Progressive Christianity (Part 1)

The phrase “Progressive Christianity” occurs frequently in media and conversation in the early twenty-first century. It may sound a bit like politics or a passing fad. However, it is unlike either and more than both. It captivates a growing number of people following Jesus. It sounds positive, refreshing, like opening the windows to sunshine and warmth after a long winter of bitter cold and cabin fever. The very word “progressive” is meant to signal a move forward, a commitment to spread the message that Jesus shared and the message of who He is.

The Greek word group for “progress” does not occur in the New Testament.[1] However, the sense of progress is found stamped frequently on the pages of early Christian history. In that way “progressive” builds on an ancient and familiar foundation: “And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). It seeks to remind religious Americans of the days when the Gospel “broke-through” the Jew-Gentile wall. Luke writes that “some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus” (Acts11:20).

Similar to descriptions like “Orthodox Christianity” or “Feminist Christianity,” the phrase “Progressive Christianity” carries with it definite beliefs and hopes. But most of all it carries the deep desire for peace in the middle of a U.S. filled with culture clashes. It longs for quietness in a nation at war. For example Eric Elnes begins his progressive essays with the story of a woman who was discouraged by having to qualify her belief in Jesus. She felt disheartened at having to explain herself in relation to numerous heated debates that are part of present American society (e.g. homosexuality; gender equality).[2] She deeply wants to be able simply to say, “I am a Christian.” But how can she do that in a nation that knows religious division?

Numerous progressive Internet blogs and religious movements have given “Progressive Christianity” (or the emerging church movement) boundaries and direction. For example The Center For Progressive Christianity has served as something of a broadly trans-denominational gathering point for congregations of various names.[3] Similarly, various religious groups often announce their own brand of “progressive” (or emerging church) practice. The following groups are among those that do: United Methodist Church;[4] Progressive Catholicism;[5] Progressive Baptist churches.[6] The One in Jesus blog includes a link to various “progressive” blogs among churches of Christ.[7] But even the blogs differ on who is “progressive” versus who has supposedly “stopped short” in their spiritual journey.

 The Phoenix Affirmations and the Sense of Urgency

In an effort to reduce confusion, the Phoenix Affirmations were crafted as a commanding voice for “progressives.”[8] Announced in 2006 the affirmations propose to describe “Progressive Christianity” as distinct from groups such as Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Eric Elnes writes that “The Phoenix Affirmations are not the product of some obscure religious faction trying to make a name for itself. They are mainstream Christian leaders’ best take on where the emerging Christian faith stands today and where it may be headed in the future.”[9] In that way the affirmations are intended to serve like the Nicene Creed, the Augsburg Confession or the Documents of Vatican II. They set out to announce the “real” message of Jesus and what should be the message of his disciples in present-day America.

And the affirmations announce with boldness that being “progressive” means that people embrace the affirmations. Those who crafted the affirmations urge people not to stop short, but instead finish their journey. They chide those who disagree with conclusions “Progressives” have reached. Their reasons are simple. Eric Elnes explains that numerous polls of Americans and religion describe that we are broadly a people with “a very strong sense of spiritual homelessness…”[10] One of the most recent U.S. polls would announce that Elnes gets close to the truth.[11] As a nation we have broadly developed spiritual views that put distance between ourselves and the earliest Christians. Our melting pot character has simmered further, especially during the early twenty-first century. Also, Eric Elnes offers throughout his discussion of the Phoenix Affirmations that at times Americans have misunderstood parts of Jesus’ teachings. He believes those misunderstandings have fueled powerful culture clashes in the nation. And he suggests that the clashes have hindered the Gospel of Jesus and his teaching that we should love one another.

