National Coming Out Day
October 11, 2006
Today is the Human Rights Campaign’s National Coming Out Day. They are encouraging people to "Talk About it" and for this year to be a year of conversation and people asking questions. I know that the Princeton Seminary BGLASS group will be wearing rainbow pins today - and I’m sure people both there and a few down here at Columbia will be wearing our "Gay? Fine by me." t-shirts. For those of you who are interested, Fine By Me has a new website up where you can buy t-shirts for your local school/church/community group or just 1-2 shirts for yourself. Also, if you reload the homepage enough (or just go to their Myspace page), you’ll see a nice shot of some Princeton Seminary students from last spring! So, whether you’re engaging in a day of silence today, or whether you’re sporting your shirt or just encouraging people to talk about it, I applaud anyone who is celebrating National Coming Out Day and showing support for the LGBT community.
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
October 11th, 2006 at 10:24 am
ingrid is going to have fits.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:31 am
equal right for all! i’m with you, up here in canada! thus spoke churchpundit!
October 11th, 2006 at 10:32 am
i meant “rights”. oops.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:42 am
While I love all people like Jesus, Jesus nevercondoned sin. However, He never pushed them away but He did so not in a condoning of sin way since He was “…yet without sin.” So I find it interesting that people would support people sinning which in fact is theexact opposite of what Jesus did in light of the clear passagesof Rom. 1, 1 Cor 6, etc. and the fact that Jesus didn’t sin and even explains that all sin in all of its forms is seperation from Himself. It seems to me Christians supporting this is an oxymoron to what Jesus taught.
October 11th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
unless you don’t see homosexuality as a sin, then it is totally congruent
October 11th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
being gay or lesbian or transgendered is not a sin so your point is kind of moot DH. Plus, we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and Jesus loves and hangs out with all of of us, even suffers and dies and rises for us…pretty beautiful thing…
October 11th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
being gay or lesbian or transgendered is not a sin so your point is kind of moot DH. Plus, we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and Jesus loves and hangs out with all of of us, even suffers and dies and rises for us…pretty beautiful thing…
Sorry, but that doesn’t even make sense? Who is arguing that Jesus doesn’t “hang out” with people who practice homosexuality? That is not the argument. The problem here is that many in the modern church either do not take sin seriously, or they have come to convince themselves that homosexual practice is not in and of itself sinful. Disregarding the exegetical issues involved for the moment, the argument cannot simply dwindle into a notion that people who oppose such groups as this one are opposing “Jesus hanging out and loving gay people”. At least try and understand the argument in its complexities.
Both sides here obviously want to love gay people. They also obviously disagree heavily with how that is to be carried out. If this is sin, love can only be encouragment in community, yet with an insistence that God offers healing and forgiveness. If it is not sin, then love will be seen as assisting people to be fully “self-actualized” in their homosexuality. Personally, I used to believe that the practice of homosexuality was not sinful. I have since changed in that oppinion. But it does not mean that I am allowed to ignore others oppinions on the issue with trite dismissals based on logical fallacies.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:58 am
I’m offended by this T shirt campaign Cleave, and it’s not for the reasons you probably think. I’m not Ingrid. ;-) I’ll write about it on my blog but just know that I think that this is a campaign by overly self-inflated people. If I were gay and saw someone walking around with a shirt like this I’d be really upset. What if people walked around with shirts that said “Woman? Fine By Me!” or “Jew? Fine By Me!” or “Latin? Fine By Me!” It implies that if the people wearing these shirts hadn’t said with these t-shirts that it was “fine by” them, that somehow it wouldn’t be.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:04 am
How is it mute in light of Scripture that is clear in regards to Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 (and these are NT passages this doesn’t even get into the OT passages)? I just don’t see from Scripture how anyone can say homosexuality is not a sin. I totally agree with Ringo. His response was so balanced. Just like Ringo said. Jesus did hang out with people and loved them as He also lovesus but He never condones sin. We all sin true but just because we all sin doesn’t make the particular sins any less in God’s eyes. The point is that Jesus made a way to deal with that sin by His death and resurrection and to enter into that way to deal with sin requires repentence. This starts by turning away from that sin that begins with accepting Christ as your Savior by Faith and Believing by Faith in Christ death and resurrection and Believing that Jesus is and at all times God.
Folks I love homosexual people just as much as I love all people who sin because I sin. However, there is a difference in heart to intentionally sin (rebellion) and the opposite which is unintentionally sin. Romans 1 gets into the progression of sin and shows how unitnentional sin leads to intentional sin which leads to rebellion,etc. When one recognizes particular sin there is a greeater chance that repentence can happen. When one intentionally sins how can repentence happen if they felt that they didn’t sin. It seems the latter is worse in that it is more difficult for repentence to happen.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Yawn.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Amen.
