Nursing performance evaluation comments
Resume help for UX research internships and entry level ux researcher jobs
2024.05.21 18:41 vaish34rana Resume help for UX research internships and entry level ux researcher jobs
Had to attach as two different images, since the quality was terrible with just one image.
Background: I just graduated this month with bachelor's degree in psychology. The top 3 projects are personal ux-related projects that i conducted. The last project is not UX but is research so I still included it. I don't have any professional ux research experience, so projects is all I have. I was a teaching assistant in college which I included in experience, I am not sure if I should keep it or not.
This is the resume I have been using to applying to ux research internships and ux researcher jobs. I have either been declined or have not heard back so far. So, any advice on how to improve this resume helps. Thanks.
https://preview.redd.it/eertm3uk5t1d1.png?width=846&format=png&auto=webp&s=56ad0f45b3a401daea15756b4f47369347a57fe5
https://preview.redd.it/tci5tmal5t1d1.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=c7843731b9fcb1a14ee61a4b14efbd5ecb240a95
submitted by vaish34rana to resumes [link] [comments]
Background: I just graduated this month with bachelor's degree in psychology. The top 3 projects are personal ux-related projects that i conducted. The last project is not UX but is research so I still included it. I don't have any professional ux research experience, so projects is all I have. I was a teaching assistant in college which I included in experience, I am not sure if I should keep it or not.
This is the resume I have been using to applying to ux research internships and ux researcher jobs. I have either been declined or have not heard back so far. So, any advice on how to improve this resume helps. Thanks.
https://preview.redd.it/eertm3uk5t1d1.png?width=846&format=png&auto=webp&s=56ad0f45b3a401daea15756b4f47369347a57fe5
https://preview.redd.it/tci5tmal5t1d1.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=c7843731b9fcb1a14ee61a4b14efbd5ecb240a95
2024.05.21 18:40 Far-War-3804 B030 U.S. ARMY CYBER COMMAND SOURCES have yet to FORENSICALLY DETERMINE whether “DARK BRANDON” was an IMPOSTER-BODY DOUBLE, DOPPELGANGER, CLONE, or HOLOGRAM. If it was THE GENUINE SLEEPY JOE, he was THWACKED OUT of his PEDOPHILIC MIND on ADRENOCHROME during the State of the UNION ADDRESS. March 8,
 | https://preview.redd.it/pkbjmwn85t1d1.png?width=1089&format=png&auto=webp&s=030fedebb4d26059f0ac80f1d068ca7c3adeb255 submitted by Far-War-3804 to CourtofAges [link] [comments] B030 U.S. ARMY CYBER COMMAND SOURCES have yet to FORENSICALLY DETERMINE whether “DARK BRANDON” was an IMPOSTER-BODY DOUBLE, DOPPELGANGER, CLONE, or HOLOGRAM. If it was THE GENUINE SLEEPY JOE, he was THWACKED OUT of his PEDOPHILIC MIND on ADRENOCHROME during the State of the UNION ADDRESS. March 8, 2024. U.S. Army Cyber Command sources have yet to forensically determine whether last night’s “Dark Brandon” was an imposter—body double, doppelganger, clone, or hologram. However, they expressed certainty over one thing: if it was the genuine Sleepy Joe, he was thwacked out of his pedophilic mind on Adrenochrome during the State of the Union Address. Seemingly and uncharacteristically replete with vim and vigor, Joe attacked the legitimate president, Donald J. Trump, a dozen times without naming him, labeling him a Russian stooge and enemy of democracy. He also dwelt on Ukraine, imploring lawmakers in the audience to lavishly fund Zelenskyy, an act that would further bankrupt the U.S. and deplete the country’s military arsenal. Moreover, Joe lied about looking to end hostilities in the Middle East. He has been playing both sides of the fence, vigorously funding Israel while promising to ship provisions to Gaza, and he is fearful of alienating Zionist and Muslim support. The MSM and liberal commentators called his speech triumphant, a victory lap. Joe’s fiery performance, they said, proves beyond all doubt that he, despite his age, is ready and capable of helming the United States for the next four years—and defeating Trump in the 2024 election. The White Hats at ARCYBER, on the other hand, believe the country saw an illusion—one of Biden’s five known body doubles, a freshly hatched clone, or the real deal, a well-rested Biden fueled by copious amounts of Adrenochrome coursing through his varicose veins. RRN has previously chronicled Biden’s Adrenochrome addiction. In April 2021, a Secret Service agent assigned to the Bidens’ Delaware home witnessed Jill administering an Adrenochrome infusion to her bedridden, emaciated husband. The cocktail infused him with energy: he sprang out of bed, danced a little jig, and thanked Jill and his personal physician for the “candy,” Biden’s word for Adrenochrome. Some sources claim Biden has been taking Adrenochrome injections and infusions since the 1990s, but RRN hasn’t seen proof to substantiate that assertion. Nonetheless, the pharmaceutical concoction’s properties are well-established; it temporarily bestows extraordinary strength, mental alacrity, and acuity, and, allegedly, heightened sexual prowess and virality. Its side effects are devastating. Adrenochrome is immediately addictive, more so than heroin and crack. It gives diminishing returns: The more one takes, the more one needs to sustain the high. Withdrawal symptoms include schizoid psychosis and unrelenting rage, followed, in some cases, by intense malaise and systemic organ failure. Only a fresh injection abates rapid deterioration. If the man calling himself President Biden last night was either the authentic Biden or a clone, he displayed unquestionable signs of Adrenochrome madness. “In his natural state, Biden is a mumbling fool. He can’t string four words together without mumbling incoherencies. His handlers have him in the basement or in bed by 3:00 p.m. because he suffers sundowning from Alzheimer’s. Adrenochrome alleviates that. As for clones, the Deep State hasn’t, best as we know, found a way to rid the clone of its host’s ailments. So, Biden has dementia, and so would his clones. And a clone would need Adrenochrome, too. But the only way to tell for sure is to get a look at the back of the mouth, feet, or genitals, which we don’t see on television. The other possibility is much simpler—a lookalike in a Latex mask,” our source said. ARCYBER, he said, will spend the next day or two scrutinizing footage, comparing what was shown on television to their stored footage. “We’ll discover the truth soon enough,” he said. As an aside, RRN has received news of several arrests following the SOTU address. We hope to have more info on these tomorrow. |
2024.05.21 18:39 neverumbrella [0 YOE] New grad currently on 4 month internship and looking to apply for SWE, need advice on weak resume
![[0 YOE] New grad currently on 4 month internship and looking to apply for SWE, need advice on weak resume](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/qgO3sYZI74OgZeerWbwfgReTd6EuH1chFYR6hRKNdIc.jpg "[0 YOE] New grad currently on 4 month internship and looking to apply for SWE, need advice on weak resume") | Hello! submitted by neverumbrella to EngineeringResumes [link] [comments] I'm about to graduate from a CS bachelors (just doing one last elective course over the summer) and I just started a summer DevOps internship. I only have internship experience in QA/DevOps, but ultimately I am aiming to work as a software engineedev. I've read through the wiki and done my best to adjust my resume to those guidelines. I'm aware that right now, in terms of experience and skills, my resume is pretty weak for a dev position. I plan to take this summer to level up my Github contributions, study some more frameworks, and perhaps build a side project of my own. However, I figure that in the meantime, I'll still apply to jobs and send my resume out so I can at least get started. So, with that in mind, I have two main requests for feedback: 1) Firstly, I would appreciate any critiques on my resume that I can implement right now, in terms of formatting, bullet points, any skills that should be removed, etc. Basically, any feedback that's not centred on lack of substance/relevant experience, which will take me some time to work on. While I know my resume might get passed over because of weak experience, I want to make sure it isn't passed over for formatting reasons or anything else that could be easily fixed. 2) Going off of that, I would appreciate any guidance on what skills, projects, etc. I can work on over the next four months that would make my resume more competitive and more suited for a SWE position. Basically, what, in your opinion, is missing from this resume that if added, would make me a significantly stronger candidate? Besides the above, any feedback at all that comes to mind is extremely appreciated, no matter how harsh. Thanks in advance! https://preview.redd.it/3wor1iog5t1d1.png?width=5100&format=png&auto=webp&s=4734046d8f11b785d41003ab8f89e37a3242e02c |
2024.05.21 18:37 koologic C5-C6 bulging disk directly under surgery scar, was not there before surgery - is this medical malpractice?
I had a neck extensor muscle biopsy done 15 months ago. I was told this would heal in a few weeks and I could go to work the next day. And that it would be a 1-inch incision at the bottom of my neck. Well, I woke up in extreme pain after the surgery and couldn't lift my right arm. The scar is thick and around 3 inches in the middle of my shoulders. I saw the surgeon 3 times within two months and he said it needed more time to heal and I should follow up with the ordering neurologist. For months I was in severe pain, but my neurologist was out on maternity leave. I saw the nurse practitioner who ordered PT and put me on gabapentin.
After 4 months I finally saw the ordering physical, still in pain and couldn't lift my right arm more than 50%. She thought I had a frozen shoulder and should continue PT. The physical therapist confirmed it was not a frozen shoulder. A year went by and I went back to the neurologist since things have not improved. She finally ordered an MRI and this shows I have a bulging disc at C5-C6, directly under the scar, as well as scar tissue. I had an MRI 1 month before the surgery and this was not there. I'm so upset and know something happened during the surgery that caused a disc issue, due to the unusual pain I was in and that I could not lift my arm at all. I'm so upset about the lack of care I have encountered and wonder if this was an unnecessary test in the first place. I have other health problems, a feeding tube, lung muscle issues, and myopathy; which were the reasonfor getting the biopsy done. The biopsy came back negative. I still have constant pain at the surgery site and right shoulder, can only lift my arm 50%. The gabapentin has impaired my thinking. This all has affected my WFH job performance and quality of life.
Do I have a case or am I too late to prove anything? I'm in NY. Thanks for any advice.
submitted by koologic to legaladvice [link] [comments]
After 4 months I finally saw the ordering physical, still in pain and couldn't lift my right arm more than 50%. She thought I had a frozen shoulder and should continue PT. The physical therapist confirmed it was not a frozen shoulder. A year went by and I went back to the neurologist since things have not improved. She finally ordered an MRI and this shows I have a bulging disc at C5-C6, directly under the scar, as well as scar tissue. I had an MRI 1 month before the surgery and this was not there. I'm so upset and know something happened during the surgery that caused a disc issue, due to the unusual pain I was in and that I could not lift my arm at all. I'm so upset about the lack of care I have encountered and wonder if this was an unnecessary test in the first place. I have other health problems, a feeding tube, lung muscle issues, and myopathy; which were the reasonfor getting the biopsy done. The biopsy came back negative. I still have constant pain at the surgery site and right shoulder, can only lift my arm 50%. The gabapentin has impaired my thinking. This all has affected my WFH job performance and quality of life.
Do I have a case or am I too late to prove anything? I'm in NY. Thanks for any advice.
2024.05.21 18:36 0xAERG AI and Consciousness
"Science is incapable of explaining consciousness."
This idea seems to be commonly accepted and often leads to suggest that consciousness might be separate from the body or even from the physical world altogether.
However, advancements in neuroscience have largely debunked these theories. In fact, we have a pretty good idea of where the conscious experience stems from in the brain.
This region is the DMN, the Default Mode Network, also known as the Medial Frontoparietal Network.
The DMN plays a critical role in integrating the activity of the various brain systems, like a supervisor of other cognitive functions. It provides you with all kinds of capabilities like:
Self-awareness: Memories and perceptions about oneself. Social cognition: Understanding and empathising with the emotions and thoughts of others. Moral and social reasoning: Evaluating social interactions and moral dilemmas. Memory and future planning: Recalling past experiences and imagining future scenarios. Narrative comprehension: Understanding and retaining narratives.
Without the DMN, we'd be like drones or robots.
Now, let's move this reflection to the realm of AI.
LLMs are often described as being on the path towards AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). While I recognise that LLMs are resourceful and surprising, their functions are limited to processing and generating language, much like specific brain regions involved in speech. Critically, they lack the broad capabilities that the DMN provide that would actually create a conscious experience.
Simply put, LLMs can create sentences that make sense within a given context, but they don’t “understand” or “feel” the content in the way humans do.
LLMs alone will never experience time, emotions or self-awareness.
An equivalent of the DMN would need to be integrated into AI systems to move towards AGI.
Now, do we need AGI, and do we really want to go down that road? That’s debatable.
Would we be equipped to tackle the ethical challenges that an actual AGI would pose?
Feel free to share your thoughts in comments.
submitted by 0xAERG to singularity [link] [comments]
This idea seems to be commonly accepted and often leads to suggest that consciousness might be separate from the body or even from the physical world altogether.
However, advancements in neuroscience have largely debunked these theories. In fact, we have a pretty good idea of where the conscious experience stems from in the brain.
This region is the DMN, the Default Mode Network, also known as the Medial Frontoparietal Network.
The DMN plays a critical role in integrating the activity of the various brain systems, like a supervisor of other cognitive functions. It provides you with all kinds of capabilities like:
Self-awareness: Memories and perceptions about oneself. Social cognition: Understanding and empathising with the emotions and thoughts of others. Moral and social reasoning: Evaluating social interactions and moral dilemmas. Memory and future planning: Recalling past experiences and imagining future scenarios. Narrative comprehension: Understanding and retaining narratives.
Without the DMN, we'd be like drones or robots.
Now, let's move this reflection to the realm of AI.
LLMs are often described as being on the path towards AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). While I recognise that LLMs are resourceful and surprising, their functions are limited to processing and generating language, much like specific brain regions involved in speech. Critically, they lack the broad capabilities that the DMN provide that would actually create a conscious experience.
Simply put, LLMs can create sentences that make sense within a given context, but they don’t “understand” or “feel” the content in the way humans do.
LLMs alone will never experience time, emotions or self-awareness.
An equivalent of the DMN would need to be integrated into AI systems to move towards AGI.
Now, do we need AGI, and do we really want to go down that road? That’s debatable.
Would we be equipped to tackle the ethical challenges that an actual AGI would pose?