John Shelby Spong, another dominant “progressive” voice, makes a similar point with all of the emotion he can muster. He writes in A New Christianity For a New World that “Orthodox Christianity” will not work in twenty-first century America. Only “Progressive Christianity” frees the Gospel of Jesus from its ancient residue to be all that it was intended to be for all time. He suggests that “Progressive Christianity” is finally “breathing the air of the twenty-first century.”[12] He writes that “if theism is dying, then the theistic overlay that has been placed on Christianity must be shattered.”[13] He urges people to abandon orthodoxy as the only way to let the real Gospel of Jesus be heard by present-day America. He argues that unless people embrace “Progressive Christianity,” Christianity will die in the U.S.[14] Similarly, Eric Elnes sees “Progressive Christianity” as nothing less than an effort to navigate through the feeling of religious homelessness in our day and carve out for Americans a place where they can belong even with the feelings they hold deep. Both believe that either the nation becomes “progressive” or Christian faith in the U.S. will largely perish in the not-too-distant future. As one means to understand better what Elnes, Spong and others are urging, part one of this two-part series will look at the first six affirmations. Part two will survey the last six affirmations.

Affirmation One

Eric Elnes makes clear on the front end that he sees the Phoenix Affirmations as statements that are “steeped deeply in the words of Jesus, who said that the two greatest commandments in all of life are to love God with heart, mind, soul, and strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.”[15] His commitment and emphasis carefully lays the foundation for the first affirmation. The first statement urges followers of Jesus to walk “fully in the Path of Jesus without denying the legitimacy of other paths that God may provide for humanity.”[16]

While Elnes does not paint the background to the first affirmation, numerous other progressive Internet blogs do. The thought of tolerance fills essays from “progressive” voices.[17] The medieval Crusades against Islam; the actions of medieval Inquisitors. Both still ripple into the mindset of our day. Cullen Murphy’s recent book God’s Jury, The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World announces with eloquence that the Inquisition is not buried in medieval history. The cruelty that fueled the torturing and killing of Cathars, Waldensians, and others hundreds of years ago has cousins in the religious wars of our day. “Progressive Christianity” sees the atrocities and urges peace. And certainly “progressives” are correct that neither the Crusades nor the torture of the Inquisitions represented people following Jesus. Both illustrated powerful religious lies. “Progressives” see the truth and react by urging kindness toward the Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. But they also take a further step.

The first affirmation announces more than kindness and love toward those with different religious beliefs. Elnes’ essay quietly urges that Christians should “seek lively dialogue with those of other faiths for mutual benefit and fellowship.”[18] Talking with Hindus, reading the New Testament with them, and talking about Jesus’ resurrection sound like good ideas. The proposal of “lively dialogue” sounds positive and friendly.

However, “Progressive Christianity” has a contrasting view of how Christians should see Hinduism. Eric Elnes uses the word “fellowship” for a reason. He writes, “What I can tell you is that there is a strong and coherent strand in both the Christian and Jewish faiths that acknowledges that God has created other legitimate paths that we have no business condemning.”[19]

What is Eric Elnes talking about? What texts of the New Testament talk about “other legitimate paths?” Elnes points to Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 that He is “the way, and the truth and the life” and offers that Jesus has a provincial view of his mission. He writes that Jesus is:

[H]aving a conversation with his disciples. He is not talking to Buddhists or Taoists or Zoroastrians. He’s saying that his disciples find God through him. There is no compelling reason to believe that Jesus is making a blanket-statement about all the followers of all the other religions.[20]

Eric Elnes believes that Jesus has limited himself to only his Jewish audience; they find in him “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). However, Elnes believes that Jesus’ words that “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) carry no more than a Jewish provincial meaning.

Further, Eric Elnes calls his readers’ attention to Jesus’ words recorded in John 10:16. Jesus talks about Himself and His disciples by using the metaphor of a shepherd and sheep. He says to those listening that He has other sheep that are not of “this fold.” Elnes suggests that the other “fold” is not the Gentiles, but instead the believers of other religions among the Gentiles. He believes “Jesus is not calling for sheep of different folds to change shepherds. Jesus is simply asking his disciples to recognize that the God they know in Christ is also the God of others.”[21]

Eric Elnes’ voice is not the only one calling for a sort of “Christian Pluralism.” Brian McLaren announces a similar conclusion in his book A Generous Orthodoxy. He urges his readers to see other religions “whenever possible, as dialogue partners and even collaborators.”[22] Similarly, Carmen Beaubeaux writes the following about Matthew 16:19:

Whether Jesus meant there’s one door to heaven and many keyholes? or many doors to heaven, each with its own key? or if heaven is like a condominium resort in Hawaii (please-oh-please-oh-please-oh-please!) any way you figure it, we’ll all be neighbors. Maybe a Buddhist monk will sashay next door to borrow a cup of sugar from a festa queen with linguiça on her breath? Or maybe a Muslim extremist will be greeted to his reward by seventy-two Handmaids of The Sacred Heart of Jesus….[23]

Elnes, McLaren, and Beaubeaux share a common message. They align closely with a desire for religious peace. They see the patchwork landscape of world religions and announce a lush green lawn. They make the Gospel of Jesus palatable for a religious melting pot like the U.S. They seek to portray Jesus as a Jew with a good idea about loving others. And they stop at the point of Jesus’ revealing the meaning of “love” through his chosen messengers. They give little attention to Jesus’ teaching about love applied to the meeting of Christianity with other religions, other faiths.

Eric Elnes misunderstands Jesus’ teaching in John 14:6. His provincial view of Jesus’ statement makes no sense of the Lord’s appearance to Paul. The risen Jesus declares that Paul is to be his chosen messenger to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). Why does Jesus need a messenger to the Gentiles if Elnes is correct? If Elnes and “Progressive Christianity” are right, what are we to make of Paul’s missionary journeys? What should we conclude about the apostle’s efforts to urge Jew and Gentile Christians to leave behind the ancient religions of the first century (e.g. Ephesians 4:17-5:21)? Why does Paul even teach about Jesus in Ephesus? Why not also talk about the supposed merits of the ancient Artemis and Isis cults as well? Why does Ephesus erupt in a riot, concerned that Artemis of the Ephesians is going to be forgotten and dishonored as a result of Paul’s preaching (Acts 19:21-41)?

Finally, “Progressive Christianity’s” view of the world’s religions closes minds to the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul announces to Rome that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead….” (Romans 1:3) Even the very phrase “Jesus Christ” declares that He is the King and that He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). The world religions are not a lush green field. They are a landscape of dying grasses overwhelmed by hot, arid winds and disease.

Affirmation Two

 Given the statement of the first affirmation, the second affirmation sounds an interesting trumpet blast in seeking to define God’s revelation in this world. It urges people to listen for God’s word “which comes through daily prayer and meditation, studying the ancient testimonies which we call Scriptures, and attending to God’s presence in the world.”[24] However, nowhere in Eric Elnes’ essay about the second affirmation does he mention the sacred writings of Hinduism or Islam. He gives no attention to the Koran or the words of the Dalai Lama.[25] He writes that “Most of all, we seek the meaning of salvation, of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as presented in Scripture and discerned in daily life.”[26]

Not only does the first affirmation challenge what Elnes says about the second, it also challenges his conclusion about Scripture. He suggests that present-day Christians must embrace the results of modern scholarship – including the conclusion that the Bible is flawed. He suggests that people have moved away from Christ’s path when they believe that the Old Testament and the New Testament are infallible.[27] He argues that such discussion minimizes the attention people give to living out the words of Jesus. And he is correct to observe that the discussion about infallibility can face such temptation. Christians can become so focused on the authority of Scripture that they neglect to follow the risen Lord. They can neglect to hear his Word. They can get sidetracked. However, Elnes himself gets sidetracked. He does not see the temptation that “Progressive Christianity” faces in throwing away the care of God for Scripture – His power to see it safely transmitted through centuries of human history.  Elnes argues that if Christians after the apostolic age had questions about which writings were guided by God, then we are hardly in a position to believe the New Testament is without wrinkles.[28]

Elnes writes that “Christians of the emerging faith refuse to recognize any passage or interpretation that moves us away from the love commanded by Jesus.”[29] Certainly, he is correct. Jesus’ new command that we love one another as He has loved us stands at the heart of the Gospels and in the missions and messages of His chosen messengers. Any conclusion about Scripture that challenges love clashes with the will of the risen Lord. However, as the first affirmation reveals, the love Jesus talks about gets interpreted broadly in our day. It becomes equivalent to Christians treating everyone’s religious beliefs as if they are just fine. Everyone is okay. Followers of Jesus are not to question or challenge others – even other followers of Jesus. It seems we are to forget that Paul urged a young missionary named Timothy to teach others and to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” others (2 Timothy 4:2).

