Tony Campolo: Are Evangelicals Fixated on Homosexuality?
Sigmund Freud would have something to say about the ways in which we evangelicals seem to be fixated on homosexuality. That fixation became abundantly clear to me recently when I was doing radio interviews upon the publication of my most recent book, Letters to a Young Evangelical. The book has 21 chapters, yet on every one of the two dozen interviews that I had on Christian radio stations, I had to spend at least 80 percent of my air time concentrating on the few pages that dealt with homosexuality.
The primary focus of the questioning during these interviews focused on my assertions, based on my own research and a survey of literature on the subject, that nobody has come up with a conclusive explanation of what causes a homosexual orientation, and that it develops so early in the bio-physical and social development of children that it's practically impossible that it could be something that is deliberately chosen. It seemed to me that the interviewers were not willing to accept what I had to say, and wanted me to commit to one of two other options that I believe to be erroneous. The first was the suggestion that the homosexual orientation is the result of poor socialization. This is the commonly held belief among those evangelicals who head up ministries that propose to “deliver” homosexuals and make them into heterosexuals. The most cited version is that a boy overly identifies with a dominant mother, while his father is either absent from the household or is a somewhat weak personality. This theory puts already upset and confused parents of gays on unnecessary guilt trips.
The other theory often proposed in these interviews was that being homosexual is somehow the result of trauma resulting from the gay person being sexually molested as a child.
The reasons for these beliefs were all too obvious to me. If either of these theories had validity, then it could be said that homosexuals who wanted to change could do so by making the decision to be open to the work of God in their lives and getting some good Christian counseling. When I questioned such conclusions, the interviewers usually came back at me by claiming that if I did not accept what they were saying, then I must be implying that the homosexual orientation was inborn. That, to them, was unthinkable because accordingly, this would lead to the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are, and that we should accept them as such. Over and over, I would have to repeat that nobody knows definitively what establishes same-sex attraction in persons - and again I would have to assert that what we do know is that it is practically never the result of any conscious decision.
The interviewers immediately sensed that I was suggesting that there are no easy answers that we evangelicals can offer to gays and lesbians who ask us about changing their sexual orientation. I added to their anxieties when I went on to say that it is very rare that sexual orientations ever do change. I never say “never” because with God miracles are always possible. I make it clear, however, that barring miracles, we evangelicals have little to offer in the way of positive suggestions for those who are struggling with being homosexual in a homophobic world. In reality, we only have two proposals - celibacy, which is my answer; and monogamous partnerships, which is an answer posed by my wife.
In my book, Letters to a Young Evangelical, I point out that there is an emerging new generation of young evangelicals who are still conservative on their views on homosexual behavior, but refuse to make gay marriage the defining issue that it has become for older Christians. Instead, these young people are more concerned with such issues as poverty, the AIDS crisis, the environment, and war. It is no surprise, therefore, that they take Bono as their model for Christian activism. This rock singer who has raised their consciousness about the crisis in Africa is working hard to eliminate Third World debts. Bono is committed to the causes that young evangelicals deem significant and they are joining with enthusiasm in his crusade to “Make Poverty History.”
In many instances, those in this new generation are even reluctant to accept being called evangelicals. They sense that the label “evangelical” is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset. Instead, they are increasingly calling themselves Red Letter Christians. This name, of course, associates them with those verses in scripture that record the words that Jesus spoke, which in many Bibles are printed in red. That I affirm this designation and promote this new label in my book often greatly disturbs my interviewers. They quickly remind me that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. “That’s right!” I respond. “He most likely maintained ancient Jewish laws on the matter, but condemning gays was not on His big-ten hit list, while attacking judgmental religious people was.”
In Letters to a Young Evangelical, I call young people to move beyond the preoccupation with sexual issues that have so absorbed the discussion of the over-50s crowd and coalesce into a new movement that is committed to also include a whole range of other crucial social justice issues. I let them know that while they ought not to neglect sexual issues, they really must move beyond them and overcome the fixation on homosexuality that I found so evident in my recent radio interviews. Embracing a Christianity that deals with the broad spectrum of social concerns that are relevant to living out love and justice in the 21st century is required for an emerging church of young evangelicals. Any other kind of Christianity will prove irrelevant to them.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University.
The primary focus of the questioning during these interviews focused on my assertions, based on my own research and a survey of literature on the subject, that nobody has come up with a conclusive explanation of what causes a homosexual orientation, and that it develops so early in the bio-physical and social development of children that it's practically impossible that it could be something that is deliberately chosen. It seemed to me that the interviewers were not willing to accept what I had to say, and wanted me to commit to one of two other options that I believe to be erroneous. The first was the suggestion that the homosexual orientation is the result of poor socialization. This is the commonly held belief among those evangelicals who head up ministries that propose to “deliver” homosexuals and make them into heterosexuals. The most cited version is that a boy overly identifies with a dominant mother, while his father is either absent from the household or is a somewhat weak personality. This theory puts already upset and confused parents of gays on unnecessary guilt trips.
The other theory often proposed in these interviews was that being homosexual is somehow the result of trauma resulting from the gay person being sexually molested as a child.
