Music critics have this habit of fantasizing and idolizing punk rock as “it brought the edge back in rock” but let’s be honest most punk rock songs are two to three cords played very badly, the bands play out of sync with each other, the guitarist don’t even now how to tune their guitar, saying this is unnecessary because that’s what punk rock is just nothing but energy. But let’s be honest 97% of punk rockers are edgy American and british middle class white suburban who are mad at their parents and think they’re superior to people for liking the eagles. So much of it comes across as neither anti-intellectual or pseudo-intellectual, a big reason why the punk scene got big in the first place was a reaction to arena rock was all of the big rock bands like Boston and the Eagles were masters of instruments and made long boring songs that sound like it was made by a composer (mostly due these bands being formed by studio musicians). At the same time what’s wrong with that, what’s wrong with listening to music with people that are infinitely more talented than you and can catch the mood the song is going for. And after the first wave of punk rock large part of the new scene has a superiority complex about them. They always are. They were way smarter and core than everybody else. Oh, I don’t watch sports, don’t do this don’t do that I’m way smarter than those dumb jocks watching football and drinking beer. Acting like they weren’t just talentless wastiods addicted to heroin. Also I don’t really think rock was edgeless at the time share the arena, rock band the timer, but when punks start breaking out, he still had been like Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden which where as edgy and it was only a few years removed from thrash metal which does what punk wanted to far better with way more talent.

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 reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

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 and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

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 and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

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 and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

The Results of the Lip-Sync are in!
❤️ Marina Summers, Condragulations! You're a Winner, Baby!
Marcia Marcia Marcia, great job this week, you are safe to slay another day, you may step to the back of the stage.
*
Marina Summers, with great power, comes great responsibility... Which queen have you chosen to give the chop?
*
Both queens in the bottom are absolute legends, and this is not a choice I take lightly. But I had a vision that one of them would get another chance in a different timeline, I love you, girl, but tonight, I'm sending home...
💄 TIA KOFI 💄
❤️‍🩹 Tia Kofi, as it is written so it shall be done, you are and will always be an All-Star, now sashay away... (10th Place)
*
*
*
AFTER THE ELIMINATION...
Marcia Marcia Marcia steps forward and reveals that she chose Tia’s lipstick by placing it on the table, explaining that she just couldn’t send home the queen she idolizes so much. Danny Beard*, filled with gratitude, embraces her warmly, thanking her for the reprieve.*
Plasma*, meanwhile, stands in a mix of shock and relief. Tia’s early elimination is unexpected, but Plasma is grateful for narrowly escaping the bottom placement herself. With renewed determination, she vows to slay the next challenge.*
The room erupts in applause as the queens gather around Marina Summers*, celebrating her first win of the season. In a confessional,* Cara Melle candidly admits that Marina is shaping up to be the one to beat this season.
Elsewhere, Alexis Mateo and Bosco huddle together, discussing the possibility of forming an alliance with Kahanna Montrese*. Given their shared history and connections from working in Vegas, the trio sees a strategic advantage in banding together. As the first elimination shakes up the competition, the queens are already strategizing for the battles ahead.*
*
*
EP2: 🎭 "All Stars Snatch Game" 🎭
The queens impersonate celebrities in a quick-witted TV game show and burn rubber in a latex runway. With guest judge Ross Mathews. (Snatch Game Challenge)
Runway Theme: Latex Eleganza
Poll
Spreadsheet/Track Record

R.E Dannys' last video
I want to preface this by saying that I have been part of Greg for many, many years. I have also been an occasional lurker on this sub for a couple years too. All this to say that I cannot overstate how much that this is coming from a place of love, and a genuine desire to see change. Danny has been such a pivotal part of my life- during the pandemic I would watch him literally 24/7, to the point where I literally have most of his videos commited to memory. I've literally grown up watching Danny, Drew, and Kurtis, which feels crazy to say. The pandemic made me miss out on so many key highschool memories and though it sounds corny to say, it would have sucked so much more had I not had Greg, and the BaddieSMP, and the virtual boy collabs that just made the general dolour of that time way happier. As I've gotten older, I really have appreciated the person that Danny is. I'm sure many people can relate, but so many of my childhood youtube idols have just turned out to be horrible, and its always felt good to know that you weren't one of them. Looking back, I know its bad to put your idols on a pedestal, but when they had such a significant, fundemental part of my growing-up, its hard not to.
I think, by now, most people know what I am going to say. And before I do, I want to say that I don't think Danny is some reprehensible, unfeeling, evil-doer. I remember how he felt so genuinely, personally affected when he realised he hurt people when he said the B slur in one of his older videos. I remember how he used his platform during the Black Lives Matter movement to uplift the voices of those hurt by police brutality and societal inequity, and to remember the name and bring posthumous justice to Breonna Taylor. And its not simply the fact that he had a Starbucks cup, or showed it in a video during an international boycott; (regardless of whether or not he knew about it) it's moreso his silence, what it represents. We are in such an interesting time of social upheaval where we are blocking celebrities and influencers for not speaking out about the situations in Palestine, Sudan, and the Congo. Its not because we think "grr youre doing the wrong thing!" or "we are yelling at you because you go against MY personal agenda!" its just, how can we enjoy funny, silly, lighthearted content, when there are people starving to death? I clicked off the video when I saw the cup, because I don't want my watchtime, and the time I spend watching ads, given to someone who will spend it to support a genocide, whether they mean to or not. I know how difficult it is to stay up to date when you have a literal child who takes up so much of your energy that you want to raise right, and spend time with before they grow up. But there are children in Gaza who are being run over with tanks, and being shot at, or who don't get to spend any time with their parents ever again, because they have been matyred.
I don't agree with the sentiments that you shouldn't HAVE to speak out about societal issues. That would be true, if you weren't someone who has constantly used their platform to promote causes for social equity and change. You have cultivated an audience who clearly cares about societal inequality and hearing your general silence on the issue feels a little bit intentional, even if you don't mean it to be. From a human standpoint, we, as a society, have a responsibility to help the people of Palestine. And if you don't, you don't get to claim that you care about people or humanity, because humanity doesn't stop just because the people being oppressed are part of a different race and or religion.
As for some of my fellow Gregs, You don't get to "choose" whether or not to support Palestine based off, admittedly, the sometimes counter-intuitive demands of those pleading for change. There needs to be more understanding from both sides. Men, women, and children, are dying in the most brutal of ways. It makes sense that people are frustrated and on edge right now- people are literally watching their family die. I can also acknowledge that if one is ill-informed about the role of creators in bringing awareness to these conflicts, that they don't see why people get so pressed about "Danny having a Starbucks cup" when we should be focusing on world leaders. But I can't just go up to Netanyahu and Biden and politely tell them to stop. We, as people, need to collocate our voices- and a way we do that, is by urging creators to bring light to this situation. When we do that, we can come together to effectively bring about change through boycotts and petitions and being united against these seemingly insurmountable world powers. Not saying anything, or relying on other people to spread things, contributes heavily to a this culture of silence. Being an ally to Palestinian people is speaking up, no matter how hard and uncomfortable and sad it is. And even if you get things wrong, you can re-educate yourself. But you can't retroactively change your silence on this issue.
I speak for many when I say that we are not mad that you weren't initially educated. But I don't know Danny, making a community announcement (that laptop users likely won't see), not making a public donation, and still keeping the video up doesn't really feel like accountability. As I stated before, Danny Gonzalez has been such a pivotal, foundational part of me growing up. I don't want to distance myself from a community I have spent years in- but if thats a part of a minor responsibility I have to do to help achieve greater social equity, then so be it. I can always watch other youtube videos; I have the freedom of choice. But the people in Palestine do not.
I, in no way, shape or form, want to cancel Danny. I'm only writing this, (instead of just blocking you on every platform, like I have done with many other influencers and celebs) because I do believe you can change. I do believe that you don't want to cause harm. But most importantly Danny, I want you to know that you really can make a difference. I know, because you have done it before.
Thank you for reading <3
ALSO: starbucks relation to Israel:
Starbucks primary investor, Howard Shluz (https://boycott.thewitness.news/target/starbucks) is a very prolific Zionist (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/howard-schultz)
Also: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/starbucks-sues-union-amid-backlash-unions-pro-palestine-tweet The "cancellation" of starbucks isn't just to do with Palestine; its also a wider societal issue. For instance- the way we are blocking celebrities and influencers for not using their platforms to speak about Palestine. The fight for freedom is always, always intersectional. People who oppose the Palestinian genocide also oppose the immorality of companies that depend on child slavery to survive: https://reporterbrasil.org.b2023/11/starbucks-slave-and-child-labour-found-at-certified-coffee-farms-in-minas-gerais/

TL;DR

This is a summary of the wildest playthrough I’ve ever done in my attempt to collect all of the Dark Urge endings and see lots of unique story elements.
I set out to create a whimsical idiot who stupid-ed her way through major plot points so that I could see unexpected outcomes. I did not expect to experience the gut-wrenching, Shakespearean tragedy that this story became.
This post is quite long. I wanted to share it with this community because the experience genuinely left me speechless and I thought you might appreciate it. What Larian has created with this game is beyond next level. Contains MASSIVE SPOILERS, you’ve been warned.
—
I am on a personal quest to collect all of the possible endings for Dark Urge. I wanted to do this in a way that was meaningful and honest to the character I created. I love the role playing aspect of this game, I was super into LARPing as a kid and have been known to play DnD on occasion as an adult. I completed the game 3 times prior to this run: good guy Tav (saved the world, got the nice party etc), once as full on psycho Dark Urge who destroyed the world for Daddy, and once as Full Redemption Dark Urge who fully rejected Bhaal at every turn and also saved the world. So at this point, I know most of the possible storylines and plot points.
I really wanted to get the very bad ending I had heard about: the one where Dark Urge accepts Bhaal but decides to save the world and ends up going crazy. So I set out to figure out what a character would look like whose fate would naturally lead them to this path. I also wanted to see some of the more niche story elements that I had not yet experienced. I metagamed this a bit (I don’t know if it’s possible not to once you’ve played for like 800 hours) and worked backwards from the major plot points that I wanted to see to settle on my character’s personality.

Meet: Ceres

Asmodeus Tiefling. Storm Sorcerer. All around hot mess.
One of her first great ideas: watching a monster be born because it looked cool.
Her key personality traits:

• Confused as all hells but trying her best to make good decisions
• Fear motivated
• Foolish (some might say just plain stupid)
• People pleasing
• Indecisive
• Generally just a hot mess
• Has a nasty habit of overestimating her own abilities and cleverness (high Cha, low Int and Wis will do that to you)

Alignment: Chaotic trying-to-be-Good
—
Below follows the major defining events that happened in each act for her, and the tragic conclusion to what I initially thought might be a silly romp of a stupid character. Some of this I metagamed, but much of it happened organically.
Note: I played on Tactician as I normally do, so some of the encounters I had the freedom to redo to get an outcome I wanted. This being said, I rolled with mistakes and events almost all the time. The only encounter I ended up reloading several times was Orin… jeez that fight is a bitch when you are squishy.
—

Act 1

Ceres saved the goblin Sazza and let her escape, only to realize that she would then bring word of the location of the grove where her people were camped to a pack of vicious goblins. Off to a great start.
She killed Karlach because she fully believed Wyll and the “Paladins of Tyr” that Karlach was a monster. Then she instantly regretted it because she killed one of her own people. Her and Wyll talked about this and both felt terrible. She agreed whole heartedly to help Wyll rescue his father to make up for this.
Ceres stole the idol of Sylvanus while the druids were chanting, because she thought that her and Astarion were clever enough to do it without getting caught and she loved the kiddos who had put her up to the task. She ended up starting a huge battle by accident where many of her people were killed.
When she got to the goblin camp, she spoke to Sazza who told Minthara where the grove was. Terrified to blow her cover and get killed while surrounded by enemies, she agreed to help Minthara. Once Minthara left, she freed Halsin and he helped her kill Dror Ragzlin. So at least that was one problem solved.
She helped Zevlor defend the grove, but it was a close call. The afterparty was… subdued. Zevlor even commented on how so few of his people still remained. No Druids were left, save Halsin.
Ceres then tried to redeem her cowardly blunders by rescuing some Gnomes in the Underdark and helping out the Myconids as best she could. But her idiocy once again got a lost Dwarf killed when the mushrooms exploded around him.
After allowing Lae’zel, her most trusted companion, to enter the Zaithisk, she saw the vision of the legions of Githyanki being consumed by Vlakkith. Terrified of this vision and of the Gith in general, she offered the prism willingly to the inquisitor when asked. Upon entering the prism, she knew she couldn’t do what the goddess had demanded. She trusted and respected her dream guardian. She ended up having to kill the Githyanki leader she had tried to trust.
She then went after the legendary "Blood" she had heard about, but ended up blowing up an entire building full of people in the process. Lae’zel was incredibly mad at her. Thankfully, she heard the wisdom of Voss when he came to her camp, and trusted Lae’zel to choose what to do with the new information about Vlakkith and Orpheus. She agreed to help Lae’zel however she could. She owed her that much.