The question that Elnes and others never answer is how we even know about the love commanded by Jesus. What makes us think that the testimonies of the apostles about Jesus is anything other than Jewish novels of the day? If the New Testament is flawed what makes us think the supposed teachings by Jesus about love are even accurate? Eric Elnes does not answer the questions. Instead, he suggests that “Progressive Christianity” must start with the notion that God does speak through His Spirit and that we can somehow understand this Spirit. However, he never answers if the Spirit of God speaks differently to different people – given the religious confusion in the melting pot of the U.S.

Instead, Elnes speaks at a high level about “stepping back to a way of viewing Scripture that is not as concerned with historical accuracy as it is with its truth-bearing quality and that measures those truths against the standard of how well they reflect Jesus’ command to love God, neighbor, and self.”[30] He leaves untouched the simple question of why the Spirit of God could not reveal himself through writings that could be trusted even for historical accuracy. He avoids a key question facing “Progressive Christianity:” Is the Creator of the universe unable to reveal Himself even in historical truth? If He cannot, why should we lean on the teachings of love supposedly spoken by His Son?

Affirmation Three

The third affirmation focuses on the Christian’s relation to God’s Creation. It urges followers of Jesus to be good stewards of this world, to take care of it. In short it challenges Christians to take responsibility for cleaning up our trash – and that of everyone else! It sounds a note similar to that of Hosea. The Hebrew prophet declared that evil was destroying the entire creation, not just humanity. As a result of evil “the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens, and even the fish of the sea are taken away.” (Hosea 4:3)

Certainly, “Progressive Christianity” is on firm ground to urge people to honor the Lord by caring for His Creation. Elnes urges followers of Jesus to see in the world around them the work of God. We have good reason to hear the echoes of Psalm 104 in Elnes’ essay. To take care of the earth is more than “progressive.” It acts out a reverence for the God who has spoken all into existence and who has acted out of His love and made everything good.

However, even here “Progressive Christianity” turns its attention back to other faiths and asks, “If God created human beings in God’s image and likeness, can they not reflect God’s glory and wisdom even if they may not be aware of the God of our understanding?”[31] In this way Elnes seems deaf to the sounds of a spiritual war. He seems to think the siege of Satan is a galaxy away. So, evil does not stand behind some (or much) religious expression in our day? Spiritual darkness does not fuel spiritual confusion in our time as it did in the ancient mystery religions of Roman Asia? We have nothing to worry about? Our time is different? Our spiritual confusion is merely Christian misunderstanding about the good in all world religions? “Progressive Christianity’s” treatment of evil dismisses the notion of desperately needed spiritual triage. If Elnes is correct, why did Jesus even come to earth?

Affirmation Four

 The fourth affirmation turns to the subject of Christian worship. Eric Elnes urges followers of Jesus to a worship “that is as sincere, vibrant, and artful as it is scriptural.”[32] Few would question the wisdom of the affirmation. As a brief statement it sounds much like Jesus’ words recorded in John 4:24: “God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Eric Elnes’ essay about worship is insightful even as it pulls no punches. He escorts us back to ancient Israel and the story of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 9-10). He asks what we should make of a story about ritual and death. He draws his readers into seeing how the ritual of the Mosaic Law served as structure for the unfathomable power of the Creator to touch humanity. Nadab and Abihu saw only structure and the opportunity to innovate. They did not see the One whose command crafted the stars. Elnes sees the ritual of the Mosaic Law as a shield “to withstand the force of God’s coming” versus some form of magic incantation whereby human beings feel empowered to summon the supernatural.[33]

Eric Elnes is correct that the book of Leviticus is about God – a holy God. And He is One who seeks to live among us. Elnes writes that, “God doesn’t need the ritual. We do. Experiencing God is like standing next to a raging fire.”[34] However, spiritual darkness has strained the relationship. God speaks Law to heal the relationship.

In applying Leviticus to our day, Elnes argues that we should do something other than “let go” of Scripture’s teaching and God’s guidance. Instead, we should hold on to it tightly as one of the ways we can better understand a holy God. As one example he writes, “We don’t cast away hymnbooks – we create new ones….”[35] And certainly writing new songs that help us write Scripture on our hearts will serve us in worshipping God. Our songs will help us better know the Creator whose presence is like the roar of the sun’s surface.