Feel free to share your thoughts in comments.
2024.05.21 18:32 phdthrowaway1718 Overcoming guilt and shame associated with how I (30M) used parental support all throughout my 20s and have not become a fully independent adult. Is it also normal to wonder about their spending as well?
Hey everyone,
I'm currently someone (30M) who has always had folks by my side all my life as part of "my team," as my parents call it. A major reason for this outside support network is because I'm autistic, have ADHD-I, dysgraphia, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, PTSD (more on that later), and processing speed in the 3rd percentile. I did not learn I was autistic until I was 14 and always took medication for it and my ADHD-I. I also did not know I had ADHD-I until I was 24-25 because I was on my own for submitting the records of my disabilities to the graduate schools I've attended up until this point. As for my processing speed, I did not learn it was that low until this past August when I sought a DSM-V re-evaluation with my own money.
My mental health symptoms were so severe that, despite doing well academically in a suburban school district that was well funded through property taxes (I'm in the US so the education system here is messed up), I transitioned to a tiny high school that specifically accommodated disabled students. This school had no AP, honors courses, or foreign language courses offered at all. I enrolled in a rural undergraduate school because they gave me the best scholarship offer and my parents insisted on getting as many scholarships as I could (more on this towards the end of the post). Despite my university's reputation as the "stoner college" of northern Ohio, I got my butt handed to me academically and had a 3.1 GPA from that undergraduate and a 3.26 from all of my courses overall. Part of the reason was because I went for a BS, rather than a BA, in Psychology and didn't do well in the math courses with the exception of when I retook Calculus 2.
After my first year, I wanted to take a break from college, but I was forced to stay at the behest of my parents. They even hired a life coach who worked with me from a distance for all four years. As grateful as I am for that support, I realize it was the beginning of issues with becoming totally independent. Fast forward to graduation and I have one summer's worth of lab experience and a 3.5 PSY GPA to my name. I'm forced to take a gap year because I applied only to Ph.D programs (big mistake) and had low GRE scores.
So, how did I get into graduate school with my awful credentials? My parents hired a different coach who specialized in job applications and had a lot of connections. I was able to sell what little I had and get offers to 6/8 Master's programs I applied to in Experimental Psychology and had solid references that explicitly address that they thought I could do well despite my shortcomings. This coach taught me how to contact potential advisors and professors ahead of time and taught me the ins and outs of selling myself to get in.
My final Master's record upon graduation was a 3.48 GPA and I graduated a semester later. My final year of the Master's program, I reconsulted my old coach who helped me write my personal statement and get in contact with potential advisors again. I got two interviews and had one offer of admission to the current Ph.D program I'm in right now. This was despite my lackluster GPA (both undergrad and Master's) and not taking another 10 hours for an assistantship during my Master's program (no additional TAship or RAship in other words, even though everyone else in my program did something extra by their second year).
After I matriculated into the program, I got my Master's in December 2020 due to COVID delays and defending later than I had hoped in my case. I eventually had an ugly falling out with my first advisor due to a misunderstanding (I'll leave it at that since this background detail is already long), but thankfully passed my qualifier project still. I think the world of my current advisor, especially since he was the only one who took me when no one else would at all. I developed PTSD from the experience with my first advisor based on a neuropsychological evaluation I got back in August 2023. When I spoke to the original evaluator for my autism, she said that it was only likely that way because my stress management is characteristically poor and I have extremely low stress tolerance.
Fast forward to now and I recently turned 30 earlier this month. I am back with the old coach who helped me with my Master's and Ph.D applications once again and they're even helping me with "life stuff," getting through all of it and were immensely crucial for helping me get through the situation with my first Ph.D advisor.
I am thankful for the help I've received, but as the top of comment of a previous post alluded to in this instance, I have not learned to walk on my own.
In case this information is relevant, I have $53k in student loan debt principal. The undergraduate loans are eligible under Biden's SAVE plan and have their interest waived when payments are due since they're $0 at the moment. I have about $26k saved right now that I'm not going to put back toward my $24k of graduate loans until I know if I have income after this August.
I have student loan debt even though my father makes over $200k a year ever since I was around 10 years old and my mother makes anywhere between $60k-$80k a year. My parents do not have student loans since neither went to college. I also just learned that the coach billed my parents for around $680 each month over past two (highest ever). Even though its $100 per one hour session (thus leading me to think it was $200 a month since we meet twice a month). Turns out they charged for email and text communications with me even though those were encouraged. Should I feel guilty for not keeping track of the spending despite the agreement with my parents to help me on that? Given everything else mentioned earlier, should I feel guilty for "blowing through" these support systems? Folks love to tell me that someone who had half the resources I did taking my spot in graduate school instead could've gone further.
There is also something else I've been wondering ever since I learned their income levels. Other than the spending on me and my brothers, why would they be that insistent on me and my brothers taking out student loans? They said that they, my grandparents, and me would all pay for "a third" and part of that third on me and my brother's end was taking out student loans. I should also note that I went to a private high school for those with disabilities tuition free despite my parent's income as well because I got an autism scholarship from the state of Ohio that waived tuition.
Only other things I know that are finance related are the $350k in loans (not sure if this was principal or principal + interest) my father took out for his small business, which I know were paid off around my junior year of undergrad. Other than that, I don't know the mortgage of the house or anything else related to its value. I do know there's a mortgage in general though because one of my brothers asked if he paid for the house upfront and he said he did not at all and took out a loan. What else could be underlying their spending? I'm open to hearing others speculate.
Also, thank you for reading this super long post.
submitted by phdthrowaway1718 to autism [link] [comments]
I'm currently someone (30M) who has always had folks by my side all my life as part of "my team," as my parents call it. A major reason for this outside support network is because I'm autistic, have ADHD-I, dysgraphia, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, PTSD (more on that later), and processing speed in the 3rd percentile. I did not learn I was autistic until I was 14 and always took medication for it and my ADHD-I. I also did not know I had ADHD-I until I was 24-25 because I was on my own for submitting the records of my disabilities to the graduate schools I've attended up until this point. As for my processing speed, I did not learn it was that low until this past August when I sought a DSM-V re-evaluation with my own money.
My mental health symptoms were so severe that, despite doing well academically in a suburban school district that was well funded through property taxes (I'm in the US so the education system here is messed up), I transitioned to a tiny high school that specifically accommodated disabled students. This school had no AP, honors courses, or foreign language courses offered at all. I enrolled in a rural undergraduate school because they gave me the best scholarship offer and my parents insisted on getting as many scholarships as I could (more on this towards the end of the post). Despite my university's reputation as the "stoner college" of northern Ohio, I got my butt handed to me academically and had a 3.1 GPA from that undergraduate and a 3.26 from all of my courses overall. Part of the reason was because I went for a BS, rather than a BA, in Psychology and didn't do well in the math courses with the exception of when I retook Calculus 2.
After my first year, I wanted to take a break from college, but I was forced to stay at the behest of my parents. They even hired a life coach who worked with me from a distance for all four years. As grateful as I am for that support, I realize it was the beginning of issues with becoming totally independent. Fast forward to graduation and I have one summer's worth of lab experience and a 3.5 PSY GPA to my name. I'm forced to take a gap year because I applied only to Ph.D programs (big mistake) and had low GRE scores.
So, how did I get into graduate school with my awful credentials? My parents hired a different coach who specialized in job applications and had a lot of connections. I was able to sell what little I had and get offers to 6/8 Master's programs I applied to in Experimental Psychology and had solid references that explicitly address that they thought I could do well despite my shortcomings. This coach taught me how to contact potential advisors and professors ahead of time and taught me the ins and outs of selling myself to get in.
My final Master's record upon graduation was a 3.48 GPA and I graduated a semester later. My final year of the Master's program, I reconsulted my old coach who helped me write my personal statement and get in contact with potential advisors again. I got two interviews and had one offer of admission to the current Ph.D program I'm in right now. This was despite my lackluster GPA (both undergrad and Master's) and not taking another 10 hours for an assistantship during my Master's program (no additional TAship or RAship in other words, even though everyone else in my program did something extra by their second year).
After I matriculated into the program, I got my Master's in December 2020 due to COVID delays and defending later than I had hoped in my case. I eventually had an ugly falling out with my first advisor due to a misunderstanding (I'll leave it at that since this background detail is already long), but thankfully passed my qualifier project still. I think the world of my current advisor, especially since he was the only one who took me when no one else would at all. I developed PTSD from the experience with my first advisor based on a neuropsychological evaluation I got back in August 2023. When I spoke to the original evaluator for my autism, she said that it was only likely that way because my stress management is characteristically poor and I have extremely low stress tolerance.
Fast forward to now and I recently turned 30 earlier this month. I am back with the old coach who helped me with my Master's and Ph.D applications once again and they're even helping me with "life stuff," getting through all of it and were immensely crucial for helping me get through the situation with my first Ph.D advisor.
I am thankful for the help I've received, but as the top of comment of a previous post alluded to in this instance, I have not learned to walk on my own.
In case this information is relevant, I have $53k in student loan debt principal. The undergraduate loans are eligible under Biden's SAVE plan and have their interest waived when payments are due since they're $0 at the moment. I have about $26k saved right now that I'm not going to put back toward my $24k of graduate loans until I know if I have income after this August.
I have student loan debt even though my father makes over $200k a year ever since I was around 10 years old and my mother makes anywhere between $60k-$80k a year. My parents do not have student loans since neither went to college. I also just learned that the coach billed my parents for around $680 each month over past two (highest ever). Even though its $100 per one hour session (thus leading me to think it was $200 a month since we meet twice a month). Turns out they charged for email and text communications with me even though those were encouraged. Should I feel guilty for not keeping track of the spending despite the agreement with my parents to help me on that? Given everything else mentioned earlier, should I feel guilty for "blowing through" these support systems? Folks love to tell me that someone who had half the resources I did taking my spot in graduate school instead could've gone further.
There is also something else I've been wondering ever since I learned their income levels. Other than the spending on me and my brothers, why would they be that insistent on me and my brothers taking out student loans? They said that they, my grandparents, and me would all pay for "a third" and part of that third on me and my brother's end was taking out student loans. I should also note that I went to a private high school for those with disabilities tuition free despite my parent's income as well because I got an autism scholarship from the state of Ohio that waived tuition.
Only other things I know that are finance related are the $350k in loans (not sure if this was principal or principal + interest) my father took out for his small business, which I know were paid off around my junior year of undergrad. Other than that, I don't know the mortgage of the house or anything else related to its value. I do know there's a mortgage in general though because one of my brothers asked if he paid for the house upfront and he said he did not at all and took out a loan. What else could be underlying their spending? I'm open to hearing others speculate.
Also, thank you for reading this super long post.
2024.05.21 18:30 _zenitsu_hyuga Bests and Worsts of 2024
Would love to hear others’ opinions in the comments! This was my favorite Sonic Temple / Rock on the Range since we started going in 2015 🤘 Thanks everyone for an unforgettable weekend
Frontman
Best: Corey Taylor (a king as always)
Worst: Ronnie Radke (huge FiR fan and i understand his ego is part his whole “thing” but he was especially insufferable this year)
Crowds
Best: ADTR (high energy pits, perfect level of aggression, tons of fun)
Worst: Sleep Token (awful awareness of concert culture)
Performances
Best: Avatar & Rise Against (amazing stage presence, great song choices, overall wonderful)
Worst: FiR (fire causing problems, sound difficulties, ronnie’s rants taking up too much time)
Pits
Best: Wage War (no explanation needed)
Worst: I heard Sleep Token’s were bad but I didn’t experience them
Vibes
Best: Electric Callboy & Enter Shikari (dance party, circle pit, dance party, circle pit, repeat)
Worst: no bad vibes 🤘
Food
Best: Frank’s Weiners
Worst: anything priced over $25 😅
Booze
Best: Beatbox (11.1%)
Worst: Beatbox (same reason)
Can’t wait for next year 🥳
Edit: Although Sleep Token were in two of my “worsts” their actual performance was one of my favorites. Vessel was unbelievable.
submitted by _zenitsu_hyuga to SonicTempleFestival [link] [comments]
Frontman
Best: Corey Taylor (a king as always)
Worst: Ronnie Radke (huge FiR fan and i understand his ego is part his whole “thing” but he was especially insufferable this year)
Crowds
Best: ADTR (high energy pits, perfect level of aggression, tons of fun)
Worst: Sleep Token (awful awareness of concert culture)
Performances
Best: Avatar & Rise Against (amazing stage presence, great song choices, overall wonderful)
Worst: FiR (fire causing problems, sound difficulties, ronnie’s rants taking up too much time)
Pits
Best: Wage War (no explanation needed)
Worst: I heard Sleep Token’s were bad but I didn’t experience them
Vibes
Best: Electric Callboy & Enter Shikari (dance party, circle pit, dance party, circle pit, repeat)
Worst: no bad vibes 🤘
Food
Best: Frank’s Weiners
Worst: anything priced over $25 😅
Booze
Best: Beatbox (11.1%)
Worst: Beatbox (same reason)
Can’t wait for next year 🥳
Edit: Although Sleep Token were in two of my “worsts” their actual performance was one of my favorites. Vessel was unbelievable.
2024.05.21 18:29 Small_Assignment5226 PLEASE READ FOR REASSURANCE🦍🦍🦍💎💎💎💎💰💰💰💰
7 reasons why I think FFIE will squeeze.
1. Traction and Media Attention.
-Once traction picks up on $FFIE, it will be over for the hedgies. We must work the stock in order to meet WSB's requirements and bring in more fighters.
2. Short interest remains staggering 95.36% and 36.3 million shares are borrowed
-This must be accounted for. Once we raise the stock price, it will induce the need to cover the short positions, leading to the big short squeeze we are looking for. (Got it from Fintel, can't link for some reason),
Edit: went in-depth more in reason #10 due to requests.
3. The stock has seen incredible performance and has fundamental value -Surging from 0.04$ to 3.80$ is no easy feat. This highlights the strength of retail investors as we stand up to the big money.