Act 2

Gale professed his love to her and they spent a magical night together. But he said he loved her immediately and it really scared her. It was too much too soon, and she told him as much. He sulked and was upset with her for the rest of their time together. She didn’t know it at the time, but she threw away her best shot at a nice supportive partner.
Instead of the hopeless romantic Wizard she could have loved, she fell for the broken shell of a man that is Astarion. She believed she could be happy with him, even though she didn’t fully understand their relationship and neither did he.
Ceres reached the Nightsong, but was truly terrified of Balthazar. She figured that maybe her best chance of getting to meet the Absolute and figure out what the hells was going on was to fulfill her promise to Z’rell and send the Nightsong to Ketheric Thorm. He seemed to know her from before, and figured that maybe getting close to him was the best way to solve the mystery of her past and of the tadpoles. In doing this, she lost one of her best friends. Shadowheart left in anger, never to be seen again. Needless to say, her plan was a very bad one.
She refused to kill Isobel or kidnap her per Z’rell’s direction, as she knew this would doom many good people. As punishment, Ketheric sent her to Balthazar’s necrotic laboratory where she had to fight her way out of some evil wombs that silenced her magic.
Live Ceres reaction: her plan is not going well... again.
She found Mizora stuck in a pod and attempted to free her to help her friend Wyll. But as she was very unobservant and failed to read either of the buttons, she pressed the wrong one and killed Mizora instead of freeing her. Wyll ended up as a pile of ash back at the camp. Her crew was quickly dwindling.
Somehow through all of this, she managed to defeat Thorm, spare all of the Harpers from dying, and lift the Shadow Curse. She sought the forgiveness of Dame Aylin for what she had done, and received it. Isobel was reunited with her love and Ceres was relieved to see that some good had come from the mess she had made.
The following night, Astarion had to tie her up while she went crazy trying to kill him. He was kind and expressed empathy. She thought maybe there was hope for her after all. At this point she was wildly in love with him but was scared that her feelings and her messed up brain had put him in so much danger.

Act 3

She finally discovered who she was and was beyond terrified to be the daughter of an evil god. She sought the council of everyone at camp. Jaheira and Astarion were very supportive and told her she would be ok if she stayed strong… something she did not excel at in the slightest. Astarion told her that “the life of a mind-addled slave is worse than death”. This ended up being the most hypocritical thing he ever said to her.
She fell a little in love with Halsin, and was surprised and a bit excited that Astarion was ok with it. She still felt a little weird about being in an open relationship but felt encouraged by the possibilities for a time. They both made her happy for different reasons, and she enjoyed fighting by his side. Her final team was Astarion, Halsin, and Lae’zel.
Via the encouragement of her most trusted advisor Lae’zel, Ceres signed the deal with Raphael. She failed at lying to the Emperor, who was very mad at her for what she had done.
Gale expressed to her that he wanted the Crown of Karsus. After much debate, she was convinced by his arguments that he could do better than Karsus and could reforge it. She felt terrible for having broken his heart before and so encouraged him to go after his dreams. After all, she had encouraged Lae to stand up to Vlakkith, so Gale should stand up to Mystra too, right?
When they were ready, it came time to face her partner’s oppressor. After defeating him, Astarion insisted that taking his place and taking the power was the right thing to do. So she helped him. They were both driven constantly by fear, and she empathized deeply with his desire to be rid of that fear. It was the second biggest mistake of her life. (FYI - I metagamed this part. I knew full well what I was getting into here, I've done both paths of his romance before. It was a key part of her story.)
She didn’t want to be made into a vampire spawn. But at the insistence of someone she truly believed she loved, she went along with it. He became controlling and abusive. But she figured that after all the wrongs she had done and all the people she had gotten killed, she probably deserved this life.
This was confirmed to her when she submitted to the Mapping of the Heart in a place called the House of Grief. The priestess there told her she had a wayward heart, and explained that this meant she was incapable of allowing herself to feel happy. She then discovered that the priestess was a Sharran and was actually searching for Shadowheart, who had abandoned Ceres long ago. She told them as much and they tried to kill her. So she had to kill them. She then found two people chained up in a secret room. She couldn't free them.
After confronting her past and killing her sister Orin, she faced a terrifying choice: kill the world for the god that made her, or die. Already used to being treated like a possession by her partner and terrified to die, she agreed to accept Bhaal’s favor. She was distraught when she had to kill the kind and supportive (not to mention living legends) Jaheria and Minsc, and that she roped her other companions into this mess. This was truly the biggest mistake of her life. She was horrified of the monster she had become.
Seeing that she had been party to forcing Halsin into killing so many of his former allies, she broke it off with him. She was ashamed that her actions had put him into such a position, and was afraid of what she might do to him. She believed she did not deserve someone so good.
She accepted from then on that she would be a slave to at least one dark master for the rest of her days. At this point she had completely lost all sense of autonomy: trapped between a controlling partner who had hypocritically turned her into the thing he hated, and the god of murder who gave her the ultimatum that she must kill the world.
In a last ditch attempt to salvage what she could of the mess she had made, she tried to be brave and take down Gortash the tyrant. She attempted to help the Gondians that he had captive but she failed to deactivate a device and the whole Iron Throne was reduced to rubble before she could help them. She felt absolutely horrible that, once again, her foolishness had gotten so many killed.
After defeating Gortash, she spoke to the god Bane himself, who told her she was well on her way to serving him and his goals. The idea that she could be working towards the ends of an additional dark power was too much. She was overwhelmed with the grief of trying and failing to be a good person for so long.

Endgame

Upon reaching Orpheus, Ceres wanted desperately to side with the Emperor, whom she had trusted the whole time. But with an ultimatum from her most trusted friend Lae’zel, she chose to free Orpheus. She felt proud that she had signed the contract with Raphael for a good reason. She upheld her contract, and never entered the House of Hope.
After defeating the Netherbrain, she knew there was no way she could act upon what Bhaal had insisted that she do. She could not doom the whole world after she had already doomed so many people before. She wanted, more than anything, to be a good person in spite of all her failures. She allowed Orpheus to destroy the brain, knowing full well she had condemned herself to a terrible fate.
Her friends left her one by one. Lae’zel upon her new red dragon, Gale to find and claim the Crown of Karsus for himself, Vampire Lord Astarion and Halsin to the pub to grab some wine and celebrate. She smiled for the last time.
The last smile of a doomed soul.
She felt the rage of the god she had defied boiling up inside her. But now she was tired. Tired of being controlled, being abused, tired of the blood and death. In a single act of courage she had never before possessed, she ended her own life, rather than become the murderous puppet of her father Bhaal. The last words anyone ever said to her in life were: “What in the hells do you think you’re doing?”
After causing the needless deaths of so many due to ignorance and carelessness, Ceres finally did something good for the world. Her ending was just for her. She had lived her whole remembered life trying to help others get what they wanted and living with the consequences of her foolhardy choices. In the end, she got what she didn’t know she wanted: peace. Floating alone in the void, she met a familiar face. For the first time in her miserable existence, someone named her “hero”.
(Queue massive waterworks from me, I'm tearing up again writing this)
—

In the End

Ceres broke my heart in ways I never expected. It was a beautiful roller coaster of a story that really hit home with me. Ceres unintentionally embodied many of my greatest personal flaws, and it showed me much about the folly of trying to please others. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to create a more compelling character.
If you have, for some reason, taken the time to read all of this: Thank you so much. If you have any character stories you'd like to share, please pass them along. I'd love to read them.
And a huge heartfelt THANK YOU to the team at Larian for creating a truly epic masterpiece. I genuinely can’t believe I got this experience from a video game. It is a wonder.
—
PS - because she never even set foot in the House of Hope, Raphael was still alive in the end. He came to find her in the afterlife and deliver a monologue about Gale going after the crown and his plans to rise from the ashes of the divine civil war he was sure Gale would cause. I presume that, in a few hundred years, there will be an epic showdown between Dekarios the Divine and Raphael. And Ceres will watch from the afterlife, calmly, with a smile on her face and no more voices in her head.

1. ill just copy and paste.. your auto mod is standing up for filth like Cameron or backing paywall research.. wow thats not admirable.

