Homosexuality and Christian Community: Pt 2
December 24, 2004
Just a quick note in regards to Mike Todd’s comment today on my blog (and his fleshing it out on his blog). One of the biggest problem I have with people who are so sure that their traditional stance on this issue is right…is that many times (and this is not *always* the case) they have never met a gay person, or a gay Christian or (as Mike said) a gay couple in a long-term, stable relationship (and I will have to say that I don’t know any gay couples, just singles who are gay).
So I’m just throwing something out here, and obviously I have no way of actually censoring the comments or making sure that people are being honest, but I would ask that if you plan on being involved in this conversation, you have to have had some actual experience with people from the LGBT community and have had friends or currently have friends who are gay. Just like I would not want someone who had never seen a woman in ministry to be condemning all women who have a desire to seek positions of leadership in the church, the same goes here. This issue (while I have to disagree with Mike a bit, I think it is, to some degree, a theological question) is really not about “issues” or about “views” - this question is about living people, humans, children of God. It is impossible, and unloving I would add, to separate the actual people who are struggling and dealing with the exclusive nature of so many churches, from this discussion.
So, as Mike said:
“Everyone put down their books, put on their shoes, go find a gay person (or, even better, a gay couple in a long-term, stable relationship), and make friends with them.” Then, please come back to pomomusings and contribute in the discussion. Share your experiences and struggle through this question with us…
**DISCLAIMER:This post is not saying that you “need to do your homework” or that you need to go out and “study” a gay person. As my good friend Tony said, “‘Gay’ people are not objects of knowledge to be studied and known.” As I told Tony, I’m not friends with him so that I can get my quota of “gay hours” in or that I’m trying to experiment with our friendship. I am friends with Tony because we have history together, because we’ve gone through hell and back and a lot of other shit together, because I love him for who he is…Just so it is clear, this is not about dissecting and trying to “understand” gays…this is about dissecting our own views, our own perceptions and rethinking, reevaluating and relearning…
Tags: Homosexuality, Sexuality, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
December 24th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
I have many close friends who are gay (including gay christians and gay couples) who will all tell you I think homosexuality is incompatable with christian living, that homosexual marriage should not be allowed, and that any man or woman in a sexual relationship outside of a man/woman marriage should not be ordained. They’ll also tell you I’m non-judgemental and a good friend, that I am open to discussion and will listen with an open heart.
One couple I am close with asked me to officiate their wedding last year when the county we live in (in Oregon) began extending marriage licenses to same gender couples. I told them I could not. I did not even attend their wedding. I do not consider their marriage to be valid. But, I still went to their home a couple nights ago for a dinner.
December 24th, 2004 at 2:37 pm
I have to admit-I can no longer read your blog. “Gay” people are not objects of knowledge to be studied and known-I am not friends with you, Adam, b/c I am interested in your uber heterosexuality. I am friends because we are friends; I’d like to think of it in terms fo grace.
PS: I have read Gagnon–and, well, I agree with Marty Nissen’s critique–he reads his homophobia right into every text.
December 24th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
Adam,
I’m just wondering if you could define what you mean by long-term reltationship.
I would have trouble accepting a non-married heterosexual couple who are sexually active as a legitimate expression of Christian orthodoxy….just as I would have trouble accepting a sexually active homosexual couple (there are a handful of legally married homosexual couples, and that would be a different issue). But it would be very hard for me to say to a heterosexual couple, “Oh, you cant marry for soem reason? Well, its still okay to have sex” and I dont see a Biblical exception for homosexual people. Does that make sense?
I do have homosexual friends and enjoy them as people very much.
I really dont want to make much comment on the rightness or wrongness or homosexuality, but would like to say that there are those who identify themselves as homosexual who are troubled by their own homosexuality. In those cases, the church should be providing a path for them to walk where change is possible.