The reasons for these beliefs were all too obvious to me. If either of these theories had validity, then it could be said that homosexuals who wanted to change could do so by making the decision to be open to the work of God in their lives and getting some good Christian counseling. When I questioned such conclusions, the interviewers usually came back at me by claiming that if I did not accept what they were saying, then I must be implying that the homosexual orientation was inborn. That, to them, was unthinkable because accordingly, this would lead to the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are, and that we should accept them as such. Over and over, I would have to repeat that nobody knows definitively what establishes same-sex attraction in persons - and again I would have to assert that what we do know is that it is practically never the result of any conscious decision.
The interviewers immediately sensed that I was suggesting that there are no easy answers that we evangelicals can offer to gays and lesbians who ask us about changing their sexual orientation. I added to their anxieties when I went on to say that it is very rare that sexual orientations ever do change. I never say “never” because with God miracles are always possible. I make it clear, however, that barring miracles, we evangelicals have little to offer in the way of positive suggestions for those who are struggling with being homosexual in a homophobic world. In reality, we only have two proposals - celibacy, which is my answer; and monogamous partnerships, which is an answer posed by my wife.
In my book, Letters to a Young Evangelical, I point out that there is an emerging new generation of young evangelicals who are still conservative on their views on homosexual behavior, but refuse to make gay marriage the defining issue that it has become for older Christians. Instead, these young people are more concerned with such issues as poverty, the AIDS crisis, the environment, and war. It is no surprise, therefore, that they take Bono as their model for Christian activism. This rock singer who has raised their consciousness about the crisis in Africa is working hard to eliminate Third World debts. Bono is committed to the causes that young evangelicals deem significant and they are joining with enthusiasm in his crusade to “Make Poverty History.”
In many instances, those in this new generation are even reluctant to accept being called evangelicals. They sense that the label “evangelical” is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset. Instead, they are increasingly calling themselves Red Letter Christians. This name, of course, associates them with those verses in scripture that record the words that Jesus spoke, which in many Bibles are printed in red. That I affirm this designation and promote this new label in my book often greatly disturbs my interviewers. They quickly remind me that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. “That’s right!” I respond. “He most likely maintained ancient Jewish laws on the matter, but condemning gays was not on His big-ten hit list, while attacking judgmental religious people was.”
In Letters to a Young Evangelical, I call young people to move beyond the preoccupation with sexual issues that have so absorbed the discussion of the over-50s crowd and coalesce into a new movement that is committed to also include a whole range of other crucial social justice issues. I let them know that while they ought not to neglect sexual issues, they really must move beyond them and overcome the fixation on homosexuality that I found so evident in my recent radio interviews. Embracing a Christianity that deals with the broad spectrum of social concerns that are relevant to living out love and justice in the 21st century is required for an emerging church of young evangelicals. Any other kind of Christianity will prove irrelevant to them.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
To answer the question: Yes. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 13, 2007 8:17 PM
I think the obsession with homosexuality is linked to the concern taht it is one of the biggest threats to the disruption of the traditional family - along with promiscuity and infidelity, divorce, and women outside the home. Evangelicals have lost each successive round - homosexuality is the next thing on the cusp of becoming socially and morally accepted, so I think they see this as the current front in a war they've been losing. I think the obsession is ultimately misguided, but it is not entirely without cause. At its best it represents a sincere concern about moral relativism, and I think we have to engage on that level before we can engage about homosexuality in particular. Otherwise we'll just be seen as pickinga nd choosing whichever doctrines and rules are easiest for us. I don't think this is the case, and to say so requires us to firmly establish that we are gravely concerned about the spiritual consequeces of an anything goes culture but that we legitimately have questions about scriptural context and modern science that traditionally have been allowed a place in all theological debates - we must not re-try Galileo.
Posted by: Daniel | February 13, 2007 8:40 PM
Ironically, my blog today is about homosexuality (sorta).
I think a major component of the controversy has to do with the fact that people see sexual ethics as a hurdle to experiencing God. People (not just evangelicals) are naturally infatuatated with sex, and so any limitations on the practice (homosexual or otherwise) often rise to the top of controversial subjects.
While I personally endeavor to emphasize other aspects of the Christian faith, it seems like the topic always comes up. A friend will say that he or she cannot accept a faith that does not allow homosexuality.
I am left with three options in this scenario: I can lie, and say I do not believe the Bible forbids homosexuality; I can change the subject, which leaves the hurdle intact; or I can explain what the Bible has to say on the matter.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 13, 2007 8:56 PM
biggest threats to the disruption of the traditional family How come nobody talks about divorce when this point comes up. Divorce rates are epidemic both within the Church and in the larger society. Children suffer from the process of divorce well into their adult lives and Jesus was very clear on the Biblical status of divorce.
Yet there seems to be a great deal more sympathy for the fact that divorce is not a black-and-white issue. And I agree - it isn't. And yet the same attitutdde is not extended towards homosexuals.