PSYCHIC DRIVING: DYNAMIC IMPLANT BY D. EWEN CAMERON
In an earlier communication, the procedure of psychic driving has been described in some detail.** Briefly, it is the exposure of the patient to continued replaying, under controlled conditions, of a cue communication derived from one of the original areas from which his current difficulties arise. A major consequence of such exposure is to activate and bring progressively into his awareness more recollections and responses generally from this area. The ultimate result is the accelerating of therapeutic re- organization.
It was early noted that continued replaying of a cue communi- cation sets up a persistent tendency in the patient to act in a way which can be predetenaained with respect to its general characteristics. In other words, by driving a cue statement one can, without exception, set up in the patient a persisting tendency for the cue statement and other components of the relevant "com- nmnity of action tendencies" to return to his awareness. This tendency has been termed the dynamic implant. By "community of action tendencies," a group of related activities and attitudes is meant--such as, for instance, those existing between the patient and his mother, or those related to his feelings of inadequacy.
Since, clearly, this continuing result of psychic driving might greatly enhance its effects, considerable study has been directed to the conditions controlling the setting up of the dynamic implant and to the effects of the implant. The findings are reported here- with.
PROCEDURE
The dynamic implant may be set up either by autopsychic or heteropsychic driving. The first procedure consists in the repeated playing of a cue communication made by the patient. The second is the replaying of a communication devised by the therapist from his knowledge of the patient's dynamics.
*From the Allan ~emorial Institute of Psychiatry, Montreal, Canada. This paper was read at the l l l t h annual meeting 'of the American PSychiatric Association in Atlantic City, M~y 11, 1955.
*'*Cameron, D. Ewen: Psychic driving. Am. J. Psychiat., 112:7, 502-509, January 1956.
704 PSYCI-IIC DRIVING: DYNAMIC IMI'LAlX:T
Since autopsyehic driving is more easily carried out, this re- port has been based upon that type, with implants set up by means of periods of 10 to 30 minutes' driving--repeated, if neees- sary, once a week.
Preferably, the communication should deal with one topic only and should not be longer than about 20 seeonds. In practice, the material is derived from a psychotherapeutie hour whieh has been recorded on magnetic tape. It has been found useful to transfer these communications to 14-inch records and to reproduce them through a high fidelity phonograph adjusted for continuous playing.
The communication should be derived from a community of action tendencies which are of basic signifieanee to the patient. Moreover, it is most effeetive if taken from the time of origin of this eomlnunieation. It may, for instance, be selected as ex- pressive of one of the great formative relationships of the earlier part of the patient's life, as in the following eommunieation, in which the patient is reliving her early relationships with her mother :
"Everything about me was wrong--the way I acted, the way I spoke, the way I dressed.., everything, everything I did. Many times she [the patient's mother] would just talk and talk and talk, and . . . well, I ean't go thinking up these things."
Or it may be drawn from a long-eontinuing elimate of rejection, insecurity, or hostility whieh prevailed during a critical early period in the patient's personality growth:
"Now that I think about it, seems to me that my parents had me just to even up the family . . . not because they wanted me 9 . . because of eourse their attitude towards me . . . Gee, I don't remember the boys getting as much hell as I did.., or my sister." The signifieanee of the eue eommunieation must be assessed, not only in terms of the therapist's conception, but also in terms of the patient's response. The two do not neeessarily eoineide.
The second is the more realistic guide. The following is an example of the patient's immediate response
to the implanting of a eae eommunieation. For the purposes of presentation, a response at the upper level of intensity has been seleeted. The ease is that of a woman suffering from anxiety
D. E W E N CAMERON~ IVi.D. 705
hysteria with many conversion symptoms. The cue communica- tion ran as follows:
"I stayed home all the time when my mother lived. I stayed with her.., didn't want to leave her. I was always left staying home with her and... I didn't have any life like all.., the other girls."
On the first implanting on January 4, 1955, the patient, who had come in that day and rather gaily said that she had nothing on her mind and nothing to talk about, was silent. At the end of five sdnutes she said, "It makes me nervous, you'd better stop it... it makes me feel bad." She was now restless and anxious and very different from the gay person she had been when she came at the beginning of the hour. At eigl~t minutes: "Doctor doctor, I've had enough, please stop it." Holds head. Nine min- ut,es: "That's enough. It makes me nervous to hear that." Ten minut,es: "Why don't you stop it, doctor. I've heard enough. It is always the same."
At the end of 10 minutes, the patient was asked: "What did you think about it?" Answer : "It made me nervous all over again. Everything hurt me all over as it did before. My voice sounds like I am going to die." She then went on to bring out a great deal of new material, saying: ")~iy mother almost might not have had me, I was so quiet as a child." And again: "After my mother died, my father gave up his music and began to drink. I tried to take her place for him. I wanted so badly to please him and I cried every night and I tried to carry on. i kept everything very much to myself. My father was like a child. I had no friends by the time my mother died, I had stayed at home so much."
If the cue communication evokes too great a response from the patient, it will, in a measure, defeat its own purpose, since defenses will be erected which may take a considerable time to reduce.
The writer would like to state here clearly an answer to a question which he is sure will arise in everybody's mind. In two years of exploration into this new field, covering more than 100 cases, in only one has there been seen a possible persisting trauma resulting from the implant; and even here, current events ---such as the breakdown of a love affair and threatened deporta-
706 PSYCHIC DRIVING: DY~A~IIC IMPLA~:T
tion--undoubtedly contributed to, if they did not cause, the panic state through which the patient passed.
As an example of a cue communication which is not well chosen, the following is presented. It was selected earlier in the writer's experience and, as can be seen, is drawn from a period when the patient's personMity structure was already well developed; it is representative of current stress and is not expressive of those forces which brought about a formation of the early neurotic traits which have got the patient into continual dif~.culties through her insatiable seeking for affection and endless understanding:
"Well... because... I%obert doesn't care.., and I have always thought I would have it in time [a house] . . . and I have been very patient . . . and I don't know whether it has just suddenly 9 . . I realize now it is all so hopeless, thinking about it."
After considerable experimentation, two additional procedures which facilitate the establishment of the implant have been found. The first is tha~ the sound should be conducted to the patient's ears through headphones. This causes the patient to experience the driving with much greater impact, the more particularly since he frequently describes it as being like a voice within his head. For instance, one patient said: "I've heard enough. It goes right through my head." Another reported: "It's too close; it's horrible; I hear all the stuttering."
A second procedure is to produce a filtered record: that is, having a recording made of the cue communication with the emphasis first upon treble notes and then upon bass; or, again, with the emphasis upon a low volume or a high volume; or with spacing or repetition of key phrases; or with the introduction of an echo-back into the communication. All these variations serve to keep the patient continuously oriented toward each repe- tition and, hence, serve to diminish the most common defense-- not listening.
On November 9, 1954, the first attempt was made, using an ordinary record to implant the following communication:
"I was afraid of them all the time. I mean I didn't dare... talk anything over with them whenever I went out on a date or something like that . . . I mean a lot of kids . . . you know . . . they'd come home and tell everything they did and everything .,. I never.. 9I always felt as if I would be scolded, I mean if
D. E W E N CAMEIION~ M[.D. 707
I ever did mention what I had done and then I wouldn't do it." At the end of 10 minutes, the patient, who had shown no re- sponse, said, "Is that a record, doetorf' Asked what she felt, she said: "I had no feeling at all as I listened; I was thinking
of something else." The same communication was then set up in filtered form. To
this the patient's response was at once different. ,She eommented that she felt extremely tired after listening to it, that the voice sounded as though it were inside her head; and she said: "It brought back a lot of memories of my childhood days." A few weeks later, when it was used again, the patient said: "When I listen to that voice now, I feel like screaming and putting on a tantrum. The voice seems to scream at me all the time. It is like the voice of a stranger, though I know it is my own. It seems to say, 'I was afraid of being scolded.' It says it over and over again. It makes me think that even with my husband and my father and my father-in-law I have to hide things from them. I feel trapped. I feel I can't talk to anyone."
Experience shows that the implant can most readily be set up if the driving is carried out during the last 10 minutes of the psychotherapeutic period, the reason for this apparently being that best results are obtained if nothing is done to interrupt the ongoing response of the patient to the fresh implant--as would be the ease if one continued therapy afterward. It is some- times useful, however, to spend some five minutes asking the patient what fresh recollections the implant has brought up. This inm~ediately widens the area of the patient's response and probably tends to stabilize the implant.
A question which must be met at this juncture is: Why is it that statements which the patients have already made, had for- mulated in their own minds, and had listened to themselves utter- ing, should be so potentially disturbing when replayed to t h e m - f a r more so than when they first made them, never more than a week before and sometimes only 10 minutes before. This question has been explored in some detail and reported earlier. Discussion will be limited to three brief statements: (1) The work involved in listening is far less than the work involved in speaking; hence the patient, when listening, is much freer to respond to what he hears. (2) The law of the summation of subliminal stimuli
708 PSYCI-IIC DRIVI~rG : DYNA~[IC I~iPLANT
seems to be operative: The longer one listens to a statement, the more response it evokes. (3) In all of us, a defense is set up against responding to all the implications of what we say. This defense appears to be with respect to a synthesis of air- conducted and tissue-conducted sound. The recorder, making use as it does of air-conducted sound only, evades this defense.
A. Findings R,el;ative to Process of Setting up of Implant
Several factors governing the establishment of an implant have been identified:
Intensity of Response. The intensity of the response of the individual to the driving period tends to increase the dynamic character of the implant which is thus set up. This is true whether t h e response takes the form of tension, anxiety, hostility, un- happiness or any other facet of the intensification response. This statement must be qualified in that, as the area involved becomes progressively activated by the patient and worked through by him, the intensity of the response will, after having risen to its maximum intensity, graduMly decline. Factors limiting the in- tensity of the response are: the patient's defense, his stress toler- ance, and his capacity for desensitization. These will be discussed la~er.
Amount and R.epet#i:on of Driving. Repetition of the driving of the cue communication on subsequent days will reinforce the dynamic aspects of the implant. Less clear is what the optimum amount should be, either of the driving on any given day, or the frequency of the driving within a series of .days. The practice has been to limit driving to 10 or 15 minutes on any given day, as it is found that thereafter the patient usually succeeds in establishing defenses or becomes so disturbed as to be unwilling to continue. The repetition of the driving thus far has been limited to a maximum of once a week and a. minimum o~[ about once a month.
Defenses. The defenses against the setting up of an implant are essentially the defenses against psychic driving itself.* The chief of these defenses are: (a) inhibitory reaction to implanting by thinking of other things; (b) suppression of emotional reaction to the material; (e) denial of responsibility for the statement,
'~Cameron, D. Ewea: Ibid.
D. E W E N CAI~IEIIONj I~.D. 709
as where the patient states, "I listen to it as though it were a stranger talking"; and (d) misinterpretation; this is much less frequent, but on occasion patients succeed in completely reversing the sense of a statement, even when repeated 30 or 40 times, by changing it from an affirmative to a negation.
Methods of penetrating the defense which have been most successful are: (1) continued repetition; (2) the use of the ear- phones; and (3) the use of the filtered record, as indicated earlier in this paper. This last procedure, by its continuous shift in pitch, in volume, in spacing, and by other devices, penetrates the patient's defenses by repeated evoking of what Pavlov has termed in the animal the "orientation reflex." Other methods, such as psychic driving carried out during mild sodium amytal narcosis or during continuous sleep or during the induction phase of ni- trous oxide, have not been nearly so successful. In practice, the penetration of defenses has not been found to be a serious prob- lem.

1. Stress Tolerence. Knowledge concerning this is rather limited; but it would appear, from preliminary observations, that patients vary considerably in their ability to bear stress. Those who can tolerate stress well will, in general, show less tendency to react to psychic driving by the setting up of a lasting implant. On the other hand, those who tolerate stress very poorly are likely to respond, either by withdrawal from the driving situation alto- gether or by the setting up of powerful defenses.
   
2. Capacity for Desensitization. Concerning this phenomenon, there is still less information. But~ from experience in other fields, it would appear that here, again, patients vary considerably in their ability to desensitize themselves; and those who cannot de- sensitize themselves readily will show a persistence of the implant for longer periods.
   

B. Findings ReLativ:e to the Effects of the Dynamic Implan.t
Mobi:li.zation of Action Tendencies and Progressive Problem Identificc~tion. The dynamic implant, especially when reinforced by repeated driving, tends to mobilize more and more of the com- ponents of the community of action tendencies from which it was taken. These components tend to appear in the patient's awaxe- ness. This fact, in turn, facilitates problem identification by the
710 PSYCHIC DI~IVING : DYNAIViIC II~PLANT
patient and the therapist. This progress may be assessed in the following ways: (a) by the extent to which the patient thinks about the cue communication in the period between his treat- ments, and the extent to which his ruminating over the cue com- munication evokes new material; (b) by the new material which is evoked at the time of reinforcement of the implant--namely, by playing the material back again on a subsequent occasion; (c) possibly by general shifts in the behavior of ~he individual subsequent to implantation; for instance, it may be possible to demonstrate that the fact that the patient is now sleeping better is related tooreorganization brought about by the implant; (d) dreams and psyehologieM testing may also reveal the reorganiz- ing force being exerted by the hnplant.
The first two methods of assessment are obviously the most direct and scientifically satisfying.
Illustrative of the progressive problem identification brought about by the dynamic implant, is the case of a girl who had come to therapy suffering from long-term feelings of inadequacy, marked dependency and a highly ambivalent attitude toward the male figure. The cue statement was:
"... and there's . . . uh... there's still that tendency to idolize or despise.., that tendency still exists.., uh... I perhaps don't do either quite as strongly now.., or feel either, I should say... But...uh... there still is that feeling, that one is a king and the other is a piece of dirt. Well...I mean...uh.., as you very well know.., you know exactly the type of feltow that I go for, and.., uh... all others I just seem to have no use for."
Immediately after the first implanting, the patient stated: "I sound bitter and dissatisfied ; I sound as though I am reaching for something I can't have." A change in behavior took place follow- ing this first implanting. After reinforcement, a further change took pla~e, the patient saying that her boss whom she had hitherto found extremely attractive to her because of his ability and business drive was now no longer so;she did not think of him any more as being a tyeoon, and a love affair with him ter- minated. A third period of driving brought about no change at the time; but a week afterward the implant had most considerable consequences: She gave up, she sMd, the whole idea of a "king"; she had now fMlen in love with a man of her own age. Asked how
D. EWEN CAMERON~ 1Vf.D. 711
this came about, she said: "I simply made up my mind that since I can't get a 'king,' I would give myself a chance to like John. I don't put people on a pedestal like I used to.; I don't feel the same way I used to about the boss. I used to have a bitter grudge against my father for my troubles; now I see him as a weak person I don't admire."

1. Durability of Implant. The writer's experience has shown that the implant, if not reinforced, declines in its activity fairly rapidly after two weeks; although, on occasion, it can be found operative as long as two or three months after the first implant- ing. As indicated earlier in this paper, the intensity of the implant can actually be progressively increased by a suitable reinforce- ment at rates of once a week to once a month.
   
2. Shift.ing At~itud,es Towa.rd Cu.e Comm~nication. The writer has frequently encountered the interesting phenomenon of the according of negative values to the pattern of behavior repre- sented in the cue communication: "I hate my whining voice"; or: "I don't have to please people all the time; I'm not like that any more." This imparting of negative values is particularly likely to occur either after repeated implanting or with the progress of psychotherapy in general. A working premise concerning it is that, since the patient comes more clearly to identify the neurotic components in the cue communication and to organize more efficient behavioral patterns, he tends to reject the neurotic patterns and to express negative feelings toward them.
   