-FFIE has also announced cooperation with Master Investment Group and Siraj Holding LLC in the Middle East, establishing a strategic effort to expand business.
4. Your fellow apes are in the trenches with you. YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
-There are those who have lost a lot, and there are those who missed out on a lot. Nonetheless, we must not let our fellow apes be stranded. We are coming with more backup and support everyday!
5. Trading volume is extremely high, reaching over 9 figures, indicating strength and oncoming fire that is FFIE.
6. SEC Rule 201, this restricts the short selling after significant price decline. It is currently in effect for FFIE, reducing potential for short attacks and aiding in the squeeze. More power to retail this week.
Edit: I've linked multiple threads/sources in the comment section. Sources indicate that SEC Rule ended after today.
7. Historical Precedent: The same song is being sung here as with GME, AMC, and the other meme stocks. I believe in the potential and I am confident in our community.
PSA: THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE, I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I'M JUST AN APE. I CAN BE WRONG.
AS FOR ME, I'M NOT SELLING....
Edit: Reading other sources, I want to add more reasons.
8. Regulation and Market Dynamics aka closing above 1$
-Why is this important?
If FFIE maintains a closing price above 1$ for seven consecutive sessions. It will no longer be at risk of being delisted from the Nasdaq. Staying listed will ensure CONTINUED access to a larger pool of investors and maintains regulatory compliance standards, basically enhancing INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND MARKET STABILITY FOR FFIE.
Edit: UNDERSTAND IF THE STOCK PRICE DROPS TO 0, SHORT SELLERS DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND ANY MONEY TO BUY BACK THE SHARES. IF IT DID, THEIR PROFIT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THEY SOLD THE BORROWED SHARES FOR.
This basically means we can INFLICT UNLIMITED LOSS IF THE STOCK PRICE INCREASES INSTEAD OF DECREASE.
9. FFIE on the REG SHO and FTDs
FTD (fail-to-deliver) occur when a seller (short seller) does not deliver the securities sold by the settlement day. This can happen for a variety of reasons. FTD can be caused when many investors short a stock, depleting the supply of available shares to borrow. High short interest = susceptible to FTDs. Higher # of FTDs = more pressure on short sellers to cover.
In a nutshell, short sellers borrow shares to sell on market. They sell them to buyer. Short seller then can't deliver the sold shares to the buyer by settlement date.
-Being on the REG SHO List indicates that FFIE has experienced a substantial number of fails-to-deliver OVER A CONSECUTIVE FIVE-DAY PERIOD. This means short sellers have not been able to deliver the shares they sold, often due to the unavailability of borrowed shares.
-Once the threat of delisting is removed, short sellers will be compelled to close out their positions by purchasing actual shares from the market. According to SEC regulations, they are required to do so within ( typically ) 35 days of the stock being listed on the REG SHO List. This mandatory covering may drive up stock price due to increased demand.
HERE'S HOW IT AFFECTS FFIE. SHORT SELLERS WHO CANNOT DELIVER SHARES ARE REQUIRED TO COVER THEIR POSITIONS BY BUYING SHARES FROM THE MARKET.
10. Retailers BUYING ANDDD HOLDING We buy and hold because the short sellers only benefit by making the price go down. What happens if it stays up or hell, even increase?? THEY'LL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COVER. (Extension to point 2.)
-Imagine you're a short seller, you want the stock to go to 0$ so you can walk out with significant profits without BUYING BACK the BORROWED shares ok?
Then you see a bunch of apes keeping the price up. Now what? HOW HIGH CAN IT GO? How long can it stay up?
-However long this takes, it will inflict losses. The potential for a stock to skyrocket is theoretically indefinite, BECAUSE a stock price can go up forever. EVEN IF THEY SEND THE STOCK TO 10$ AND PUSH IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 1$, WE MUST REMEMBER....
IT'S ONLY EVER IMPERATIVE TO KEEP HOLDING UNTIL THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO BUY BACK THEIR BORROWED SHARES. ONCE THEY REALIZE THE POTENTIAL OF THE STOCK WON'T EVER REACH THE PRICE TARGET, THEY WILL ACCEPT DEFEAT AND BUY BACK THE BORROWED SHARES. GIVING US THE SHORT SQUEEZE AND WE WILL WIN.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO BUY AND HOLD, THIS CAN SKYROCKET.
WE MUST HOLD THE LINE. BLEED THEM UNTIL THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COVER THEIR SHORTS.
I'M IN WITH YOU APES TIL THE END. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE SUPPORT.
submitted by Small_Assignment5226 to FFIE [link] [comments]
1. Traction and Media Attention.
-Once traction picks up on $FFIE, it will be over for the hedgies. We must work the stock in order to meet WSB's requirements and bring in more fighters.
2. Short interest remains staggering 95.36% and 36.3 million shares are borrowed
-This must be accounted for. Once we raise the stock price, it will induce the need to cover the short positions, leading to the big short squeeze we are looking for. (Got it from Fintel, can't link for some reason),
Edit: went in-depth more in reason #10 due to requests.
3. The stock has seen incredible performance and has fundamental value -Surging from 0.04$ to 3.80$ is no easy feat. This highlights the strength of retail investors as we stand up to the big money.
-FFIE has also announced cooperation with Master Investment Group and Siraj Holding LLC in the Middle East, establishing a strategic effort to expand business.
4. Your fellow apes are in the trenches with you. YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
-There are those who have lost a lot, and there are those who missed out on a lot. Nonetheless, we must not let our fellow apes be stranded. We are coming with more backup and support everyday!
5. Trading volume is extremely high, reaching over 9 figures, indicating strength and oncoming fire that is FFIE.
6. SEC Rule 201, this restricts the short selling after significant price decline. It is currently in effect for FFIE, reducing potential for short attacks and aiding in the squeeze. More power to retail this week.
Edit: I've linked multiple threads/sources in the comment section. Sources indicate that SEC Rule ended after today.
7. Historical Precedent: The same song is being sung here as with GME, AMC, and the other meme stocks. I believe in the potential and I am confident in our community.
PSA: THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE, I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I'M JUST AN APE. I CAN BE WRONG.
AS FOR ME, I'M NOT SELLING....
Edit: Reading other sources, I want to add more reasons.
8. Regulation and Market Dynamics aka closing above 1$
-Why is this important?
If FFIE maintains a closing price above 1$ for seven consecutive sessions. It will no longer be at risk of being delisted from the Nasdaq. Staying listed will ensure CONTINUED access to a larger pool of investors and maintains regulatory compliance standards, basically enhancing INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND MARKET STABILITY FOR FFIE.
Edit: UNDERSTAND IF THE STOCK PRICE DROPS TO 0, SHORT SELLERS DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND ANY MONEY TO BUY BACK THE SHARES. IF IT DID, THEIR PROFIT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THEY SOLD THE BORROWED SHARES FOR.
This basically means we can INFLICT UNLIMITED LOSS IF THE STOCK PRICE INCREASES INSTEAD OF DECREASE.
9. FFIE on the REG SHO and FTDs
FTD (fail-to-deliver) occur when a seller (short seller) does not deliver the securities sold by the settlement day. This can happen for a variety of reasons. FTD can be caused when many investors short a stock, depleting the supply of available shares to borrow. High short interest = susceptible to FTDs. Higher # of FTDs = more pressure on short sellers to cover.
In a nutshell, short sellers borrow shares to sell on market. They sell them to buyer. Short seller then can't deliver the sold shares to the buyer by settlement date.
-Being on the REG SHO List indicates that FFIE has experienced a substantial number of fails-to-deliver OVER A CONSECUTIVE FIVE-DAY PERIOD. This means short sellers have not been able to deliver the shares they sold, often due to the unavailability of borrowed shares.
-Once the threat of delisting is removed, short sellers will be compelled to close out their positions by purchasing actual shares from the market. According to SEC regulations, they are required to do so within ( typically ) 35 days of the stock being listed on the REG SHO List. This mandatory covering may drive up stock price due to increased demand.
HERE'S HOW IT AFFECTS FFIE. SHORT SELLERS WHO CANNOT DELIVER SHARES ARE REQUIRED TO COVER THEIR POSITIONS BY BUYING SHARES FROM THE MARKET.
10. Retailers BUYING ANDDD HOLDING We buy and hold because the short sellers only benefit by making the price go down. What happens if it stays up or hell, even increase?? THEY'LL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COVER. (Extension to point 2.)
-Imagine you're a short seller, you want the stock to go to 0$ so you can walk out with significant profits without BUYING BACK the BORROWED shares ok?
Then you see a bunch of apes keeping the price up. Now what? HOW HIGH CAN IT GO? How long can it stay up?
-However long this takes, it will inflict losses. The potential for a stock to skyrocket is theoretically indefinite, BECAUSE a stock price can go up forever. EVEN IF THEY SEND THE STOCK TO 10$ AND PUSH IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 1$, WE MUST REMEMBER....
IT'S ONLY EVER IMPERATIVE TO KEEP HOLDING UNTIL THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO BUY BACK THEIR BORROWED SHARES. ONCE THEY REALIZE THE POTENTIAL OF THE STOCK WON'T EVER REACH THE PRICE TARGET, THEY WILL ACCEPT DEFEAT AND BUY BACK THE BORROWED SHARES. GIVING US THE SHORT SQUEEZE AND WE WILL WIN.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO BUY AND HOLD, THIS CAN SKYROCKET.
WE MUST HOLD THE LINE. BLEED THEM UNTIL THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COVER THEIR SHORTS.
I'M IN WITH YOU APES TIL THE END. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE SUPPORT.
2024.05.21 18:26 Inept_chemist638 Requesting assistance for pc randomly restarting.
My PC has randomly restarted since january. Most of the time it's while playing games, recently it happens whenever it feels like it. The post itself will be short because I want to get it up just in case it crashes again. I will post the crash log info in a comment. I've reinstalled windows multiple times. Most times wiping everything, the last time was a custom reinstall walked through by windows tech support. Unfortunately they are not able to figure out the issue but I would really like to not have to scrap this computer since I've only had it for a year and 1/2. I've updated the GPU and added more RAM. Here are my current specs.
Processor 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-11400F @ 2.60GHz, 2592 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 12 Logical Processor(s)
BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends International, LLC. P1.80, 7/21/2021
BaseBoard Manufacturer ASRock
BaseBoard Product B560M-C
Disk Drives: T-Force TM8FPZ001T M.2 SSD and WD Blue SN570 500GB SSD
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060
RAM: 3X VulcanZ 8GB
I'm not sure what else to include. I ran a user benchmark and everything worked well, the RAM is performing below average though, unsure as to why. They're slotted in A2, B1, and B2. I'm unsure what else to include. I will post the event viewer crash logs around the last two crashed in the comments. I have the event details saved to a document. I apparently cannot post that in a comment because it's too long. But I will have them so I can provide details upon request.
submitted by Inept_chemist638 to techsupport [link] [comments]
Processor 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-11400F @ 2.60GHz, 2592 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 12 Logical Processor(s)
BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends International, LLC. P1.80, 7/21/2021
BaseBoard Manufacturer ASRock
BaseBoard Product B560M-C
Disk Drives: T-Force TM8FPZ001T M.2 SSD and WD Blue SN570 500GB SSD
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060
RAM: 3X VulcanZ 8GB
I'm not sure what else to include. I ran a user benchmark and everything worked well, the RAM is performing below average though, unsure as to why. They're slotted in A2, B1, and B2. I'm unsure what else to include. I will post the event viewer crash logs around the last two crashed in the comments. I have the event details saved to a document. I apparently cannot post that in a comment because it's too long. But I will have them so I can provide details upon request.
2024.05.21 18:25 Consumed2010 Total Shuffled Drama - Basic Straining
Disclaimer: I have switched back to the main subreddit, so aside from three, maybe four of you, you’re probably missing out on some context. If you’d like to be all caught up, you can comb through the previous episodes on my profile.
Votes:
Emma - 2
Katie - 1
Props to u/Proofracer for coming up with plot points
At the campfire ceremony, Chris attempts to build suspense by reminding the campers about the safety of a marshmallow, but Heather insists he get on with it, so the moment is cut short. Chris calls on Shawn, Zoey and Max before tossing them all a marshmallow. He then gives Owen and Heather one each, leaving Emma and Katie. Both Emma and Heather shoot angry looks at Katie, making her feel a tad worried, but Chris gives her the last marshmallow and deems Emma eliminated, causing her to have an outburst at Heather.
Emma: I knew I couldn’t trust you! You’re a backstabbing snake!
Heather: Please, as if I’d betray you this early. If I had any say, you’d still be here for a few more weeks.
Emma: Then, how?
Katie: It’s not just me who’d been fed up with how mean you’ve become. We don’t want a second Heather on this team. No offense.
Heather: Offense taken.
As Emma walks the dock of shame and the rest of the Screaming Gophers disperse, Chris turns to the camera to say his outro.
Chris: Will Max finally do something actually evil? How much longer can Heather keep her alliance afloat? And what will Damien do once he finds out about Bunny’s replacement? Find out next time, on Total Drama Island!
In-world votes:
Emma - Katie, Owen, Max, Shawn
Katie - Heather, Zoey, Emma
Basic Straining
The episode opens with Duncan using his knife to carve a skull into the wall of the Bass cabin when Axel exits the cabin. She scoffs at him, but before she can leave, Duncan attempts to apologize for how he’s treated her in the past. Axel stops to think for a second, but she sees through Duncan’s lie and leaves anyway.
Confessional:
Duncan: Of course I didn’t mean what I said to Axel, but Trent and Sammy are too loyal to one another, and Damien’s essentially attached himself to Dawn. Sadly this means that Axel is the only person I have a chance to ally with, so I need to get back on her good side.
Meanwhile at the Gophers cabin, Katie is sitting dejectedly on the front steps when Owen comes over to cheer her up.
Owen: Are you still bummed out about poisoning me? It’s okay, I know it was an accident.
Katie: That’s only half the problem. Emma got so mad at me for it, and now apparently I brought a cursed item to the team.
Owen: You mean your tiki souvenir? Are you sure it’s cursed?
