do fall in love and marry with varying degrees of success. But a complete change in sexual orientation is by all standarts a rarity.

Try this version, you pick the tune:

”...Luca era gay… he met Michelle and felt he was okay, happily ever after he ‘d live from that day! Along comes Tom and invited him to play…Luca era gay! 

Sad but more realistic.

Blessings

Seraph

Seraph…..you have repeated this so many times you have proclaimed it as true! I am sorry to say that you are wrong! I pray one day you wake up to the reality of things as they clearly are and not as muddled and foggy that you and the GLBT have made them.

I have seen many women turn to other women and away from men only because they were abused by the men, hurt so badly that the trust level was destroyed. So to fulfill the void of need in most all aspects of their life, sexual, emotional, etc… they go same sex. I have heard them say over and over, “Women understand what a woman wants, and I don’t have to put up with the male ego, we have the same thoughts and ideas and needs, etc…” It has nothing to do with born that way it is a choice to avoid the unpleasantness of the opposite sexes clashing because they are different. It’s too much work! Men are and will be men. Women are and will be women. Thank God! He made us that way for a vast array of reasons and I think He knew exactly what He was doing and you and the GBLT are trying to change His design…..you all are not omnipotent! You cannot claim that you are what God had in mind in regards to sex!

“...He made us that way for a vast array of reasons and I think He knew exactly what He was doing and you and the GBLT are trying to change His design…..you all are not omnipotent! You cannot claim that you are what God had in mind in regards to sex! ...”

Dear TLDillon:

I am making a comment based on observation and experience, much like you say you are.

I do not presume to try to change whatever it is God had in mind as it refers to human sexuality, pair bonding and procreation…Though, I do not agree that there is no “muddy and foggy”, it does not seem so to God, but I am not Him. I have seen much mud and plenty of fog.

As for me being what God had in mind, who is to say? We all fall short of his intent somehow! I am married, with children, do not have a boyfriend/girfriend nor do I want one.  Sure sounds normal! Now why did’t he make absolutely everyone like me? How could he go wrong with that? 
I will have to ask him when I see him…until then I will have to settle for “Luca era gay”... and all the ambiguities that can mean!

Blessings

Seraph

Hi Floridian,

I’m having trouble believing what you are hearing too since it bears so little resemblance to what I have said.

“There it is in a convenient capsule: The ‘My Experience Model’ (TM) that is bringing down western culture and the mainline churches.”

So Floridian…are you simply against human experience in general? I mean I certainly agree that experience is not the measure of truth. But I think experience that is in accordance with what is true is good…that when your “emotions” match up with what is good—then in fact your emotions are not bad at all.

This person’s experience helped him to understand a truth about which scripture is quite clear…that homosexuality is not essential to his nature. I think his experience served him well here.

I did not hear him say that experience is the measure of all things…in fact, I specifically heard him refer to God in that context.

“A - I tell my story.  B - You listen. C - We dialogue.  D - Now, it’s all ok.  We have good vibes.  We affirm each other’s experience.”

Nope…not quite: A - I tell my story… B - My story is in keeping with an absolute revealed truth. C - It’s a good story.

“We gather at the table and everyone’s happy.”

Yup.

“I get to go on doing what I want and believing my pluriform free-form truths.”

Where on earth did that come from and why are you reading that into this man’s song?

“The theology at this site excellent and sharp, no one could ask for more.  However, in the translation of doctrine and theology into pastoral care and practical application something - something extremely vital - seems to be missing if this thread is any example.”

Actually, what is happening, if you want my opinion, is that you and texex are doing a good bit of eisogesis on the text of this song…making all sorts of unwarranted conclusions about his sexual activity, his faith or lack thereof, and his philosophical bent which are simply unexpressed in the text of the song. You are imposing the entire history of TEC dysfunction on this guy without any basis or warrant.  And you are being quite uncharitable about it. He’s escaped from a terribly addictive and dark way of life. Instead of rejoicing in that—you assume the worst about him on very little evidence. 

