To thine own self be true
I’ve been thinking about this Ray Boltz business, perhaps because news that the Christian singer had abandoned his wife to embrace a homosexual lifestyle surfaced not long after I learned that someone I know in the business world had done the same thing. His case was different than Boltz’s because his children were far younger, but the storyline from a sympathetic observer was the same, and one we’ve heard before: He couldn’t live a lie; he had to be true to himself.
Whenever I hear the admonition to be true to oneself, I recall former Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry’s press conference before he went to jail, in which he proudly declared: “The Bible says: ‘to thine own self be true.’” If Barry had chosen to hold, in that hotel where he got busted, Gideon’s Bible instead of a crack pipe, he might have learned that the Good Book says no such thing. It’s a line Shakespeare gives to the windbag Polonius in Hamlet.
Many people like that notion of self-allegiance, however, and so no small wonder that it is continually elevated to the level of sacred wisdom. When coupled with the notion that homosexuality is an inescapable designation, it leaves people prepared to sanction what even pagans consider beastly: a man abandoning his wife and children. Whether he leaves them for another woman, or drugs, or his job, or in order to pursue his dream of being a rap star, Christian and non-Christian alike is apt to deem the family-deserter a low-down excuse for a man. Should he fancy sex with other men, however, the notion many have is that he has no choice. To thine own self be true.
That’s nonsense no Christian ought to embrace, of course, though we shouldn’t be surprised in this age of ear-tickling doctrines that many do. It’s nonsense because the Christian is not called to be true to himself; he is taught that the version of himself that he has pursued before Christ is a lie, a sickness unto death. “Listen to your heart,” goes the chorus of a recently popular song, but the Christian understands: “The heart is more deceitful than all else / And is desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9).
It’s nonsense, further, because it accepts the Freudian deceit that we are our sexuality. Even assuming that a man’s sexual orientation is entirely outside his control, how does it follow that his sexual gratification is more important than his freely chosen obligations as husband and father? In other words: So what if you want to sleep with men? See that man over there? He wanted to be a rock star. That one wishes he could date swimsuit models. Plenty of women, meanwhile, long for romantic walks on the beach.
Welcome to marriage, which has never been about your fulfillment. Shame on the pastor who married you if he led you to believe otherwise. And shame on you for claiming to be a mature Christian if you still haven’t figured it out. And shame on you further, pagan and Christian alike, for walking out on the person you promised never to leave.
I suppose that makes me unChristian in some quarters. After all, doesn’t the Bible say something about being true to thyself? If it doesn’t, says the modern moralist, then it should. And thus do we declare selfishness a virtue, and applaud men who abandon their duty.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top97 Comments to “To thine own self be true”
What verse did Marion mix up?
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t familiar this musician, I only heard this story from the blog, but I felt sad when I heard it.
As Christians we are called to “die to self,” even if it means chosing to set aside something that may seem innate to us. My family lived through the other side of this story and grieved with a family who mourned the “loss” of their dad.
A woman joined our small home fellowship group four states away from where she had lived for many years. She was starting over. Only as her twenty-something daughters joined us did we learn the reason–her husband, a long time home study group leader and possibly an elder in their church, had abandoned her and the three daughters for a gay lover. This was in the late 1980’s; he died two years later of AIDS.
Within months of arriving, both daughters turned up pregnant, both from sordid choices they made. The distraught mother turned to us. One of the girls lived with us for five months and I was her birth coach. I heard often about her wonderful father.
I couldn’t help thinking about this man whom I never met and who impacted my family so much, if he might have made a different choice–died to self–if he had imagined what difficulties his well-loved daughters would encounter. Poverty, unwed motherhood, shameful exploitation by other men became their lives. If he could have seen into the future, would he have made that same selfish choice?
Actions have consequences and sinful choices often hurt bystanders. I appreciate your post, Tony. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Good post, Tony.
Report comment to moderator
Not that I don’t enjoy my husband, but I have to ask, whay do people make such a big hairy deal out of something that in the practice of it takes up a very small portion of one’s day? Why do we wrap our lives and our identities and everything we hold dear around it? Seems that the sexual revolution of the 1960s helped an entire generation to really misplace some of their priorities.
Dying to self is the hard road, and “being true to oneself” is taking the easiest and most selfish way out.
Frankly, Mr Boltz’s actions are as self centered as the person who commits suicide. And I can talk to the suicide issue, years ago, I was on the dark brink of that abyss. It’s the ultimate selfish act. Abandonment for persuit of persoanal self truth is the second most selfish act.
Both acts have far-reaching consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe that’s what those Chilean children are doing — just being true to themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
Perhaps you need to get to know those of us who are gay and what we’ve gone through. You might not be so quick to shake your self-righteous, judgmental finger at us. You might even say “Shame on me!”.
I’m always amazed at how CCR’s are so good at judging other people’s lives when they don’t even know them or know everything the person has gone through. Not to mention that their lives are just as screwed up as the rest of us many times.
Report comment to moderator
I recall the notoriety of Michael English and First Call. Now we have Boltz. A man like this leaves wife and kids for another man and he’s celebrated (think Vick Gene Robinson, the gay bishop). But had that man abandoned wife and kids for another female the same celebrators would scorn him.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
What’s a CCR?