December 24th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
hi adam,
glad to see you being brave and crazy enough (in the gospel), to offer up this conversation.
our community is part of a tribe that has a gay bishop (the rt. rev. gene robinson) in one of our east coast diocese, so it is not a topic that can be easily skirted, and part of me is glad this is so, as much of the church still has two rather large elephants in the room to acknowledge and ‘deal’ with both theologically and relationally, one being the leadership of women and the other the presence, acceptance and leadership of gay and lesbian persons.
at least the anglican communion is now wrestling about this ‘out of the closet’ (or in the light) as is the society at large, as public wrestling and wrangling is necessary for any process of change or growth or resolution to eventually occur.
so the emerging church also has to stop ignoring elephants
and enter the messy public discussion and relational fray.
coffee and candles, not withstanding, no true emergence can take place without ‘the conversation’ broadening to include not the ‘issue’ of gays, but gays themselves in the conversation.
i have many gay christian friends, know quite a few committed gay couples and have gay ‘parishioners’ (singled and coupled) and, as you say, this is not about taking ‘positions’ on an ‘issue.’ as Christ did not ask us to love issues, he asks us to love people, and it’s as simple and as difficult as that… so let the conversation begin.
on another topic, will you be at emergent san diego? dave paisley says you will be, so i’m hoping we can all get together one evening, maybe thursday?, as six of us from apostles will be there.
merry xmas eve.
December 24th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
I’m looking forward to reading this series of posts and ensuing discussion, but I think its a bit wrong-headed to assume that someone cannot make a moral decision on this or any other issue without knowing an involved party. Do I need to know a drug addict to know that drug addiction is wrong? What about prostitution, promiscuity and any other number of issues? See, the fact of the matter is that all of us know what is like to be human and all of us know what it is like to be involved in a church which means, quite frankly, all of us have something to contribute to this discussion whether or not we have any gay friends or acquaintances. This is especially true for those who belong to those “exclusive churches” you reference - shouldn’t they be able to contribute their views to this discussion? To artificially restrict a discussion that necessarily involves those whom you would exclude limits the possible outcomes or consensus. Its stacking the deck, so to speak. This discussion should be open to everyone who has a stake in “Christian community.”
December 24th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
“This question is about living people, humans, children of God.”
“5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.” (1 John 1)
Obviously, you and others would disagree with me here, but here it goes anyway. People who sin by their homosexual lifestyle are not children of God. They walk in the darkness. That applies to all sin by the way.
To say that they are children of God is contrary to the Word of God, in which God commands us, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22)
Another question for you all, why is the scriptures excluded from determining if homosexuality is a sin or not? If they are not excluded, why aren’t we studying what it says to determine our decision, rather than our experiences and personal convictions.
God bless.
December 24th, 2004 at 8:14 pm
Hmm. I think that Finegan up there just proves why the debate will never truly “work” on a large scale (not for a long, long time): you can’t debate or discuss with people who have fundamentalist views, or the cherry pickers who maintain fundamentalist views at least on the issue of homosexuality. You already know their views, and you know why they believe what they do, you know what to expect from the conversation and you know where it’s going every step of the way. I’m gay, I’ve been through this a thousand times (probably more) and I would be loathe to do it again unless I thought I had a fighting chance. But that’s not to say that the discussion should end; maybe it’s better off this way.
“but I think its a bit wrong-headed to assume that someone cannot make a moral decision on this or any other issue without knowing an involved party. Do I need to know a drug addict to know that drug addiction is wrong? What about prostitution, promiscuity and any other number of issues?”
You seem nice enough, but can you imagine why a gay person might not want to continue the discussion if you start it off by comparing homosexuality (and by extension, gay people) to drug addicts and prostitutes? If you can’t, then you are not ready to talk about it. And maybe that’s why Adam added his stipulation.
Well I’m off my soapbox now, but I’m anticipating what’s to come. [As a sidenote, I'd like to point out how much I hate the word "homosexuality". It's so cold and clinical, and conveys thoughts of nothing more than an act. Being gay is much more than acting like a homosexual in bed.]
December 24th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Sam,
I hear what you are saying and respect your opinion. Truly. Do you prefer the term ‘gay’ to ‘homosexual’? I ask because I just completed a college class on gender where we did a number of readings urging people not to use the term ‘gay’. I think part of respect is calling people what they want to be called.
My other question is….how do you deal with the Bible’s teaching on abtaining from sexual contact outside of marriage? It’s difficult for me to understand why heterosexual contact outside of marriage is wrong, but homosexual contact isn’t. I dont ask that question with an agenda, but I am really seeking your opinion.