“If we do not walk out the word, our faith is incomplete, barren, fruitless.”

My point precisely.

“We have to take the plain meaning of the Scriptures and live them, make them incarnate in us.”

Yup

“What you are suggesting, that spiritual principle and Scripture be ignored, winked at in the case of Luca…sounds so very familiar.”

No. That is what you are hearing. No one suggested or said that.

“I can’t believe you two, Greg and Matt+ are saying what you are saying.  ‘A roll in the hay, getting nekkid…’ To paraphrase your comments: The ends justify the means.”

I said nothing about “getting nekkid”. Greg did. And if I understand his comment—he was not condoning it

No one suggested or said that the ends justify the means either in this case or any other. Specifically, I said:

“God may have used the woman and Povia may have had sex with her but I am very certain God can use one without condoning the other. We often use the things and people God brings into our lives in sinful ways…and yet God’s grace still works through them…amazing stuff that grace.”

I would ask that you read what I actually write rather than paraphrasing someone else’s comment and attributing it to me.

“What I see in this thread of comments is just another everyday commonplace descent into relativism.”

What I see in your comment is evidence that you have taken neither the time to listen to the song very carefully or read the comments.

We’ve never crossed lines before Floridian and you are one of my favorite commenters, but I think you are way off base here.

guys its just a silly song…not a theological treatise!

Matt+ - you are responding to Greg’s statement: “ I didn’t comment on how likely it was for the population in general… but that’s what THIS guy himself is saying.” and that statement is pretty much the Experience Model.

Your comments pretty much stated another model, ‘the ends justify the means.’
Here:  “God may have used the woman and Povia may have had sex with her but I am very certain God can use one without condoning the other. We often use the things and people God brings into our lives in sinful ways…and yet God’s grace still works through them…amazing stuff that grace.”
Is sex one of the body’s graces (RW)? 
Is it a sacrament, with salvific efficacy (VGR)?
Is that the ‘sin that grace may abound,’ theology? 
Is it the ‘all will be well’ ‘Let’s just live and be sweet to others and let God sort it all out’, a kind of que sera sera theology? 

I’m not for stoning people or putting people in stocks, but I am for holding out the best and highest goals.  I’ve seen too much hedging, winking and compromising.

People - ‘a roll in the hay’ (Greg) ‘do it’ ‘boink’ ‘gay’ etc, should not be in the Christian lexicon. 

Relativism and retaining the world’s view of human sexuality…is NOT going to work for the Church.

Greg’s saying, “I said nothing about “getting nekkid”. Greg did:
“We should celebrate the return of this prodigal son, not bend ourselves into metaphorical pretzels over how he got here. Newman was a slave trader. Saul persecuted Christians. Surely we can give Luca a pass on his roll in the hay.”

And if I understand his comment—he was not condoning it” means to me that he didn’t think that even if the guy slept with the girl, it was not a big deal.  This sounds like the ‘sex is ‘a diaphora’’ argument. 

I’ll admit to having a lot of hot button issues.  I’ll admit to applying the TEC issues to this thread of arguments.  However, I do not think it is wrong to do so.  Quite the contrary.

You and Greg are two of my favorite bloggers and that is why I am questioning and asking clarification about your response to my original post. 

Your positions and those of will determine the future of the Church.  You are a pastor and have the obvious potential, the pastoral and teaching gifts to be a Bishop someday.  You are rearing 5 beautiful children.  I have to ask what are your positions in the practice of the faith for my own conscience’ sake.  We’ve got to challenge our brothers and sisters when we do not understand what they are saying or what they mean by it.

With respect.

Nope Floridian, you are again, not being very careful or very charitable…and your argument is somewhat illogical.

To say, “God gives good gifts that we sometimes corrupt” is not to say “the ends justify the means”...I am trying to understand how this is not clear to you.

