It is not difficult to understand these positions; indeed, they were probably held by many of us at some point until our lives and the lives of those we love made us begin to question them. So we can-and should-understand the mix of fear and anger that fuels the passionate defense of such positions. For those who hold them, something sacred is at stake. And something sacred is at stake. The authority of Scripture and of the church’s tradition is scarcely trivial. A real challenge confronts those of us who perceive God at work among all persons and in all covenanted and life-enhancing forms of sexual love. That challenge is to take our tradition and the Scripture with at least as much seriousness as those who use the Bible as a buttress for rejecting forms of sexual love they fear or cannot understand.

The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy-that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality-namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order.

He is correct. It’s only argument is that it is only an argument.

We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience

In other words, you bestow upon yourselves an authority exceeding that of the Prophets and Apostles, and enthrone yourselves in their place.  And you simply can’t understand why those pesky orthodox won’t get with the program.

Well, at least that’s honest…

It is amazing and so arrogant to just toss the Bible aside and “do what is right in our own eyes"…

I email with a whole group of folks - they are touting the “their experiences” argument...doesn’t hold water, but they don’t care.

This is sad in so many ways, but particularly since Johnson has been such a potent force in debunking the Jesus movement.  Now that his authority is “experience,” I wonder what credibility he can really bring to offer, even in that valient endeavor.

LT Johnson says

So we can-and should-understand the mix of fear and anger that fuels the passionate defense of such positions.

Proponents of the goodness of same-sex relationships write off opponents using psychology, not rational argument. I guess it is easier to dismiss us as slaves to emotion than to engage in logical discussion.  Of course, if the primary means of discovering truth is “experience,” then reason is not very effective.

Perhaps what we are dealing with is a mixture of lust and selfishness on the part of some who will not listen to our experience as blood-bought, spiritually reborn people who have been given the power and tools to overcome our sinful habits—not easily, of course, but truly.  Neither will they listen to the arguments we can make from Scripture and scientific research.

“They don’t care” - “Neither will they listen to the arguments we can make from Scripture and scientific research.” - “We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience”

All statements above are true! So the only thing we can truly do is WITNESS! and WITNESS some more! Living and testifying in the experience of Jesus Christ is far more effective. Simply and sadly these people will eventually come to feel empty, still having a void as they continue to search for that special something that is Jesus Christ and His transforming love and forgiveness once they stop looking to themselves and start looking at the cross and the scriptures and surrender themselves to their creator who, like a parent knows better what is best for you/them than we/they do!

Learning to give up one’s control of self and everyting around themselves is not an easy thing to do and many just can’t do it so they go looking and making up something to give themselves the feel good road to walk.

This is the first time I’ve ever “heard” (seen) anyone admit that they believe what the Bible says but just refuse to believe that it is true. Since when is the Bible a “cafeteria style” book - you can take a little of this but leave that (because you don’t like it)?

At first I thought the article might present a new view. Then it happened! The importance of what our “experience” teaches us, and that we need to listen to “human stories”. If I were a child molester who’s experience caused me to believe my actions were good, would that make them good? May it never be!

And when we say we’ve heard their stories but prefer to keep to our own traditional understandings, their response is always “You didn’t really listen to me!!” Because they can’t believe we have not been completely swayed by their eloquence.

It is not difficult to understand these positions; indeed, they were probably held by many of us at some point until our lives and the lives of those we love made us begin to question them.

Ironic.  I agree with this - albeit from a 180-degree perspective.

For much of my life I would have -and did -actively defend the philosophy presently advocated by episcopal revisionists.  During that time I would have adamantly proclaimed myself a Christian.  Much of what informed me was my experience and background in the performing and visual arts - years spent in the theater world, in music, and in the world of ballet.  During this time many, if not most of my closest friends were active in the GLBT lifestyle.  Two friends from my 120 student high school (both one year ahead of me) are post-op transexuals.  These are kind, gentle, people and good friends.  I strongly believed they should not be excluded from any form of ministry, nor any rights or status (including marriage) available to heterosexuals.

BUT - -

“...they were… held by [me]… until [my life] and the lives of those [I] love[d] made [me] begin to question.”

Seven years ago, when convicted by the Holy Spirit, I became more than the nominal Christian I had previously been.  I began to question my easy beliefs, immerse myself in scripture, participate in Christian dialog, and look more closely at the impact of tempering and altering the Word of God to fit personal desire had on my life and the lives of those around me. 

This process - which Luke Timothy Johnson outlines as a methodology for transforming one from (to use my choice of terms) the reasserter to the revisionist position - had the exact opposite effect on me.  It took me from a position solidly in line with L.T. Johnson’s philosophy to one fully compliant with Chalcedon, and soundly opposed to the recent TE’c” innovations.