Katie: Apparently it’s from Boney Island, so I’d say it’s pretty cursed.
Owen: Well, you don’t have to get rid of it, if that’s what you’re worried about. It may be cursed, but it’s still yours. I say you should keep it to remember this show by.
Katie: Thanks Big-O.
Owen: You know what? Let's prove Emma wrong. If you try your best this time, I’m sure you’d do way better at the challenge than you think!
Just then, the loudspeakers turn on, but instead of Chris, it’s Chef Hatchet who orders the campers to meet him at the docks for their next challenge. At the docks, Chef is dressed in a military uniform and starts barking orders at the campers about fixing their forms, with the one exception being Axel, whose form he deems “surprisingly average”. Chef then goes over today’s challenge. The teams will go through Chef’s grueling boot camp and drop out one by one until the last person remaining wins immunity for their team. Heather asks Chef what happened to Chris, but he ignores it and starts going over further rules, like how everyone will have to address him as Master Chief, and that no one eats or sleeps unless he says so.
Confessional:
Axel: I was never trained in the military, but I’m adept in most fields of work Master Chief could go over, so this will be a breeze.
For the first part of the boot camp, each team must carry a canoe, and will continue to do so until someone drops out and rings a bell on the dock. Owen and Trent each make a remark about how easy the challenge sounds, but by noon, everyone is starting to feel the heat.
Chris and Chef are sitting on top of the canoes while taunting the campers about missing lunch. This causes Owen to think about quitting, but Max catches on and tells him not to.
The Bass are still holding up strong, so Duncan tries to talk to Axel again. He says that he knows she hates him, but they’re both stuck between the two couples and need each other. This causes Axel to angrily reply that she’d take her chances with the others over him, leaving Duncan beginning to get annoyed. However, Trent overhears the conversation and begins to look worried.
As night rolls through, the campers are all tired, especially Owen, who has fallen asleep with his arms still holding onto the canoe. Chef is recalling a story from his military days, and Heather asks him what war he was in, causing him to shout at her. Heather then turns to Shawn and tries to strike up a conversation with him.
Heather: Hey Zombie Boy, how do you feel about joining my alliance?
Shawn: Wait what? You’re kidding, right?
Heather: You and Emma were friends, yes?
Shawn: Sure, but that doesn’t mean I trust you. What happened to getting payback on me for locking you in the freezer?
Heather: You could trust me if you were in my alliance. With Emma gone, I’m missing a member of the alliance, and if you join, you won’t be in as bad a spot as you are now.
Shawn: Oh, and what is that supposed to mean?
Heather: Think about it. I didn’t vote Emma off, she got herself eliminated. If the team knew you worked with her, maybe they’d vote you out too. Especially since you’re such a big threat without any allies. With me, I could protect you, plus I won’t plot against you anymore.
Shawn: You were plotting against me?
Heather: That’s besides the point. Just think about it.
Later, Chef has finished bragging about his line of duty just in time for Max to decide he isn’t going to stand in one spot anymore. Much to his teammate’s dismay, he walks down the dock and rings the bell, thus allowing the contestants to drop their canoes. Chef insults Max through his megaphone before ordering everyone else to go to the mess hall to eat dinner, getting Owen excited.
In the cafeteria, Chef announces that everyone will get only ten minutes to eat before he starts night training, which gains him a lot of complaints. Damien asks him where the food is, and Chef gestures to a row of trash cans filled with leftover garbage from breakfast, which only causes more complaining. Owen, however, doesn’t discriminate against the disgusting food and eats some anyway. Chris then invites Chef to eat at the craft services tent, leaving the teams to themselves.
Trent meets with Sammy and tells her about what he heard between Duncan and Axel. He says that Duncan has a point and that since nobody really likes Duncan, Axel would be the deciding vote between them and Dawn and Damien. Hearing this, Sammy comes up with an idea, and suggests winning Axel over ahead of time so that she’s with them. Trent likes the idea, so Sammy goes over to talk with Axel. They have a friendly conversation, and Sammy offers Axel the least disgusting food she can find in the trash, to which Axel declines. Sammy then returns to Trent to talk about other ways to win Axel over.
Damien was watching Sammy’s conversation with Axel, and realises what she and Trent were trying to do, so he walks over to Dawn to talk with her.
Damien: I hate to say this, but we’re going to have to start getting extra votes against Trent and Sammy
Dawn: But why? Wouldn’t we just vote Duncan?
Damien: No, that’s not- I mean, after Duncan’s gone, all that’s left of the Killer Bass is us, them, and Axel. And I think they know that too, because they’re trying to bond with her.
Dawn: Yes, Axel is stuck in between the four of us. I’m not very worried though. I’m good friends with her.
Damien: I know, but we should start getting closer so that if need be, Axel will vote with us instead of them.
Damien then digs through the trash and finds a carrot that is half eaten, but otherwise clean. He decides to save it for Bunny, before noticing that Dawn looks unsure of something. He asks her what’s wrong and she brushes it off as having missed Bunny while it was gone. Damien is happy with this answer and tells Dawn that he knew she and Bunny would get along well, but this only makes her feel worse.
Confessional:
Dawn: Bunny left Damien, but I still don’t know why Duncan found a replacement. Duncan is not to be trusted, but I don’t know how to break the news to Damien that Bunny’s really gone.
We then cut to the next part of the boot camp, which is to repeat Chef’s suspiciously Triller-esque dance routine. The dancing goes on for a while until it’s interrupted when Duncan shuts off the music. Chef angrily asks him what he’s doing so Duncan reminds him about how once someone drops out the training ends. Chef says that they’ll be done when he says they’re done, before forcing Duncan to do push-ups.
Next up, write a three hundred word essay about how much you love Chef, being eliminated if you fall asleep or fail to reach the minimum word count. Owen and Katie are discussing ways to pad out their essays while cracking jokes to make each other laugh. Seeing the two of them bonding, Shawn turns back to his own essay looking a little less confident.
Duncan takes a break from doing the challenge to try and persuade Axel to join him again. She snaps at him and tells him to get lost, but Duncan mentions Shawn, which gets her attention.
Duncan: Let’s face it, everybody knows you like Shawn.
Axel: So? If you want to mock me about it, expect a fight!
Duncan: No, I’m saying that you two are pathetic. Neither one of you ever makes a move! Watching you two is like watching a car crash in slow motion.
Axel: (Sarcastically) Thanks for the advice, Dr. Love.
Duncan: You need a wingman, badly. So it’s going to be me.
Axel: Why would I ever listen to you?
Duncan: Because if you and Shawn are ever going to be a thing, you need me.
Axel: Fine. But if you pull anything you’ll leave this island in a cast.
Duncan gets Axel to close the deal with a handshake before returning back to working on the challenge. Later, Chef returns to pick up the essays, and eliminates both Trent and Zoey for falling asleep. As for everyone else, their essays meet the requirement, although Duncan’s is just one sentence with 289 verys in between. On his way out of the cafeteria, Chef slips in a puddle of Owen’s drool from him being half asleep, and Duncan offers to clean him off. This causes Chef to yell at him again, and the rest of the Bass stop Duncan from saying anything more, lest he get them all in trouble.
The next evening, the training continues, as Chef forces the campers to run an obstacle course until everyone can do it in less than a minute. As they climb a wooden wall, Axel asks Duncan for advice and he tells her she should get Shawn’s attention by showing off her survival skills in the course. Axel takes the advice and waits for Shawn to reach the top of the wall before jumping off and doing acrobatic tricks in midair. This catches Shawn’s eye, who shows off some tricks of his own in return.
The obstacle course causes trouble for some of the other campers, as Owen gets stuck while jumping through a tire, getting him eliminated. On top of that, Damien falls flat on his face when climbing the wall. He pukes up some mud, and is coughing and sputtering, so Chef eliminates him too and sends him to the infirmary.
After going through a montage of campers falling into the mud or otherwise failing, we see Katie struggle to clear a rope swing. She remembers what Owen told her and tries it again, only to clear it easily. She cheers for herself before continuing to run the course.
While crawling through the mud, Sammy reaches a deep spot and starts sinking. Duncan passes while mocking her, only to come across an angry Chef. He gives Duncan more pushups, but Duncan just thanks Chef before kissing him on the nose. This sends Chef off the edge and he announces that Duncan will spend the rest of the night in solitary confinement in the boathouse. This causes everyone to gasp, but Duncan asks how bad it could be, before we cut to him sitting in the boathouse regretting that comment.
In the cafeteria, the contestants remaining in the boot camp are being fed rock hard gruel. Dawn sits down next to Axel, intending to win her over, but Axel is the one to talk first. She explains to Dawn how Duncan is working as a wingman for her and Shawn, and while Dawn is happy for Axel, she reminds her about how Duncan is untrustworthy. She talks about how he replaced Bunny when it left Damien, and that she thinks he has a secret agenda behind everything. Axel agrees with Dawn but leaves to get more advice from Duncan anyway.
Heather finds the gruel Chef has served her to be well past unappetizing, and chooses to instead try to persuade Shawn again. She points out how close Owen, Katie and Max have become, and that since she still has Zoey, they’ll go after him first. After careful consideration, Shawn caves and agrees to work with her. But he specifies that while he will do what’s required for her to protect him, he will not associate himself as a member of her alliance. Despite this, Heather is still pleased by the news, and leaves to get some sleep.
In the boathouse, Axel finds Duncan sweeping the floors to pass the time.
Duncan: Did you get General Crazy angry at you too?
Axel: No, I’m here so you can make good on our deal. What’s some more advice you have?
Duncan: Really? You can’t be so desperate that you need my help for every single thing.
Axel: Then what do you want me to do then? This was entirely your idea!
Duncan: Just ask Shawn out. Maybe set up a date or something. But if you just sit there and don’t talk to him I promise you that nothing good will happen. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to mess with Chef.
Duncan then leaves despite Chef’s orders and heads towards the craft services tent, leaving Axel behind wondering what she could do.
In the Gophers cabin, Katie visits Owen, who congratulates her on doing so well in the boot camp. Katie is ecstatic at her performance and thanks him for giving her the pep talk. Max, while also happy for Katie, insists that “Evil has better things to do than make friends” as he works on something secret in his bunk bed. Owen tells Katie that he thinks she can win the entire challenge, but to this Katie is still a bit skeptical.
The remaining Bass return to their cabin to find Trent and Damien playing cards on the front steps, and inside Dawn finds various snacks left in a big pile on her bed. She’s confused how it got there, but is happy to finally find something edible, so she invites everybody on both teams to hang out and eat the food. As the eleven of them dig in, they discuss how insane Chef is for making them do full on combat training, with only Shawn, Axel, and surprisingly Katie enjoying the challenge. Eventually the relaxation is ruined when Chef barges in and orders everyone in the Killer Bass to line up outside. He announces that the food they were dining on was stolen from the craft services tent, and that he was tipped off that it was one of them because the perpetrator left a raw bass in the fridge. Dawn confesses that she found it on her bed, but before she can explain herself Chef automatically eliminates her from the boot camp and confiscates the rest of the food.
Chef starts the last part of the boot camp the next morning, which is to hang upside-down from a tree until only one person is left. The last campers left are Sammy, Duncan and Axel for the Bass, and Shawn, Heather and Katie for the Gophers. Axel confronts Duncan about what he did, and he admits he stole Chris and Chef’s food, left a bass behind as a calling card and dumped the food on the first bed he found. Axel is pissed at him for getting Dawn in trouble with Chef and cuts the deal between them, causing Duncan to tell her that he never really cared.
Confessional:
Duncan: Okay, maybe I went a little too far, but I’ve always found a way to stay in the game. Surely this will be no different, right?
Chef rants about the side effects of being upside down, and as he goes over each one, someone gets it, causing them to fall off the tree. Eventually it’s down to Axel and Katie, with Dawn cheering on Axel while Owen motivates Katie. Axel looks between Dawn and Duncan, and is visibly conflicted, while Katie’s starting to get dizzy. But just as she’s about to fall, Axel jumps off first, meaning the Screaming Gophers win. Katie then falls off the tree before being enveloped in a bear hug by Owen. Chef congratulates Katie, saying he’d go to war with her anytime, but she gets mixed messages from the complement.
Duncan scolds Axel, saying she lost the challenge for them. But she snaps at him in front of everyone.
Axel: You are not fit to be on this island! You essentially threw two challenges, ridiculed me the entire game, and now got Dawn disqualified just because you wanted to prank Chef! So excuse me if I want you out!
Duncan snaps back at her before storming off, and for the first time in a while, Axel looks relieved. Dawn then comes up to her with Damien telling her that she did the right thing. Afterwards, Damien asks Dawn if she only said that to get Axel on their side, gaining an annoyed look from her. Seeing this, he backtracks and says that they should help Axel like real friends, and is relieved when Dawn nods her head in agreement.
Vote off a Killer Bass and come up with any plot points you want to see later.
submitted by Consumed2010 to Totaldrama [link] [comments]
Disclaimer: I have switched back to the main subreddit, so aside from three, maybe four of you, you’re probably missing out on some context. If you’d like to be all caught up, you can comb through the previous episodes on my profile.
Votes:
Emma - 2
Katie - 1
Props to u/Proofracer for coming up with plot points
At the campfire ceremony, Chris attempts to build suspense by reminding the campers about the safety of a marshmallow, but Heather insists he get on with it, so the moment is cut short. Chris calls on Shawn, Zoey and Max before tossing them all a marshmallow. He then gives Owen and Heather one each, leaving Emma and Katie. Both Emma and Heather shoot angry looks at Katie, making her feel a tad worried, but Chris gives her the last marshmallow and deems Emma eliminated, causing her to have an outburst at Heather.
Emma: I knew I couldn’t trust you! You’re a backstabbing snake!
Heather: Please, as if I’d betray you this early. If I had any say, you’d still be here for a few more weeks.
Emma: Then, how?
Katie: It’s not just me who’d been fed up with how mean you’ve become. We don’t want a second Heather on this team. No offense.
Heather: Offense taken.
As Emma walks the dock of shame and the rest of the Screaming Gophers disperse, Chris turns to the camera to say his outro.