For example: God provides food to a starving believer for the purpose of bringing him to a deeper point of trust…the believer, once fed, is led to a deeper faith…and also goes on to stuff himself.

Was it good that God used food to bring the man to a deeper point of faith. Yes.

Is the food good? Yes.

Does God condone gluttony? No.

Can God use food to accomplish his purposes even though the man abused the good gift? Yes.

Not too difficult. Let’s try it with Luca.

Let’s say God brought this woman into Luca’s life to bring him out of homosexuality.

Would that be good?

Yes.

Can God use one of his creatures to help another. Yes.

Let’s say (and, again, WE DO NOT KNOW THIS HAPPENED) Luca has sex with the woman outside of wedlock.

Was this good? No.

Is it possible for God to help Luca by bringing a woman into his life even when Luca abuses the gift?

Yes.

Is this a case of the ends justifying the means?

No. The means God intended to use would be a chaste loving relationship the woman. Not premarital sex.

“Matt+ - you are responding to Greg’s statement: “ I didn’t comment on how likely it was for the population in general… but that’s what THIS guy himself is saying.” and that statement is pretty much the Experience Model.”

No…I was 1. commenting on your false attribution of Greg’s comment to me and 2. your misrepresentation of Greg’s point.

I do not know what you mean by the “Experience Model” but sometimes our experience is consistent with revealed truth and in those times, experience is good. This is not to say that experience is the measure of the good but that when experience accords with the good then it is, itself, good. Not sure how or why that is difficult to understand?

“Your comments pretty much stated another model, ‘the ends justify the means.’”

No your comments are simply an unreasoned and uncharitable misrepresentation of my comments.

“Is sex one of the body’s graces (RW)? ” Yes

“Is it a sacrament, with salvific efficacy (VGR)?” No

“Is that the ‘sin that grace may abound,’ theology?” No.

“Is it the ‘all will be well’ ‘Let’s just live and be sweet to others and let God sort it all out’, a kind of que sera sera theology? ” No.

“I’m not for stoning people or putting people in stocks, but I am for holding out the best and highest goals.”

And you also seem to be for misrepresentation and mis-characterization and quick critical judgment.  I’ve seen too much hedging, winking and compromising.

“People - ‘a roll in the hay’ (Greg) ‘do it’ ‘boink’ ‘gay’ etc, should not be in the Christian lexicon.”

Well Greg is fairly irreformable when it comes to his language…but I’ll let him speak for himself.

“Relativism and retaining the world’s view of human sexuality…is NOT going to work for the Church.”

Agreed. Neither is mis-characterization and misrepresentation.

I am a full-bore, five-point Calvinist.  I am very thankful for this song and for the changes in this man’s life.  Was he a sinner?  Certainly.  Is he perfect now?  No - no one is, this side of eternity.  Is he better than he was?  To be sure.  Do we know all that has happened in his heart and mind as he was changed?  We do not.

The early Puritans in New England required a full assent to their doctrines in order to become a member of the church.  Beyond that, they required a testimony of how they had been convicted of sin, turned to the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and experienced “new creation.”  The assent to the doctrines makes sense - but the testimony does not make as much sense.  The first Puritans would have grown up in the works-righteousness setting of unreformed Roman Catholicism.  They could definitely taste the sweetness of grace for they had experienced either the burdens of legalism or the follies of those who give up pursuing goodness because it is too hard.  But the children of the first Puritans - and even more so the grandchildren - did not have that kind of experience.  They grew up in homes that were very conscious of grace, not works, and which encouraged moral behavior as a form of thanks - not to earn merit nor to give up on because it was impossible.  These later generations had a hard time giving a testimony that would be acceptable by the first generation - they simply had a quieter, less obvious coming to understanding of grace and of a changed life.