October 12th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
and this glorifies Christ how?
October 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
If the Bible was sooo clear on the issue, we clearly wouldn’t be having this debate or would we?
Also remember that white preachers and a majority of Christians in the late 1800s and early 1900s said that scripture was very clear that “blacks were inferior”
and that nearly all of the German clergymen and many German Christians in the 1930s, 40s and on said scripture was clear in saying Jews were inferior.
Everyone has their own interpreation although I think that often many who use scripture to condemn gays and lesbians forget about the context or we only apply the context when it’s convenient.
We don’t consider context when Leviticus speaks on males with males but we do with the verses pertaining to how it is a sin to touch pig skins. Otherwise, football wouldn’t be so celebrated.
Also when talking about this issue, it’s important to understand the difference in sex and sexuality…two very different things…we all sin in our sexuality, in our abuse of sexuality…to be attracted to another sex (even the same sex) and living in a faithful and committed relationship is not a sin.
Bottom line..it’s time to stop oppressing the voices of gays and lesbians and to recognize they are whom God has made.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:11 am
Bottom line..it’s time to stop oppressing the voices of gays and lesbians and to recognize they are whom God has made.
Again, you have made the classic Tillichian mistake. YOU are not the center of morality. No matter whay you believe, there must be a rational and moral basis for it through the Christian scriptures…(especially if you hold to a truth claim in Christianity).
I am so sick of this argument for the very reason that my people (Liberal theology) refuses to recognize that there ARE vast and varied scriptural references to the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality (as well as to the practice of various other sexual hubris, such as adultery, bestiality or child abuse). The problem is that most people don’t actualy take the time to read scripture and try and understand why people would support any action that involved loving those trapped in sexual sin and still communing with them and supporting them in the body of Christ. Granted, much evil has been done by the other side in silencing those who struggle with this issue and forcing them out of community. Thence again we get to the primary issue here: Just because someone has abused scripture in the past does not mean we have the right to ignore it and simply “progress” to a new scriptural understanding, or, even more, to ignore it. We must be responsible to God’s revealed word. We must also recognize the complexities involved in this discussion.
I myself used to believe that “fundamentalists” or “conservatives” were simply arrogant and ignorant on sexual issues. Now I have come to realize that they often times have a much higher understanding of scripture than I have had, and are willing to address such issues in scripture without dismissing them outright or simply allowing themselves to form a theology that is directly determined on their socially derived morality or understanding of some sort of “God consciousness”. Please people, do not emberass yourselves. (this includes you too Adam). Those who disagree with you may be much more intent in loving God and His scripture than we ourselves are…
October 13th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Leisl, I couldn’t agree more. My friends who happen to be gay are completely appalled by this. Maybe that’s because we’re more advanced in Australia than you Americans, I dunno. :)
Adam, if it’s so boring, then why bother to post? I used to think your blog was cool - but increasingly I wonder whether you just enjoy poking a stick into the bee’s nest. It’s not like you engage with anyone here or anything. Please prove me wrong!!
October 13th, 2006 at 3:51 am
Yeaah cleve, write a bloody comment and engage.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Ringo, you are totally right on. Keep on posting. You are a breath of fresh air to me. Thanks, :)
October 13th, 2006 at 10:08 am
I think people forget the NT passages on the subject. When you see that you really can’t state homosexuality isn’t sin because it is. Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6. I totally lookat adultry and other sins equal but to say homosexuality is not a sin I just can’t say from Scripture. I also feel like Ringo that is wrong to say it doesn’t say that it is sin. I think the black/white thing is just a “red-herring” to the points Ringo and I are making. Again, I love homosexuals I just don’t want to see them sin. Heck, I don’t want anybody to sin whatever it is. However, just because everybody sins doesn’t negate the fact thatparticular actions are sin. All people can repent and turn from their ways. To imply that homosexuals are unable to turn to me implies that God can’t do something. The God I believe can help people turn away from sin and that goes for ALL sin whatever it may be. You mention one God can helps us overcome it: “By the Word of the Lamb and the Word of our testimony.”
October 13th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I have an issue with the traditional interpretation of those verses. that is to say not that we should ignore them, or form an ethic based upon our feelings, but that I am not convinced that the traditional translation and interpretation of the new testament sections of scripture that deal with this are conclusive. sooo, make your case why i should be convinced. start with the greek
October 13th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Well I feel that the Bible is perfectly translated, inerent so when it mentions homosexuality it means all of its forms. Whenever we project what WE think it is that is when problems arise. Make your case why you have an issue with the traditional interpretation thatactually isn’t a traditional interpretation but what it is.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Maybe you “issue” or “inconclusivity” is based on your predispositions because that is not the case with me?