Chris: Will Max finally do something actually evil? How much longer can Heather keep her alliance afloat? And what will Damien do once he finds out about Bunny’s replacement? Find out next time, on Total Drama Island!
In-world votes:
Emma - Katie, Owen, Max, Shawn
Katie - Heather, Zoey, Emma
Basic Straining
The episode opens with Duncan using his knife to carve a skull into the wall of the Bass cabin when Axel exits the cabin. She scoffs at him, but before she can leave, Duncan attempts to apologize for how he’s treated her in the past. Axel stops to think for a second, but she sees through Duncan’s lie and leaves anyway.
Confessional:
Duncan: Of course I didn’t mean what I said to Axel, but Trent and Sammy are too loyal to one another, and Damien’s essentially attached himself to Dawn. Sadly this means that Axel is the only person I have a chance to ally with, so I need to get back on her good side.
Meanwhile at the Gophers cabin, Katie is sitting dejectedly on the front steps when Owen comes over to cheer her up.
Owen: Are you still bummed out about poisoning me? It’s okay, I know it was an accident.
Katie: That’s only half the problem. Emma got so mad at me for it, and now apparently I brought a cursed item to the team.
Owen: You mean your tiki souvenir? Are you sure it’s cursed?
Katie: Apparently it’s from Boney Island, so I’d say it’s pretty cursed.
Owen: Well, you don’t have to get rid of it, if that’s what you’re worried about. It may be cursed, but it’s still yours. I say you should keep it to remember this show by.
Katie: Thanks Big-O.
Owen: You know what? Let's prove Emma wrong. If you try your best this time, I’m sure you’d do way better at the challenge than you think!
Just then, the loudspeakers turn on, but instead of Chris, it’s Chef Hatchet who orders the campers to meet him at the docks for their next challenge. At the docks, Chef is dressed in a military uniform and starts barking orders at the campers about fixing their forms, with the one exception being Axel, whose form he deems “surprisingly average”. Chef then goes over today’s challenge. The teams will go through Chef’s grueling boot camp and drop out one by one until the last person remaining wins immunity for their team. Heather asks Chef what happened to Chris, but he ignores it and starts going over further rules, like how everyone will have to address him as Master Chief, and that no one eats or sleeps unless he says so.
Confessional:
Axel: I was never trained in the military, but I’m adept in most fields of work Master Chief could go over, so this will be a breeze.
For the first part of the boot camp, each team must carry a canoe, and will continue to do so until someone drops out and rings a bell on the dock. Owen and Trent each make a remark about how easy the challenge sounds, but by noon, everyone is starting to feel the heat.
Chris and Chef are sitting on top of the canoes while taunting the campers about missing lunch. This causes Owen to think about quitting, but Max catches on and tells him not to.
The Bass are still holding up strong, so Duncan tries to talk to Axel again. He says that he knows she hates him, but they’re both stuck between the two couples and need each other. This causes Axel to angrily reply that she’d take her chances with the others over him, leaving Duncan beginning to get annoyed. However, Trent overhears the conversation and begins to look worried.
As night rolls through, the campers are all tired, especially Owen, who has fallen asleep with his arms still holding onto the canoe. Chef is recalling a story from his military days, and Heather asks him what war he was in, causing him to shout at her. Heather then turns to Shawn and tries to strike up a conversation with him.
Heather: Hey Zombie Boy, how do you feel about joining my alliance?
Shawn: Wait what? You’re kidding, right?
Heather: You and Emma were friends, yes?
Shawn: Sure, but that doesn’t mean I trust you. What happened to getting payback on me for locking you in the freezer?
Heather: You could trust me if you were in my alliance. With Emma gone, I’m missing a member of the alliance, and if you join, you won’t be in as bad a spot as you are now.
Shawn: Oh, and what is that supposed to mean?
Heather: Think about it. I didn’t vote Emma off, she got herself eliminated. If the team knew you worked with her, maybe they’d vote you out too. Especially since you’re such a big threat without any allies. With me, I could protect you, plus I won’t plot against you anymore.
Shawn: You were plotting against me?
Heather: That’s besides the point. Just think about it.
Later, Chef has finished bragging about his line of duty just in time for Max to decide he isn’t going to stand in one spot anymore. Much to his teammate’s dismay, he walks down the dock and rings the bell, thus allowing the contestants to drop their canoes. Chef insults Max through his megaphone before ordering everyone else to go to the mess hall to eat dinner, getting Owen excited.
In the cafeteria, Chef announces that everyone will get only ten minutes to eat before he starts night training, which gains him a lot of complaints. Damien asks him where the food is, and Chef gestures to a row of trash cans filled with leftover garbage from breakfast, which only causes more complaining. Owen, however, doesn’t discriminate against the disgusting food and eats some anyway. Chris then invites Chef to eat at the craft services tent, leaving the teams to themselves.
Trent meets with Sammy and tells her about what he heard between Duncan and Axel. He says that Duncan has a point and that since nobody really likes Duncan, Axel would be the deciding vote between them and Dawn and Damien. Hearing this, Sammy comes up with an idea, and suggests winning Axel over ahead of time so that she’s with them. Trent likes the idea, so Sammy goes over to talk with Axel. They have a friendly conversation, and Sammy offers Axel the least disgusting food she can find in the trash, to which Axel declines. Sammy then returns to Trent to talk about other ways to win Axel over.
Damien was watching Sammy’s conversation with Axel, and realises what she and Trent were trying to do, so he walks over to Dawn to talk with her.
Damien: I hate to say this, but we’re going to have to start getting extra votes against Trent and Sammy
Dawn: But why? Wouldn’t we just vote Duncan?
Damien: No, that’s not- I mean, after Duncan’s gone, all that’s left of the Killer Bass is us, them, and Axel. And I think they know that too, because they’re trying to bond with her.
Dawn: Yes, Axel is stuck in between the four of us. I’m not very worried though. I’m good friends with her.
Damien: I know, but we should start getting closer so that if need be, Axel will vote with us instead of them.
Damien then digs through the trash and finds a carrot that is half eaten, but otherwise clean. He decides to save it for Bunny, before noticing that Dawn looks unsure of something. He asks her what’s wrong and she brushes it off as having missed Bunny while it was gone. Damien is happy with this answer and tells Dawn that he knew she and Bunny would get along well, but this only makes her feel worse.
Confessional:
Dawn: Bunny left Damien, but I still don’t know why Duncan found a replacement. Duncan is not to be trusted, but I don’t know how to break the news to Damien that Bunny’s really gone.
We then cut to the next part of the boot camp, which is to repeat Chef’s suspiciously Triller-esque dance routine. The dancing goes on for a while until it’s interrupted when Duncan shuts off the music. Chef angrily asks him what he’s doing so Duncan reminds him about how once someone drops out the training ends. Chef says that they’ll be done when he says they’re done, before forcing Duncan to do push-ups.
Next up, write a three hundred word essay about how much you love Chef, being eliminated if you fall asleep or fail to reach the minimum word count. Owen and Katie are discussing ways to pad out their essays while cracking jokes to make each other laugh. Seeing the two of them bonding, Shawn turns back to his own essay looking a little less confident.
Duncan takes a break from doing the challenge to try and persuade Axel to join him again. She snaps at him and tells him to get lost, but Duncan mentions Shawn, which gets her attention.
Duncan: Let’s face it, everybody knows you like Shawn.
Axel: So? If you want to mock me about it, expect a fight!
Duncan: No, I’m saying that you two are pathetic. Neither one of you ever makes a move! Watching you two is like watching a car crash in slow motion.
Axel: (Sarcastically) Thanks for the advice, Dr. Love.
Duncan: You need a wingman, badly. So it’s going to be me.
Axel: Why would I ever listen to you?
Duncan: Because if you and Shawn are ever going to be a thing, you need me.
Axel: Fine. But if you pull anything you’ll leave this island in a cast.
Duncan gets Axel to close the deal with a handshake before returning back to working on the challenge. Later, Chef returns to pick up the essays, and eliminates both Trent and Zoey for falling asleep. As for everyone else, their essays meet the requirement, although Duncan’s is just one sentence with 289 verys in between. On his way out of the cafeteria, Chef slips in a puddle of Owen’s drool from him being half asleep, and Duncan offers to clean him off. This causes Chef to yell at him again, and the rest of the Bass stop Duncan from saying anything more, lest he get them all in trouble.
The next evening, the training continues, as Chef forces the campers to run an obstacle course until everyone can do it in less than a minute. As they climb a wooden wall, Axel asks Duncan for advice and he tells her she should get Shawn’s attention by showing off her survival skills in the course. Axel takes the advice and waits for Shawn to reach the top of the wall before jumping off and doing acrobatic tricks in midair. This catches Shawn’s eye, who shows off some tricks of his own in return.
The obstacle course causes trouble for some of the other campers, as Owen gets stuck while jumping through a tire, getting him eliminated. On top of that, Damien falls flat on his face when climbing the wall. He pukes up some mud, and is coughing and sputtering, so Chef eliminates him too and sends him to the infirmary.
After going through a montage of campers falling into the mud or otherwise failing, we see Katie struggle to clear a rope swing. She remembers what Owen told her and tries it again, only to clear it easily. She cheers for herself before continuing to run the course.
While crawling through the mud, Sammy reaches a deep spot and starts sinking. Duncan passes while mocking her, only to come across an angry Chef. He gives Duncan more pushups, but Duncan just thanks Chef before kissing him on the nose. This sends Chef off the edge and he announces that Duncan will spend the rest of the night in solitary confinement in the boathouse. This causes everyone to gasp, but Duncan asks how bad it could be, before we cut to him sitting in the boathouse regretting that comment.
In the cafeteria, the contestants remaining in the boot camp are being fed rock hard gruel. Dawn sits down next to Axel, intending to win her over, but Axel is the one to talk first. She explains to Dawn how Duncan is working as a wingman for her and Shawn, and while Dawn is happy for Axel, she reminds her about how Duncan is untrustworthy. She talks about how he replaced Bunny when it left Damien, and that she thinks he has a secret agenda behind everything. Axel agrees with Dawn but leaves to get more advice from Duncan anyway.
Heather finds the gruel Chef has served her to be well past unappetizing, and chooses to instead try to persuade Shawn again. She points out how close Owen, Katie and Max have become, and that since she still has Zoey, they’ll go after him first. After careful consideration, Shawn caves and agrees to work with her. But he specifies that while he will do what’s required for her to protect him, he will not associate himself as a member of her alliance. Despite this, Heather is still pleased by the news, and leaves to get some sleep.
In the boathouse, Axel finds Duncan sweeping the floors to pass the time.
Duncan: Did you get General Crazy angry at you too?
Axel: No, I’m here so you can make good on our deal. What’s some more advice you have?
Duncan: Really? You can’t be so desperate that you need my help for every single thing.
Axel: Then what do you want me to do then? This was entirely your idea!
Duncan: Just ask Shawn out. Maybe set up a date or something. But if you just sit there and don’t talk to him I promise you that nothing good will happen. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to mess with Chef.
Duncan then leaves despite Chef’s orders and heads towards the craft services tent, leaving Axel behind wondering what she could do.
In the Gophers cabin, Katie visits Owen, who congratulates her on doing so well in the boot camp. Katie is ecstatic at her performance and thanks him for giving her the pep talk. Max, while also happy for Katie, insists that “Evil has better things to do than make friends” as he works on something secret in his bunk bed. Owen tells Katie that he thinks she can win the entire challenge, but to this Katie is still a bit skeptical.
The remaining Bass return to their cabin to find Trent and Damien playing cards on the front steps, and inside Dawn finds various snacks left in a big pile on her bed. She’s confused how it got there, but is happy to finally find something edible, so she invites everybody on both teams to hang out and eat the food. As the eleven of them dig in, they discuss how insane Chef is for making them do full on combat training, with only Shawn, Axel, and surprisingly Katie enjoying the challenge. Eventually the relaxation is ruined when Chef barges in and orders everyone in the Killer Bass to line up outside. He announces that the food they were dining on was stolen from the craft services tent, and that he was tipped off that it was one of them because the perpetrator left a raw bass in the fridge. Dawn confesses that she found it on her bed, but before she can explain herself Chef automatically eliminates her from the boot camp and confiscates the rest of the food.
Chef starts the last part of the boot camp the next morning, which is to hang upside-down from a tree until only one person is left. The last campers left are Sammy, Duncan and Axel for the Bass, and Shawn, Heather and Katie for the Gophers. Axel confronts Duncan about what he did, and he admits he stole Chris and Chef’s food, left a bass behind as a calling card and dumped the food on the first bed he found. Axel is pissed at him for getting Dawn in trouble with Chef and cuts the deal between them, causing Duncan to tell her that he never really cared.
Confessional:
Duncan: Okay, maybe I went a little too far, but I’ve always found a way to stay in the game. Surely this will be no different, right?
Chef rants about the side effects of being upside down, and as he goes over each one, someone gets it, causing them to fall off the tree. Eventually it’s down to Axel and Katie, with Dawn cheering on Axel while Owen motivates Katie. Axel looks between Dawn and Duncan, and is visibly conflicted, while Katie’s starting to get dizzy. But just as she’s about to fall, Axel jumps off first, meaning the Screaming Gophers win. Katie then falls off the tree before being enveloped in a bear hug by Owen. Chef congratulates Katie, saying he’d go to war with her anytime, but she gets mixed messages from the complement.
Duncan scolds Axel, saying she lost the challenge for them. But she snaps at him in front of everyone.
Axel: You are not fit to be on this island! You essentially threw two challenges, ridiculed me the entire game, and now got Dawn disqualified just because you wanted to prank Chef! So excuse me if I want you out!
Duncan snaps back at her before storming off, and for the first time in a while, Axel looks relieved. Dawn then comes up to her with Damien telling her that she did the right thing. Afterwards, Damien asks Dawn if she only said that to get Axel on their side, gaining an annoyed look from her. Seeing this, he backtracks and says that they should help Axel like real friends, and is relieved when Dawn nods her head in agreement.
Vote off a Killer Bass and come up with any plot points you want to see later.