Just because I am glad that this man has been changed does not mean that I think that his pattern of change is THE pattern of change.  His story is certainly one that fits with the background and setting of the vast majority of men who have same-sex attraction.  And (according to Alan Medinger of “Regeneration”) his falling in love with one woman and not having a generalized attraction to women is also common among men who leave homosexual activity and are obedient to God’s call to chaste behavior.

From what the song says, he is engaged to be married, and he is the father of a child, even though he is not married.  Is this God’s ideal?  No.  But it is closer to God’s ideal than a same-sex relationship beset with many infidelities of its own.  He may not be living according to God’s pattern yet - but he is not where he was.

And he may have excellent, consciously Bible-based grounds for what he believes about sex and marriage - but be singing about his experience because he knows that it provides a starting place for those in the culture he is addressing.

He is a brave man, and I applaud his courage and his transparency.  He is a testimony that same-sex attraction is not inborn, but a product of circumstances.  God bless him - and draw him closer to his Son.

Matt+,

I completely agree the song is not about Christian doctrine. As an example of how one can get into and then break out of homosexual culture it is a great and hopeful story - and I’m always appreciative of Euro-pop. My intent is not to judge the Luca character and certainly not be uncharitable nor project TEC issues into this. The first two thirds of the song are painful and poignant; it’s obvious a real transformation took place.

But I’m not sure Luca would attribute the change to God. We’re interpreting the small amounts of God language in the song very differently. You can listen to the song and get the impression Luca thinks he’s married to a woman simply because of chance. Obviously, your point of view is much more positive than mine.

This argument feels kind of like the discussion around “The Shack” - where the message is that God can bring healing and forgiveness even if the theology is confused. Here we see that people can change sexuality (and maybe Povia even wants to tell us God can change us), even if the sexual ethics truth are a little lax. Both are good stories – neither is a great foundation for theology.

And frankly, I’m offended no one thought to suggest a record of Rafi singing Luther’s small catechism.

46,
Very well done!

Matt+
I’ll take your last comment point by point and try to clear up any misunderstandings.

Not being very charitable?  To you or to Povia or to the young woman who had a baby by him?  Love must be tough and discerning as well as looking to the person’s best interest.  I do not agree that a human relationship is the vehicle for a stable healthy life.  I am not being judgmental, but actually most charitable.  I wish the best possible for Povia, his fiance and child.

Careful?  I think you mistakenly jumped in on my response to Greg and assumed I had attributed it to you.

Illogical?  OK - I will accept that and admit I haven’t taken logic or philosophy at any school I attended. 

Your food argument:  I cannot accept that you can equate or substitute food with sex in any argument.  That is mixing apples and foxes.  We must have food, but even for men; that is unscriptural…God expects chastity and continence.  He does not agree that sex is a civil right. Western culture, modern psychology have put this forth and has led to TEC situation.  Modern secular psychology equates sex with a BM or eating.  It is pathological to be sexually inactive.)

The end justifying the means problem:  OK, we have a relational sin…God turns things to good to those who love Him and are called according to His purposes.  (Romans 8:28)  When we call upon God, He comes in as much redemptive, transforming love power as we allow Him to work into our lives.  Time will tell, and I pray Povia knows God and Jesus Christ whom God has sent…and believes on the Name of Jesus Christ…for that is eternal life.  If not, well, you are an exclusivist.  I cannot presume to judge his eternal destination.

You said, “No your comments are simply an unreasoned and uncharitable
misrepresentation of my comments. And you also seem to be for misrepresentation and mis-characterization and
quick critical judgment.” 

I don’t know how to respond except to say that I am sorry and had no intention of offending you.  I only wanted to know if I was reading you right and if you meant the outcome merited the means.  Your and Greg’s responses seemed more in line with situational ethics and relativism than the Scriptures seem to support. 

You seemed to be saying, that Povia’s *possible* healing was great and it didn’t matter how it was achieved….that it was a kind of missionary work.  That gives a whole different meaning to Romans 12:1… one that Paul probably would not be very much approving. 