Posted by: splinterlog | February 13, 2007 9:01 PM
hey sense that the label evangelical is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset. Instead, they are increasingly calling themselves Red Letter Christians --Who are "they" who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? Thankfully, I've not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo.
Posted by: jesse | February 13, 2007 9:12 PM
"How come nobody talks about divorce when this point comes up. " My church certainly does. I think, though, that it goes back to the controversial element. If the church is opposed to divorce, that's not going to raise any eyebrows or generate any controversy.
I would say that churches srongly advocate abstinence before marriage, which contributes immensely to healthy marriages.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 13, 2007 9:28 PM
I enjoyed this article a whole lot. I am one of these younger evangelicals who thinks that homosexuality should not be the big deal that it is.
The way it comes across to me is that my parents' generation feels that they dropped the ball with prayer in school and abortion and so they are trying to compensate by fighting against this issue that is so pervasive in our American culture.
Posted by: Jeremy | February 13, 2007 9:30 PM
Man's inhumanity towards Man, which can be traced back to the almighty dollar in all cases of injustices!
Posted by: Barbara | February 13, 2007 9:50 PM
Tony, Given that these interviewers wanted to focus on homosexuality, I hope you will have opportunity at some point to talk to other interviewers about the values that you address in the book. To answer your question whether evangelicals are fixated on homosexuality, I think that focus occurs more broadly than just evangelicals. I think fear of the unknown is behind the political movement to deprive gay and lesbian persons of their right to associate and to adopt children and to have rights of survival as do heterosexual couples. And it seems to me that some openly gay and lesbian persons demonstrate a loving relationship with their partner and with their children that contrasts significantly with the disloyalty and violence that occurs in some heterosexual couples and between them and their children.
Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 13, 2007 10:20 PM
In the inner city where we live this is pretty much a non issue. It isn't that we do not have individuals who are homosexual but usually we are dealing with so many problems that are more basic that by the time this comes up we are probably friends. It always helps when we put a face to all these monikers we seemed to collect and then cast around. If I am dealing with "Mark", who happens to be a homosexual, I do not have much of a problem. If i am dealing with the topic of homosexuality everything gets confused. At my old church there was an Aids victim. He had lived a terrible life no matter what your standards might be. He was full of guilt, not for who he was so much as what he had done, (others were infected because of him) and very depressed. I would wake up in the middle of the night to find him drunk on my lawn. We spent many hours together talking through every angle of his life just as I would with an alcoholic or drug addict, or someone who had gone through a death or a divorce. I never felt any inclination to chide him for his sexual orientation. I will always count Mark as my friend. He committed suicide after years of battleing both his disease and his homosexuality. I am glad to say he had many Christian friends who went out of their way to help him, to love him and to accept him. None of us were comfortable with the issue but amazingly we were all comfortable with Mark. Because of him we do not make statements as a church about Homosexuality. We try to live relationally with the people God brings us. It is so much easier to do this than any other way I can think of.
Posted by: Wayne | February 13, 2007 11:29 PM
Some evangelicals are obsessed with homosexuality, and the treatment of homosexual sin by some goes beyond hatred of sin and is likely fueled by prejudice, disgust, and things not Christ-like. But there are a few other reasons why it is a hot topic with evangelicals: 1) It represents the most prominent direct challenge to orthodox christianity and scriptural authority. It's important to those both in the "sin" and "not sin" camps, as it should be (because sin is important to God--as is equality, if that's where you fall on the issue). This isn't going to change anytime soon. 2) In certain countries (e.g., Canada), it has become prohibited for Christians to speak publicly of homosexuality as if it were a sin. Thus, it represents an important issue of religious freedom for those in the orthodox camp.
Posted by: jesse | February 13, 2007 11:52 PM
Jesse, Your comment bring up a very complex issue and that issue is sola scriptura. For those that believe in that (I am not one of them) I find ancient Israelite law and commentary non-binding. But for many they see it as eternal. The Romans passage is all about not being a hypocrite and judging people. It's interesting to note that Paul says what he says and then points out that those reading it are hypocrites and they should not be that way. I think many times people twist the bible and the message of grace to find a scapegoat. When this country was founded it was black and the indigenous people, now it's the LGBTQ community. I think that's the real problem and it's the elephant in the room that no one is really talking about. That community faces discrimination and condemnation on a scale that very few here even understand. Instead of finding ways to lessen that and be loving to people that practice a lifestyle that is not fully palatable they judge, condemn, teach hate and exhort people to treat them like they are not children of the living God. Those activities done by evangelicals to defend the scriptures points to a lack of faith, empathy and love for the broken. The bible doesn't need any of us to stand up for it. What the Bible calls us to do is love God and your neighbor. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 12:13 AM
I think Tony is right to a certain extent. For openers, we as a society -- especially the libertines and the prudes -- are too fixated on sex and sexual expression. But in other ways we miss the point. Marriage as God designed it is not simply "one man, one woman for life" -- it in practice exists for strengthening families and communities, not personal fulfillment. This is why marriages were arranged in centuries past (and in Oriental cultures still are) -- the idea of "hormones" determining whom we should marry can be (and as the divorce rate has demonstrated, has been) dangerous. FWIW, the only Biblical justification for opposing homosexual behavior in the first place, especially in the church. is that it belongs to the God-rejecting "world system."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 12:29 AM
--Who are "they" who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? Thankfully, I've not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo. jesse | 02.13.07 - 4:17 pm | #
Jesse, It was when I gave up on the Old Testament that I was able to have a faith. I was and am a Red Letter Christian before I ever heard of the term. With that mind set if the question of homosexuality was so important why didn't Christ deal with the question clearly and firmly? My faith says to study and summit myself to the teaching of the clergy and act out of my conscience but not to get too involved in others behavior or faith. To tell someone else how to behave is taking God's job. I know God's will for me but not for anyone else. I want to help the poor for example, feed them, but not tell them they must eat and what they must eat.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 12:31 AM
Interesting statistic, gays in committed relationships last longer that marriages.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 12:35 AM
Considering people are branded "homophobes" for simply stating homosexuality is a sin, I think it's time more CHRISTAINS stood up for Biblical values, rather than political correctness.