3. Mobilization of Action Tenc~e~c~es. An interesting question which arises is whether an implant can mobilize action tendencies laid down before the event embodied in the implant. Experience indicates that, while this does occur, it is much less usual than the mobilization of action tendencies laid down subsequent to the implant and derived from the basic situation outlined in the cue communication used in implanting.
   

By continued replaying of a cue communication, a persistent tendency to act in a way which can be predetermined in its general characteristics can be established. In other words~ by driving a cue communication, one can, without exception, set up in the patient a persisting tendency for that cue statement, and other
712 PSYCI-IIC DRIVING
components of the "community of action tendencies" from which it was drawn, to return to his awareness.

1. The dynamic implant thus established, and especially if re- inforced by repeated driving, tends to activate more and more of the components of the relevant community of action tend- encies. These components tend to appear in the patient's aware- heSS.
   
2. This materia]]y contributes to problem identification by the patient and the therapist, and, hence, facilitates the processes of therapeutic reorganization.
   
3. The dynamic qualities of the implant are functions of: (a) the amount and repetition of driving; (b) the intensity of the response; (c) defenses; (d) stress tolerance; (e) capacity for desensitization.
   

(5) The major continuing effects of the dynamic implant are: (a) progressive problem identification; (b) resulting reorganiza- tion of behavioral patterns; (c) negative evaluation of the neu- rotic patterns present in the cue communication used in driving.
Allan Memorial Institute of Psychiatry 1025 Pine Avenue, West Montreal 2, Canada

*disclaimer: not all of these are serious and they definitely cannot all be in the same season together
-Bring in some dangerous animals if it’s still just going to be a tropical island. Tigers, lions, cheetahs, a bear, whatever. Something to give them fear and lose sleep over. Africa literally had them sleep in shifts
-No more precut bamboo. Tribes shouldn’t have a pile of bamboo to make a shelter out of
-Gaslighters and manipulators. Give me a few of them
-At least one diagnosed narcissist
-Give them rice. I know what you’re thinking, doesn’t food make it easier? No. A little rice does almost nothing but food control will start more fights
-Bring back deadlock voting with whomever has had more votes cast against them previously is voted out. No more rocks or fire
-Final 2 not 3
-Tribes of 3 are fine, but 8-10 members each and two loser tribes each episode
-More creative and brutal challenges. Survivor Outback had cliff jumping and pushing a crate down a river. More challenges where you set stuff on fire as well.
-Full Contact Survivor. No maiming but tribes can attack each others camps and maybe interfere in challenges
-No flint
-More rewards with less companions. Make them lose strategy time
-More rewards that are actually life experiences and give opportunities for funny moments like Ethan, Lex & Big Tom in Africa’s rewards (goats, safari)
-More late night challenges with night stories from Jeff about the history of the place that go directly to tribal with no time to prepare
-Quiz challenge based on knowledge of other contestants. Too many self centered egoists that need to be knocked down a peg
-Tree mail needs to be creative again, not corporate postcards. I wanna see that serial killer font on like a fish skull or something
-Less idols and advantages
-Penalties for failing immunity challenges after refusing to not play for rice. Fail holding on to the pole for 1 minute? Lose your vote
-Change up the order votes are read. Too predictable
-Allow cheating. Someone stole your idol before tribal? That’s rough, buddy.
-More severe weather. Tribes need to fear the elements like in the Outback
-One person that doesn’t speak any English
-Special season where everyone lives at the same camp. New tribes are formed for every immunity challenge and disbanded after tribal.
-Crew haunts players at night. Jeff makes up some legends about cryptids/mythical creatures/legends and the crew brings them to life

Starting Info:
I will be casting as few spells as possible throughout the game. This includes learned skills, spirit vision, source vampirism, scrolls and more obscure "spells" like using face-ripper or Fane's shapeshifting mask. The game describes these actions as "cast"-able as opposed to a shovel or teleporter pyramid which are "use"-able. So I will be allowing myself the use of teleporter pyramids, shovels, lockpicks, Magic Mirror, Waypoints, telekinesis, potions, grenades, special arrows, and most importantly the glowing Idol of rebirth. Resurrection scrolls are not allowed but crafting the idols at no point requires you to cast anything, allowing a nice loophole. Basically, I played as if my characters were permanently silenced.
I will be playing on Tactician, using lone wolf rangers Fane (MC) and Ifan, for their ingenious trait. Rangers are the obvious choice for this challenge, as they deal a great amount of damage even without spells, and still have access to cc and magical damage with special arrows.
Heavy Spoilers for the entire game below
Act 1:
For the most part Act 1 was pretty simple. Some of the very early fights were rough, as we have to rely on our very weak standard attack. Once I got lone wolf on our companion and a couple of decent crossbows, things went quite smoothly. Without access to teleportation, several chests were unable to be accessed. Additionally not being able to use bless, prevented us from saving the pigs, opening the decrepit ruins (the area under where you find Gareth), opening the cursed chest in Braccus' vault containing the first piece of the devourer set, and removing the curse on the skeletal Captain's crate on the beach. I did try to use water balloons to spread blessed water (created by defeating nearby voidwoken) onto the flaming pigs but apparently you need to cast bless specifically
on the pigs. The final hurdle of the act was to defeat the shriekers and "kill" Alexander. Unable to use purging wands, I had to kill Radeka, to free Slane, so the dragon could take care of the Shriekers for me. The battle with Alexander was surprisingly easy and anticlimactic. Our first real problem arises when we meet Malady. Our supposed ally demands that we cast the bless spell to prove our godwoken status. Does a spell cast solely through dialogue count as a spell? I don’t know. We leave Fort Joy, and soon The Lady Vengeance is under attack. A few knockdown arrows later and Malady teleports us to the Hall of Echoes. This is our second problem. To move on, we need to bless our patron god. Perhaps there is a way to bypass this but I couldn’t work it out.
Act 2:
Just like bless being our nemesis in Act 1, spirit vision was the villain of Act 2. After you save Meistr Siva and perform the ritual, your god forces you to cast spirit vision to continue. Luckily you never actually need to perform the ritual, and by refusing source from all the source masters, Malady can give you the location of the Council of the seven. Armed with 2 teleporter pyramids, the respec mirror and a glowing idol of rebirth (in hindsight I should have gotten 2 of these, but I forgot that Fane needs to shapeshift in order to receive the spider’s kiss), we began our quest of refusing source knowledge. Ironically the most difficult fight involved Peeper the voidwoken chick. As we couldn’t speak to Marge’s ghost, when we brought Peeper to the magicockerel, we didn’t have the option to kill Peeper in dialogue. This started a fight with an infinite swarm of void chickens. That’s fine right? No. For some reason this caused nearby Daeyena to become aggressive, spawning her plethora of violent plants, which were 4 levels higher than Fane and Ifan at the time. The only solution (aside from not doing the quest, there wasn’t a reward for it anyway) was to trigger dialogue with Daeyena first, and as she is walking to the magister, start the fight with the chickens. Then retreat from combat, and then continue the conversation with Daeyena. We would return later to finish off the chickens and kill the elf for her armour. The only other notable fight of Act 2 was with the Black Ring in the centre of Bloodmoon Island. The undead Black Ring Destroyer has an evasion aura. Therefore we could only damage it with grenades or by taking 10% chance shots. Luckily this fight could be cheesed. Run away with your higher initiative character, the destroyer takes its turn, then your lower initiative character takes a couple of shots at the destroyer. Meanwhile sneak back into range with your other character and attack the destroyer, putting the character in front of the destroyer in turn order. This can be repeated infinitely, without letting the destroyer have a turn. I don’t think this fight was even needed to be done, but it was fun. One of the magisters guarding Meistr Siva also had the evasion aura, but they could just be bribed to leave their post. Interestingly, there is a way to get spirit vision temporarily without casting the spell. After completing Ryker’s quest, he gives your party spirit vision for 5 turns when he starts the ritual. By quickly teleporting to another location you can use this spirit vision to complete a quest. I used it to open the Surrey family tomb, to get the Anathema part for Tarquin. After denying all the source masters, and completing all the quests that required no spirit vision (I also couldn’t figure out how to do The Trial for All Seasons, but it could be possible), we set sail to the Nameless Isle without another spell being cast.
Act 3:
Act 3 was quick and painless. Using telekinesis and teleporter pyramids, we could easily navigate the entire island. The Sallow Man was the only concern, with his deflection proving a challenge for our rangers. We could have switched to daggers, but the fight was won simply through brute force and abusing the rebirth idol. As we entered the academy Fane talked to the voidwoken and became Sworn to the God King. Did I realise that to break this pact I would have to cast a spell. No I did not. Fight. Dallis. God. Lava. Sexy Times. And on to the final chapter.
Act 4:
There were a few challenges in this act. Starting with Kemm’s vault. Being unable to cast source vampirism on the vault sentinels, I had to use (for the first time ever) the sneaking civil ability to avoid them. I worried that I would have to cast spirit vision to install the missing panel of the painting, but I placed the painting nearby, and it automatically slotted into place. The next problem was Arhu himself. Sadly we had to kill the cat-man, as saving him would have required spells. Next was Kemm himself. Like the Sallow Man, he had deflecting, and unlike the Sallow Man he dealt a considerable amount of damage and couldn’t be sniped from higher ground. Luckily his Black Ring allies could be killed in 2 or 3 shots, and by carefully setting up ornate chests, Kemm was unable to get in melee range. Then using a barrage of static cloud arrows, Kemm was stunlocked and dead. The next big boss to defeat was the Doctor. I started the fight in the side room with all the desks, by attacking one of the nurses, forcing the demons to come to us. By using the bow that sets erratic wisp on its target, anytime an enemy got too close we could teleport them away. Combined with knockdown arrows, and fire resistance potions the damage the Doctor could deal to our duo was negligible. The final boss to defeat before entering the cathedral was Isbeil (without spirit vision we couldn’t fight Sadha or the Devourer). The fight itself was quite easy, Isbeil did not get a turn. The problem came from the deathfog device. Fane could not bring himself to disappoint his lover Ifan, so destroyed the device, much to the dismay of the God King. As punishment, Fane was permanently cursed. We entered the cathedral with a mercenary buddy. He successfully walked the Path of Blood, and then was promptly dismissed. Next was the pipe puzzle. How do you get blessed blood without bless? It turns out you don’t actually need blessed blood. Using teleport pyramids and telekinesis, you can bypass the forcefield and teleport down to the pipes. Ifan bled into the pipe, and Fane chucked a blessed water balloon onto the now bloody bowl. Even though the bowl did not contain any blessed blood (just blessed water and blood), the tomb opened. Next was the puppet room, and then onto Lucian. Ifan decided to forgive Lucian (I needed the achievement) and then the duo planned to give up their source to save the world. Unfortunately, the God King had other plans and turned Fane to a pile of bones and Braccus did his thing. Lucian and Ifan finished off the source king quite easily, ending the campaign. Miraculously, dead Malady revived Ifan from his life as a silent monk., though Fane’s spirit did not even make an appearance on The Lady Vengeance with the other godwoken spirits.
Overall, this challenge was surprisingly easy. By the end of the game, both our characters were dealing around 2000 damage a hit, twice that if a critical hit (Fane had around 95% crit chance, and Ifan had around 70%), twice again with huntsman bonuses from attacking from high ground. With 4 attacks per turn per character (8 AP from lone wolf and executioner), we could theoretically deal around 64,000 damage a turn. Without having to worry about spells, the campaign was very quick, taking only 35 hours.
TLDR: You only need to cast a single spell (and a spell in dialogue) to finish the game.