October 13th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
DH:
There’s your problem.
Exactly what translation is “perfect?” King James? Revised Standard? Living? Mine? Yours? or is it even in English? Is the “perfect” one in Swahili? or Finnish?
Every translation is done by humans, and every human is imperfect. Every translation is also an interpretation, and every interpretation is imperfect.
October 14th, 2006 at 12:49 am
I have an issue with the traditional interpretation of those verses. that is to say not that we should ignore them, or form an ethic based upon our feelings, but that I am not convinced that the traditional translation and interpretation of the new testament sections of scripture that deal with this are conclusive. sooo, make your case why i should be convinced. start with the greek
Wait. Let me get this straight. After roughly 2000 years of church teaching on the subject, you decide that the scriptures aren’t conclusive on the issue, and somehow it is up to the rest of us to defend it? Where I come from, that is called arrogance my friend.
Although, still I do believe that there is a very important element of church teaching that needs to take place on this in today’s churches. I would highly recommend to anyone in this discussion the book called “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views”. It has an essay by Dan O’Via, the pre-eminenet scholar who supports Homosexual practice, and another essay by Dr. Gagnon, the pre-eminent scholar who believes it is possible to love those who practice it while condeming it as sinful behavior. They also both are given a short space to rebut and respond to each others arguments. If you haven’t read this book…you need to. It definitely won’t convince you of anything, but it will help you understand the complexities involved.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:53 am
doing greek exegisis and making up my own mind is arrogant? wow, sounds to me like I am wasting my time in seminary then. as are all the women here who have decided the church has been wrong about women for a long time. of course not all time, thanks to women like thecla and junia we begin to see that maybe the church’s view on women is inconsistent. my suggestion is that those verses could be related to temple prostitution specifically and not homosexuality in general. the most obvious issue is romans, and I am not sure that i am convinced those are clear too. sooooo, seems to me if I am not sure I have to ask, “what is at stake?”. Until I am sure, I see no reason to condemn people. The reality is that they would need grace if they were gay or not, if they have accepted grace, why should I suspect their eternal life is in danger?
October 16th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
So Meghan,
If God can impart His words to mankind and is faithful to give them the exact words He wants which is in the Word of God, than can he not also ensure that they will be faithfully tranmitted down the line? If you dont think so, than you my friend have a very small view of God!
If He can do all the things that is written about Him in the “narrative” of the Bible than He can preserve His own words that He wants us to know!
What a shallow view of the awesome power of God! How sad!
Blessings,
October 16th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
May that is the problem in that you are not sure? Howdowe know it is just temple prostitution? I’m not condemning people people condemn themselves by living in sin whatever sin it may be.
However, one mustdefine homosexual. For meit is practicing homosexual vs. not. People canbetempted but temptation isn’t sin. However, we all shouldn’t desire to sin whatever it may be. I hope this gives a better idea and more respct for my particular view than before.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Truth Seeker,
If that were the case, why are there so many different translations?
And as I asked before, which one are you claiming to be the perfect one?
The belief that God dictated the Bible word for word is not now and, as far as I know, has never been a part of main stream Christian doctrine.
Islamic faith does hold that Allah dictated the Qu’ran verbatim to Mohammad, which is why they believe that the Qu’ran can never be translated. Allah spoke in Arabic and it is only God’s word in the Arabic.
Islam believes that the Qu’ran is the literal word of God, while Christianity holds that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and only Christ is the literal word of God.
That’s why the correct analogy is not “Qu’ran is to Islam as Bible is to Christianity,” but rather, “Qu’ran is to Islam as Christ is to Christianity.”
Yes, God could have done any and all of the things that you claim; but through most of the history of the Church, we have believed that God did not choose to do things that way.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
The bible also calls eating shellfish an abomination. So, if you’ve ever had shrimp or lobster, you are going straight to H…
April 8th, 2007 at 12:22 am
The bible also calls eating shellfish an abomination. So, if you’ve ever had shrimp or lobster, you are going straight to H…
Arguments like these are what happens when the church doesn’t focus on doctrine. A simple review of the doctrine of the Law illustrates that the Bible includes civil and ceremonial laws especially designed for the nation of Israel and moral laws that reflect the image of God and are thereby absolute and “trans-national.” The NT clearly explains that the church is not bound by the civil and ceremonial laws that governed the nation of Israel. However, the church is especially obligated to keep the moral law since failing to do so indicates a lack of love for the Savior (…if you love me, keep my commandments). So equating the eating of selfish (a ceremonial law for national Israel which the NT explicitly overturned for the church) with the issue of homosexuality (a moral law applied in the OT and NT to both Israel and the church) is another worn apples vs. oranges scenario.