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | February 14, 2007 12:46 AM
Of course, Catholics should just 'turn the other cheek" (shut up and take it?) whn a couple of biggoted femi-=nazis brand them ALL "M*****F***ers"; like the Edwards bloggers did.
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | February 14, 2007 12:48 AM
Wayne, Your story about Mark and the persons who provided comfort to him is a wonderful example of treating people the way Jesus would want us to do. Please contact me at hayesmike@InsightBB.com and let's do some follow up on this with others who support the values in "God's Politics"!
Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 14, 2007 12:50 AM
Kris, Condemning homosexuals for something they can't change is wrong. I am not standing up for political correctness when I stand up for LGBTQ community. I could care less about being PC. I stand up for them because they are the least in our society and Jesus tells us to love the least. I stand up for them because they deserve the right to stand up and live a "sinful" life that has nothing to do w/ you. Being "right" about this issue won't help you get into heaven quicker and will do more to bring condemnation on a group that we should be loving and forgiving. May God forgive you for standing up for righteousness at the expense of loving.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 12:58 AM
Butch wrote: Interesting statistic, gays in committed relationships last longer that marriages. Yes it is interesting. You got a source for that? Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 14, 2007 1:15 AM
May God forgive you for standing up for righteousness at the expense of loving. Payshun | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 8:03 pm
Pay that is Kris's righteousness and not the righteousness of everyone.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 1:23 AM
Wolv, sorry I don't have a ref, if I could remember I would have given the ref.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 1:29 AM
It was when I gave up on the Old Testament that I was able to have a faith. Amazingly, I was only able to have a faith when I gave up the Red Letter Bible and embraced the "Old Testament".
Posted by: Scott | February 14, 2007 2:15 AM
Amazed that God would reveal himself in different ways to different people? Some believe that they know the only way and God chose them out of the billions of people to reveal the exact truth. Way to arrogant to me.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 2:39 AM
Oh. So you were anti-Jewish all along. OK. Actually, your religion teaches that we are the chosen people, even though it sends us off to hell. I don't know why I ever bother to read anything Christian, because I always wind up reading what Christians think of us - especially if they don't know we're reading.
Posted by: Scott | February 14, 2007 3:16 AM
Scott
Why would you a Jew read one comment and then assign it to an entire group? I love the Old Testament. The theology of the prophets transformed my faith and actually restored my Christian faith. My favorite book is Ezekiel. The prophets and their message of hope and life were given first to the Jews but has implications for the entire world.
So can we please return to talking about the real issue here, homosexuality and evangelicals obsession w/ it and how they can learn to be loving and compassionate people? p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 3:42 AM
Scott, I don't think I'm anti-jewish but jews do seem to pay the victim card.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 3:58 AM
Scott, One more thing. I am sorry if anyone has told that you or your race are going to hell. Anyone that has said that is truly a fool and has not read their scriptures too well. For God and God alone can determine that. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 4:02 AM
Pay why play nice, Scott sneaked in like a terrorist then ran off claiming he was the victim instead of the attacker.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 4:07 AM
Sorry, but the concept of "Marriage as God designed it" isn't much of an argument, considering most who bring up that argument are arguing for marriage as it is idealized in the modern U.S. The Western concept of marriage has evolved over the last century into something very different than "traditional" marriage of the few thousand preceding years. Or is being required to marry your brother's widow because she's property to be inherited (a la Deut. 25:5)something we should re-institute?
Posted by: poetographer1967 | February 14, 2007 4:10 AM
Payshun, I agree with you that we should be loving to homosexuals. Do you think it's possible, though, to love them while also holding to the view that homosexual behavior is sinful?
It seems to me that, though McLaren, Bass, and others try to ignore this issue or downplay its importance, there's not really room for compromise. People who do not believe their homosexual behavior is sinful are only likely to go to a church that openly accepts their behavior, blesses gay marriages, etc. Evangelicals, of course, will not have that. So then what? Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like?