This post draws from “Power of Awareness” and Florence Shinn.
As we know, the world we see “out there” is an illusion. It is constantly pulling our attention towards it with flashy glamours and we, like moths to a flame, lose ourselves in the projection.
“When you pay attention, it signifies that you have decided to focus on one object or state rather than on another. Therefore, when you know what you want, you must deliberately focus your attention on the feeling of your wish fulfilled until that feeling fills the mind and crowds all other ideas out of consciousness.”
Our thoughts and feelings are investments. What we think about feelingly, what we decide is true, is.
Florence Scovel Shinn tells us to cultivate indifference to the world. Nothing “out there” can have any effect on you unless you allow it to. Unless you decide it does.
“All progress depends on upon an increase of attention.”
What are you giving your attention to? What false, illusory idols are you investing in?
A post recently got people buzzing because the OP challenged the idea that what you desire isn’t the thing (in this case, money), but the things you believe it could afford you.
In this example, people are making money a false idol. They believe that the power to accomplish goals in life comes from money. This is the antithesis of the Law because you don’t need money for anything besides having money for its own sake. You might say “but I want to go on a trip” or “I want to buy that thing”… and that’s all well and good, but cut out the middle man (money). Go into imagination to experience the trip or buying the item. The Law will work out the details.
Going a step further, “One of the greatest pitfalls in attempting to use the Law of assumption is focusing your attention on things, on a new home, a better job, a bigger bank balance. This is not the righteousness without which you “die in your sins” (John 8:24). Righteousness is not the thing itself; it is the consciousness, the feeling of already being the person you want to be, of already having the thing you desire.”
“Righteousness is the awareness that you already possess it all.”
“The statement that creation is finished means nothing is ever to be created, it is only to be manifested.”
We need do NOTHING beyond assuming the wish fulfilled (using any technique that feels right to you). We need no money to take trips, we need no outer validation to feel like we have our perfect body, and we need no SP to make us feel loved and whole. (Please note this is NOT me saying you can’t have these things, but to simply investigate the true desire behind it). The entirety of creation exists within us and is awaiting our decision. Our word is Law and it will conform without, but it must originate within.
This all circles back to attention. What we choose to focus on is the portion of life we will experience.
“The great secret of success is to focus the attention on the feeling of the wish fulfilled without permitting any distraction. All progress depends upon an increase of attention.”
The final point I want to touch on is “resisting evil”. Many times, we experience something and instinctually say “I don’t want that!”. We then think about how much we don’t want it, how terrible it is, and any number of other ruminations about just how much we dislike it. Well, now that we’ve established that attention to things is like currency that binds us to circumstances, we can see how we’re actually calling that undesired circumstance into our physical reality.
So how do we stop doing this?
“There is a great difference between resisting evil and renouncing it. When you resist evil, you give it your attention; you continue to make it real. When you renounce evil, you take your attention from it and give your attention to what you want.”
Again, this comes back to attention. Are you resisting evil, “I hate that!” Or renouncing evil “I love this. Are you fawning over idols, disillusioned by the power you think they have or are you focusing on yourself and bringing attention to your inner states?
“Be in the world, but not of it.”
Cultivate the art of indifference towards the woes of the world. Be disciplined enough to focus within yourself. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things (desires) will be added unto you.”
Practical Tips:
-set an alarm every half hour to an hour to remember to check yourself. Become aware of what state you’re in, and if you’re in one you would prefer not to be, make the necessary shift.
-limit social media. “When you set out to master the movements of attention, which must be done if you would successfully alter the course of observed events, it is then you realize how little control you exercise over your imagination and how much it is dominated by sensory impressions and by a drifting on the tides of idle moods.” We get SO caught up in the things we see. We get upset, we get happy, we get sad… all in the course of a few minutes because we have so many different attractions coming at us. Something someone says, something you see has a subtle, but important impact on you and if you’re not vigilantly guarding yourself, you will be knocked out of one state and into another undesired one.
-make it a habit to focus on what you desire to experience. If you want, you can be super general about it such as “isn’t it wonderful” or “thank you, father”. Enjoy it. Feel how you would feel if you attained your desire and live there!
-As always, practice meditation. Practice shutting out the world of senses to simply be. Continue exercising this muscle of control and become master of your fate.
And what’s one more quote to end with:
“What seems to be, is, to those to whom it seems to be” -William Blake

Welcome everybody to the third SotW of May! This week, we'll be listening to a song that was often used as a powerful opening track for Em's concerts in the Recovery era. Most of you probably know what song I'm talking about. This week's track is 'Won't Back Down', featured as the fourth track on Em's seventh studio album, 'Recovery'.
Upon the release of Recovery, the song received generally positive reviews from music critics, who praised its aggressive nature and production. Although not released as a single, 'Won't Back Down' appeared on four national charts. It was used in the game Call of Duty: Black Ops and its trailer as well as the trailers for the films Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and Hitman: Agent 47.
Along with most of the songs from Recovery, 'Won't Back Down' was recorded at 54 Sound and Effigy Studios in Ferndale, Michigan, with recording carried out by Mike Strange. The song is one of the only Eminem songs not in a 4:4 time signature, along with Untitled (also from Recovery) and Underground (from Relapse).
Originally, the song was set to be a solo record, with Eminem singing the chorus himself. Later, Liz Rodriguez, who is also featured on Recovery's '25 to Life' and 'Almost Famous', recorded the song's chorus. Eminem however, explained in an interview that after recording his vocals for the song, he decided to include Pink on the song as he "felt like she would really smash this record.".
Although 'Won't Back Down' was not released as a single, it charted on four national charts worldwide due to digital sales on the release of Recovery. The song reached its highest position on the US Billboard Hot 100, where it peaked at number 62 on the chart for the week ending of July 10, 2010, although it fell off the chart the following week. The song also charted in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, peaking at number eighty-seven, sixty-five and eighty-two on their respective national charts, although on all three the song again only appeared for one week.
As stated before, upon its release, 'Won't Back Down' received generally positive reviews from most music critics. David Jeffries of Allmusic wrote positively of the song, describing the song as a "lurching heavy metal monster" that "could be used as the lead-in to 'Lose Yourself' on any ego-boosting mixtape", but wrote more critically of the lyrics, denouncing the pop culture jokes featured throughout the song, particularly ones aimed at Michael J. Fox, calling the line "Make like Michael J. Fox in your drawers, playin' with an Etch-A-Sketch" "less effective" than other jokes aimed at him. Steve Jones of USA Today described it as "rock-tinged" and stated that Pink's appearance provides "outside star power".
A remixed version of the ESPN trailer of the game Call of Duty: Black Ops featuring 'Won't Back Down' was released on June 14, prior to the E3 Activision conference for which he also performed. The song was also featured in the game's credits and zombie mode map 'Five' as an easter egg.
Em has performed the song on live sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live accompanied by Lil Wayne and Mr. Porter. Idolator reacted positively to Eminem's performance, stating that he proved "once again what a dynamic and energetic live performer he is on this exceptionally angry tune (even by Slim Shady standards)." He also performed the song on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.
Every week there will be a new song that gets featured at the top of the subreddit. Users can leave a comment and the song that gets the most votes might be the new Song of the Week. Suggestions for improving the next post are encouraged.
This week's Nominator: PokemonBwLowHealth
The Song: Won't Back Down - iTunes
In-App link(s): spotify:track:5KzRfDOUpMVaB4eYugEVjE
Featuring Artist(s): P!nk
Length: 4:25
Recorded: 2009 - 2010
Release: June 18, 2010
Album(s): Recovery - iTunes
In-App link(s): spotify:album:3PogVmhNucYNfyywZvTd7F
Sample(s): None
Media: Album: Cover / Alternative - Back
Label(s): Shady Records, Aftermath, Interscope
Format: Digital, Disc, Vinyl
Producer(s): DJ Khalil
Extra: Lyrics Video: Fan-made Music Video - Lyric Video Full header image
Live Performances: Comerica Park 2010 (From Unreleased Recovery Documentary), Live on SNL, Jimmy Fallon 2011, Pukkelpop 2013, E3 2010
This is an open thread for you to share your thoughts on the current SotW or to nominate a new song. Avoid vague statements of praise or criticism. This is your chance to practice being a critic.

Queen Parvati is known for being the primary alliance maker of the Black Widow Brigade, using a flat hierarchy to draw upon all the women's assets: Cirie's strategy, Natalie and Amanda's relationship with Erik, etc.
But c'mon, that's not that interesting of a season to watch. Not more than once anyway. Not the case with HvV, the definitive best season of Survivor ever aired.
Now all these haters say that other than the double idol play, she was "riding the coattails" of Russell Hantz's strategies, just like how Parvati haters feel about her Micronesia win in regards to Cirie's strategy. But that's stupid.
Not one single one of Russell's plays could have been made without Parvati acting as the perfect smokescreen. And in fact that's probably Parvati's game changing power, even more so that Boston Rob (and perhaps he learned from playing with her in his RI run), and that's using the legacy of her previous Survivor career to influence the win. Everyone was sure that Parvati would be running BWB 2.0 but really she was just playing lieutenant to Russell.
The Tyson outplay? Tyson had to think Parvati was the greater threat and believe when Russell said he was done with her.
The Boston Rob outplay? Parvati was the one who had to win Jerri over, because Jerri thought Parvati was a threat.
And, of course, the infamous JT tribal self-destruct. Not possible if they didn't think Parvati was in charge.
The real power is in having a believable smokescreen. Sometimes it lands on your lap with a poor challenge performance, sometimes it has to be cultivated by making people angry and/or letting people be angry at each other (see: the cultivation of Philip Shepard), and sometimes, just sometimes, in perhaps a Jonny Fairplay kind of way, you become your own smokescreen.
Which finally brings us to Q.
I don't think there's been another singular smokescreen in Survivor which has accomplished so much. I mean, he not only snuffed out three idols in a row, he also snuffed out his own idol by being such a convincing smokescreen that he could not even see when he, himself, was the target. But he'd already doomed his game long ago with an unforced error. Martyrdom. Drop a live grenade when killed.
But he thought he could come back.
He really did. He thought by successfully self-smokescreening three idols out in a row, he could make a last ditch alliance to Maria by appealing to her as the perfect goat, and then somehow climb back from his attempt to save Tiff after trying to blindside her the whole day (???) by making it to FTC and then claiming he knew what he was doing all along.
Could he have come back???
So I ask you, survivor:

1. What does it take to be a perfect self-smokescreen?
   
2. If that is even possible in the first place, how do you avoid the gigantic target you put on your back, inherent in being a smokescreen? I mean, that's what being a smokescreen is. Having a gigantic target on your back.
   
3. If that is not even possible in the first place, how do you climb back from a successful self-smokescreen? Like, how does Jonny Fairplay or Russell Hantz redeem themselves in a jury? How does Philip Shepard win? How does Q win? How does Sugar win?
   

This, survivor, is the question that really needs to be asked, because Q has just proven (at least to some stans) that it just might be possible (it probably isn't)

Conversation about Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) on this subreddit tends to be really limited, with many people taking at face value the "smartest man in the world" claim (which was published in a magazine Veidt owns!) and interpreting the ending as a moral quandary over whether killing millions is worth it to avert nuclear war.
But that's not how Veidt's character is written. Veidt is written, instead, to show how ego, anxiety, and detachment from humanity can drive people to do horrific things.
I collected examples from the text on several facets of Veidt's character, hoping to highlight how -- both through analogy and through plot -- Moore worked to paint a complex picture of Veidt as a person driven mad by anxiety and impotence, his fears fueled by isolation and obsessive media consumption, who did something unthinkable and unnecessary.
Is this post, itself, a bit obsessive? Yes. But I hope that people can link this post in the future the next time someone inevitably asks: "Was Ozymandias right?"

I. Veidt is mentally unwell.

• Dan: “I mean, who’s qualified to judge something like that? This is the world’s smartest man we’re talking about here, so how can you tell? How can anyone tell if he’s gone crazy?” (Chapter XI, page 3).
• Veidt: “By day I imagine endless faces. By night… well, I dream, about swimming towards a hideous… No. Never mind. It isn’t significant.” (Chapter XII, page 27)
• Veidt tells his life story to a bunch of dead bodies. (Chapter XI)
• Veidt: “I don’t mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn’t this one.” (Chapter XII, back matter)
• Veidt is mirrored by the mariner in the Black Freighter, who has visibly gone mad by the time he embarks on the raft and is raving by the time he arrives home.
• We see a reference to Tarkovsky’s iconic film The Sacrifice (Chapter XII, page 31), which also features a character going insane in an attempt to prevent nuclear war.
• Veidt’s plan is, in essence, a form of projection: the squid makes people go insane, have constant nightmares, and kill each other out of fear. The squid is, itself, a nightmare given form.
• Graffiti (Chapter I, page 24) reads “One in eight go mad.” Of the eight Minutemen, Mothman was put in an asylum. There were eight attendees of the Crimebusters meeting. After 11/2, the graffiti has been modified (Chapter XII, page 31) to read “One in three go mad.” Only three of the attendees remain: Veidt, Dan, and Laurie.
• Just look at his expression while killing the Comedian. (Chapter XI, page 26)

II. Veidt is detached from humanity.

• In present day, we only see Veidt in his personal skyscraper or thousands of miles from New York at his private Antarctic fortress -- never on the street.
• Pulling at the Tales of the Black Freighter parallels again, the mariner is marooned and goes mad because he has nobody else to talk to.
• Veidt refers to “stepping back” from humanity: “My first step was to stand back as far as I could, to view the problem from a fresh perspective, my vista widening with my comprehension. [...] I took another step back, and thought again.” (Chapter XI, page 21).