You wrongly assume I haven’t known gay men very well in my lifetime. You also make a tacit argument for conditional morality, i.e., that what distinguishes right from wrong is “what someone has gone through.” I think you would be correct to say that a person’s history and environment can help explain his actions, but I disagree that they therefore justify his actions. To do so is to descend into a post-modern hell in which everyone does what is right in his own eyes, a world in which, as Nietzsche wrote: “Nothing is true; everything is permitted.”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir:
I get the impression from Tony’s post that he’s not condemning homosexuals, per se (though your post certainly gives that impression). So, shame on you for reacting that way!
Read it again. He’s pointing the finger at those husbands, whom, having married and fathered children, then later back out of the marriage relationship, whether in favor of coming out, or of pursuing something else, prove themselves to be cowards. And when Tony’s finger is pointed somewhere, he makes certain we know that three fingers are pointed back at himself (and us, of course).
We know that our lives are screwed up as much as yours, but Christ is our redeemer, healing, forgiving, and rectifying things within us. That goes for you as well.
Report comment to moderator
Kennethos – Don’t mind Anlir’s knee jerk. It’s a reflex action.
If the words “homosexual” or “gay” are in the sentence and it’s on this website, then that’s obviously the topic and it’s always a bash. It’s what we heteros on this blog live for.
Just ask him.
Sarcasm off.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Did you actually read the essay? In the question of right and wrong, “how difficult it is (sob) to be a homosexual” is completely irrelevant. (Although it’s worth noting that life is more difficult when we take paths contrary to God’s design, whether that means going heavily into debt, frequent drunkenness, or sexual sin of any sort.)
On the subject of this piece, can you explain why homosexuals should get a free pass to leave their wives and children, when those who leave a wife for a woman are not given such a pass? “Nobody understands homosexuals” isn’t an answer. It’s like the kid who starts crying when asked to admit that he stole something, and expects his crying to change the subject because adults start comforting him instead of continuing to ask that he confess his wrong.
Excellent post, Tony. Our consumer, self-centered, hedonistic culture really has nothing at all to offer except self-esteem and self-indulgence. And a Christian who follows that path has shown he probably never knew Christ. (I never listened to Boltz, though I definitely had heard of him, but Scripture indicates that those who walk away and reject Christ probably never knew Him in the first place.)
Report comment to moderator
You need to do some more research on the subject. Ray didn’t “abandon” anybody. The article from the Washington Blade makes it clear that they are “still close” (in fact, she was at his concert in Indianapolis two days after the article appeared) and that he made sure he left her “in a comfortable place financially”.
Secondarily, acknowledging one’s sexuality is not analogous to wanting to be a rock star. OBVIOUSLY. And being gay can’t be characterized as being simply about sex, just as your relationship with your wife isn’t simply about sex. OBVIOUSLY.
Honestly, it stinks that anybody has to go through this, but as long as our society and God’s Church tell people that being gay is worth hiding, gay men and women will continue hiding until they can’t hide any longer.
There’s only one way to change that, and unfortunately, most of the people who have the power to change it aren’t listening.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the double post, but Cheryl’s appeared after I started the one above.
Cheryl, being gay isn’t “contrary to God’s design”.
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
Having sex with anyone outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage is indeed contrary to God’s design–whether you think a genetic predisposition to homosexuality exists or not.
Also, you really think our society tells people that “being gay is worth hiding”? What cave have you been living in for the past 50 years, and why have you decided to venture out today?
Finally, abandonment isn’t about financial security alone. You think his kids are happy to have his money in place of his physical presence?
Report comment to moderator
words are great, aren’t they?
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
Christian dogma is that marriage before God creates one flesh out of two. Thus it entails more than friendship and financial support, and is more than a vehicle for two individuals to find affirmation. It’s in this context that I label Boltz’s actions “abandonment.” I should have been clearer that I don’t think, from what I’ve read, that he is equivalent to a man who walks out and leaves his wife to fend for herself.
I didn’t say, further, that “acknowledging one’s sexuality” is analagous to wanting to be a rock star. I said that wanting to have sex with other men is analagous. In other words, many married people have desires that, if acted on, would require them to abandon the union they have freely entered. Christian dogma, again, teaches that this is a grave sin. My point is that we seem to want to give such selfishness a pass when it involves that amorphous and mystical category labeled sexuality.
And precisely because a man’s relationship with his wife isn’t just about sex, it’s not adequate to argue that because a man decides he’d rather sleep with other men, that therefore he is entitled to break his marriage union. It’s the advocates of divorce in this circumstance who make it all about the sex.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko–
You raise an interesting question about why people make such a big deal out of this.
I’ve noticed this in my field–graduate student in literature–and how often we come back to the theme of sex (even when it’s not necessarily there); it’s even a joke (rather sordid one) that lit students are only interested in “sex and death” (I’m not.)
I don’t know whether the literary writers are actually obsessed with these subjects or whether we’re so sex-obsessed (and identify ourselves with our sexuality) that we feel the need to draw every work back to sex.
Maybe both. Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
David L.,
In fairness to Boltz, he waited until his children were young adults before coming out, and news articles about this indicate both that he remains close to them and that they support him.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
Good to hear, I guess. Sounds like he has a troubled conscience.
Report comment to moderator
What I suspect was that Boltz outted himself to pre-empt being outted by his paramour. It seems these fellows just dont wake up one day and proclaim their orientation. You say Boltz remained married for many years. Loyal to the same woman is admirable but was he a Jim McGreevey type all along? I suspect if he was out on the road touring for many days out of the year he may have been indulging a fetish/fantasy (as opposed to having a long-term relationship with the same dude).