However, Elnes also allows the eroding of the very tradition he urges. He talks again about the imperfections of Scripture as one indicator that we must follow the living Spirit of God and be prepared to build new traditions in our century.[36] What he fails to see is that the counsel he offers challenges the very story he highlights. The deaths of Nadab and Abihu serve as a reminder of both God’s power and as well the danger humanity faces. Spiritual darkness can deceive us into embracing change versus seeing that we are to worship God within the framework of His commands.

Affirmation Five

The fifth affirmation puts us in the middle of one of the most emotionally-charged culture clashes of our time. “Progressive Christianity” welcomes “persons of every race, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical and mental ability, nationality, and economic class into the full life of our community.”³⁶ The words that fill Elnes’ essays are “gender” and “sexual orientation.” Elnes challenges apostolic teaching about the submission of women in congregational leadership and wives in their homes and he dismisses that homosexuality is sin.

Eric Elnes’ look at homosexuality focuses on Acts 10 and the narrative where the Lord shows Peter a vision of unclean foods and tells him to eat. The Lord is guiding Peter to recognize that the Lord is welcoming the Gentiles into the Kingdom (Acts.10:9-48). Elnes takes the narrative further than the conversion of Cornelius as a Roman Centurion. He concludes that the lesbian and gay communities are welcomed into the Kingdom as well – as acceptable lifestyles in the sight of God. Elnes writes, “The full inclusion of gays and lesbians into the life of the church, and indeed the life of the nation, appears to be one of those barriers Christ is calling us to push through.”[37] With Acts 10 and the inclusion of the Gentiles as the guide, “Progressive Christianity” urges followers of Jesus to see that the Spirit is breaking down a cultural wall and welcoming diverse sexual orientation and diverse relationships.[38]

Similarly, John Shelby Spong, as a strong “Progressive” voice, has further stretched the affirmation. He writes that “My study has led me to the conclusion that sexuality itself, including all sexual orientations, is morally neutral and as such can be lived out either positively or negatively. I regard the spectrum of human sexual experience to be broad indeed.[39] So, would John Shelby Spong also see the Spirit of God moving to accept pedophilia and the “Christian Boylove” movement into the Kingdom? He does not tell us. However, the debate about adults in relationship with consenting children is growing and likely will find its way to “Progressive Christianity” in the not-too-distant future.[40]

So, what should we make of the suggestion that Acts 10 has application to the question of homosexuality? Interestingly, Eric Elnes avoids dealing with an important comment by the apostle Peter: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-5). Elnes has stretched the narrative beyond the conversion of Cornelius. He has broached the subject of moral action.

Eric Elnes gives no attention in his essay to Paul’s teachings in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10. He spends no time with apostolic teaching that indicates homosexual actions to be sin. So, I decided to write him and ask him to comment. To date I have received no response to my query. With the blinding storm of free sensuality facing the nation, “Progressive Christianity” points people away from the will of the risen Lord. Indeed, the Internet provides examples of just how corrupt is the sexual thought that can flow out of even religious leaders in our day.[41] The pandemic of sensuality facing the nation desperately needs moral and spiritual challenge. However, some leaders in emerging churches flow with the sensuality; they may even see it as humorous.[42] One question facing “Progressive Christianity” is whether its leaders and congregations have anything to say. Peter’s words should echo in the ears of Eric Elnes, John Shelby Spong, and all who would urge spiritual progress: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-5).

Affirmation Six

The sixth affirmation provides a fresh breeze when compared to the stifling fog of the previous affirmation. Elnes challenges his readers to see that “Progressive Christianity” must be about helping the oppressed. The goal is one few followers of Jesus question. Christians throughout the land give to others. Churches help to feed impoverished individuals and families. Congregations lay out significant sums of money to help with medical bills and to pay utility bills.

“Progressive Christianity” is on firm ground to urge followers of Jesus to show compassion to the oppressed. Jesus began his public ministry by reading from Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21). The Son of God announced that his Father had sent him, “to proclaim liberty for the captives and recovering of sight for the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18). The apostle Paul echoed the Lords words in his letter to the churches in Galatia: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).