III. Veidt is obsessed with media and pop culture, and it deeply influences his worldview.

• Veidt is constantly engaged with his “multi-screen viewing” (Chapter XI, page 1), which we see originating in 1963 with just a few screens (Chapter XII, page 18). For 20+ years, Veidt has been gleaning a lot of his understanding of humanity from obsessively watching TV.
• The squid is straight out of sci-fi, with Veidt literally hiring famous artists, writers, etc. from literature, comic books, and so on to design the squid and the nightmares planted within it.
• We also know that Veidt has read Tales of the Black Freighter, not just because he hired Max Shea to help with the squid, but also because he references it twice: “I dream, about swimming towards a hideous…” and “I know I’ve struggled across the backs of murdered innocents” (Chapter XII, page 27). The mariner literally sails on the bloated corpses of his innocent crew, and at the end, swims towards the Black Freighter.
• Veidt makes frequent media references: William S. Burroughs (Chapter XI, page 1), Man From UNCLE (Chapter XI, back matter), a bunch of musicians (Chapter XI, back matter) -- there are definitely more.
• Nova Express, heavily implied to be owned by Veidt, is another Burroughs reference.
• Veidt takes personal investment in forming narratives in his advertising, micromanaging plots in TV shows, toys, etc. (Chapter X, back matter).
• Veidt is mirrored by Bernard, the newsstand owner. Both Veidt and Bernard’s parents moved out of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. Both Veidt and Bernard think they understand the world because they see a constant stream of media (Veidt with his TVs, Bernard with his newsstand) and are terrified of impending war. Both cite popular culture as evidence of impending war despite themselves selling to those audiences (Veidt via his advertising and publications, Bernard via his newsstand). Note Veidt’s obsession with finality and Bernard’s frequent refrain: “... inna final analysis.”

IV. Veidt undercuts his plan for his ego.

• Veidt is careful to distance himself from most of his assassinations, but kills the Comedian by hand -- something he’s not prone to doing. (Dan: “This is Adrian, for god’s sake! We know him. He never killed anybody, ever.” [Chapter XI, page 3]) This immediately clues in both the detectives (“No way this is a straight burglary… somebody really had it in for this guy.” [Chapter I, page 3]) and Rorschach.
• Veidt does this because of his ego: “Recognizing me, he attacked anyway, ‘mistaking me for a criminal.’ I studied his limitations: skillful feint, devastating uppercut; little else… He won. In the short term. [...] I also swore that when next I met Blake or any other foe, though perhaps not on my territory… it would certainly be on my terms.” (Chapter XI, page 19).
• Veidt makes his password “RAMESES II”, leaves lots of clues (“Pyramid Deliveries”), and only teleports the squid when he sees Dan and Rorschach approaching (Chapter XI, page 4). The title of Chapter XI is “Looks on my works, ye mighty”. Veidt wants an audience of his peers. If he had teleported the squid earlier, Rorschach likely would have died.
• Along similar lines, Veidt leaves the Comedian alive for as long as possible and doesn’t kill Rorschach -- sloppy choices, born out of his need for peers who know his plan.
• Both in his self-planned assassination attempt and at Karnak, Veidt risks being shot because he's sure that he could catch a bullet. He attempts it at Karnak despite having easy other options: he's faster and stronger than Laurie, and he's in his own fortress. He takes a plan-destabilizing risk purely to satisfy his own ego and showboat in front of others. "There," Veidt says, "Something else I wasn't sure would work." (Chapter XII, page 12). [Credit to u/spinbutton for this one!]

V. Veidt’s plan is doomed and ill-conceived.

• Veidt idolizes Alexander the Great, who failed. Veidt: “Amongst [Babylon’s] ruined ziggurats, I saw at last his failings… He’d not united all the world, nor built a unity that would survive him.” (Chapter XI, page 10)
• Veidt named himself after Ramesses II (aka Ozymandias), famous from the Shelley poem about the impermanence of greatness, which the comic also references. (“And on the pedestal, these words appear: / My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; / Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay / Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare / The lone and level sands stretch far away.”)
• Dr. Manhattan: “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.” (Chapter XII, page 27)
• Tales of the Black Freighter shows the mariner accidentally attacking his home to save it from a threat he thinks has already arrived, only to discover that the threat was in his head and he had become the thing he feared. Veidt, similarly, was so terrified of nuclear war that he became the threat.
• Rorschach’s journal is the last panel, implying that Veidt’s artificial peace will soon begin to deteriorate.

VI. Veidt's relationship to the Comedian is crucial, and Veidt may be the comic's true "comedian."

• Veidt’s complicated admiration for Blake extends to early in his career, in the mid-50’s: “As intelligent men facing lunatic times, we were very alike, despising each other instantly.” (Chapter XI, page 18).
• Rorschach says of the Comedian: “No one else saw the joke. That’s why he was lonely.” (Chapter II, page 27). But Veidt did: “Too cowardly to confront my anxieties, I had life’s black comedy explained to me by the Comedian himself [...] [He] opened my eyes. Only the best comedians accomplish that. [...] I swore to deny his kind their last black laugh at Earth’s expense. [...] I would trick [the world]; frighten it towards salvation with history’s greatest practical joke. That’s what upset the Comedian: [...] professional jealousy.” (Chapter XI, pages 19-24)
• In fact, though, it ends up being Blake who doesn’t get the joke. When Blake confesses to Moloch, he says of Veidt’s plan: “I mean, this joke, I mean, I thought I was the Comedian, y’know? [...] I mean, what’s funny? What’s so goddamned funny? I don’t get it. Somebody explain… somebody explain it to me.” (Chapter II, page 23)
• Veidt’s likely namesake is Conrad Veidt, perhaps most famous for his haunting, insane-looking grin in “The Man Who Laughs”.
• We see the relationship between comedy/laughter and mental instability explored in Rorschach’s joke: “Man goes to doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says ‘Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up. Man bursts into tears. Says ‘But, doctor… I am Paglacci.’” (Chapter II, page 27). On the surface, this appears to be about Blake -- but by the end, we can see that it applies just as much, if not more, to Veidt.

VII. Veidt is a Hitler analogue.

• Veidt is a German immigrant whose character design is straight out of a Nazi propaganda ad.
• Veidt idolizes Alexander the Great, a Greco-Roman would-be world conqueror. Nazis frequently invoked Greco-Roman design motifs and obviously had similar goals of conquering the world.
• Dan: “He’s such a caring, conscientious guy. He’s a pacifist, a vegetarian…” / Rorschach: “Hitler was vegetarian.” (Chapter XI, page 15)
• Veidt: “Hitler said people swallow lies easily, provided they’re big enough.” (Chapter XI, page 26)
• 11/2 is Veidt’s personal Holocaust. Over the scenes of carnage in New York, we see the Madison Square Garden sign: “KRYSTALNACHT” (Chapter XII, page 2). Highlighted among the millions of dead: the concertgoers (alternative/punks), Joey and Aline (lesbians), Bernard (whose father fled the Nazis), and a number of Black people (Malcolm, Gloria, Bernie, and the watch salesman). Joey’s posted for Gay Women Against Rape features the band Pink Triangle, a symbol which originated as a badge to identify gay people in Nazi concentration camps.
• Veidt, fundamentally, is obsessed with finding a “final solution” to bring peace -- even if it costs millions of lives.

Griffith is pretty much untouchable, even by the most powerful characters. Even Ganeska and his entire army of apostles couldn’t hurt Griffith. Guts sliced right through Griffith and couldn’t hurt him, no matter how strong and enraged he was.
Who was the only character who gave Griffith any damage? That’s right, Rickertt with his slap. Rickertt is one of the few characters who can’t bring himself to hate Griffith.
So that can mean that Griffith can use his godly powers to sense people’s hatred toward him and evade their attacks. That’s why Rickertt caught him off guard, because he could not sense malice from him. Possibly, Griffith is also weakened by the emotions of the moonlight boy/ any lingering humanity, which draws him to trust people who show kindness towards him like Rickertt did.
This could mean that in order to defeat Griffith, Guts has to accomplish the hardest feat ever and subdue his hatred for Griffith in order to physically harm him. This makes a lot of sense for me because it fits into the way the story has progressed so far.
Although he has definitely grown stronger through the manga, Guts has always been a very physically strong character. I don’t think it would be satisfying for Guts to defeat Griffith in a display of strength as that doesn’t demonstrate his character progression. Besides, rage has not worked well against Griffith, who he had such a personal connection with. It just distracts him and clouds his judgement.
However, Guts has emotionally grown a lot stronger throughout the story. He learned trust and friendship during the golden age, and then re-learned it after the eclipse. After the black swordsman arc, he slowly became more compassionate and caring for Casca and his new group. Growing stronger emotionally has always been more difficult for Guts than growing stronger physically due to all the trauma he experienced. Showing forgiveness or even just apathy towards Griffith would be the peak of his emotional arc. It would be much harder for Guts to accomplish, and much more rewarding to read. Imagine an apathetic Guts walking away from a defeated, crippled, barely alive Griffith, who gained his human emotions back. Being deserted by Guts for a second time would probably be even more painful for that narcissist than being killed by him. What a glorious scene.
Or here is my favorite theory for the ending: Casca kills Griffith. Griffith really doesn’t view her as a threat. In his egotistical perspective he views Casca as weak woman who idolizes him, and whom he could overpower again like he did in the past. He views her as a caged ‘bird,’ completely harmless. Because of the moonlight boy, he even feels protective of Casca and wants to be close to her. He would be way more likely to trust Casca than Guts. If Casca could overcome her trauma, than she could get close to Griffith than betray him. For me at least, that would be the MOST satisfying ending. Imagine Griffith being betrayed by someone who trusted, just like he betrayed his loyal followers during the eclipse. His ego would be destroyed if Casca, who considered so weak, defeated him. So beautiful.
I think the ending will overall be a lot more complicated than just an epic battle, especially with Guts’s recent inability to fight. Guts will have to stop relying on swinging his sword and work together with his team.

Summary: Stick to what you're good at.
(Humor, Drabble [160 words] Written for the SPN100 Challenge on AO3, WOW: hollow, sweet, sound and sing.)

Dean wriggled through the narrow crawl space, out into the hollow chamber beyond. Groaning as he struggled to his feet, he heard his voice rebound from the tunnels of the labyrinthine cavern. He couldn’t resist.
“Echo!” he called.
From all directions, a resonating chorus of backing singers amplified “ECHO!” “Echo!’ “EchechoCho-oooo”. Then “AAH AAH AAAAAAAAAAAAAHH” “AHH aah AAAAAAAAAHH” “aah aaahhhhhhhhh” “AAAaaa” “HA HA HA HAAA!” as he followed with the opening vocal of “Immigrant Song”, the harmonies relaying back to him in sweet surround sound.
“American Idol called,” Sam interrupted from behind. “They said, don’t give up your day job.”
Dean scoffed. “Those asshats don't know what real talent is.”
Sam nudged him. “Look out!”
Ahead he could pick out three pairs of fiery red pin-pricks, and the glint of teeth in ravenous jaws beneath. The devil monkeys advanced snarling, cackling and slavering.
“Welcome to the sudden death round!” Dean growled as the brothers raised their shotguns.

.