I realize this is speculation, but I’m sure many men choose to out themselves rather than being outted by others. More control over the how and where of the outting with the first option.
Report comment to moderator
Harm to other people: wrong.
Consequences of actions: can be harmful.
Sin: questionable category.
Sounds to me that this story involves all three. As human being we haven’t sorted all of this out yet.
Report comment to moderator
What was Lewis’ big quote? We geld the stallions and bid them be fruitful, we scoff at bravery and are shocked to find cowards in our midst!
Are the men Boltz has been with Christians as well?
Report comment to moderator
I’m one of those weirdos who doesn’t think that God limits marriage to just mixed gender, and that there’s a lot of dishonesty used to try to prove that He does. Remove that limiter and I’m with you.
Unfortunately for us, we’re in the minority, so you all get to tell us whether we can get married or not, which means that according to you, you get to decide whether we can have sex or not, which is just silly. (You in the national sense, not reflective of anybody on this blog, of course.)
Leaving the silly jab aside, I’ve been living in the Midwestern USA, where I was scared to leave the closet until last year because people might reject me for telling the truth.
Where I worry about somebody shouting a pejorative at me because I have a cross on multi-colored beads hanging from my rear-view mirror.
Where I have to fight myself not to hide my more effeminate qualities because somebody might kill me. And no, I’m not being dramatic. A man died from a gay-bashing incident last Thursday in Washington DC, and there have been plenty of other failed attempts around the country just in the last month. (This is not unusual.)
Where “God Hates F**S” isn’t just a slogan on a nutjob’s sign, but something that is quietly affirmed by many who sit with me in the pew on Sunday morning.
That’s where I live. How about you?
Of course it isn’t, which I thought I made clear before. To be clear now, the four children are grown and moved away. One of them has said (in the last two weeks) that their family is very close knit, just like it was before Ray came out to them four years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Let us not all be in such a rush to condemn. I’m not saying a priori that we are incorrect in recognizing that homosexality falls short of what He intended. What I am saying is: do you or any of us know Boltz’ background? Of the homosexuals I’ve known (males) they had a distant father with whom they never felt securre unconditional Father love. Poor role-modeling for manhood. Emotional neglect/distancing.
I knew a young gal who was “all on fire” for doing the work of Christ: seminary, Kanakuk Kamp counselor, worked as juvenile probation officer. I foresaw her as future Beth Moore Elizabeth Elliot type. Her exuberant lesbian lifestyle when at last I learned about it came as a shock.
But then I recalled her family history narrative.
We arent purely products of dysfunctional families, but not all of us can resist the strong tug of altered family dynamics and their effects on our sexuality.
Report comment to moderator
The issue here is NOT homosexuality!! The issue is abandonment for the pursuit of personal fulfilment! Or the renegging of a covenant made, again for a selfish purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
We do indeed live in very different worlds, then. I live in a small town, also in the Midwest, but one which also happens to feature a Big-10 university. We have gay and lesbian film festivals; we see pro-homosexual messages in the daily papers and on every street corner, in every classroom, on every radio station. The very air is thick with anti-traditional moral indignation. Nearly every church in town shamelessly announces its openness to homosexuals. Local religious leaders of all stripes pontificate on the evils of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The city council passes self-righteous resolutions on tolerance of every faddish perversity. My wife, who teaches at the university, gets email messages on the department list-serv advocating the normalization of things that should make us blush, such as (no kidding) bestiality. This is my world and the world of most people that are saturated with national mass media, where the homosexual normalization agenda rolls on hungrily.
You talk of your experiences as if you want pity for your hardships, but I won’t give it to you. I’m glad you are made to feel uncomfortable in your sin. The most unloving thing we can do is to tell people their sin isn’t sinful.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Report comment to moderator
Same-sex attraction is a very real phenomenon. But how should one interpret it? Is it something from God that should be embraced and celebrated like my gender, culture or race? Or is it a defect that has to be managed like an addiction or diabetes.
The debate, I believe has always been about which of these interpretations are going to prevail. It seems to me that for a long while Boltz set himself in the latter camp. For some reason, he switched to the first which promises less struggle for him but more damage to his family. In many ways, I think it is the past of least resistance for Ray though it can cause a greater degree of regret in the long run for him.
Being in the first camp of saying same-sex attraction is a natural and normal attribute that should be embraced isn’t any more “true to one self” than being in the latter camp that says same-sex attraction is a defect that should be resisted. They both have elements that are easier and elements that are painful.
Report comment to moderator
#26 “I’m glad you are made to feel uncomfortable in your sin.”
David L,
There are good ways and bad ways to make someone uncomfortable. I’ve struggled most of my life with the sin of gluttony, though since last November when I started an online course on being set free from it, I have finally lost the desire to eat all those things I used to try to find happiness in. When I weighed almost 200 pounds, I could have been made very uncomfortable by someone telling me I was fat and ugly – but would that have led me to repentance and better eating habits? Most overweight people would say no, it would just make them want to go eat some more to feel better. (Irrational, but if people were acting rationally they wouldn’t all the stupid things they do to begin with.)
Where I live (also a town in the Midwest) is probably more like where Matt lives. No overt hostility to homosexuals that I have seen (which doesn’t mean it’s not there – I have no reason to encounter it myself), but very little positive about it either. Last weekend there was a program at the library where a guest speaker talked about the Bible and homosexuality, and his position was that the traditional view (saying the Bible condemns all homosexual behavior) is wrong. I didn’t go myself, but I read about it in the paper, and an editorial praised the library management for giving the guest speaker the opportunity to present a view contrary to what so many in the community believe.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
You’re right. I didn’t mean to excuse unChristian behavior towards homosexuals, just to point out that having a social stigma against sin is a good thing. Being overweight obviously carries a high social stigma, and most people would agree that’s a good thing.