Jennifer
December 25th, 2004 at 12:01 am
FWIW, I blogged on my experience of dealing with this particular issue right here. It’s a bit long, but hopefully worth your time.
There are still many things I don’t understand and question, but as a friend of mine said recently, “I’d rather have to answer to God for loving someone I shouldn’t have, rather than not loving someone I should have.”
I will try to read some of the material that’s been suggested here too, as the issue isn’t going away any time soon…
December 25th, 2004 at 1:25 am
well…i’m trying to figure out what i want to say. i see how knowing gay people is probably really important…though maybe i would say listening to gay people and probably just as significantly friends and family of gay people. we are out there.
and from my point of view, not so much because of their sexual orientation. sexuality is so complicated and personal…you could talk to 5 gay people (or any people, really) and hear five very different stories. so having gay friends that you go to dinner with probably does not lend a badge of authenticity to your opinion.
but…you would probably hear something about the struggle of christian gay people to reconcile their faiths and the way they experience life and love. as for me, i grew up as a southern baptist pk, and have spend years reading and rereading and crying over those verses which Michael so casually listed as though they were ground-breaking evidence, right before topping it off with a cheery “God-bless” for Christmas Eve.
If you were talking with me face to face, Michael, thats not how the conversation would have ended. Not because we’d be fighting I think…maybe I would just start trying to explain how hard this has been, and how if I were not serious about my faith and the bible then I would have tossed it in the trash rather than listen to the ridicule I have to submit myself to from my brothers in sisters in Christ…probably the most intolerant people I know in this regard. but somehow I return to that book daily, because Christ ministers to me more there than any other way.
so i haven’t delved too deep into the sticky issues or unveiled my amazing argument. i wrestle daily. how i wish we could sit in a cirle of chairs with our hands extended instead of balled into fists.
this post is too long. but its also too important I don’t have my own blog to post it on. :)
December 25th, 2004 at 4:10 am
Hi,
I just stumbled onto this blog. My closet friend in college struggled with same sex attraction throught his entire life , even after he got married and had three kids. I recently had a chat with him and he says that he may or may not struggle with his feelings throughout his life but he continues to live in relationship with his wife who he loves dearly and enjoys their relationship in every aspect. He says he is commited to following Jesus and trusting Him to keep him pure in thought, mind and deed, in his life with males and females. I do think the scriptures are the final authority that sex outside of marriage or lust is not reflecting the spirit of Christ. I ask the Holy Spirit to enable me to love people, period. My home and my heart is always open to those who are on their journey in life.
December 25th, 2004 at 8:27 am
I continue to find it hard to deal with the issue of “particular sin” that we as Christians/Church/Leaders/Society keep bringing up. It boggles my mind why we have narrowed sin down to homosexuality. Therefore barring sinners (homosexuals) from being a part of God’s love and God’s church. I love how the media takes a snapshot look at a commercial (I’m referring the the UCC commercial, Adam and many others have previously posted about it) and deem it to be about gay exclusion. I had to really carefully watch the commercial to see what all the fuss was about and then once I had seen it, it was clear that was not the sole intent of the commercial.
I struggle with a “Church” community that is so biased towards certian sins and not others.
I can become a pastor and be ordained even though I struggle with masturbation and pornography, yet as far as I’ve read that is sin. Yet the sin of homosexuality bars people from even being welcomed into a church community. What about the pastors who drink too much, lie, are divorced, are alduters, steal, or any other thing that you can think of, yet are still tolerated because those sins are not as bad as being a homosexual?
I wouldn’t call myself a hardcore liberal, I lean that direction but try to ride the fence on a lot of things. But in the example Christ gives us I think it is very clear about loving the prostitutes, leapors, tax collectors and rejects as much as we seem to worship people who drive BMWs and Hummers. Clearly today’s homosexual has replaced the bibilical examples of sinners.
As much as we know that God has anger and things disgust him. It seems that when we look at others with a judgeful eye, we somehow neglect the issue of grace. And who says we get to judge others in the first place. I think it’s just human nature to find someone we deem as worse off than us, and we lord that over them to inflate our already displayed egos.