2024.05.21 18:25 MythicalStrength [BOOK REVIEW] Dan John's "The Armor Building Formula: Bodybuilding for Real People"
INTRO
submitted by MythicalStrength to Kettleballs [link] [comments]
- Dan John has once again released another book, and I, once again, voraciously consumed it, because Dan John could write instructions on a tube of toothpaste and I would read every single word of it. In turn, I’ll save you all the suspense of reading this full review just to say: yes, BUY Dan’s latest book, because irrespective of if you run the program(s) in it, the book itself is pure concentrated Dan John gold and absolutely worth any price tag. And, since the book JUST came out and I JUST finished reading it, I want to be clear that I am not reviewing the PROGRAM(S) in the book, but just the book itself.
- But I certainly see myself using what’s in the book someday.
- To start, you can get the book here
- There are 3 books listed. Do yourself a favor and buy all 3, BUT, if you want the one I’m talking about, it’s the one listed “The Armor Building Formula: Bodybuilding for Real People eBook”
- And that, in turn, describes WHAT this book is: bodybuilding for real people. In that sense, bodybuilding does not mean “bodybuilding”: the competitive event wherein you put on posing trunks, step out on stage and get evaluated on your physique, nor is this a book to achieve the goals OF that event. This is a very classical sense of the word bodybuilding: to build one’s body, through the concentrated effort of resistance training, in order to specifically achieve an increase in the size of one’s muscles (and, ideally, muscles that are pleasing to the eyes of others). And by “Real People”, he’s referring to those of us that live in the real world and have real world obligations (work, family, school, etc) and don’t get to live the influencer lifestyle of being able to train for hours a day everyday.
- There’s a fair chance that YOU are a real person who is also more interested in Dan John’s bodybuilding than in “bodybuilding”, so you may find that the contents of the book appeal to you.
- Inside the book is THE Armor Building Formula, which is Dan John’s bodybuilding program that is entirely reliant on just kettlebells. Before you stop reading because you don’t have/don’t like kettlebells, there is a section with barbells too, I’ll talk about that too. But yes: you get Dan’s program in this book.
- “Armor Building” is here because it references an idea Dan has regarding “armor building” in the athletic sense: putting on the muscle in the right spots that allow a collision athlete to be able to handle what is thrown at them. BUT it ALSO references Dan John’s “Armor Building Complex” (ABC), which is a kettlebell complex that does a fantastic job of accomplishing this very goal of building armor. The ABC is comprised of 2 double kettlebell cleans, 1 double kettlebell press, and 3 double kettlebell front squats. It is a fantastic full body complex that hits just about everything, and can be used to absolutely blow out your lungs, finish out a kettlebell certification, get strong AND, in the case of this book, bodybuilding.
- The OTHER half of the Armor Building Formula is the kettlebell clean and press, with Dan providing 4 specific pressing variations to satisfy to ADHD demands of any trainee. Dan makes a compelling argument for WHY the KB Clean and Press reigns in the world of physique building, specifically referencing how a pair of big strong shoulders and well developed glutes tend to be the secret to a wonderful physique. Given my own prescription in “Chaos is the Plan”, you know I’m a fan of this philosophy.
- In the book, Dan details an 8 week program to follow for the Armor Building Formula. In true Dan John style, there are no prescribed weights, reps or sets: merely guidelines BUT, with an end goal in weeks 7 and 8: 30 ABCs in 30 minutes, and 100 KB clean and presses. Very similar to Mass Made Simple, you know the goal going in (squat your bodyweight for 50 reps) and you know the method: it’s on you to do the work.
- Also contained in the book is “The Barbell Armor Building Formula”: a program that can be run with just a barbell. Dan John’s Barbell ABC is premised around 2 movements: the “continuous clean and press” and the front squat. For those of you that speak strongman, the continuous clean and press is “clean each rep and press”, as opposed to “clean and press away”, wherein you clean the weight once and then do all your presses. With this, Dan gives you 3 programs to be run sequentially for a total of 11 weeks, followed by another 8 week barbell program that includes a few more movements (curl, press, row and deadlift) which, with some breaks, totals out to 20 weeks of training.
- On top of THIS, Dan ALSO gives you a prescription on how to perform the ABC if you only have one kettlebell, along with what to do if you only have mixed loads (no 2 KBs of the same weight).
- He ALSO includes methodology on including his “Easy Strength” program into these bodybuilding programs, which I personally appreciated because it meant I wasn’t absolutely off my rocker when I combined Easy Strength with Mass Made Simple.
- Dan ALSO includes a few other programs in the book, one simply titled “A Bonus Program”, which requires a bit more equipment (most notably, a machine row), one of Reg Park’s programs, a sample of Frank Zane’s programming (more as an example of what the book ISN’T…but hey, it’s still there), and some helpful warm up instructions too.
- Just tons and tons of nuggets of Dan John wisdom, all on the topic of bodybuilding for sure, but also very easy to expand into the realm of for real training in general, and life as well. Dan goes into topics on warming up, cooling down, the value of walking, nutrition, the science of muscular development, historical precedents, strength standards, etc. It’s 198 pages, and they’re all pretty awesome.
- If you are the kind of guy that just wants someone to lay out a program for you: that’s not this book. It takes a LOT of reading to even get to the program in the first place, and once you get there, it’s in a narrative style, rather than a prescriptive style. I, personally, PREFER that manner of delivery, and, in turn, enjoyed the hell out of this book, but I know that some folks are going to get chapped about this.
- I’ve heard Dan speaking about this book a bunch on his podcast, and he actually almost quoted whole sections of it in answering some questions (which is awesome, because it’s like you have a printed copy of his podcast), but despite all the time and effort reading, reviewing and editing, there’s still a few typos and sentences that start and end the same (something like “lifting weights is one of the greatest ways to achieve physical transformation is lifting weights”). Given my blog (and most likely this very review) is full of these issues, I’m not one to judge, but those paying for a product might be put off by it.
- Some of the sections in the book are just blatant reprints of articles previously written by Dan. They’re still incredibly on topic and value added in the book, but if you’ve already read them before, it can feel like you got stiffed out of content. But, of course, that’s a GOOD thing as well: the fact I was upset there wasn’t even MORE content there means I enjoyed the hell out of it. I’ve read my fair share of books that I wished would just be over.
- The only thing keeping this from being a for real “all in one” manual is a lack of actual instruction on how to perform the movements in the program. Mass Made Simple contained that, which I felt was pretty awesome. In addition, I WISH Dan had released this book in 2020, for his sake and the sake of the world, because he would have made a killing giving people full on programs they could run with just some kettlebells or a barbell, and we all would have gotten a lot more jacked if we had this resource.
- That’s the most immediate question: why would I read and follow THIS Dan John bodybuilding book and not his other one? This is just plain different from MMS, and that’s not a bad thing. MMS is another fantastic book also full of Dan John wisdom on the subject of building mass, but his audience there is less “real people” and more “real athletes”. To run that program, you have to be ready to really do some suffering and put in the work in the gym and at the table. * * You also have to be willing to set aside 6-7 weeks of your life to really dedicate yourself to the effort. In turn, I honestly like the idea of new trainees taking on MMS, because it’s a very solid gut check, recalibrates expectations of the self, and Dan does a great job walking the trainee through the entire program, to include instruction on the movements themselves.
- The Armor Building Formula seems far more sustainable than MMS. Dan recommends MMS be run, at most, 2x a year, whereas the ABF definitely has legs to go on for long stretches. ABF is more akin to a baseline 5/3/1 program, while MMS is more like Super Squats, if I were to employ analogy.
- Absolutely, 100%. No matter your goals or your equipment, you are sure to get something out of this book.
2024.05.21 18:24 AHappyLittleSloth Feedback Needed: New Platform to Showcase Developer Projects and Skills
My co-founder and I are building a new platform specifically designed for designers to showcase their projects and skills. Our aim is to create a professional and visually appealing space where you can present your work, connect with fellow designers, and get discovered by potential employers.
The Problem:
Many designers struggle to effectively showcase their skills and projects. Traditional resumes and LinkedIn profiles often fall short in highlighting the depth and breadth of a designer’s work. Additionally, there’s a lack of a centralized, user-friendly platform where designers can display their portfolios, making it harder for potential employers to find and evaluate their work.
MVP Features:
Personalized Portfolios: Easily create and customize your own portfolio to showcase your projects and skills.
Project Details: Highlight the tools and technologies used in each project.
Future Ideas:
Community Engagement: Comment and engage with other users’ projects.
Blog Integration: Write and share blog posts about your projects, experiences, and knowledge.
Discoverability: Optimized profiles for SEO to help you get found by potential employers.
We’ve created some initial designs in Figma and would love to get your feedback on the idea and the features we have planned. Here’s a sneak peek of our design:
https://www.figma.com/proto/MqGo5R0w7ECcqWXGRM2UbP/Export?node-id=34-24&t=neAC5vZoEcHuUOGB-1&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1
What We Need:
Does this concept resonate with you? Would you use it?
How does our design compare to Behance in terms of usability and aesthetics?
What features do you think are essential for a designer portfolio platform that Behance might be lacking?
Any suggestions on how we can improve the design or functionality?
Any features or tools you feel are missing or could be added to enhance the platform?
Your feedback is incredibly valuable to us as we work towards building the best possible platform for designers. Thank you in advance for your insights!
Looking forward to your thoughts and suggestions!
submitted by AHappyLittleSloth to Design [link] [comments]
The Problem:
Many designers struggle to effectively showcase their skills and projects. Traditional resumes and LinkedIn profiles often fall short in highlighting the depth and breadth of a designer’s work. Additionally, there’s a lack of a centralized, user-friendly platform where designers can display their portfolios, making it harder for potential employers to find and evaluate their work.
MVP Features:
Personalized Portfolios: Easily create and customize your own portfolio to showcase your projects and skills.
Project Details: Highlight the tools and technologies used in each project.
Future Ideas:
Community Engagement: Comment and engage with other users’ projects.
Blog Integration: Write and share blog posts about your projects, experiences, and knowledge.
Discoverability: Optimized profiles for SEO to help you get found by potential employers.
We’ve created some initial designs in Figma and would love to get your feedback on the idea and the features we have planned. Here’s a sneak peek of our design:
https://www.figma.com/proto/MqGo5R0w7ECcqWXGRM2UbP/Export?node-id=34-24&t=neAC5vZoEcHuUOGB-1&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1
What We Need:
Does this concept resonate with you? Would you use it?
How does our design compare to Behance in terms of usability and aesthetics?
What features do you think are essential for a designer portfolio platform that Behance might be lacking?
Any suggestions on how we can improve the design or functionality?
Any features or tools you feel are missing or could be added to enhance the platform?
Your feedback is incredibly valuable to us as we work towards building the best possible platform for designers. Thank you in advance for your insights!
Looking forward to your thoughts and suggestions!
2024.05.21 18:23 MythicalStrength [BOOK REVIEW] Dan John's "The Armor Building Formula: Bodybuilding for Real People"
INTRO
submitted by MythicalStrength to weightroom [link] [comments]
- Dan John has once again released another book, and I, once again, voraciously consumed it, because Dan John could write instructions on a tube of toothpaste and I would read every single word of it. In turn, I’ll save you all the suspense of reading this full review just to say: yes, BUY Dan’s latest book, because irrespective of if you run the program(s) in it, the book itself is pure concentrated Dan John gold and absolutely worth any price tag. And, since the book JUST came out and I JUST finished reading it, I want to be clear that I am not reviewing the PROGRAM(S) in the book, but just the book itself.
- But I certainly see myself using what’s in the book someday.
- To start, you can get the book here
- There are 3 books listed. Do yourself a favor and buy all 3, BUT, if you want the one I’m talking about, it’s the one listed “The Armor Building Formula: Bodybuilding for Real People eBook”
- And that, in turn, describes WHAT this book is: bodybuilding for real people. In that sense, bodybuilding does not mean “bodybuilding”: the competitive event wherein you put on posing trunks, step out on stage and get evaluated on your physique, nor is this a book to achieve the goals OF that event. This is a very classical sense of the word bodybuilding: to build one’s body, through the concentrated effort of resistance training, in order to specifically achieve an increase in the size of one’s muscles (and, ideally, muscles that are pleasing to the eyes of others). And by “Real People”, he’s referring to those of us that live in the real world and have real world obligations (work, family, school, etc) and don’t get to live the influencer lifestyle of being able to train for hours a day everyday.
- There’s a fair chance that YOU are a real person who is also more interested in Dan John’s bodybuilding than in “bodybuilding”, so you may find that the contents of the book appeal to you.
- Inside the book is THE Armor Building Formula, which is Dan John’s bodybuilding program that is entirely reliant on just kettlebells. Before you stop reading because you don’t have/don’t like kettlebells, there is a section with barbells too, I’ll talk about that too. But yes: you get Dan’s program in this book.
- “Armor Building” is here because it references an idea Dan has regarding “armor building” in the athletic sense: putting on the muscle in the right spots that allow a collision athlete to be able to handle what is thrown at them. BUT it ALSO references Dan John’s “Armor Building Complex” (ABC), which is a kettlebell complex that does a fantastic job of accomplishing this very goal of building armor. The ABC is comprised of 2 double kettlebell cleans, 1 double kettlebell press, and 3 double kettlebell front squats. It is a fantastic full body complex that hits just about everything, and can be used to absolutely blow out your lungs, finish out a kettlebell certification, get strong AND, in the case of this book, bodybuilding.
- The OTHER half of the Armor Building Formula is the kettlebell clean and press, with Dan providing 4 specific pressing variations to satisfy to ADHD demands of any trainee. Dan makes a compelling argument for WHY the KB Clean and Press reigns in the world of physique building, specifically referencing how a pair of big strong shoulders and well developed glutes tend to be the secret to a wonderful physique. Given my own prescription in “Chaos is the Plan”, you know I’m a fan of this philosophy.
- In the book, Dan details an 8 week program to follow for the Armor Building Formula. In true Dan John style, there are no prescribed weights, reps or sets: merely guidelines BUT, with an end goal in weeks 7 and 8: 30 ABCs in 30 minutes, and 100 KB clean and presses. Very similar to Mass Made Simple, you know the goal going in (squat your bodyweight for 50 reps) and you know the method: it’s on you to do the work.