Hey, everyone!
I know this is super random, and some (or all) of these may have been mentioned before, but since I’ve only been part of the sub for a few months and there may be other newbies like me I figured I’d share some fun facts I recently learned about Glee 🤗
1– RM wrote Will’s character with Justin Timberlake in mind to play him.
2– Aaron Tveit auditioned for Finn, but RM said he looked too much like a model and not “Midwestern” enough for it. (Which, agreed, but it would have been amazing to see him on it!)
3– Whitney Houston almost played Grace Hitchens (leader of the all girls juvenile detention choir)!
4– Lili Reinhart auditioned for Glee before being cast on Riverdale.
5– Nina Dobrev auditioned, but she never said for what role 👀
6– Skylar Astin originally auditioned for the pilot episode of Glee, but he didn’t make the cut and was then just cast in a single episode in season 5.
7– Adam Lambert also audition for Glee back before he even auditioned for American Idol! But they said he was too old…
8– Apparently Samuel Larsen (who played Joe Hart) was in the running for the role of Sam before he ever even went on the Glee Project 🤔
9– Romy Rosemont (Carole) originally auditioned for Sue!
10– Chris Colfer (Kurt) wrote the season 5 episode where Santana helps Rachel with her image by doing Broadway Bitches and Kurt stars in Peter Pan at the retirement home!
11– Heather Morris (Brittany) took a hip hop dance class taught by Harry Shum Jr (Mike Chang) before ever starting Glee!
12– Apparently Blaine’s name was originally going to be BLAIR!
13– Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele briefly dated before being on Glee together…
Some of this is so wild, and I loved learning more about the behind the scenes stuff! Anyone shocked by any of this or just learning it, too? Or do you have any other cool facts to share? ☺️✨

(The post is slightly altered because the original text was more personal and directed at my friend)
All of this is stuff you’ve already heard before so this is just my personal looks at the album, its meaning, and why it’s probably the best rap album we’ll ever see.
If you have listened to TPAB all the way through then you remember that in the final track, Mortal Man, it’s Kendrick and someone else talking. I put this together and it’s just the conversation they have so you can easily read it and see who is talking when.
This is how I interpret albums meaning: TPAB is about the issues that African Americans will face due to the neglect of the U.S. government. The idea of the butterfly is a person who has become famous, or has power. That’s why in tracks like Wesley’s Theory, the opening track, the person talking says, “When the four corners of this cocoon collide You'll slip through the cracks hopin' that you'll survive Gather your weight, take a deep look inside Are you really who they idolize? To pimp a butterfly.” A butterfly is a transformed caterpillar, so in TPAB the idea of a caterpillar is someone who the government, or really anyone for that matter, doesn’t care about. Once they become famous (transform) and have power, they are treated better or like a butterfly.
Also, fun fact about TPAB that you prob already know. The original title was going to be “To Pimp a Caterpillar.” This was because it would then abbreviate to “2PAC” instead of TPAB.
Now for the conversation:
Kendrick: “I remember you was conflicted, misusing your influence. Sometimes I did the same, abusing my power full of resentment. Found myself screaming in a hotel room. I didn’t wanna self destruct. The evils of Lucy was all around me, so I went running for answers. Until I came home, but that didn’t stop survivors guilt. Going back and forth, trying to convince myself the stripes I earned, or maybe how A-1 my foundation was. But while my loved ones were fighting a continuous war back in the dirty, I was entering a new one. A war that was based on apartheid and discrimination. Made me wanna go back to the city and tell the homies what I learned, the word was respect. Just because you wore a different gang color than mine's doesn't mean I can't respect you as a black man. Forgetting all the pain and hurt we caused each other in these streets. If I respect you, we unify and stop the enemy from killing us, but I don't know, I'm no mortal man, maybe I'm just another n*. Shit and that's all I wrote. I was gonna call it Another N** but, it ain't really a poem, I just felt like it's something you probably could relate to. Other than that, now that I finally got a chance to holla at you. I always wanted to ask you about a certain situa--, about a metaphor actually, you spoke on the ground. What you mean 'bout that, what the ground represent?”
Friend: “The ground is gonna open up and swallow the evil…”
Kendrick - “Right…”
Friend: “That's how I see it, my word is bond. I see--and the ground is the symbol for the poor people, the poor people is gonna open up this whole world and swallow up the rich people. Cause the rich people gonna be so fat, they gonna be so appetising, you know what I'm saying, wealthy, appetizing. he poor gonna be so poor and hungry, you know what I'm saying it's gonna be like... there might be some cannibalism out this mutha, they might eat the rich.”
Kendrick: “Aight so let me ask you this then, do you see yourself as somebody that's rich or somebody that made the best of their own opportunities?”
Friend: “I see myself as a natural born hustler, a true hustler in every sense of the word. I took nothin', I took the opportunities, I worked at the most menial and degrading job and built myself up so I could get it to where I owned it. I went from having somebody manage me to me hiring the person that works my management company. I changed everything I realized my destiny in a matter of five years you know what I'm saying I made myself a millionaire. I made millions for a lot of people now it's time to make millions for myself, you know what I'm saying. I made millions for the record companies, I made millions for these movie companies, now I make millions for us.”
Kendrick: “And through your different avenues of success, how would you say you managed to keep a level of sanity?”
Friend: “and by my faith in "all good things come to those that stay true. You know what I'm saying, and it was happening to me for a reason, you know what I'm saying, I was noticing, shit, I was punching the right buttons and it was happening. So it's no problem, you know I mean it's a problem but I'm not finna let them know. I'm finna go straight through.”
Kendrick: “Would you consider yourself a fighter at heart or somebody that only reacts when they back is against the wall?”
Friend: “Shit, I like to think that at every opportunity I've ever been threatened with resistance, it's been met with resistance. And not only me but it goes down my family tree. You know what I'm saying, it's in my veins to fight back.”
Kendrick: “Aight well, how long you think it take before n***** be like, we fighting a war, I'm fighting a war I can't win and I wanna lay it all down.”
Friend: “In this country a black man only have like 5 years we can exhibit maximum strength, and that's right now while you a teenager, while you still strong or while you still wanna lift weights, while you still wanna shoot back. Cause once you turn 30 it's like they take the heart and soul out of a man, out of a black man in this country. And you don't wanna fight no more. And if you don't believe me you can look around, you don't see no loud mouth 30-year old muthafuckas.”
Kendrick: “That's crazy, because me being one of your offspring of the legacy you left behind I can truly tell you that there's nothing but turmoil goin' on so I wanted to ask you what you think is the future for me and my generation today?”
Friend: “I think that n***** is tired of grabbin' shit out the stores and next time it's a riot there's gonna be, like, uh, bloodshed for real. I don't think America know that. I think American think we was just playing and it's gonna be some more playing but it ain't gonna be no playing. It's gonna be murder, you know what I'm saying, it's gonna be like Nat Turner, 1831, up in this muthafucka. You know what I'm saying, it's gonna happen.”
Kendrick: “That's crazy man. In my opinion, only hope that we kinda have left is music and vibrations, lotta people don't understand how important it is. Sometimes I be like, get behind a mic and I don't know what type of energy I'mma push out, or where it comes from. Trip me out sometimes.”
Friend: “Because the spirits, we ain't even really rappin', we just letting our dead homies tell stories for us.”
Kendrick: I wanted to read one last thing to you. It's actually something a good friend had wrote describing my world. It says: "The caterpillar is a prisoner to the streets that conceived it. Its only job is to eat or consume everything around it, in order to protect itself from this mad city. While consuming its environment the caterpillar begins to notice ways to survive. One thing it noticed is how much the world shuns him, but praises the butterfly. The butterfly represents the talent, the thoughtfulness, and the beauty within the caterpillar. But having a harsh outlook on life the caterpillar sees the butterfly as weak and figures out a way to pimp it to his own benefits. Already surrounded by this mad city the caterpillar goes to work on the cocoon which institutionalizes him. He can no longer see past his own thoughts. He's trapped. When trapped inside these walls certain ideas take roots, such as going home, and bringing back new concepts to this mad city The result? Wings begin to emerge, breaking the cycle of feeling stagnant. Finally free, the butterfly sheds light on situations that the caterpillar never considered, ending the internal struggle. Although the butterfly and caterpillar are completely different, they are one and the same. What's your perspective on that? Pac? Pac? Pac?!”

23rd: Jane Bright (Nicaragua - 6th)