December 25th, 2004 at 9:37 am
Adam, when I first read this post, I thought “Ugh, he’s objectifying gays as if they are a petri dish.” But, I realized that that’s just part of the process for you, as you pick apart your own thoughts and work out your own beliefs. I will be patient, and hope I’ll be able to contribute to the dialogue.
December 25th, 2004 at 9:42 am
hey adam,
well done for bringing this topic into play - as Karen says emergers really need to work this issue through. I remember the most helpful book I had from a purely sociological perspective is M.Nissinen, ‘Homoeroticism in the biblical world’. Its an excellent scholarly work by a non-xian who is not really interested in the politics of this issue but rather the historical reality of the sitz im laben of the OT and NT texts. So there are very few behind-the-text questions to ask compared to other works where people merely work out their own stance and read it back into the OT and NT.
Anyhow, have a happy xmas and may grace and peace be with you in this next year.
hope we can catch up at one of the emergent things in the US
gareth
December 25th, 2004 at 10:15 am
“I continue to find it hard to deal with the issue of “particular sin” that we as Christians/Church/Leaders/Society keep bringing up. It boggles my mind why we have narrowed sin down to homosexuality”
I really don’t think that it is the church that is bringing this topic up, but the gay rights activists themselves. They demand marriage and right to be in a leadership position in churches. So, I think that the Christian community is reacting to the forcefulness of homosexuals and is bent on showing that homosexuality is a sin, which is contrary to the popular cultural idea that it is only an orientation.
“I can become a pastor and be ordained even though I struggle with masturbation and pornography, yet as far as I’ve read that is sin. Yet the sin of homosexuality bars people from even being welcomed into a church community. What about the pastors, who drink too much, lie, are divorced, are adulteress, steal, or any other thing that you can think of, yet are still tolerated because those sins are not as bad as being a homosexual?”
If you take the time to read 1 Timothy, you realize that God wants godly and holy men to be in leadership roles. Although this obviously is not always the case, people who are struggling deeply with sin probably should not lead. God does not expect perfection, but he wants godly men to lead the church. After all, can the blind lead the blind?
I agree with you that more emphasis should be placed on other sins. God sees all sin as equal. That includes lying, murder, stealing, adultery, lust, homosexuality, idolatry, and you get the idea.
However, that does not make the sin of homosexuality right in anyway. It still is a sin; just as any other sin is a sin.
Before I sign off, this verse (although I am sure most of you know it already) troubles me deeply. Not the verse it self, but the fact that God’s Word says that those who practice homosexuality and list of other sins are going to hell. Friends, this is too serious a consequence to ignore God.
(By the way this is taken from the Amplified Bible: “The Amplified Bible is a translation that, by using synonyms and definitions, both explains and expands the meaning of words in the text by placing amplification in parentheses and brackets after key words or phrases. This unique system of translation allows the reader to more completely grasp the meaning of the words as they were understood in the original languages.”)
“Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
Does the God’s Word affect you? I do not want to single homosexuality out for their are other sins that are just as bad. You can read them for your self.
Pleas listen to God on this matter, he loves every human and is not willing that any should be lost because of their disobedience to his Word.
God bless and I hope you all are having a great Christmas celebrating the birth of Jesus, who is able to help us overcome the world and our sins.
December 25th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
“people who are struggling deeply with sin probably should not lead”
Oh, so we’re all disqualified?
Whew, that’s a relief.
December 25th, 2004 at 3:32 pm
We are fallen people trying to be the pillars of a devine church. We are doomed to fail.
“After all, can the blind lead the blind?”
The less blind can show the blind which direction to go. I once was lost but now I’m found, I once was blind but now I see.
I agree with Dave’s above statement.
Michael when I read your words, I have an overwhelming sense of a lack of grace. Although I understand the judgemental side of God, I also have come to read Jesus’s teachings and know that grace overpowers all. Who were the first Christians? None other than the sinners and damned, who then went on to lead and build a church.
“Not the verse it self, but the fact that God’s Word says that those who practice homosexuality and list of other sins are going to hell. Friends, this is too serious a consequence to ignore God.”
I think you are forgetting about the transforming power of Christ that raises us from our dead sinful mires into people who are saved by grace and who serve as grace filled sinners in a dark world. I have to say I’m sure that list of sins that you refer to covers EVERY SINGLE human being and therefore disqualifies us all from a heavenly life thereafter. Grace my friend is the very reason that I know I am loved beyond my birthgiven right as a sinner.