Report comment to moderator
I daresay none of us (including Tony) is a member of Ray Boltz’s family or knows him personally. Unless we’re living with his family or sitting there, we have no idea what all has gone into the decisions he and his (ex) wife made. We have no idea of what their family life was like. So I think it’s mighty presumptuous of any of us to sit in judgment of another person’s (or family’s) life.
It never ceases to amaze me how folks sit in judgment of other people’s lives. And I would include both CCR’s and non-CCR’s on that point. They sit there and self-righteously judge other people’s lives. But when their own lives get screwed up, they plead for tolerance and forbearance, and ask for people to withhold judgment because they don’t know all the facts.
I wonder if Tony would like his family life held up for public scrutiny? Anyone else?
Report comment to moderator
I wonder why Anlir constantly brings up Creedence Clearwater Revival. What have the Fogertys ever done to him?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with David L. – we need churches with huge banners across the front of their buildings saying “No gays allowed!”. We must do everything we can to make gay people complete social outcasts. We should use every avenue we can to tell people that gays are nothing but disgusting perverts that need to be driven back into the closet. I’m sure that’s what Jesus would do.
Report comment to moderator
CCR Credence Clearwater Revival? Cross Canadian Ragweed? Conservative Christian Republicans?
We report you decide.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
You persist in the notion that actions cannot be judged, only empathized with. You contradict yourself, however, by judging my action of judging Boltz’s action.
Again, you are absolutely right that we can’t judge how hard “living a lie” was for Boltz, or how he agonized over his decision, or anything else in his psyche and personal life.
It’s illogical and wrongheaded to conclude from this, however, that we are therefore precluded from judging his consequent actions. You judge the actions of others every day. You are doing it right now. It’s an entirely legitimate (and necessary) endeavor in a community.
We are not judging his life, as you put it. We are making a judgment (not to be confused with passing a sentence, which is neither our job nor our ability) about the action he took, to wit, choosing to leave his wife. And that doesn’t preclude mercy, pity, or prayer, in fact it ought to cause Christians to redouble their prayers for him, as we should for anyone who has chosen sin.
Perhaps most annoying, you still haven’t explained what a CCR is. All that comes to my mind when I read that is Creedence Clearwater Revival. With whom I see nothing wrong at all.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
You know what I meant. Don’t act so indignant.
Report comment to moderator
To clarify my points thus far:
1. None of us has the knowledge necessary to pass the level of judgment that Tony and others are making on the Boltz’s marriage and subsequent divorce.
2. Even if we had the knowledge, none of us has the personal or family relationship with the Boltz’s that would give us the standing to say these things.
3. Is Tony or anyone else ready to have their family life held up to public scrutiny?
4. What we measure out to others will be measured back to us.
CCR = conservative Christian Republican
Report comment to moderator
Not all of us are republicans. Believe it or not, the republican party is too liberal for a lot of us whackos.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Quick response. First, you still haven’t answered why leaving one’s wife for another man is morally different from leaving her for a woman.
1. We do know enough to say that (1) adultery is wrong and (2) homosexual behavior is wrong.
2. We don’t need these, anymore than we need to know a murderer’s family background to say “Murder is wrong.”
3. Irrelevant to the question of right or wrong here, and Boltz is willing to accept public scrutiny or he wouldn’t have gone public.
4. Assuming that Tony isn’t living a life of adultery, I assume he’s OK with that. If he is living a lie, then yes, he deserves to be held to the same standard with “hypocrite” added.
CCR–Republicanism has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Report comment to moderator
It must be an epidemic. Hope it doesn’t become a pandemic and they can invent a shot for this disease. Women will be panicked over the man going gay on them and we know that a woman panicked is about as bad as it can get and way worse than financial markets collapsing all around you
Report comment to moderator
I only know that I’ve had enough screw-ups in my own life that I shouldn’t be going around judging other people’s screw-ups. And who’s to say that I might not be in their shoes someday, or do something worse than what they’ve done?
Perhaps CCR’s are a better class of human beings. I suppose it’s possible.
But honestly, if a person screws up, God/karma/whatever will deal with them. She doesn’t need my help.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the topic of judgment, I always have pointed to the account of the woman caught in adultery. A woman was caught in adultery and about to be stoned. But then Jesus came along and said that only he who is without sin could cast the first stone.
Slowly all the potential stone throwers dropped their rocks and walked away for they were all guilty of sin (as we all are). However, no one, not even Jesus, told her what she did was ok, her sin was still sin. So when we call sin sin, we are not judging, but when we try to make someone pay for their sins, then we have become judges with evil thoughts. That is when judging becomes sinful.
If homsexual sex is a sin, and I believe it is, then by Jesus words I can call sin sin but what I am not allowed to do is persecute you because of your sins. We will all have to deal with that punishment when we die unless we accept Jesus payment for our sins. And yes, he died for all sin, including all the heterosexual and homosexual sinning most of us are guilty of for our God is a great God full of mercy and grace. But if we refuse his son, we refuse his grace, and then our sins will determine our eternal destiny.
Report comment to moderator
#40 “But honestly, if a person screws up, God/karma/whatever will deal with them. She doesn’t need my help.”