Is this is the kind of missionary work that would be acceptable in your parish, in the new province?  Would you want E and G (or Greg, your daughter?) to be missionaries in this way?  (hint: over your wives dead bodies.) 

I hope and pray I have cleared up my position and intentions…  I have taken enough of your valuable time.  Thank you very much for helping me see how easily arguments can be misunderstood.  Psychologists say, it doesn’t matter what we say, it only matters what the other person hears.  Didn’t mean to appear unreasonable, contrary and argumentative or to misrepresent your position…only to find out exactly what your position truly is.

Two of my daughters are lawyers and the third is a paralegal - surprised?

Floridian,
Sorry about the daughters.  Christmas Dinners with two and half lawyers -uhg..

Hi Floridian:

“Not being very charitable? To you or to Povia or to the young woman who had a baby by him?”

Sounds like all three to me.

“Love must be tough and discerning as well as looking to the person’s best interest.”

Agreed.

“I do not agree that a human relationship is the vehicle for a stable healthy life.”

Interesting. But that is not what I said. I said God can use any vehicle including a human relationship to graciously move someone out of a particular sin.

“I am not being judgmental, but actually most charitable. I wish the best possible for Povia, his fiance and child.”

I am sure you think that you are.

“Careful? I think you mistakenly jumped in on my response to Greg and assumed I had attributed it to you.”

Not “mistakenly” at all. I will quote you:

“I can’t believe you two, Greg and Matt+ are saying what you are saying.  ‘A roll in the hay, getting nekkid…’ To paraphrase your comments: The ends justify the means.”

You attribute those words and sentiments to me when I did not say, imply, or assert anything remotely like them.
“Illogical? OK - I will accept that and admit I haven’t taken logic or philosophy at any school I attended.”

not sure what that has to do with being logical.

“Your food argument: I cannot accept that you can equate or substitute food with sex in any argument.”

It was an illustration. You can use any good thing in the place of food—necessary or unnecessary for life and it works…a car, a job etc—God can use all of these good things to bring people to deeper levels of faith and people can use all of these things in the wrong ways.

“That is mixing apples and foxes.”

No, its really not. It’s just an analogy.

“We must have food, but even for men; that is unscriptural…God expects chastity and
continence.”

And it begins. Please point out to me where I suggested that sex was a necessity.

“He does not agree that sex is a civil right. Western culture, modern psychology have put this forth and has led to TEC situation.”

No argument with you there. It’s just that you have, again, mischaracterized what I have said. Can you please direct me to anything I have written that would lead you to believe that I think sex is a right or a necessity?

“Modern secular psychology equates sex with a BM or eating. It is pathological to be sexually inactive.)”

Indeed it does. But I have not.

“The end justifying the means problem: OK, we have a relational sin…God turns things to good to those who love Him and are called according to His purposes. (Romans 8:28)”

I think you are confusing the relationship with the sin. Since he has had sex with this woman out of wedlock then he has sinned. No doubt.  But the relationship is not the sin. It is the sex. I never suggested asserted or implied that God used the sex to bring him out of homosexuality. I did suggest that God could very well have used the relationship.

“When we call upon God, He comes in as much
redemptive, transforming love power as we allow Him to work into our lives.”

Yes.

“Time will tell, and I pray Povia knows God and Jesus Christ whom God has sent…and believes on the Name of Jesus Christ…for that is eternal life.”

Yes.

“If not, well, you are an exclusivist. I cannot presume to judge his eternal destination.”

Good thing we don’t have too.

“I don’t know how to respond except to say that I am sorry and had no intention of offending you. I only wanted to know if I was reading you right and if you meant the outcome merited the means.”

Floridian. Your first few responses did seem like questions. But then you seemed to grow more and more accusatory, leaping to conclusions and mischaracterizing both my and Gregs posts based on clear misreadings of our words despite my very clear words denying your accusations.

“Your and Greg’s responses seemed more in line with situational ethics and relativism than the Scriptures seem to support.”