December 25th, 2004 at 9:53 pm
An interesting voice to listen to in this conversation is Ben at http://scatteredwords.com/
He’s a homosexual guy who is, in his words, “Turning away from homosexuality and toward God. I’m 22 years old, live in DC. I have struggled with my sexuality for years. Slowly, I’m coming to grips with the man God created me to be.”
I’ve enjoyed his wriitng. He is very honest about the difficulties in turning from homosexuality, and yet that is what he is trying to do. No matter what side of this issue you are on, it’s interesting reading.
Jennifer
December 25th, 2004 at 9:57 pm
So grace=license. We are all sinners, so that means
no one can profess the truth. When is this worn out leftist propaganda going to die off? The gay community makes more noise about this issue than any of the right-wingers. This is most certainly by design.
Romans 6
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
2 Thessolonians:
11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
December 25th, 2004 at 11:02 pm
Amen to Chris.
I found, likely by God’s guiding, a site with about 20 different testimonies about people who were homosexual and overcame it with God’s help.
Go here : http://www.portlandfellowship.com/stories/
Just click on any of them, they all address overcoming homosexuality.
I posted one of these stories on my blog, http://bloggingteen.blogspot.com. (Just click on my name link at the bottom of this comment.)
These stories are truly eye opening, I would highlt suggest reading them.
December 26th, 2004 at 8:51 am
I had the honor of attending the recent General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada where same sex blessing was debated at length. What became clear in that debate is that there are two primary outlooks for the church - doctrinal or pasteral. This is not to say we are one or the other - we are both. But one is primary and the other subservient.
Adam and others have proposed a primarily pastoral view. They have responded to their relationships with gay people and have formed their direction based on that experience. If doctrine is against them, then doctrine will have to evolve.
Michael and others have proposed a primarily doctrinal view. Whatever their experience with gay people may be, doctrine forms their direction and the pastoral care they offer must be conformed to doctrine.
I’m gay, so I’m hardly unbiased. Though I suppose I would be just as biased if I were strait… But two thoughts form loudly in my mind. 1) Jesus calls us to be pastors - to feed his sheep… to feed his sheep… to feed his sheep. I don’t recall any similar repeated call to protect the purity of the doctrine of his church. 2) We meet Jesus and God in scripture, so we read it daily and study it and love it. But we also meet Jesus and God in the face of every other human being. I could not say that the God I meet in the Bible is more or less authentic than the God I meet in a homeless shelter, or a gay bar. To say that the Bible is the absolute and final word of God seems to me to be ignoring a whole lot of the inbreaking of the Spirit.
Doctrine is a very difficult issue for those of us who are not Roman Catholic or Orthodox. For the Romans, doctrine is what Rome says it is. For the Orthodox, doctrine is what it has always been. For the Reformation Christians, we strugle still with the fundamental “pro testate” urge. We have to work out our own relationship with God. We have to testify. The trouble is, after we work out our own relationship, we want to work out the relationship for others.
I find in Adam’s reflections a very honest effort to work out his relationship with God through his relationships with others. And I find in Michael’s reflections an honest effort to impose his relationship with God through scripture on his relationships with others.
“Feed my sheep.”
December 26th, 2004 at 9:43 am
So doctrine i.e. the law of God becomes subordinate to our feel good philosophies, and have to change. The only doctrines that must change are the ones which violate the Word. We are back to slicing the Scriptures into pieces. Jesus told all He forgave to go and sin and no more,not continue in sin so that grace would abound. You cannot separate pastoral and doctrinal. The book is the guide and is the primary source of revelation which is then verified by the Holy Spirit. Acts 17:11
Dave P. over in part one of this post, demonstrated the gnostic, new age view that is basically espoused here i.e. we have our own personal source of revelation apart from the rest of the Body and the witness of those who actually wrote the Scriptures. The apostle John, Polycarp,and Irenaeus fought this heresy 2000 years ago and the battle still rages. The Bible must be read in context of the whole book and it proves itself. You cannot tear the Lord’s words out of the context of the gospels or out of the entire Scriptures,
as they are all God’s words revealed to men by the power of the Holy Spirit. Matt 23:13-15
December 26th, 2004 at 9:45 am
Sam -
“You seem nice enough, but can you imagine why a gay person might not want to continue the discussion if you start it off by comparing homosexuality (and by extension, gay people) to drug addicts and prostitutes? If you can’t, then you are not ready to talk about it. And maybe that’s why Adam added his stipulation.”