Posted by: jesse | February 14, 2007 4:13 AM
Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like? I think it would not look like denying them legal rights that are available to everyone else. Here in Indiana, there is a bill pending in the state legislature that could potentially invalidate even the civil contracts (medical power of attorney, joint ownership of homes) we must spend good money to secure, because they "resemble" benefits of marriage. My personal feeling is such invalidation would not hold up to a constitutional standard, but I don't want to be the first person to fight that battle while someone I love lays injured in a hospital...
Posted by: poetographer1967 | February 14, 2007 4:19 AM
Right, well without getting political (since we only vote once every two years or so), what would evangelicals loving them look like?
Posted by: jesse | February 14, 2007 4:23 AM
Completely unfair to throw in "without getting political" since it's primarily the Evangelical movement that pushes such legislation to the fore. And the state legislature votes all the time, not just "every two years." Sometimes the most "love" you can ask for is just to be left alone when you're not bothering anyone. And maybe a little humility in the face of a changing understanding of the human condition. Not all that long ago, the mentally ill were considered possessed or witches or just generally evil, when they knew it wasn't true. Not a perfect analogy for homosexuality, since it's not an illness, but a pretty good analogy for how, even with the best intentions, religionists can get it wrong. And please don't misread "religionist" as a slight against any person of faith; I consider myself a Christian and attend a Christian church.
Posted by: poetographer1967 | February 14, 2007 4:36 AM
Jesse, I personally don't think so not w/o condemning them. I think the notion that condemnation comes thru sexual behavior needs to be reworked and instead of insisting that their sexual behavior is a sin try affirming their basic humanity and saying they are not condemned. Jesus came and ended condemnation for all. Even if they rejected Christ grace can be extended to show they are of infinite value. When I studied Hosea and other sinners like Peter (attempted murder,) sex freaks like Solomon... I am reminded that God oftentimes ignored some of their sin in one way or another. (Folks please don't think I am comparing homosexuality to murder, I am not.)
Like w/ Peter attempting to chop off the servants ear. He was really aiming for his head. But yet all Christ said to him was Those who use the sword die by it. I find it odd that more was not made of this.
Or how God ignores Solomon's idolatrous ways and still gives him a dream where he recieves wisdom.
I think what needs to be extended is grace and love. Like the love the Father showed the prodigal so we Christians should rush at our LGBTQ brethren and welcome them home into God's love. (i know that sounds cheesy.) But it really does begin there. A great example is saying w/ all sincerty "God loves you. or that I love you." When you see people like the Phelp's defend them. when you hear people make drop f-bombs or other disrespectful terms stand up for them. Do whatever you think is necessary to show that they matter. More tomorrow. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 4:39 AM
If I were gay I would say I don't want your love or hate, leave me alone get out of my business. Lock your church doors I don't want in.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 4:44 AM
Payshun - I like your response better than mine. Sadly, I have been on the receiving end of some Phelps-like behavior, and don't realistically expect any Evangelicals to come to my defense as a human being loved by God any time soon. Of course, I hope to be proved wrong any day now!
Posted by: poetographer1967 | February 14, 2007 4:45 AM
Two theories on why evangelicals fixate on homosexuality.
One, it's the mote in someone else's eye, not the log in theirs. They're either straight or pretending to be straight; homosexuality is someone else's sin, not theirs, so they can feel superior instead of having to repent. If they gave as much air time to greed, hypocrisy, and divorce - the sins Jesus took the trouble to personally condemn - they'd have to start feeling guilty themselves. It's more fun to be the Pharisee in the temple, thanking God for making you better than other men, than it is to be the publican beating your breast. Two, a sense of unfairness. Evangelicals hold themselves (and each other) to fairly strict codes of sexual behaviour. Homosexuals break this code six ways from Sunday, and get away with it, and have joyful parades celebrating the fact. Think how an older child feels seeing their younger siblings get away with things they used to get spanked for, and multiply that feeling by a thousand.
Posted by: Aquari | February 14, 2007 4:59 AM
Pay, Jesse, Aquari good points, clearly today is not the first day you've considered these matters. My question is; do televangelist do more than lay people?
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 5:30 AM
"I agree with you that we should be loving to homosexuals. Do you think it's possible, though, to love them while also holding to the view that homosexual behavior is sinful? " So far the answer is almost always "No". The Church has proved this time and again as Tony has pointed out. I flip-flop on both sides of this issue and need to believe that I'd rather err on the side of grace than on the side of condemnation.
Even on this thread there has been much discussion about homophobia and how Evangelicals can't be labeled such. Then we go on to explain that "we're" afraid that "they'll" ruin the family system. We fear homosexuals. We want to shelter our children from homosexuals because we're afraid like in "saved" that they'll "catch gay".
An earlier comment about putting a face and name to homosexuals is the key. What if we sought to mend relationships with homosexuals by being an advocate for their rights. I wonder what that would do for our standing not only in the gay community, but also in the mids of the unchurched. 20 years from now denominations who sit on the condemnation side will look like churches in the south during the 60s who stood in the way of progress and equality.