Note: My comments here are related simply to Anlir’s statement in #40, not Ray Boltz’ situation in particular.
There is a sense in which this statement is true, as God does not need our help to pass judgment where needed. But God loves us and often “deals with” us by trying to bring us to repentance when we have screwed up, so we can be reconciled to Him and to other people. And God ordinarily uses other people to bring His message of reconciliation. I won’t say God “needs” our help because God doesn’t “need” anything. But He uses us to help other people.
As for “judging other people’s screw-ups,” people usually speak of “judging” one another to refer to an attitude like that of the Pharisee who prided himself on being better than the tax collector (Luke 18). But there are times when it is right for someone to point out to someone else what he (or she) is doing that is wrong, that is leading to hurt to that person and to others.
There have been some sins that I was aware of and didn’t need anyone to point out to me. But there have been others that I was blind to and needed someone to tell me I was wrong. That was God dealing with me, through another person. It wasn’t someone beating me over the head (metaphorically) with my sin, but telling me what I needed to hear.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding sexual activity, anything done outside of the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman is outside of the parameters set up by God and is therefore sin. I did not learn this from faulty Sunday School teachers but from a reading of Genesis.
It’s pretty simple, right from the beginning, yet in our modern world we want to make it sooo difficult to fit our desires. We are given a stark warning in the same book of Genesis of what happens when a society deviates from Gods design in Sodom and Gomorrha and in fact are promised that some day it will be just like that again.
Report comment to moderator
44-
If a woman was caught in the act of adultery…was a man also caught? Or was it only sin for the woman?
Report comment to moderator
36-
I agree with these, Anlir, and consider this type of judging to be a popular addictive entertainment common to those involved in certain organized religious groups
Report comment to moderator
Llama-Guffaw
Report comment to moderator
44 – No, the man wasn’t. That’s why Jesus threw the case out of court. (That’s probably what Jesus was writing on the ground.) The husband should have been the first of two or three witnesses, none of which her accusers provided. The Pharisees were simply trying to trap Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
I read this article and immediately thought of something totally outside the realm of homosexuality. I thought of the young woman who was struggling with a difficult relationship that mirrored one I was having. How easily I could have counseled her to hang onto her anger and hurt and act out in the natural way she wanted to. It would have been easy, because that is my temptation too. Instead, I and the rest of our bible study group brought up the scriptures that tell her that the natural way is not the right way and that God gives supernatural strenth to go against the natural.
She heard it and absorbed it. Next week she brought news of triumph given her by God. That won’t be the end, but it was a beginning. This week I also relied on supernatural strength, remembering her struggle and triumph, and acted on what was right, not on how I felt. Doing what is right will ultimately feel the best and bring the best to us. Maybe not in this life, but certainly in the next. That is what we christians must encourage in each other.
Report comment to moderator
Boltz’career will be wrecked as permanently as Sandy Patti’s was, you just watch. I suspect he’ll now go on tour with Clay Aiken: (”Wherever we go, whatever we do, we’re gonna go thru it TOGETHER”)
Report comment to moderator
Kennethos at #9: He’s pointing the finger at those husbands, whom, having married and fathered children, then later back out of the marriage relationship, whether in favor of coming out, or of pursuing something else, prove themselves to be cowards.
That’s the immediate topic, but it sidesteps the larger issue. Boltz has been struggling with his homosexual orientation all his life, in the context of a religious culture that condemns it. The pressure is tremendous to deny it, hide it and try to change it … with obvious results.
It’s unfair to compare to a man who leaves his family for another woman. A man who is heterosexually oriented and just prefers to trade in for a newer model is making a different kind of choice.
Report comment to moderator
Tony: Christian dogma is that marriage before God creates one flesh out of two. Thus it entails more than friendship and financial support, and is more than a vehicle for two individuals to find affirmation.
I happen to agree with this meaning of marriage, and don’t even need the Bible to say so .. it’s a description of a true and deep commitment.
That said, how do you take 1 Corinthians 6:16? Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.”
This seems to me to suggest that “one flesh” actually does NOT signify the commitment you describe; it may simply mean sexual union. This passage comes in the context of a warning against sexual sin and seems to mean something very different.
Report comment to moderator
47-
OK, let me get this straight. The woman was caught in the act of adultery. WHAT is the act of adultery if it did not INCLUDE a man????? If she was caught, THERE WAS A MAN WITH HER!!!! THAT is the act of adultery.
What does the husband have to do with any of this??
Report comment to moderator
or was she just caught in the mindset of adultery, so the man was not with her, ande so not caught??
Report comment to moderator
the woman was not caught in the act of adultery, she was caught in the trap of religious abusive men who were accusing her
Report comment to moderator
CCR (Credence Clearwater Revival) rocks!
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Another possibility: Both the man and the woman were caught in the act of adultery. Only the woman was brought forward since, ultimately, it was a test to see what Jesus would say. Did the woman sin? Yes. Did the man sin? Yes. Did the Pharisees sin? Yes.
Seems simple to me, but your view is clouded by your past, I think.
Report comment to moderator
56-
it reveals their attitude towards women
Report comment to moderator
Tony, and other believers are not judging Ray. We have no power to judge. We are fellow humans. We can’t send him anywhere. We are only acting as God’s messengers communicating what He has said about these things. If you come from a world view that says the Bible is nothing and God is nothing, then you are blind to the realities of which we speak. There is no path of logic or emotional experience to transition you to undertand. Only a spiritual transformation will put you in the light. We are told by the Bible that many who reject God and the Bible will choose to be mockers of God, the Bible and His messengers. We are told of their demise. We are told to not be dlsmayed even if these mockers seek to put us to death. We are to conntinue to be God’s messengers.
