Comments for How my mind was changed at http://www.pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 14 out of 14 comments http://www.pres-outlook.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:18:25 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-6447 The man clearly makes assumptions that are not written. He perverts the Word several more times from partial and whole cloth. "There is no mention of Philip’s answer to the eunuch’s question." Why would you wonder if you were a biblical scholar? "I wondered why this person’s gender was mentioned at all. Luke could simply have referred to him as the Ethiopian, couldn’t he?" "so I wondered about the exegesis Philip might have shared. Isaiah 53 alone? Probably not." Another assumption. - C. Carr Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:44:54 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-6064 I don't see how anyone could argue with what Dr. Duba says about the New Testament mandate for inclusion. The baptism of the previously excluded eunuch (Acts 8) and Peter's embrace of the gentile Cornelius (Acts 10) clearly teach this. But I don't share Dr. Duba's conclusion that this means we ought to vote "yes" on Amendment 10-A and thus delete the "fidelity/chastity" requirement from our constitution. You can't have Acts 8 and 10 and ignore Acts 15! The Apostolic Council required that gentile converts must abstain from what the NRSV calls "fornication" (porneia). It is well established that in first century Jewish/Christian context this catch-all term would include same-sex relations as well as any other sexual relations outside the marriage of a man and women. I continue to believe that the debate in the PCUSA over "fidelity/chastity" is not now and never has been about who we include. It is about the conduct we expect our officers to model. My mind has not changed because the Word of God has not changed and I can't edit out the parts that offend post-modern values. - Phil Moran Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:40:57 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-6056 I was strongly moved by your testimony. We have known each other for some years. What had not been said is that my brother was gay and died outside the church because of the vote in 1968. He didn't die of AIDS (as many folks have asked) but his partner continues to be a part of our family's life. It's too bad that we who are retired have to lead the way when we don't have much to lose. Peter (my brother) did. I give thanks to God that a UCC pastor officiated at his funeral and that my brother-in-law went on to become a commissioned lay pastor. Barbara A Renton - arbara Renton Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:31:19 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4642 I agree and then some! I have written much about eunuchs on gaychristian.net, and I think we have discovered that indeed, glbt people and eunuchs are one and the same. And if they are not, then who are these eunuchs who should be included in God's house of prayer for all people? - BrotherBrian Sat, 09 May 2009 21:12:05 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4445 I myself are a Presbyterian French Eunuch. I did not choose to be one. I am a eunuch as Mathew says "Born of the mothers womb." I'm an elder in the church, and as such have a lot of fruit to bare. "Don't let the eunuch say he is just a dry tree." Us modern day eunuch have alot to give. The Native Americans got it right for they revere us for we can understand the minds of Men & Women far deeper than any single gendered person can. For I am intersexed (Born both Man & Women) And I understand both because I am both. None of us chooses how we are borne. We don't choose our bodies we just give the best we can with the bodies we're given. I use my skills to help heal the wounds between the sexes to explain men to women, and women to men. Homosexuality has nothing to do with being a eunuch. Homosexuality is who you are attracted to, and being male, female, intersex, eunuch is your physical body what parts your body have. Take Care, - Andrea' V. Boisseau AIS Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:10:38 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4373 Arlo Duba's op-ed piece, "How my mind was changed," so paralleled my own experience that I could not contain my joy. Both of us approached the issue of homosexuality in the church with an uncritical acceptance of the church tradition. For both of us, when we studied the biblical text in depth, the Spirit changed our minds. I also have recently turned to the story of the Ethiopian eunuch. Most commentaries completely disregard the fact that he is a sexual minority and yet was welcomed into the church. It is clear that for Philip the welcome God proclaimed through Isaiah trumped the Deuteronomic prohibition against sexual minorities. I have recently written and Westminster John Knox will publish in March the further results of my change of mind in Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, Revised and Expanded Edition. I was fascinated by the Ethiopian eunuch, since he is the first Gentile convert to Christianity, a person of color, and a sexual minority. I think it is important to note that Philip was also following Jesus, who welcomed eunuchs as recorded in Matthew 19:12. - Jack Rogers Pasadena, Calif. Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:16:52 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4340 Dear Rev Duba, I appreciate your being willing to stand up and admit clearly that you have changed your mind on this issue. Some of us have had to struggle for years, our whole live even, trying to discreet that God could possibly love us, based on the church's teachings on this issue. It is not a behavior as some say, it is in fact WHO we are..how we are inside. The choice is not between being homosexual or not, it is between being complete, and experiencing all that life has to offer, that is at question. I understand what you are saying to indicate that you have come to understand a bit more, and I roundly applaud you for being willing to admit it. - James W Garman Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:12:15 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4337 I lived in Iowa. I know your reputation, which is excellent, but also that you have been a hard-liner on this issue. I can thoroughly believe the revelations you experienced shook you almost to the core of your being. That said, it is a huge leap of faith - a faith I can only imagine I think - to so publicly declare your about face. I respect you and bow to your courage. It does amuse me a little that one of the detractors, while so openly proclaiming that the Holy Spirit helps us interpret scripture, concludes that your interpretation (and, by extension I assume, that of the Holy Spirit) is just wrong. May God continue to bless you, Rev Duba. And, Ash, you set a shining example with your compassion, my friend. Blessings to you and yours. - Rev Andy Little Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:29:19 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4308 Dear Pastor Duba, Thank you for such a lovely and articulate post. It is an amazing thing when the Lord pulls the scales away from our eyes and hearts. You may be interested in other information I have run across dealing with the issue of grace and how it pertains to the transgender community. Check out lightinthecloset.org - Randall Klein Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:07:53 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4288 I'm not sure that our Reformed ancestors would accept the statement that "the authority to interpret scripture comes from an ordained minister of God, not from the individual." Some of them went to the stake because they believed in the right of the layperson to interpret Scripture. Wycliffe, Tyndale, et al were adamant about the ability and responsibility of the simple plowman to read Scripture and apply it. The ordained minister was to be well-trained so that they could more adequately read scripture, interpret it, and apply it, but that did not abrogate the right of the believer to read and apply Scripture for themselves. - Howard Wilson Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:41:56 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4287 This bears no relevance to the actual debate. No one disputes anything relative to "gender condition" (Whatever that may mean!). That topic would have been more relevant during the ordination of women debates. What does one's "gender condition" have to do with their behavior? The issue is behavior (of the immoral variety) in the current ordination debates. - Rich Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:47:45 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4286 I'm not sure how your hermeneutic leads to much of a conclusion on homosexuality in the church, apart from that the church should welcome eunuchs. I don't believe that homosexuals consider themselves to be eunuchs. Eunuchs were celibates, usually because they had been born without male genitals, or because their genitals had been removed for some purpose. Christ talks about those who had made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the gospel. And, I don't think the passage says much about homosexual ordination. I would agree with you that the church should welcome people regardless of their condition or orientation or praxis. - Howard Wilson Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:03:09 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4284 Given the other qualifications were not wanting, I for one would certainly approve of the ordination of eunuchs—self-avowed, practicing eunuchs included. - Noel Anderson Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:54:28 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8298-how-my-mind-was-changed.html#comment-4283 Sadly I have to disagree with retired pastor Arlo Duba. Clearly he has misinterpreted the scriptures and doesn't understand what the passage was really pointing to. Most evangelicals will agree that when reading the scriptures the holy spirit will give them the power to interpret scripture on their own and be the final ruling party on what the author is trying to tell them. If you re-read Philip you will see that the Holy Spirit instructed him to go to the Eunuch and teach him. Why did he need to do that? The Eunuch was clearly an educated man, had already read the scripture for himself. The Eunuch needed to have a higher authority to show him what the scripture meant, to interpret it for him as to its true meaning and then to be baptised and sent back to his country to spread the word. And that is what Philip is telling us, it is not about gender or homosexual equality, I would say that is far from it! Philip is showing that the authority to interpret scripture comes from an ordained minister of God, not from the individual. - Michael Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:46:19 +0100