- Also contained in the book is “The Barbell Armor Building Formula”: a program that can be run with just a barbell. Dan John’s Barbell ABC is premised around 2 movements: the “continuous clean and press” and the front squat. For those of you that speak strongman, the continuous clean and press is “clean each rep and press”, as opposed to “clean and press away”, wherein you clean the weight once and then do all your presses. With this, Dan gives you 3 programs to be run sequentially for a total of 11 weeks, followed by another 8 week barbell program that includes a few more movements (curl, press, row and deadlift) which, with some breaks, totals out to 20 weeks of training.
- On top of THIS, Dan ALSO gives you a prescription on how to perform the ABC if you only have one kettlebell, along with what to do if you only have mixed loads (no 2 KBs of the same weight).
- He ALSO includes methodology on including his “Easy Strength” program into these bodybuilding programs, which I personally appreciated because it meant I wasn’t absolutely off my rocker when I combined Easy Strength with Mass Made Simple.
- Dan ALSO includes a few other programs in the book, one simply titled “A Bonus Program”, which requires a bit more equipment (most notably, a machine row), one of Reg Park’s programs, a sample of Frank Zane’s programming (more as an example of what the book ISN’T…but hey, it’s still there), and some helpful warm up instructions too.
- Just tons and tons of nuggets of Dan John wisdom, all on the topic of bodybuilding for sure, but also very easy to expand into the realm of for real training in general, and life as well. Dan goes into topics on warming up, cooling down, the value of walking, nutrition, the science of muscular development, historical precedents, strength standards, etc. It’s 198 pages, and they’re all pretty awesome.
- If you are the kind of guy that just wants someone to lay out a program for you: that’s not this book. It takes a LOT of reading to even get to the program in the first place, and once you get there, it’s in a narrative style, rather than a prescriptive style. I, personally, PREFER that manner of delivery, and, in turn, enjoyed the hell out of this book, but I know that some folks are going to get chapped about this.
- I’ve heard Dan speaking about this book a bunch on his podcast, and he actually almost quoted whole sections of it in answering some questions (which is awesome, because it’s like you have a printed copy of his podcast), but despite all the time and effort reading, reviewing and editing, there’s still a few typos and sentences that start and end the same (something like “lifting weights is one of the greatest ways to achieve physical transformation is lifting weights”). Given my blog (and most likely this very review) is full of these issues, I’m not one to judge, but those paying for a product might be put off by it.
- Some of the sections in the book are just blatant reprints of articles previously written by Dan. They’re still incredibly on topic and value added in the book, but if you’ve already read them before, it can feel like you got stiffed out of content. But, of course, that’s a GOOD thing as well: the fact I was upset there wasn’t even MORE content there means I enjoyed the hell out of it. I’ve read my fair share of books that I wished would just be over.
- The only thing keeping this from being a for real “all in one” manual is a lack of actual instruction on how to perform the movements in the program. Mass Made Simple contained that, which I felt was pretty awesome. In addition, I WISH Dan had released this book in 2020, for his sake and the sake of the world, because he would have made a killing giving people full on programs they could run with just some kettlebells or a barbell, and we all would have gotten a lot more jacked if we had this resource.
- That’s the most immediate question: why would I read and follow THIS Dan John bodybuilding book and not his other one? This is just plain different from MMS, and that’s not a bad thing. MMS is another fantastic book also full of Dan John wisdom on the subject of building mass, but his audience there is less “real people” and more “real athletes”. To run that program, you have to be ready to really do some suffering and put in the work in the gym and at the table. * * You also have to be willing to set aside 6-7 weeks of your life to really dedicate yourself to the effort. In turn, I honestly like the idea of new trainees taking on MMS, because it’s a very solid gut check, recalibrates expectations of the self, and Dan does a great job walking the trainee through the entire program, to include instruction on the movements themselves.
- The Armor Building Formula seems far more sustainable than MMS. Dan recommends MMS be run, at most, 2x a year, whereas the ABF definitely has legs to go on for long stretches. ABF is more akin to a baseline 5/3/1 program, while MMS is more like Super Squats, if I were to employ analogy.
- Absolutely, 100%. No matter your goals or your equipment, you are sure to get something out of this book.
2024.05.21 18:20 Loyalcheeks123 Feedback Needed: New Platform to Showcase Developer Projects and Skills
My co-founder and I are building a new platform designed specifically for developers to showcase their projects and skills. Our aim is to create a professional and visually appealing space where you can present your work, connect with fellow developers, and get discovered by potential employers.
The Problem:
Many developers struggle to effectively showcase their skills and projects. Traditional resumes and LinkedIn profiles often fall short in highlighting the depth and breadth of a developer’s work. Additionally, there’s a lack of a centralized, user-friendly platform where developers can display their portfolios, making it harder for potential employers to find and evaluate their work.
MVP Features:
Personalized Portfolios: Easily create and customize your own portfolio to showcase your projects and skills.
Project Details: Highlight the tools and technologies used in each project.
Future Ideas:
Community Engagement: Comment and engage with other users’ projects.
Blog Integration: Write and share blog posts about your projects, experiences, and knowledge.
Discoverability: Optimized profiles for SEO to help you get found by potential employers.
We’ve created some initial designs in Figma and would love to get your feedback on the idea and the features we have planned. Here’s a sneak peek of our design:
https://www.figma.com/proto/MqGo5R0w7ECcqWXGRM2UbP/Export?node-id=34-24&t=neAC5vZoEcHuUOGB-1&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1
What We Need:
Does this concept resonate with you? Would you use it?
What features do you think are essential for a developer portfolio platform?
Any suggestions on how we can improve the design or functionality?
Any features or tools you feel are missing or could be added to enhance the platform?
Your feedback is incredibly valuable to us as we work towards building the best possible platform for developers. Thank you in advance for your insights!
Looking forward to your thoughts and suggestions!
submitted by Loyalcheeks123 to SaaS [link] [comments]
The Problem:
Many developers struggle to effectively showcase their skills and projects. Traditional resumes and LinkedIn profiles often fall short in highlighting the depth and breadth of a developer’s work. Additionally, there’s a lack of a centralized, user-friendly platform where developers can display their portfolios, making it harder for potential employers to find and evaluate their work.
MVP Features:
Personalized Portfolios: Easily create and customize your own portfolio to showcase your projects and skills.
Project Details: Highlight the tools and technologies used in each project.
Future Ideas:
Community Engagement: Comment and engage with other users’ projects.
Blog Integration: Write and share blog posts about your projects, experiences, and knowledge.
Discoverability: Optimized profiles for SEO to help you get found by potential employers.
We’ve created some initial designs in Figma and would love to get your feedback on the idea and the features we have planned. Here’s a sneak peek of our design:
https://www.figma.com/proto/MqGo5R0w7ECcqWXGRM2UbP/Export?node-id=34-24&t=neAC5vZoEcHuUOGB-1&scaling=min-zoom&page-id=0%3A1
What We Need:
Does this concept resonate with you? Would you use it?
What features do you think are essential for a developer portfolio platform?
Any suggestions on how we can improve the design or functionality?
Any features or tools you feel are missing or could be added to enhance the platform?
Your feedback is incredibly valuable to us as we work towards building the best possible platform for developers. Thank you in advance for your insights!
Looking forward to your thoughts and suggestions!
2024.05.21 18:18 codewithbernard Use these prompts to blow up your LinkedIn profile
Context: I recentyl went to LinkedIn and saw hundreds of people posting AI generated content. It's very cringe so I decided to build better prompts of them. Here they are if you're interested.
submitted by codewithbernard to ChatGPTPromptGenius [link] [comments]
1. Analyze Trending Topics
Act as a seasoned content creator with deep knowledge of the LinkedIn algorithm. Your task is to analyze and identify the current trending topics within [industry] on LinkedIn. Utilize your expertise to navigate through LinkedIn's content landscape, leveraging analytics tools and your understanding of the platform's algorithm to pinpoint themes that are gaining traction. Compile a comprehensive report detailing these trends, including potential reasons for their popularity and how they align with recent industry developments. Your analysis should offer actionable insights for businesses looking to engage with these trends, whether through content creation, networking strategies, or thought leadership. Ensure that your report is structured in a manner that is both informative and accessible, enabling stakeholders to easily digest and act upon your findings.
2. Brainstorm LinkedIn Post Ideas
Act as a seasoned content creator with deep knowledge of the LinkedIn algorithm and a strong understanding of [industry]. Your task is to brainstorm a series of LinkedIn post ideas that will engage professionals within [industry], drive meaningful conversations, and enhance your personal or company brand's visibility on the platform. Each post idea should be innovative, thought-provoking, and tailored to the interests and challenges of [industry] professionals. Consider leveraging current trends, industry insights, personal success stories or failures, and actionable tips that could benefit the audience. The goal is to craft content that not only resonates with [industry] professionals but also encourages shares and comments, thereby increasing reach and engagement in line with LinkedIn's algorithm preferences.
3. Research and Gather Information
Act as a seasoned content creator with deep expertise in leveraging the LinkedIn algorithm. Your task is to gather compelling and supporting information for a LinkedIn post about [topic]. This includes identifying relevant statistics, credible sources, and persuasive narratives that align with the latest trends and insights specific to LinkedIn's audience. The goal is to enhance the post's visibility, engagement, and credibility. Ensure the information is structured in a way that maximizes shareability and encourages professional discourse. Additionally, integrate strategic keywords and hashtags to improve discoverability within LinkedIn's search and feed algorithm.
4. Draft LinkedIn Post
Act as a seasoned content creator with extensive experience and deep understanding of the LinkedIn algorithm. Write a LinkedIn post about [topic] that is tailored to engage professionals and industry leaders. The post should be insightful, offering unique perspectives or valuable information that sparks conversation and encourages sharing within professional networks. Utilize a mix of compelling storytelling, data-driven insights, and strategic use of hashtags to increase visibility and reach. The goal is to position yourself as a thought leader on [topic], driving meaningful engagement and connections on the platform. Ensure that the content is optimized for LinkedIn, taking into account factors such as the best time to post, post length, and the inclusion of relevant multimedia elements to enhance the message.
5. Suggest Images To Add
Act as a seasoned content creator with deep knowledge of the LinkedIn algorithm. Your task is to suggest a complementary image for a LinkedIn post about [topic]. The image must be professional yet engaging, designed to increase visibility and interaction with the post. It should resonate with the post's theme, enhancing the message and making it more relatable to the target audience. Consider LinkedIn's best practices for images, including size, quality, and relevance. The goal is to select an image that will boost the post's performance by encouraging likes, shares, and comments, ultimately expanding its reach within the platform.Note: These prompts were originally published in my article: ChatGPT prompts for LinkedIn posts.
2024.05.21 18:18 Head-Year2652 Bla blas entire story 🙏
Respond from luke the composer:
J'ai vu que tu m'avais écrit aussi ailleurs en anglais, donc voici également une version anglaise :
On the cover of 'Bougez,' from left to right, you have: Nadia Hamzaoui, Emmanuel Deleplanque, Sammy Hammami, and David Bustin.
It all started thanks to Sammy Hammami's mother, who worked in Brussels at a place I frequented daily. We became friends. She knew I was into music and asked me to evaluate what her son and his friends were doing and see if I could help them.
Impressed by their demos, I asked to meet them. Their energy and talent convinced me to sign them to re-record and professionally rework their tracks.
They were influenced by the raggamuffin trend of the time and had an impressive flow, almost unheard of in French at the time.
We started with the track that best reflected the group's range. I also had the idea to make an uptempo remix, more European for the clubs, in the spirit of Real to Reel's 'I Like to Move It.' This made sense on multiple levels, in terms of lyrics and style.
We organized a photo shoot and set up meetings with the biggest labels in Paris. Some labels hesitated to commit, but Olivier Chatelain from Sony Music / Dancepool fell in love with them and signed the group immediately.
This small, unknown Belgian group suddenly went from demoing with friends to major label artists in just a few months. They worked hard to prepare for this transition, especially mastering the uptempo version for live performances.
To get them road-ready, Sony Music placed them on a tour with a lineup of artists across France and Switzerland, alternating between large venues and clubs. From the first date, the group's phenomenal impact on stage and the audience's response made them the highlight of the show.
The feedback from the field to Sony Music opened unprecedented doors for an unknown group, typically reserved for established artists. They were booked on Jacques Martin's essential TV show, numerous youth programs, and at the Midem in Cannes.
Having attended several editions of the top youth magazine 'Ok Magazine' event, I knew Bla Bla Posse had every chance to win over this audience. Their raw urban style wasn't toned down for this audience. But I trusted their personalities and adaptability. By insisting with Sony to convince the magazine to give them a chance, they ended up being scheduled.
Placed at the end of the show, their performance caused a sensation. The electrified crowd screamed, and at the end of their set, the audience rushed the stage, interrupting the show and overwhelming security. The editor, stunned by this unprecedented situation, then set up a series of reports and articles on the group, opening up a whole new audience and a fan club.
Between increasingly numerous performances, the group was recording their first album with Urban Pop Electro sounds. Their second single, 'DJ Let's Groove,' was released to keep fans engaged as the album was taking longer than expected due to their busy schedule. However, the album would never see the light of day due to a conflict with the studio we had an agreement with to develop the group. With trust broken, the group and I decided to end the co-production with this studio and sue them.
Despite the label's excitement about the group's future singles, the climate of uncertainty no longer allowed Sony Music to release new tracks, let alone the album. After two years of legal proceedings, the group eventually dissolved, much to the regret of their fans, ending the promising journey of this group with a meteoric rise.
submitted by Head-Year2652 to BoogeymanGroove [link] [comments]
J'ai vu que tu m'avais écrit aussi ailleurs en anglais, donc voici également une version anglaise :
On the cover of 'Bougez,' from left to right, you have: Nadia Hamzaoui, Emmanuel Deleplanque, Sammy Hammami, and David Bustin.