Report comment to moderator
52 – Just when I think World Mag bloggers can’t get any more dense. Sheesh! Reg, ADULTERY is a sin committed against one’s spouse! Adultery would have been a sin against her husband.
Please, for the sake of everybody who comes in contact with you on a daily basis, please tell me you’re not that dumb.
Report comment to moderator
And Reg, where was the wife of the man who she was fooling around if she were single and had no husband? HUh, huh? THOT SO.
Report comment to moderator
My understanding was that the actual Aramaic was “We found her on top of the man, in the act.” They weren’t at all hesitant to use vulgar colloquialism.
Report comment to moderator
59, 60
you are awesome
Report comment to moderator
63
I wish I could join your church
Report comment to moderator
the Tower of Bible Babble
Report comment to moderator
I had a reformed pastor tell me that if my husband were really being unfaithful, someone would catch him in the act
such ignorance does even understand the nature of the problem, the nature of the deceit and habit of lying that goes with an adulterous way of life
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Of course it reveals their attitude toward women. I’m not sure what your point is in that regard, especially in light of the topic.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G. says, “It’s unfair to compare to a man who leaves his family for another woman. A man who is heterosexually oriented and just prefers to trade in for a newer model is making a different kind of choice.”
So . . . a homosexual who marries is forced by society to do so. It’s society’s fault, and he can’t be held accountable to his promises or held accountable for his choice to leave the marriage? Do you realize you have more or less said that homosexuals are moral children? In our society, it’s children who are allowed to get out of contracts they didn’t understand, not adults.
Even from a completely unbibiblical viewpoint, you aren’t doing homosexuals any favor with this stance. And from a Christian viewpoint (which most of us come from), homosexuality is sin and has double reason not to be excused so lightly. We can argue all day whether it’s a worse sin than heterosexual fornication or adultery, but there’s no possible way, biblically, to say it’s a lesser sin.
Report comment to moderator
if it’s sin, it’s sin. There are no shades of gray with sin. In the eyes of God, the most heinous murder’s sins are as scarlet as the man who lies or steals or fornicates (with whichever gender). The fact of the matter is there are no degrees of sin.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
I’m going to have to disagree with you in #68. All sin causes us to be separated from God, and — in that sense — there are no degrees of sin.
But, if you read the Bible, there are NUMEROUS instances of some sins being considered worse than others.
What about the person who leads a child astray?
How about teachers and other in authority who are held to a higher standard?
How can it be WORSE for the town that doesn’t receive the disciples than for Sodom and Gomorrah if there is no differentiation? (You can’t have a “worse” if there isn’t a differentiation.)
How come God says that some sins He *hates*?
It is simply common sense that someone who rapes and murders a child is worse than someone who lies about eating a cupcake. Both are sins. Both cause us to fall short and to be separated from God. But, God Himself says that some sins will be judged “worse” in the Day of Judgment.
There are far more numerous examples, but I’ll leave you with these for now.
Report comment to moderator
Why can one only receive a Biblical divorce if there is adultery/fornication involved? Why not stealing, envy, or not honoring parents?
Then there is the Sodom and Gomorrha issue. That certainly is something which GOD Almighty put a high priorty on. Those two were off the map because of their sins.
Report comment to moderator
We need to research what sins cause what kind of punishment. Then decide if their is an order AFTER ALL!
Report comment to moderator
What did God say about honoring your parents? Was there something more there?
Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exodus 20:12
Report comment to moderator
Greater sin? – least commandments ? – great in the kingdom of heaven? –
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:19
There are differences of sin and differences of judgment. Those who delivered Jesus to Pilate had a much greater sin because they had more light than Pilate. That does not exonerate Pilate, he is guilty.
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
John 19:11
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:10
CherylD at #67: So . . . a homosexual who marries is forced by society to do so. It’s society’s fault, and he can’t be held accountable to his promises or held accountable for his choice to leave the marriage? Do you realize you have more or less said that homosexuals are moral children? In our society, it’s children who are allowed to get out of contracts they didn’t understand, not adults.
That’s not what I said. Again: It is NOT good for a gay man who married a woman and fathered children to leave later on because he simply cannot defeat his orientation. Not good. Should not happen.
Clear?
But … the fact remains that if he had not married a woman in the force place, because the social pressure against homosexualtiy (particularly if he’s a Christian) is so strong, then there would be no family to later leave.
Even from a completely unbibiblical viewpoint, you aren’t doing homosexuals any favor with this stance. And from a Christian viewpoint (which most of us come from), homosexuality is sin and has double reason not to be excused so lightly. We can argue all day whether it’s a worse sin than heterosexual fornication or adultery, but there’s no possible way, biblically, to say it’s a lesser sin.
If you’re going to insist on a strictly biblical (as conservatively interpreted) standard, the homosexual’s only real option is lifelong celibacy. Marriage to an opposite-sex partner would be a sham (and greatly unfair to the spouse and any children they have), and marriage to someone of the same sex is out of the question.
I appreciate that this is the way you believe it should be … but I also appreciate that many homosexuals, even Christian ones, must find that an untenable position.
Report comment to moderator
Well that was an interesting error … should be “had not married a woman in the first place,” not “force place.”