No, I can see it and I knew someone would call me on it as I wrote it, but I think the point is still valid. We all know what Christian community is and what we would like it to be in our respective churches, so why are the people who don’t know any gay people (I am not one of them, by the way) immediately excluded? Its an issue that affects all of us. I know my comparisons are not accurate, I chose them specifically because they are sometimes referred to as “victimless crimes,” which is a similar argument that seems to be popping up here.
I will point out, however, the complete lack of love people are showing for the “fundies” who are posting here. For a group of people that claims you’d rather have to answer to Jesus for loving someone you shoudln’t have, rather than not loving someone you should have, you are displaying a remarkable tendency to be intolerant, rude and judgmental.
And I have to say, Br Scott, that you are being somewhat disingenuous in your assertion about what Jesus called us to be. Certainly He did call us to be pastors, but that does not preclude the importance of doctrine as can be seen in His interactions with the Pharisees. Theirs was both a pastoral AND doctrinal lapse, and He called them out on both areas. Further, there is plenty in the rest of the NT to support the necessity and importance of right-doctrine, so your straw-man just won’t hold.
December 26th, 2004 at 11:44 am
“I will point out, however, the complete lack of love people are showing for the “fundies” who are posting here.”
Nathan, just to address this issue, I don’t see your point. I don’t see any posts saying that the “fundies” are stupid, wrong and/or not Christian (I could see where some of the responses could be interpreted as fundies are not “Christ-like”, but that’s a bit different). I don’t see anyone on the liberal side saying the equivalent of this:
“People who sin by their homosexual lifestyle are not children of God.” (courtesy of Mr Finegan)for example.
Rereading the responses so far, the “fundies” are the only people in this conversation who are claiming to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To borrow a little from Brian McLaren, I’d say the “fundies” are demonstrating a “Parsimonious Orthodoxy”.
Nobody is calling even the likes of Chris P a non-Christian, but the reverse doesn’t seem to apply (see for example, the links under “Apostasy” on his blog.)
It’s really unhelpful to have the likes of Chris P in the conversation because he quickly stakes out the outrageous fundie extreme position and then it becomes hard to hear the more reasonable voices like your own. I try hard not to respond to him any more, as his posts are generally non-responsive to the conversation - they’re just hand grenades rolled into the room (pin out, of course).
I have absolutely nothing to gain in this conversation. I’m not gay, I don’t have many gay friends, and nothing would be easier for me than for this issue to go away. For some reason, though, God laid this on my heart as something that needs to be addressed and I’m trying to do that as best I can.
December 26th, 2004 at 12:24 pm
“I will point out, however, the complete lack of love people are showing for the “fundies” who are posting here. For a group of people that claims you’d rather have to answer to Jesus for loving someone you shoudln’t have, rather than not loving someone you should have, you are displaying a remarkable tendency to be intolerant, rude and judgmental.”
Listen to what I have to say, please. By telling homosexuals that they are living in sin and that by doing so they are in danger of hell, I am loving them. If I did not tell them, I would not be loving them because I would not care about their eternal destination.
In the same way, God loves all people. That does not mean he goes around telling people that their sin is not really sin. No, he reveals to them their sin so that they repent and turn to him for eternal life. So he loves them by showing them the truth, for their benefit.
I hope I’m making myself clear.
December 26th, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Oops, sorry about that, misread the quote. Still read the rest of my comment, it has some good points.
December 26th, 2004 at 1:02 pm
The basic problem in the arguments I am reading that hold fast to the notion that homosexuality is a sin is something I learned way back in freshman year logic. If you initial premise is flawed, then your subsequent argument will be flawed. For example:
“So doctrine i.e. the law of God becomes subordinate to our feel good philosophies, and have to change. The only doctrines that must change are the ones which violate the Word.”