It all started thanks to Sammy Hammami's mother, who worked in Brussels at a place I frequented daily. We became friends. She knew I was into music and asked me to evaluate what her son and his friends were doing and see if I could help them.
Impressed by their demos, I asked to meet them. Their energy and talent convinced me to sign them to re-record and professionally rework their tracks.
They were influenced by the raggamuffin trend of the time and had an impressive flow, almost unheard of in French at the time.
We started with the track that best reflected the group's range. I also had the idea to make an uptempo remix, more European for the clubs, in the spirit of Real to Reel's 'I Like to Move It.' This made sense on multiple levels, in terms of lyrics and style.
We organized a photo shoot and set up meetings with the biggest labels in Paris. Some labels hesitated to commit, but Olivier Chatelain from Sony Music / Dancepool fell in love with them and signed the group immediately.
This small, unknown Belgian group suddenly went from demoing with friends to major label artists in just a few months. They worked hard to prepare for this transition, especially mastering the uptempo version for live performances.
To get them road-ready, Sony Music placed them on a tour with a lineup of artists across France and Switzerland, alternating between large venues and clubs. From the first date, the group's phenomenal impact on stage and the audience's response made them the highlight of the show.
The feedback from the field to Sony Music opened unprecedented doors for an unknown group, typically reserved for established artists. They were booked on Jacques Martin's essential TV show, numerous youth programs, and at the Midem in Cannes.
Having attended several editions of the top youth magazine 'Ok Magazine' event, I knew Bla Bla Posse had every chance to win over this audience. Their raw urban style wasn't toned down for this audience. But I trusted their personalities and adaptability. By insisting with Sony to convince the magazine to give them a chance, they ended up being scheduled.
Placed at the end of the show, their performance caused a sensation. The electrified crowd screamed, and at the end of their set, the audience rushed the stage, interrupting the show and overwhelming security. The editor, stunned by this unprecedented situation, then set up a series of reports and articles on the group, opening up a whole new audience and a fan club.
Between increasingly numerous performances, the group was recording their first album with Urban Pop Electro sounds. Their second single, 'DJ Let's Groove,' was released to keep fans engaged as the album was taking longer than expected due to their busy schedule. However, the album would never see the light of day due to a conflict with the studio we had an agreement with to develop the group. With trust broken, the group and I decided to end the co-production with this studio and sue them.
Despite the label's excitement about the group's future singles, the climate of uncertainty no longer allowed Sony Music to release new tracks, let alone the album. After two years of legal proceedings, the group eventually dissolved, much to the regret of their fans, ending the promising journey of this group with a meteoric rise.
2024.05.21 18:16 Rohan445 what is that one feature or mechanic you think will make the galactic war better (for me it is the division/swarm suggestion by darkleinad)
 | submitted by Rohan445 to Helldivers [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 18:15 hipgravy No Love for Narc?
 | I recently discovered the pod and am now obsessed. Listening to both the Goodfellas and Cop Land episodes and noticed that they never once mentioned the 2002 movie Narc. They commented a lot on Liotta’s post-Cop Land career and even referenced a “dark period” for him in the early 2000s, but Narc is an exceptional film with an equally exceptional Liotta performance. It’s also extremely rewatchable. Just curious if anyone has any ideas as to why it doesn’t seem to be on their radar. submitted by hipgravy to TheRewatchables [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 18:09 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.
A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to Bible [link] [comments]
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
2024.05.21 18:07 phdthrowaway1718 Overcoming guilt and shame associated with how I (30M) used parental support all throughout my 20s and have not become a fully independent adult. Is it also normal to wonder about their spending as well?
Hey everyone,
I'm currently someone (30M) who has always had folks by my side all my life as part of "my team," as my parents call it. A major reason for this outside support network is because I'm autistic, have ADHD-I, dysgraphia, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, PTSD (more on that later), and processing speed in the 3rd percentile. I did not learn I was autistic until I was 14 and always took medication for it and my ADHD-I. I also did not know I had ADHD-I until I was 24-25 because I was on my own for submitting the records of my disabilities to the graduate schools I've attended up until this point. As for my processing speed, I did not learn it was that low until this past August when I sought a DSM-V re-evaluation with my own money.
My mental health symptoms were so severe that, despite doing well academically in a suburban school district that was well funded through property taxes (I'm in the US so the education system here is messed up), I transitioned to a tiny high school that specifically accommodated disabled students. This school had no AP, honors courses, or foreign language courses offered at all. I enrolled in a rural undergraduate school because they gave me the best scholarship offer and my parents insisted on getting as many scholarships as I could (more on this towards the end of the post). Despite my university's reputation as the "stoner college" of northern Ohio, I got my butt handed to me academically and had a 3.1 GPA from that undergraduate and a 3.26 from all of my courses overall. Part of the reason was because I went for a BS, rather than a BA, in Psychology and didn't do well in the math courses with the exception of when I retook Calculus 2.
After my first year, I wanted to take a break from college, but I was forced to stay at the behest of my parents. They even hired a life coach who worked with me from a distance for all four years. As grateful as I am for that support, I realize it was the beginning of issues with becoming totally independent. Fast forward to graduation and I have one summer's worth of lab experience and a 3.5 PSY GPA to my name. I'm forced to take a gap year because I applied only to Ph.D programs (big mistake) and had low GRE scores.
So, how did I get into graduate school with my awful credentials? My parents hired a different coach who specialized in job applications and had a lot of connections. I was able to sell what little I had and get offers to 6/8 Master's programs I applied to in Experimental Psychology and had solid references that explicitly address that they thought I could do well despite my shortcomings. This coach taught me how to contact potential advisors and professors ahead of time and taught me the ins and outs of selling myself to get in.
My final Master's record upon graduation was a 3.48 GPA and I graduated a semester later. My final year of the Master's program, I reconsulted my old coach who helped me write my personal statement and get in contact with potential advisors again. I got two interviews and had one offer of admission to the current Ph.D program I'm in right now. This was despite my lackluster GPA (both undergrad and Master's) and not taking another 10 hours for an assistantship during my Master's program (no additional TAship or RAship in other words, even though everyone else in my program did something extra by their second year).
After I matriculated into the program, I got my Master's in December 2020 due to COVID delays and defending later than I had hoped in my case. I eventually had an ugly falling out with my first advisor due to a misunderstanding (I'll leave it at that since this background detail is already long), but thankfully passed my qualifier project still. I think the world of my current advisor, especially since he was the only one who took me when no one else would at all. I developed PTSD from the experience with my first advisor based on a neuropsychological evaluation I got back in August 2023. When I spoke to the original evaluator for my autism, she said that it was only likely that way because my stress management is characteristically poor and I have extremely low stress tolerance.
Fast forward to now and I recently turned 30 earlier this month. I am back with the old coach who helped me with my Master's and Ph.D applications once again and they're even helping me with "life stuff," getting through all of it and were immensely crucial for helping me get through the situation with my first Ph.D advisor.
I am thankful for the help I've received, but as the top of comment of a previous post alluded to in this instance, I have not learned to walk on my own.
In case this information is relevant, I have $53k in student loan debt principal. The undergraduate loans are eligible under Biden's SAVE plan and have their interest waived when payments are due since they're $0 at the moment. I have about $26k saved right now that I'm not going to put back toward my $24k of graduate loans until I know if I have income after this August.
I have student loan debt even though my father makes over $200k a year ever since I was around 10 years old and my mother makes anywhere between $60k-$80k a year. My parents do not have student loans since neither went to college. I also just learned that the coach billed my parents for around $680 each month over past two (highest ever). Even though its $100 per one hour session (thus leading me to think it was $200 a month since we meet twice a month). Turns out they charged for email and text communications with me even though those were encouraged. Should I feel guilty for not keeping track of the spending despite the agreement with my parents to help me on that? Given everything else mentioned earlier, should I feel guilty for "blowing through" these support systems? Folks love to tell me that someone who had half the resources I did taking my spot in graduate school instead could've gone further.
There is also something else I've been wondering ever since I learned their income levels. Other than the spending on me and my brothers, why would they be that insistent on me and my brothers taking out student loans? They said that they, my grandparents, and me would all pay for "a third" and part of that third on me and my brother's end was taking out student loans. I should also note that I went to a private high school for those with disabilities tuition free despite my parent's income as well because I got an autism scholarship from the state of Ohio that waived tuition.
Only other things I know that are finance related are the $350k in loans (not sure if this was principal or principal + interest) my father took out for his small business, which I know were paid off around my junior year of undergrad. Other than that, I don't know the mortgage of the house or anything else related to its value. I do know there's a mortgage in general though because one of my brothers asked if he paid for the house upfront and he said he did not at all and took out a loan. What else could be underlying their spending? I'm open to hearing others speculate.
Also, thank you for reading this super long post.
submitted by phdthrowaway1718 to Millennials [link] [comments]
I'm currently someone (30M) who has always had folks by my side all my life as part of "my team," as my parents call it. A major reason for this outside support network is because I'm autistic, have ADHD-I, dysgraphia, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, PTSD (more on that later), and processing speed in the 3rd percentile. I did not learn I was autistic until I was 14 and always took medication for it and my ADHD-I. I also did not know I had ADHD-I until I was 24-25 because I was on my own for submitting the records of my disabilities to the graduate schools I've attended up until this point. As for my processing speed, I did not learn it was that low until this past August when I sought a DSM-V re-evaluation with my own money.
My mental health symptoms were so severe that, despite doing well academically in a suburban school district that was well funded through property taxes (I'm in the US so the education system here is messed up), I transitioned to a tiny high school that specifically accommodated disabled students. This school had no AP, honors courses, or foreign language courses offered at all. I enrolled in a rural undergraduate school because they gave me the best scholarship offer and my parents insisted on getting as many scholarships as I could (more on this towards the end of the post). Despite my university's reputation as the "stoner college" of northern Ohio, I got my butt handed to me academically and had a 3.1 GPA from that undergraduate and a 3.26 from all of my courses overall. Part of the reason was because I went for a BS, rather than a BA, in Psychology and didn't do well in the math courses with the exception of when I retook Calculus 2.
After my first year, I wanted to take a break from college, but I was forced to stay at the behest of my parents. They even hired a life coach who worked with me from a distance for all four years. As grateful as I am for that support, I realize it was the beginning of issues with becoming totally independent. Fast forward to graduation and I have one summer's worth of lab experience and a 3.5 PSY GPA to my name. I'm forced to take a gap year because I applied only to Ph.D programs (big mistake) and had low GRE scores.
So, how did I get into graduate school with my awful credentials? My parents hired a different coach who specialized in job applications and had a lot of connections. I was able to sell what little I had and get offers to 6/8 Master's programs I applied to in Experimental Psychology and had solid references that explicitly address that they thought I could do well despite my shortcomings. This coach taught me how to contact potential advisors and professors ahead of time and taught me the ins and outs of selling myself to get in.
My final Master's record upon graduation was a 3.48 GPA and I graduated a semester later. My final year of the Master's program, I reconsulted my old coach who helped me write my personal statement and get in contact with potential advisors again. I got two interviews and had one offer of admission to the current Ph.D program I'm in right now. This was despite my lackluster GPA (both undergrad and Master's) and not taking another 10 hours for an assistantship during my Master's program (no additional TAship or RAship in other words, even though everyone else in my program did something extra by their second year).
After I matriculated into the program, I got my Master's in December 2020 due to COVID delays and defending later than I had hoped in my case. I eventually had an ugly falling out with my first advisor due to a misunderstanding (I'll leave it at that since this background detail is already long), but thankfully passed my qualifier project still. I think the world of my current advisor, especially since he was the only one who took me when no one else would at all. I developed PTSD from the experience with my first advisor based on a neuropsychological evaluation I got back in August 2023. When I spoke to the original evaluator for my autism, she said that it was only likely that way because my stress management is characteristically poor and I have extremely low stress tolerance.
Fast forward to now and I recently turned 30 earlier this month. I am back with the old coach who helped me with my Master's and Ph.D applications once again and they're even helping me with "life stuff," getting through all of it and were immensely crucial for helping me get through the situation with my first Ph.D advisor.
I am thankful for the help I've received, but as the top of comment of a previous post alluded to in this instance, I have not learned to walk on my own.
In case this information is relevant, I have $53k in student loan debt principal. The undergraduate loans are eligible under Biden's SAVE plan and have their interest waived when payments are due since they're $0 at the moment. I have about $26k saved right now that I'm not going to put back toward my $24k of graduate loans until I know if I have income after this August.
I have student loan debt even though my father makes over $200k a year ever since I was around 10 years old and my mother makes anywhere between $60k-$80k a year. My parents do not have student loans since neither went to college. I also just learned that the coach billed my parents for around $680 each month over past two (highest ever). Even though its $100 per one hour session (thus leading me to think it was $200 a month since we meet twice a month). Turns out they charged for email and text communications with me even though those were encouraged. Should I feel guilty for not keeping track of the spending despite the agreement with my parents to help me on that? Given everything else mentioned earlier, should I feel guilty for "blowing through" these support systems? Folks love to tell me that someone who had half the resources I did taking my spot in graduate school instead could've gone further.
There is also something else I've been wondering ever since I learned their income levels. Other than the spending on me and my brothers, why would they be that insistent on me and my brothers taking out student loans? They said that they, my grandparents, and me would all pay for "a third" and part of that third on me and my brother's end was taking out student loans. I should also note that I went to a private high school for those with disabilities tuition free despite my parent's income as well because I got an autism scholarship from the state of Ohio that waived tuition.
Only other things I know that are finance related are the $350k in loans (not sure if this was principal or principal + interest) my father took out for his small business, which I know were paid off around my junior year of undergrad. Other than that, I don't know the mortgage of the house or anything else related to its value. I do know there's a mortgage in general though because one of my brothers asked if he paid for the house upfront and he said he did not at all and took out a loan. What else could be underlying their spending? I'm open to hearing others speculate.
Also, thank you for reading this super long post.
2024.05.21 18:07 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.
A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to trueprolife [link] [comments]
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
2024.05.21 18:06 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.
A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to Protestant [link] [comments]
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.