Report comment to moderator
My comments about judging and using the example of the woman caught in adultery have gone way off on a tangent. The man was just as guilty of the sin of adultery as the woman, it’s just that we’re not told what happened to the man in this account. It does not mean the man got off free with no recourse. Both were guilty of adultery.
This account in scripture was not brought up to point out that adultery is sin, we already knew that. The point of the story was about the love of Christ for the sinner and his desire for her to repent of her ways. It was also a reminder of how it is not for us to carry out Gods judgment on those caught in sin, but to offer them the same grace and forgiveness offered by Christ to us for our sins.
The idea behind my posting this topic was to bring up what is judgment and what is not judgment and I believe this example provided in scripture is a great illustration.
A woman was caught in adultery and no one said she did not sin or told her what she did was right. All parties agreed she was guilty including Jesus who at the end of the account told her to go and sin no more. Her sin was “judged” as sin.
But no one except Jesus was eligible to throw a stone (because he was the only one there without sin) and so all the “judges” put down their stones and walked away. Therefore, no “judgment” was implemented on her from the religious community.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Chalzz – 76
I enjoyed reading your post. One wonders if the men who wanted to stone the woman had been friendly with her before she was caught. Of course the LORD Jesus would have known that. When Jesus asked
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
John 8
I believe the men walked out because they had their own sin of the same nature to deal with. Their conscience were seared by Jesus’s words.
Report comment to moderator
“One wonders if the men who wanted to stone the woman had been friendly with her before she was caught. Of course the LORD Jesus would have known that.”
That is a true-to-life realization, and likely the case. It s hows how easliy, in their culture, they could get away with putting a woman down.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – Unfortunately, women have been put down, subjugated, abused, etc., by most cultures in history, to one degree or another.
That’s why it was so astounding that Jesus spoke with women, & that the Bible says we are all co-heirs with Christ.
Report comment to moderator
the ease of the abuse is due to the fall
Report comment to moderator
sloppy theology is also a natural result of the fall
Report comment to moderator
82
Jesus demonstrates that the men were not going to blame the woman
tons of applications for our day
Report comment to moderator
To say that you can only divorce for adultery is to say that the unfaithful spouse is either caught in the act, or tells the truth about the adultery. Adulterers don’t tell the truth. They are good at not getting caught.
It would be interesting to do a study on how many people’s gut instincts were eventually proven to be true.
Report comment to moderator
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 6
Report comment to moderator
speak for yourself
Report comment to moderator
Reg, we all have someone to forgive, none of us are sinless, not one. God forgives us if we forgive others who have harmed us. Sometimes its not easy, but it must be done if we expect God to forgive us.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23
14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Hebrews 12
Report comment to moderator
it is off-topic, and, as your favorite theme, it is none of your business
Report comment to moderator
Reg what is none of my business?
Forgivness of sin is not off topic, nor is forgiving others who have hurt us. Did Jesus forgive the woman caught in adultery? None of this is off topic, not at all.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Yes, lifelong celibacy is a perfectly legitimate biblical option. So, I imagine, would be a fully committed marriage–not necessarily an easy option, but certainly a biblically legitimate option.
It’s really only our era of easy divorce, and our heavy emphasis on sex, and our idea that homosexuals are irrevocably bound to commit homosexual sin, that makes that option seem impossible today. But I imagine that through the ages there have been millions of faithful husbands and wives who might more “naturally” have had sex with their own sex, had that been a morally legitimate option. It wasn’t, and commitment to one’s family was a high virtue, and they simply didn’t sit around wishing they could leave their spouse and have sex with someone of their own sex. Yes, some DID choose homosexual activity, but I imagine many did not, that today we’d call bisexual or even homosexual.
Again, I don’t know that I’d recommend marriage to someone in this situation, but under the right circumstances, with a person of high integrity, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend against it. It is a biblically acceptable choice, as long as the lifelong commitment is there, “for better or for worse.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m proud to call myself a Christian at all times, because it identifies me with something I feel deeply connected to. But, when I hear about situations like this one, and subsequently observe the “fall out” in the “christian press”, I am usually more saddened by our response then I am by situation.
Ray Boltz is an amazing person, and his music has ministered to millions of people around the world. I do not question the sincerity of his faith in God in the slightest. As to my personal feelings about what he has chosen for his life right now, they are irrelevant.
It is truly sad to me that those of us who identify ourselves as Christians are usually the first to begin commenting publicly on the sins of others. If you feel the need to throw scripture at this news, this may help:
Gal 6:1
Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.
(The word gentle here is used for meek (Definition: Gentle; Tender; Free from Pride.)
So, one of “our own” confesses his struggle and makes a decision we believe he will suffer for… and our response is “Away sinner!” Sad.
If you truly believe that he is “caught in sin”, pray for him & his family. Oh, and when you pray, try this:
Mat 6:5-8
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”
In closing, the world knows all too well what we’re against. Let’s act like followers of Christ and show them what we’re for. Jesus came with a message of grace and redemption. We do not have to approve of what this man has chosen, but we do have to continue to love this man. If you find that hard to do, remember that Jesus only ever displayed his feelings of anger in reaction to what “religious people” were doing or not doing.
Report comment to moderator
90-
yes, and the love the people that are in our lives, not at a distance, the ones nextdoor
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Someone who wants to make that choice, fine. I hope they find the strength needed to make it work.