Posted by: christian | February 14, 2007 9:53 AM
Right, well without getting political (since we only vote once every two years or so), what would evangelicals loving them look like? Ed Dobson answers that question in the book "Blinded by Might."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 12:35 PM
Tony,
The Apostle Paul warned us about people like you. He said in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, that laws that forbid homosexual behavior are sound doctrine, and according to the glorious gospel of God. He then wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3,4 that the time would come when they would not endure sound doctrine. You bunch of apostates are fulfilling scripture. You need to repent and believe the gospel.
Posted by: Don Costello | February 14, 2007 1:20 PM
This is nothing in scripture in which child molesting is a sin. In fact a molester who had the ability to marry a child, get permission from their parents could actually back this one up biblically. Child molesting other than being sinful out of wed-lock is what the sin actually would be.
My point is that in scripture that God stipulates that sex out of the confines of marriage is a sin. This would unfortunately hit most of us. Whether it is sex prior to marriage, sex with another partner while married that's adultery. Actually scripture says by Paul if you remarry you are actually committing adultery against your first partner. How many of us are guilty of this one. It is so easy to look at the sins of others. It reminds me of the - you look at the splinter in someone else's eye but don't remove the log in your own.
It seems to me it isn't difficult to show love and compassion for someone who is gay. And it shouldn't be difficult for us to not judge these people because we are all guilty of sin. And for all out there who have been blessed with never, ever committing any type of sexual sin, well - there's no chance you haven't committed sin, God makes that clear.
We are all in the same boat. We all sin, we all for short of the Glory of God. Yet, he loves us anyway. All of us, all of us. He tells we are to show that love to all others. He did we are to represent him.
It would be nice if as Christian's we could just step away from judging others. And love them. Allow God to work and move in others lives. He is the God of miracles and transformation.
Posted by: HASH(0x1297b150) | February 14, 2007 1:49 PM
2) In certain countries (e.g., Canada), it has become prohibited for Christians to speak publicly of homosexuality as if it were a sin. Thus, it represents an important issue of religious freedom for those in the orthodox camp.
Jesse-Where did you get this little snippet of misinformation? We in Canada have given gays the rights of marriage, but we have not taken away the right of people who disagree to speak! In fact lots of Christians have worked hard to try to have the legislation, and politicians who supported it, changed. Unsuccessfully thank goodness! I think, in the political realm it is a matter of justice, not religion. If churches want to refuse to bless marriages of gays, (or divorcees) that is their right. But they cannot discriminate against those same people when it comes to jobs, or access to the other rights of any citizen of Canada. That is the law in Canada. I want my church to debate the spiritual issues of sexuality vigorously and honestly, but I want my church to clearly stand for justice and condemn discrimination! I think this piece should make for very good discussion. I happen to disagree with Tonys' position that gays should be celibate. If God made them the way they are, and I believe that, then they should celebrate who they are fully.
Posted by: John | February 14, 2007 2:29 PM
Jesse, Wow, you've asked two really insightful questions here!
what would evangelicals loving them look like? I think this is poignant. Out of all denominations I like the Methodist Churchs response. In a theological sense, they allow homosexuals to be baptized members in communion and to continually present their case, but they hold it to be a sin until the church receives something clearer on the matter. Despite great diversity of views there is, in general, a lot of humility and goodwill in those relationships. There is recognition that sometimes we do reach a new understanding, especially about Paul - women's head coverings, slavery, and the perfection of all governments being readily available examples. But there is also recognition of the serious risk posed by changing Christianity in a way that also happens to correspond with secular philosophical changes - it could be infection of the church by the world. There is prayer and seeking together and a commitment to help each other and seek God together. Basically, I do not see such humility in the Evengelical camp. In fairness, I do not see much in the secular homosexual activist camp either. A little humility and compassion by either would go a long way.... Who are "they" who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? Thankfully, I've not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo. The question that gives rise to the RLC perspective is 'What do we do when the Bible and Christian tradition are in conflict with the Gospels?' For example, Jesus regards [heterosexual] marriage as God's intention for each of our lives but Paul views it as the refuge of the weak. So should we approach marriage in the shame of defeat by our passions or in the glory of the blessings of the LORD? And what of Leviticus? Should we stone our backtalking son? Should we cancel out the crime of a rapist as long as he offers to marry the victim?
These moral quandries gave rise to a central idea: Jesus is the definitive revelation of God in time. God is also revealed through the rest of scripture, manifested in the experiences of God we find there, and certainly through the Holy Spirit and the universe around us. But in Jesus we have a direct reflection of God. If Jesus says that we should treat others as we would have the treat us, if he tells us to forgvive seventy times seven, if he tells us the first shall be last and the last first - then the laws of Leviticus very often fail the test of the red letters. RLC Christians affirm openly that ALL scripture must be interpreted in this way, through what we see of God in Jesus Christ. Fundamentalism began largely as the Calvinist/Presbyterian response to this very idea. Gresham Machen's writings give a pretty good account of the conservative position and traces can be found in CS Lewis. basically, they argue, liberals take Jesus to be the exhaustive revelation of God because they want to be able to ignore the rest of God's revelations, which are considerably less in tune with the current Zeitgeist. This, they argued, is dropping the Trinity and teh Bible and focusing exclusively on Jesus. And liberalism further sees Jesus as an example of faith rather than the object of it. So it is Christocentric and it fails at even that! When presented with the crucial problem here - that our experiences of God are more like Jesus raising the dead than they are like Yahweh killing the innocents of Egypt - conservative protestants retrenched and invented the doctrines about dispensations - God has not changed but he has changed how he deals with us. Why, in such a world, we should continue to subscribe the laws of the old dispensation I don't fully understand.