Chris, doctrine is NOT the law of God. It is a human attempt to understanding God’s revealed word. To equate the two is to suggest that we actually know in totality what God said and continues to say. Neither you nor I nor anyone else in this post can make that claim. Then to argue that some doctrines must “change” is interesting. Should God change, based on your opinions? God is immutable, no?
Example two:
“Listen to what I have to say, please. By telling homosexuals that they are living in sin and that by doing so they are in danger of hell, I am loving them. If I did not tell them, I would not be loving them because I would not care about their eternal destination.
In the same way, God loves all people. That does not mean he goes around telling people that their sin is not really sin. No, he reveals to them their sin so that they repent and turn to him for eternal life. So he loves them by showing them the truth, for their benefit.
I hope I’m making myself clear.”
Michael, you begin and end your point by centering it in yourself. The flaw, though not stated as clearly as Chris’, is that you have the answer here. Otherwise, I cannot understand how such words would allow you to speak as though you might bring comfort. Several gay and Chrisian voices have said repeatedly in this discussion that such comments do not bring comfort, but rather pain. Jesus calls us to points out one another’s sins, but he is quite clear that we should not do so UNTIL we have recognized our own sins. This is wonderful hyperbole. I do not know a single Christian (and as I have said elsewhere, I am at the top of the list of those who have a lot of work to do on this one) who recognizes just how big the log in his or her own eye is. Jesus challenged someone without sin to cast the first stone. The point (of one of them, anyway) is that no one was without sin, so no one should be throwing stones. How is telling someone that they are going to hell a good thing? If I told you, in front of others, that your arrogance is in danger of sending you to hell, how would you react? You might be angry, and you would have every right to be angry because I would be completely out of line to say that. You have no idea if anyone is going to hell. God may, and that is God’s business. For any of us to assume responsibility for such things is a terrible, terrible thing to do. I disagree with you, but I will not condemn you; my heart is too black to do that.
As I was re-reading some of these posts, I kept thinking, would everyone involved sit down at a table together? Would everyone wash each other’s feet? There would be liars and thieves and rogues and prideful folks and gay people and lustful straight people and a bunch of other sins represented…just like the last supper. A professor of mine pointed out that statistically speaking, there was at least one gay person, maybe two, at the last supper, not to mention the man who betrayed Jesus Christ. The professor also reminded me that Christ said he would drink of the cup again with ALL of them in heaven. What a comforting and scary thought.
December 26th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
“I will point out, however, the complete lack of love people are showing for the “fundies” who are posting here. For a group of people that claims you’d rather have to answer to Jesus for loving someone you shoudln’t have, rather than not loving someone you should have, you are displaying a remarkable tendency to be intolerant, rude and judgmental.”
Pot, Kettle? Log in your eye?
We aren’t the once preaching hatred, intolerance and judgement masked as “love,” but for the record I haven’t seen any of what you’ve described going on here, and you haven’t seen it from me. But what I have seen from the fundies here is pretty typical. Michael up there thought it appropriate to state that that I am “not a child of God” and then make efforts to support that argument.
As if that was something constructive, or even appropriate.
And as for the rest of the content of your remark about rather having to answer to Jesus, etc. - I never said any of that. But we all die alone and we’ll all have to answer for ourselves alone; I don’t see why I should have to put up your BS here on Earth. NOW I said it.
December 26th, 2004 at 3:37 pm
ummm god help me if I end up in ‘heaven’ with any of you fundy guys - that would make for one boring party.
I really have a tough time reading through these sorts of debate - they seem so angry, vitriolic and de-personalised, as though gay people were simply things that need to be either got rid of or changed having no intrinsic value in and of themselves. This in complete contradiction to my own beliefs about Jesus and his actions towards ’sinners’.
I am not so sure that there is any value in discussing issues such as this in the blog format (sorry adam - just thinking out loud) - it seems to get nowhere and achive little except make everyone mad.
December 26th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
Please excuse the following, a smattering of my ideas on Christianity and homosexuality. My excuse is that it is the day after Christmas and I am tired from the business and “good cheer” of the season as well as the fullness of the immaculate joy that is realized to be the core of this tinsel-covered holiday.