But someone who chooses to find the kind of love they need, I also say fine. And to those who would demand that their religious beliefs should dictate which choices are open to others, I say, back off and mind your own business.
Report comment to moderator
Kmbrlyb
Has this man turned from his sin? Does he even believe homosexuality IS a sin?
What do we do when someone who professes to be a Born Again Beliver lives in sin?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I’m assuming you have no problem with someone whose religious beliefs dictate restricting the choice to murder, or molest a child, or steal. So what you are really advancing is the libertarian position that religion ought not intrude on a person’s “private choices,” except insofar as they cause immediate bodily or financial harm to others. Or perhaps you’d take it further, and advocate that religion ought say nothing about any of these matters, instead leaving them to the civil authorities (setting aside for now the questions — empirical as well as philosophical — of law’s origin). Then we would be left with a religion that says nothing about how one ought to live, a dogma-free faith in . . . what? Good intentions? Each of us “finding the love he needs”?
I suppose such a religion exists, going by various names. But I don’t think one can call it Christianity. Christians are called to a life that involves taking on certain behaviors, and setting down others — never as a transaction that produces salvation, but as a means of drawing closer to God. We can quibble (and do) about what these behaviors are at the margins, but when we torture language (as does the false teacher Matt cites, in #13 above) until it cries out that God condones the abandonment of spouses, the “seeking of love wherever we can find it,” and homosexual sex, then we might as well own up to the fact that we are fashioning out of whole cloth a self-focused faith to suit our modern sensibilities and desires.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
I’m having trouble discerning whom you are addressing. Who here has declared, as you put it: “Away sinner”?
And if Christians are not to be the first to point out sin, what do you recommend as the alternative? If we believe that sin is a sickness leading to death, then what does love demand? What does Christ demand?
The point of my essay is that too many of us fail to call this action by Boltz and others what it is: the grave sin of abandoning one’s spouse. The fact that he is “amazing” makes it all the more tragic. The fact that professing Christians imagine the Bible enjoins us to remain silent about sin is likewise tragic.
My encouragement to you is to dig beneath the easy stereotypes. Consider all of that Bible you’ve quoted at us, not just a couple of verses that justify your wrongheaded notion that the sin of this brother about whom you profess to care is a personal choice that is none of your concern.
We must, as Christians, divorce ourselves from the worldly notion that loving the sinner means ignoring the sin, because precisely the opposite is true. Sin is not only an affront to God — which ought to matter at least a wee bit to us — but an act of self-destruction by man. If we do not love our brother, then we needn’t concern ourselves with his unrepentant sin. If we love him, then we must tell him what he is really doing to himself, and pray for his release from bondage. And if we love our other brothers who may likewise be tempted to adopt Boltz’s path, we must in no uncertain terms declare it for what it is, not confine it to some “private sphere” about which we may not comment.
Report comment to moderator
Tony said to me:
I’m assuming you have no problem with someone whose religious beliefs dictate restricting the choice to murder, or molest a child, or steal. So what you are really advancing is the libertarian position that religion ought not intrude on a person’s “private choices,” except insofar as they cause immediate bodily or financial harm to others.
That’s not quite right. I think religion, and religious people, can say and enforce whatever behaviors they feel are morally correct — among themselves. My belief, however, is that they have no right to require people who do not adhere to their beliefs to conform to them UNLESS there is also a secular/civil value to it.
Stealing is demonstrably harmful. Homosexuality is not. (I realize there are people who believe it is, but inherently it is not. Irresponsible sexuality, hetero or homo, is harmful; responsible sexual expression is much harder to argue against on non-religious grounds.)
Or perhaps you’d take it further, and advocate that religion ought say nothing about any of these matters, instead leaving them to the civil authorities (setting aside for now the questions — empirical as well as philosophical — of law’s origin). Then we would be left with a religion that says nothing about how one ought to live, a dogma-free faith in . . . what? Good intentions? Each of us “finding the love he needs”?
Again, no. Religious beliefs are fine with me, as long as the people who believe them don’t feel entitled to require me or others to live as if we believed them too.
Ray Boltz apparently struggled very hard to live as he believed his religious beliefs required — or perhaps, as he felt the audience he needed to appeal to expected. I do not fault him for making the effort (though I do find it sad he felt he had to) but neither do I fault him for finally concluding he couldn’t keep it up.
I don’t say the religion should be contentless, and I suppose if pressed I have to admit that he chose to try to conform.
I suppose such a religion exists, going by various names. But I don’t think one can call it Christianity. Christians are called to a life that involves taking on certain behaviors, and setting down others — never as a transaction that produces salvation, but as a means of drawing closer to God. We can quibble (and do) about what these behaviors are at the margins, but when we torture language (as does the false teacher Matt cites, in #13 above) until it cries out that God condones the abandonment of spouses, the “seeking of love wherever we can find it,” and homosexual sex, then we might as well own up to the fact that we are fashioning out of whole cloth a self-focused faith to suit our modern sensibilities and desires.
Well, to be clear, I’ve not defended abandoning spouses. I have defended, and will continue to, allowing homosexual people to be who they are without the kind of social condemnation that pressures them into sham hetersexual marriages, to the great detriment of all involved.
Your religion calls homosexuality a sin; mine does not. (That does not mean mine is free of moral standards, by the way, just that that particular one is not among them.) I do not tell you not to believe as you do, but I do tell you I will not agree with you on that point.
Report comment to moderator
The thread topic reminds me of C. S. Lewis’s essay, “We Have No Right to Happiness.”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!