[1] The Greek noun for “progress” is proodos. See Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 1492: “going on, advance, progress.” Neither proodos or the verb proodeuo are found in the NT.

[2] Eric Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations: A New Vision For the Future of Christianity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), xiii-xiv.

[3] See www.tcpc.org.

[4] See, for example, http://um-insight.net/articles/a-new-christian-convergence.

[5] See, for example, http://theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com.

[6] See, for example, “‘Emerging’ Southern Baptists: The ECM Comes to Nashville,” The Baptist Messenger (November 5, 2009). Available at http://baptistmessenger.com/emerging-southern-baptists-the-ecm-comes-to-nashville.

[7] See www.oneinjesus.info.

[8] Available at http://phoenixaffirmations.wordpress.com.

[9] Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations, xix.

[10] John Smith, “Religion in America,” Parade (October 2009). The religious survey found that a mere twelve percent of the Americans surveyed believed that religious “truth” was locked into one and only one expression of God (i.e. Jesus Christ).  

[11] Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations, xvii.

[12] John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity For a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born (New York: HarperCollins Pub., 2001), 17.

[13] Ibid., 116.

[14] Ibid., 59: “Yet there is no doubt in my mind that the Christianity and even the spirituality of the future will require the opening of every life to the exhilarating new humanity that is being born as the theistic God is gradually dying.”

[15] Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations, xx.

[16] Ibid., 1.

[17] See, for example, Susan M. Strouse, “Progressive Christianity: A Response to Sikh Temple Terror,” Progressivechurch.Wordpress.com (August 9, 2012). Available at http://progressivechurch.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/progressive-christianity-a-response-to-sikh-temple-terror. See also http://www.cafepress.com/turn_left.

[18] Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations, 1.

[19] Ibid., 3.

[20] Ibid., 4.

[21] Ibid., 5.

[22] Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 35. Additionally, see his essay entitled “Why I Am Incarnational” in pages 245-66.

[23] Carmen Beaubeaux, “Big “S” Heaven,” Wineskins (February, 2012). Available at www.wineskins.org.

[24] Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations, 13.

[25] See http://dalailama.com.

[26] Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations, 13.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 22.

[29] Ibid., 27.

[30] Ibid., 21.

[31] Ibid., 37-8.

[32] Ibid., 39.

[33] Ibid., 43.

[34] Ibid., 44.

[35] Ibid., 46.

[36] Ibid., 46-7.

[37] Ibid., 63.

[38] See, for example, the web forum Out in the Spirit. Available at http://outinthespirit.com/category/gays/.

[39] Spong, A New Christianity For a New World, 6.

[40] See the Christian Boylove Forum (www.cblf.org): “Christian Boylove Forum participants believe that a distinction must be made between feelings of attraction (which are not chosen) and behavior (for which one must be held responsible). We believe that boylovers can control and channel their feelings so that their relationships with boys are beneficial and honor God. We are strictly opposed to any treatment of children which is contrary to the love that God intends us to have for them. This includes the manipulation, coercion and abuse of children.” The Christian Boylove Forum appears to suggest that sexual relations between an adult and a child/minor are not necessarily any of the above.

[41] David C. Bissette, “2003 Internet Pornography Statistics,” Healthy Mind (2004). 12-17 year olds represent the largest consumer group of Internet pornography. Fifty-three percent of men with a commitment to Jesus Christ and who attended a Promise Keepers seminar admitted to viewing Internet pornography the previous week. Available at www.healthymind.com.

[42] See, for example, Eugene Cho, (emergent) Quest Church, Seattle Washington (www.seattlequest.org). Eugene Cho makes an informative comment on his weblog (eugenecho.wordpress.com). In an April 2008 posting entitled “my truck nutz is bigger than your truck nutz” he writes, “Has this blog hit a low point? Will my wife kick my arse for posting photos of Hooters girls? Am I infatuated with being more manly? There is nothing more manly than a huge 4 x 4 truck pimped out with truck testicles. This is funny crazy – even crazier that a Florida senator admitted he had a pair on his truck.”