At the end of the day, I agree with Tolstoy We either choose Moses or we choose Jesus, but we can't have them both as primary. One of them has to be secondary.
Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2007 2:32 PM
I asked my sister why it is that homosexuality is treated as the sin to end all sins when there are others that Jesus spent much more time preaching about? Her response was rather profound. Homosexuality is the one "sin" that truly straight people would never engage in, so if they make it the worst of sins then it gives the holier-than-thou folks moral superiority.
Posted by: liz | February 14, 2007 2:39 PM
liz, That is an interesting idea. I believe something that can be extrapolated from Tony's post is that the repression of anything that looks like homosexuality tends to lead to obsession and even addiction to that very thing. I do not believe Ted Haggard is gay, for example. The trouble with evaluating these perspectives is that sex is often taboo and people lie to cover their sexual sins so that we don't really know who's doing what....
Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2007 2:44 PM
I should have posted this before but liz's comment above got me to thinking about it. Some folks may get something from reading JS Spong's argument that the apostle Paul was a tortured, celebate gay man: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_1.html .
Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2007 2:49 PM
I know this was off the topic, but I wanted to respond to this. "Scott, I don't think I'm anti-jewish but jews do seem to pay the victim card" This would get a strong reaction if someone uttered that same sentence, substituting "blacks" for "jews". Not arguing the merit of the statement, just making an observation. Back to regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 14, 2007 3:42 PM
I think that it deserves mention that homosexuality is more complicated than simply one's sexual orientation. And secular studies have shown that one's sexual orientation is not immutable and is likely (as shown by Gunter Dorner) caused by the hormonal balance formed in the brain while we are fetuses. But more importantly, it seems that homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen and there are legitimate concerns about the US becoming more like Europe and some parts of the US, where a neo-pagan "metrosexuality" is prevalent. I don't find that concern validated by Dr. Campolo or Jim Wallis. But I think one could rightly add that the way to deal with such problems is not to try and enshrine male and female marriage in our constitution. If the matter is truly one of cultural change, it cannot be dealt with from the top-down, but rather must be engaged from the bottom up. dlw
Posted by: dlw | February 14, 2007 3:45 PM
"Her response was rather profound. Homosexuality is the one "sin" that truly straight people would never engage in, so if they make it the worst of sins then it gives the holier-than-thou folks moral superiority." There is probably some truth to this, though I don't think you have to be holier-than-thou to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
In my church, we nuance our position to recognize that homosexuality is a sin, but that it is no different from any other sexual sin, or divorce. I think a lot of churches are coming to that realization, and it does help.
However, there are also those who will say you are a bigot if you believe that homosexuality is wrong. Naturally, people don't like to be called bigots, and that element fuels the fire as well.
I would say that, among almost everybody who is straight, there is some natural feeling of moral superiority. At my (very liberal) college, there was more latent animosity toward homosexuals than I have ever seen at my church.
Everybody wants to find some higher ground from which to spit on everyone else. In a way, we can see this with child molestors. That's the one thing group we can all agree is too awful. Why? Cause none of us (gay or straight) can understand the impulse.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 14, 2007 4:02 PM
Daniel, Though wouldn't you still say that, among Methodists, there are conservative churches that believe homosexuality is a sin and liberal churches that do not, and homosexuals generally go to the latter type? What the denomination (a few higher ups) as a whole does is another story... I think there are two issues at play here which have come up in some of your comments: 1) Is homosexual behavior sinful? 2) How should the church treat sin? Some have said that we should all acknowledge that we sin and we're all broken. I don't think you'd find many to argue with this point. But then what? If God hates sin, sin separates us from God, we were made to be near to God, and church is meant to bring everyone nearer to God, wouldn't it behoove us to, with grace and humility, confront our brothers and sisters who are in sin in order to "remove the speck from our brother's eye"? Think of it the same way as a family member who is forced to confront his brother about a drinking problem. Most would think this would be appropriate for him to do. His drinking is hurting himself and others. If all sin hurts us, would it not be appropriate for us to do the same for each other? This is where it gets sticky...as I said, very few people who see nothing wrong with their homosexual behavior will attend a church who views it as sin. In addition, most will probably interpret such confrontation (no matter how loving it is done) as unloving or judgmental, as well. Though I think helping each other live more holy lives is what a church is supposed to do.
Your thoughts?