As Christians, especially those of us who have chosen to use our God-given minds to think and to consider and to ponder, I believe that we often become lost in the theology, which often becomes man-created truth based on what God intended. What does this theologian say about homosexuality? Or that one? What position does this book hold? Or that one? We can surround ourselves with all the Christian theology that addresses the matter that we can. We can learn, we can explore by doing so, but ultimately, the only authoritative truth that exists on the matter is what lies in the Word itself. At the end of it all, what does it really matter what one man thinks and discusses when we can turn ourselves the the Word of God Himself, to the work which perpetuates our beliefs? It is the sole originator of who we are as Christian people, and it is the source that we should be turning to to discover what we are created for. Simply stated, part of what we are created for is to create. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman are unable to create. Does this make homosexuality morally wrong? Through much research, through much prayer, soul-searching and scripture-seeking, I don’t know. And I realize that it is not up to us to know. It is up to us, as a part of having faith in the sovereinty and the grace that IS God, to leave the issue with Him and to perhaps wait to find the answer once we have entered into eternity with Him.
I would like to suggest that God created man and woman to be united, to create new life together. Further, when it comes to passing judgment on the morality or immorality of homosexuality, I suggest that we each suspend judgment on the issue and leave it all to the perfect balance of justice that is God’s. Take it out of your hands and into His, where it belongs.
I would like to share a morsel of wisdom on this issue of chrisitianity and homosexuality that was shared with me years ago and remains with me still. A pastor who mentored me through my undergraduate studies suggested once that homosexual sin is no greater, or lesser, than heterosexual sin. We must face that, homosexual or heterosexual, we all commit sin of a sexual nature, and not one of us can claim to be exacted from it. Further still, sin itself must be separated from the sinner. We should not be defined by our homosexuality, heterosexuality, but by the truth that we are beloved sons and daughters of our Lord, created by Him and forgiven by Him.
I have friends who are gay; friends who are christian and gay; friends who are gay and in committed relationships, but aren’t Christian. Even friends who are Christian and gay and have made the difficult (and highly controversial) decision to remain celibate. I love these brothers and sisters of mine for all of the same reasons I love my friends who are heterosexual- because they are devoted and honest and true. And a joy to be with.
December 26th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
“How is telling someone that they are going to hell a good thing?”
Let me answer that question. It is a good thing because it is not to late for them to change and thus end up entering heaven. Jesus said in 4:17, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” He was telling the people to repent of their sins otherwise they would end up in hell. He was telling them to stop their sinful ways and turn to God.
Jesus was fully God. God is love. God was showing love by telling them to repent and become saved from hell.
I wish to do the same. I plead you with you people, repent of your sins, whether it is homosexuality or any thing else for that matter. It is not to late to turn to God for forgiveness.
To put it in the words of Peter in Acts 2:40, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
December 26th, 2004 at 6:43 pm
I would plead for grace to govern this conversation. It only takes a fundie phrase (either for those on the right wing or those on the left wing) to shipwreck this conversation. I think at the heart of this issue (as with many social and moral issue since the reformation) is the protestant crisis of authority since moving away from the magesterium and the ctholic line of authority. One only needs to read the previous posts in this conversation and ask where do the writers place authority? Is it tradition, scripture, reason, etc etc. We all use these different sources in our theology, just that we emphasise some more strongly than others, e.g. fundamentalist theology often proposes to be “biblical” and yet underlying it is a certain type of reason and reasoning (it is the same in a different way with liberal theology). I wonder if the various views on this issue are irreconcilable and the best we can do is to be honest about our methodology (where we base our authority and what sources we use) and our biases? This is a bit pessimistic but I do believe the differences are irreconcilable. I remember that you, Adam, posted a while ago about the need for a theology of sexuality and I wonder if the issue of homosexuality (along with so many other issues such as gender construction) would be better addressed in that broader perspective?
December 26th, 2004 at 7:40 pm
Thank you all for your comment. Unfortunately, I am beginning to agree with Gareth (and others) that this conversation and dialogue is just very difficult (if not impossible) to have over a blog. We may revisit this again, but for now…I still find it interesting that there have been 33 comments on this post, and only 4 people have commented on the fact that over 11,000 children of God have been killed in the last day and a half.