A deserving, incredible Survivor endgame level character standing next to Jane Bright.
u/SMC0629:
I don't have Jane in my personal endgame, but I'm not mad at all that she made it here. She's probably the most divisive character in Nicaragua, but I personally love her. She's got a spunky attitude, has a great rivalry with Marty, great relationship with Chase, and has one of my favorite eliminations ever. Her boot is so god damn memorable, that lasting moment of the alliance telling her it's gonna be her tonight, with Jane in complete shock and despair is just perfect. One of the best characters of Nicaragua for sure.
~
u/DryBonesKing:
Jane is on a very small list of players who I think has run the entire spectrum in terms of where they land in my rankings. Top ten, top hundred, middle of the pack, bottom hundred, bottom ten… I think I understand pretty much every Jane take known to humanity, cause I’ve had them. Nowadays, I tend to lean more positive on her, but I definitely still have too many issues I’m hyper aware of to let her rank too highly for me.
“What if we have Rupert’s hero edit to someone who was just really really mean, and did the bare minimum to hide it” is genuinely hilarious to me. Jane’s got good energy and her many, many, many feuds (the majority of which being with Marty) make her a great character to guide the narrative. There’s also just her boot episode, which is like… way too good of an episode for Nicaragua. I think I’m neutral-lean positive on Nicaragua, but it’s not a season that does a ton for me, but dear god, Jane’s boot and the scene of her dousing the camp fire is like so fucking metal.
She’s such a raw, powerful person. I think my biggest issue with her right now is just that, in a similar vein to Brandon Hantz, sometimes she feels a little too real at times. Like is she funny when she’s talking shit about Marty? Yes! Is the story great? Yes! But does some of what she says about Marty and his kids feel a bit too much? Yes, very much so. It’s not enough to detract from her character, but again… Brandon Hantz-tier of character. For me, that’s a pretty big compliment, but I also do not keep him in my Top 100. Same with Jane. But despite being one of the names that made Endgame that I disagree with the most, I am very curious and excited to see our resident “Least Sane Jane Bright Enjoyer” spin a tale or two about why she deserves to be up here!
Overall Rank – 138/821
~
u/Zanthosus:
While I disagree with her being endgame, I understand the reasoning and defense behind it. I respect the hustle that Tom did to get her here and I’m happy for him that Jane made her first endgame.
~
u/Regnisyak1:
I love that Jane is here, I am not even going to lie. Before my recent rewatch, I had Jane in the 200s, and after my rewatch, I was completely blown away at how complex her character is and the great relationships she had all season. To me, she felt real with her hatred, and the switch between the dry laugh we know her for, to the nasty person she became was endlessly incredible, she was such a great part of Nicaragua and one of the few praises I have for that season. Plus, when she finds out Chase, Holly, and Sash are voting for her, the music change and piano chord that happens there might be the piece media I have ever seen. Congrats Tom for getting her here!
Personal Rank: 73/821. 9/10.
~
u/ninjedi1:
Nicaragua is such a great season due to how emotionally charged it is, and Jane is a big part of that. Jane is the sweet southern lady until she feels crossed, then she has a whole vendetta against anyone who crosses her, so it's a lot of great fun. She is not in my personal endgame, but I can always appreciate a kooky character showing up in it.
~~~~~
u/Tommyroxs45:
Jane Bright:
This is undoubtedly my most anticipated write up of the rankdown, I have such a love for Jane and everything she does for Nicaragua. She has one of the best stories of all time, and just has so many moments that further it and make it cohesive. And that is what I will explain today. Jane is not just some badass southern old lady, ok well she is, but she’s also a very deep, broken old lady trying to put on a facade for herself. Her hatred towards everyone around her has its story and here it is…
The Mask
A lot like Rupert, Jane tries to paint a mask on herself as a hero and somebody who always follows her heart for the greater good. However, throughout the season we see cracks start to arise in this persona she puts on herself. She’s someone who needs a purpose and when somebody gets in the way of that, she gets insecure and bitter and that’s when we see the wrath of Jane break out.
The editors never try to pull the wool over your eyes by painting her as a hero, because they show petty rivalries with her and Marty and her boot episode meltdown. We get to see her from all angles, even if she only wants to present one. She’s insecure about herself, making her feel entitled to be treated as a queen and carried to the end due to her “heroic” manner. Once she realizes it doesn’t work like that and she actually has to play the game, all gloves come off and we get some of the most petty, uncalled for, or even bitchy moments that just have so much raw emotion.
She’s not painted as a hero while being an asshole (*cough* Ozzy *cough*) They show her as her flawed self, but they also let you make your own decision on what to feel without pushing a narrative onto you. Of course she wins Favorite Player at the reunion, so some people still thought she was a hero but you get to see this very broken and entitled person struggling. She really hates everyone but that’s not what she can show because that’s now who she wants to be and it’s such a complicated story arc throughout the season that we see the cracks grow and it’s told so subtlety but perfectly. And this is only the tip of the iceberg with how deep this old southern lady is.
Without this defining feature, she’d just be a badass southern lady but with it she becomes so much more just adding to this brilliant story building up all season until her boot episode. Her masking her real personality just makes her a much more complex character and when we see these glimpses of it, you start to realize, ohhh this is the person I’m supporting.
Even on top of the mask, there is so much more to Jane’s character…
Grief
When you watch Nicaragua for the first time, this part of her character is not inherently obvious. Grief?!? What are you talking about? She just seems like a badass until she’s a bitter old hag for being the target. While, yes that’s a very simplified version of this, there’s so much more to dissect there. The grieving of her husband, greatly plays a role in her story, and although it’s sometimes subtle you can see how it play into it so beautifully well.
In her very first confessional, what do we see Jane say?
“They think I'm some middle aged housewife that tootles around the house all day long, they’re in for a big surprise. Because that is definitely not me. I'm fifty-six years old and I'm the type person that stays busy all the time doing things. I just don't think there's anything I can't do. Winning the million dollars is real important to me ‘cause it’ll help me pay off my farm and the fact that I lost my husband, uh, in '09, it-it-it means I wouldn't have to work as hard as I do. But his spirit, I know is still with me and that's what keeps me going.”
Her husband obviously is impacting her mentally during this season, and we see this throughout the game. Every Time somebody makes a gesture that they want her out, her personal viper just breaks out. This is because she knows this is getting in the way of her dream, and the spirit of her husband that made her want to do this and she’s not letting anybody take that from her.
She’s still grieving and wants to win for her husband, and it is a very sweet story but sadly it takes a dark turn as she starts using this as entitlement for her to win. She believes she’s obligated to be brought to the end because of who she is and the loss of her husband and yeah, it’s dark but damn is it good when you think about it.
This is also why the family visit is SO important to her story in her boot episode. Right when her daughter, Ashley gets there, she starts talking about her husband and how Ashley is the one she is doing this for, to help her. This is WHO SHE IS FIGHTING FOR!
That is why it hits so hard when everyone flips on her! How dare they! She thinks. These people are voting me out right after I fought my hardest to give my daughter a better life?!? She’s one of the only I have left, this is disgusting. It’s so sad but at the same time it’s brilliantly shown not told. And what do you know, when Jane is talking about Sash’s mama raising him, she immediately brings up her daughter, just ugh how perfect does it round back to her family and her grief with loss.
Now obviously, does that make her outrage justified, I don’t know, maybe? Is she still kind of a bitch? probably! Is she a badass? Probably! That leads me to my next point.
Perspective
If you have read a lot of my other writeups on Nicaragua you would have noticed I love to talk about the perspective a lot of these characters receive on the season. Complimenting how diverse they can be seen depending on your morals or values. No character represents this better than Jane Bright.
How do I know this? Well let’s look at her placements in Rankdowns Past:
SRI - 485/501 - Seen as a bitchy, entitled, worse version of NaOnka, and someone who went way too personal in the game.
SRII - 455/537 - Seen as annoying and sour, forced fan favorite edit not giving her the trashing she deserved by the other tribemates.
SRIII - 549/575 - Seen as a narcissist and self-righteous, below the belt remarks and “a human embodiment of a rash” (that made me laugh a bit).
SRIV - 518/615 - Seen as an ultimately fascinating character, who got a dishonest edit that didn’t show her true side until the end. Ultimately ending up as an unlikable “venomous bitch” who somehow won fan favorite.
SRV - 108/653 - Seen as a great T.V personality whose kooky first half and vigorous 2nd half make for a good story and uplifts everyone around her while also being a great character.
SRVI - 127/731 (Had to be idoled to get here though smh) - Seen as a badass challenge competitor who is actually sour, who unfairly attacked Marty and is a bit too much when it comes to her toxic side to make her slightly less good.
SRVII - 185/767 - Seen as an extremely authentic personality and very entertaining to the chaos of Nicaragua, as well as having an iconic rivalry with Marty, being an iconic mother.
See the difference between one half and the other? Yeah, that shows just how well of a character she is edited as. She has so many times where she is shown to be a hero but juxtaposed with so many times she is shown as an asshole and it works off each scene perfectly. This is why we get such a difference of opinion and I think it’s told so well to where most people don’t even see it.
You have to weigh her good and bad and see based on your morals, if she’s a good person or not, and how acceptable or right was she for her constant hatred of others? I really love that as they aren’t trying to make you think a specific feeling about her. You need to come up with that conclusion yourself on how you think she is, that’s why she won the fan favorite vote in 2011 but today many call her an entitled bitch. (And yeah, she is but that’s a lot of what makes her so amazing).
Her kicking ass in challenges and being a lively spirit contrasted to her nasty demeanor to Jill and especially Marty personally attacking them and her boot episode meltdown, contribute to making one of the most wishy-washy characters when it comes to people’s opinions on her. I don’t what to be told how to feel, I want to come up with it on my own, and I feel like a lot of that has been lost in recent years of Survivor and seeing Jane and having all these different perspectives on her personality just adds so much life.
There is a reason why so many people despise her and so many people love her, she’s just edited that well to where people have had to come up with their own feelings about Jane. Not being coerced to feel a certain way, and I feel that is the best way to edit a character. What you see is what you see, not an objective stance the show is trying to put onto you, and I feel all of Nicaragua shows this but Jane is the prime example. Perspective means everything with her.
This makes her one of the most complex characters of all time, she’s either a broken woman seeking admiration, an entitled bitch, or a badass southern lady who is an inspiration. It’s all based on what you value and isn’t that what Survivor is all about, a social experiment where you weigh your values and personalities with each other to build a society.
Speaking of building a society, how is Jane’s relationships with the cast, well let’s see her main stars:
Sash: Jane and Sash’s dynamic isn’t really shown and I think that actually helps her and Sash’s story. Sash is sleazy and doesn’t really make any genuine connections and we see that in her breakdown scene. When you watch the moment she learns she’s going home and the confessional she gives, you see a direct tone shift from how she talks about Chase and how she talks about Sash. When she’s almost crying about Chase and his betrayal, she is outright vile and nasty when talking about Sash. Showing this major lack of connection between them, that she never saw him as a friend and will not hold back from releasing her rage on him.
Chase: Jane and Chase’s connection is one for the books. Both being from North Carolina and being southern types, they instantly bond and feel close to each other. Their relationship just feels more special than anyone else’s that season, that’s what makes the betrayal so much more entertaining. You literally see her about to cry over Chase, they really were close and got to know each other and just to have him stab her in the back, it’s so good. It just felt special but it wasn’t enough for him to not cut her…
Now how could you talk about relationships and not bring up Jane’s defining one…
Fartay:
Come on! This rivalry is one of if not the best rivalry in all of Survivor. They just despise each other and really are either of them in the right? Not at all, that’s what makes it so great. Marty’s a sleazeball, cocky, and a smart ass while Jane’s an entitled, bitter, old lady and they just work so well off each other. You just have personal jab after personal jab that is just so entertaining and perfectly helps tell Jane’s story.
There is really no reason why they should hate each other as much as they do but their walks of life and personalities just clash so hard that you still understand why they hate each other. Jane takes everything Marty does to heart without any grain of salt, and it makes her reactions so visceral and truly legendary. It’s what makes Jane the Jane we love to love or love to hate!
Now, I think it’s time to talk about the pinnacle of Jane. Her magnum opus if you will… her boot episode.
The Wrath of Jane Will Break Out Tonight
This is one of my favorite episodes of Reality TV. Everything about it is perfect and told in such a way to where it’s the perfect ending for such a broken character.
Building her up with her daughter coming during the family visit, talking about her and how much she wants to provide for her. Having a seed planted in Jane’s brain after she’s not taken to the reward thinking she was entitled to be brought.
Fabio winning immunity, throwing everything for a loop, just when Jane’s attitude has really started to shift and then we get to the scene. Which personally is my favorite scene in all of Survivor without a doubt. The scene where the alliance tells her it has changed and she’s going home is so brilliant. The raw awkwardness and silence next to Jane’s utter disbelief and anger. After she flips them off it is followed by again my favorite confessional of all time.
This is what she has been building up to, everything just falls about when she believed she deserved to win. Having such raw and unfiltered emotions where she’s about to break down and cry and then the turn to anger and fury bringing Sash’s mother into it, talking about how she raised a damn liar. (WITH THAT HEAD COCK THOUGH) All with very subtle sound effects or just no music at all until she gets up and makes one last hoorah by pouring water on the fire. “I started and I put it out” 🔥🔥🔥
Then we get to tribal, where Jane is just done with the bullshit and just calls everyone out for being liars and backstabbers. “The writings on the wall Fabio!” Like come on, that is TV gold, followed by the vote having Chase and Sash “cowardly” play their idols sticking it to Jane when she is already at her lowest by not even having her vote count. She leaves bitter and broken, not the happy ending she felt she deserved.
Mortgage Gate
I’m putting this here because that’s where it best fits, and this is brief because it doesn’t really affect my rankings on Jane because it’s not in the season.
I wish they did show this though, as having this added layer of controversy between Sash and Jane with real world implications would have been amazing, even if what Jane is saying isn’t true it still would’ve shown her as an ass, making up lies just to make someone look worse. I just think it’s such an interesting topic to discuss that I wanted to give it its own section. Sash is sleazy so I wouldn’t pass him to do that, however Jane is extremely bitter and entitled so I could also see her making that up, I guess we'll never really know will we… (I know Marty called the incident fake, but it’s Marty, of course he’s gonna dispute whatever Jane says, if she says the sky is blue, he’ll say it’s orange).
I'm Not Breaking My Tile!
This kind of relates to the mask section of this write up. However, I wanted to talk specifically about Jane’s challenge prowess and wins throughout the season and how much it adds to this arc. Building her up as this badass figure competing against big guys half her age and actually winning?!? It gives an excellent face to the real Jane, having this much courage to go against Chase and Fabio even after winning, not only being such a badass in that moment but showing how she’s trying to play up this persona of old challenge great.
Jane, The Tribe Has Spoken
So in conclusion, you can see that when you really glance over Nicaragua you don’t see Jane as some sort of deep character. However, when you really look into her and her actions and motives you see a broken old lady who is obviously grieving. She is such a deep and complex character that Nicaragua needed to really round out the story.
Jane isn’t supposed to be this likable hero, nor is she supposed to be a villain, she’s not edited as one archetype. However you value your morals, is how you will see Jane and even if you find her an ass, you have to admit they tell it very well. She’s also objectively entertaining, her rivalry with Marty, her being badass during challenges, cooking fish in the woods, her boot episode meltdown, and so much more are just so iconic to me and make this season what it is.
This write up obviously won’t sway everybody, but I hope that if you rewatch Nicaragua, take a closer look at Jane and her actions and see how it lines up with somebody like Rupert or Coach who are much more prevalent when it comes to these “entitled, broken, facade” archetypes. You will see a brilliant story of grief, hatred, entitlement, and a fake persona that the show knows she is trying to present.
Personally, Jane will always be one of my favorite characters of all time with amazing scenes and a story almost as complex as Ian’s. She didn’t win this rankdown, but she won my heart and has definitely earned herself a #1 spot on my rankings for this endgame.
SMC0629: 19
DryBonesKing: 21
Zanthosus: 24
Tommyroxs45: 1
Regnisyak1: 20
DavidW1208: 24
ninjedi1: 24
Average Placement: 19.000
Total Points: 133
Standard Deviation: 8.206 (2nd Highest)

I’m an asian male (not Korean) and been dating this girl for 13 months who’s really into k-pop. I’m not familiar with the genre at all but she keeps saying she’ll “bark for them” (as in her male k-pop idols”. I’m a pretty small high schooler, 5’8 and not very physically attractive. She always sends me videos of her artists and they’re all strong, good looking, and popular. Yesterday, she was at a concert and when she texted me back, the first thing she said was “while you’ve been at home your girlfriend has been barking for 5 Korean men” which sounds absolutely awful no matter what light you portray it in. I’m genuinely confused and I can feel her drifting, I just don’t know if it’s valid to be upset over celebrity crushes/her k-pop bands that she listens to. I feel like she compares me to them and only dates me because of my race. Does anyone have experience with something like this?