Not really. In fact, not at all. It’s just that you have misread me and mis-characterized my words and positions.

“You seemed to be saying, that Povia’s *possible* healing was great and it didn’t matter how it was achieved….that it was a kind of missionary work.”

No. There is nothing that I have written that even implies such a thing. I said that it was good that he came out of a deadly and horrible way of life and that God could have used this relationship (not the sex) to do that for him. You lept to the conclusion that I was advocating for premarital sex, experiential theology, and relativism.

“That gives a whole different meaning to Romans 12:1… one that Paul probably would not be very much approving.”

Of what

“this is the kind of missionary work that would be acceptable in your parish, in the new province?”

What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about God’s possible intervention in a man’s life through a relationship (not the sex). How on earth have you jumped from that to missionary work?

“Would you want E and G (or Greg, your
daughter?) to be missionaries in this way? (hint: over your wives dead bodies.)”

Where on earth is that coming from?

I hope and pray I have cleared up my position and intentions… I have taken enough of your valuable time.”

Not really.

“Thank you very much for helping me see how easily arguments can be misunderstood. Psychologists say, it doesn’t matter what we say, it only matters what the other person hears.”

No. It pretty much matters what people say. It’s important to try to read their own words and not read your own assumptions into them.

“I do not mean to appear unreasonable, contrary and argumentative or to misrepresent your position…only to find out exactly what your position truly is.”

Then why not ask rather than assume and accuse?

Floridian,

All I meant in my comment is this: Gay fornication - bad. Straight fornication still - bad, but not as bad as gay fornication, if you grant me that committing only one sin in a single act instead of two sins in a single act represents progress. I also meant that by definition, all of us sinners come to Christ from a life of sin - that hopefully we are being transformed as we go. Had Newman not been engaged in the sin of captaining that slave ship, he never would have tied himself to the mast and prayed to God to save him. I see a direct - but far less dramatic - parallel with Luca. Sorry I don’t have the time to dig deeper into this, but I didn’t want you or anyone else getting wrong impression.

Westminster to music .. I like it!

Though, something like ‘Ode to Joy,’ in Beethoven’s 10th wouldn’t work.  Y’know.. on account of Ludwig decomposing and all. 

It would have to be opera.  But not just any old language would do. 

Klingon.  Definitely.

Moot, I haven’t seen a Klingon translation of the Westminster Confession. Calvin’s Articles were written in French, which to me sounds indistinguishable from Klingon. Here’s an Anglican chant…

(XXIV. Of Marriage and Divorce)

Marriage is to be be|tween one man • and one | woman:

neither is it lawful for any man to | have more | than one | wife.

...

And therefore such as profess the true re|formed re|ligion:

should not marry with infidels, papists, or | other •  i|dol•a|ters.

[53] Moot

It would have to be opera.

To associate Calvin with some interminable, bombastic,  monstrosity written by Wagner.  Unforgivable.  If not Beethoven, then perhaps an Oratorio by Handel.

carl

Handel and Beethoven both wrote operas. Wagner wrote very long operas. A typical Wagner performance might well start in the late afternoon, break for dinner, and then resume.

I’ve never heard of anyone reading the Institutes in one setting, though I suppose it’s possible.

interminable, bombastic, monstrosity written by Wagner

Richard Wagner is not all bad ... Warner Brothers was able to redeem <u>Der Ring des Nibelungen</u> down to 6 minutes and 49 seconds   :o)

An excerpt from the famous Opera “Kill the Wabbit” - arguably the only redeeming outcome of Wagnerian Opera. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxiv3CBMS4M
When you think of symphonies, you think of Beethoven.  When you think of oratoria, you think of Handel.  When you think of opera, you remember being forced by your wife to watch all 16 hours of the Ring Series.  Four hours a night.  Four successive nights.  Years of reparative therapy have only begun to address the trauma.  And it’s been almost 20 years ...

carl