Posted by: jesse | February 14, 2007 4:26 PM
On the whole issue of homosexuality, I have actually written two op-eds for my newspaper on the subject that, on the surface, may sound contradictory. One had to do with allowing them to become pastors and church officers, which I oppose because (as I said earlier) I believe the Scripture says that homosexual conduct is a sign of unbelief -- when I wrote it I was up for deacon in my previous church, which is Presbyterian (USA) and it was a denonominational issue at that time. Therefore, in my view gays are ineligible not only for leadership in the church but even membership -- there is no sense in extending the "right hand of fellowship" to someone who doesn't believe the Bible (perhaps more accurately, someone who loves "the world" more). However, my other op-ed, which referred to gay marriage, took a different tack. While I take a dim view on that, I think our marriage culture is totally out of whack, which can lead to persons "falling in love" with someone of the same gender and believing that the institution of marriage can be based on that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 5:15 PM
My question is; do televangelist do more than lay people?
I'm sure they do. Sometimes they just get full body massages. Kim M
Posted by: kim margosein | February 14, 2007 5:17 PM
Maybe the reason this issue is what we as evangelicals focus on is that it is the agenda that is being pushed at this time? I know we could focus on beastiality but not too many are pushing that agenda - at least not right now.
I keep getting the feeling that the people that write articles on this site would rather that the evangelicals just 'shut up and sing in church only'. But this site seems to push the poverty issue - Katrina issue - almost every liberal running for any office in the land issue. I still believe that we could some to consensus on a number of issues and work together as 'so-belligerents' like F. Shaffer said years ago. But that will not happen - when the focus is Anna N.S. - please!?! Of all the things that are happening in our world today...this site gives room to A.N.S.? One more thing - with all the text that has been given to the 'Red Letter Christians' - the way I see it defined is 'unless the 'Big Guy' said it while here on earth...it is suspect as to the interpretation'. Later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 5:27 PM
Rick Nowlin I d be interested to know how many divorced/separated couples in your Church you feel should be asked to leave. Oh, and any children born out-of-wedlock too, if you want to be technical. I m not being sarcastic; I m being completely serious. I often have to shake my head when individuals like yourself spout this gay=unbelief nonsense. One of my very good friends has just entered the PhD program at his Christian University, he gives sermons every week in his Church, and he can read the language your Bible was originally written in. Oh, and he is gay. So with all due respect; you don't know gay people or our lives, and the hypocrisy your faith shows toward homosexuals while quietly overlooking the multitudes of sin your own heterosexual brethren partake quite regularly without invoking the brunt of your righteous indignation is as astounding as it is revolting. Your Jesus never mentioned a word about gay people; he did have a lot to say about disapproving of divorce. How many strongly worded op-ed pieces have you read about that little fact? Not many, eh?
Posted by: NightLad | February 14, 2007 5:36 PM
Kevin, Everybody wants to find some higher ground from which to spit on everyone else. It must be very painful to believe this about humanity.
Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2007 5:42 PM
Why is the issue that we must find a way to treat sin? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Let me put it to you this way. Let me find a way to treat the sin of my eyes when I stare at a woman's butt for a second too long, or let me find a way to avoid and repress my natural sexual urges by pretending they are not there. Let me pretend and define myself by my inability to live honestly w/ my God. My goodness, those above statements are what's wrong w/ the church when it deals w/ human sexuality. You all believe its about right action, right thought, right conduct when it's really about grace, love and mercy.
If one wants to love the homosexual, the lesbian, the transgendered then all one has to do is affirm them and serve. You may not agree w/ gay marriage and buy into the myth that it will destroy civilization (like straight people have not already done that)but you can find ways to actually engage people and realize that the rules go out the window when one loves. If you doubt that then look at how God sent his son. By all standards God broke his most basic nature by sending himself into the form of a man that would die. we are talking about an I am that never tasted death, never tasted sin, never tasted mortality, and he chose to go and die and come back and send the holy spirit.
If God is willing to change the law that no one can see his face and live by sending Jesus and looking into the faces of his people then can't we change how we treat the LGBTQ community and stop worrying about the behavior and worry more for how we treat them as people. If God wants to convict someone of their "sin" then let him do it.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 6:02 PM
jesse, We're seeing the same things, I think. The going to a church that doesn't condemn you thing is a problem in general. I myself drive 15 minutes past a conservative Episcopal Church to get to a fairly liberal one! And there's the quandry about what to do if we view something as a sin but the community has those who do not. If we held to every tradition, we'd still be telling slaves to obey their masters. If we let every tradition go, there'd be no need for a church at all. It's a real pickle.... (Note the similarity between this conundrum and judicial activism - we don't want judges legislating from the bench but how can we oppose Brown v. Board? On the "moral" ground that the legislature decided it already?) These kinds of thoughtful and hard questions are not the sort of Evangelical fare this post refers to, I think, by the way. Let me give an anecdotal example..... A relative of mine, a very close one, is a very smart and sweet lady - give you the shirt off her back - and an Evangelical. She is a Yellow Dog Democrat, but a conservative southern one. When I asked her who she likes in the Mayor's race she reviewed 5 of the 6 candidates. I asked her about the 6th and she said, "Oh, hell, I would never vote for that liberal!" I said, "What is it about him you don't like?" She replied, "He's just a queer lover!" Literally her basis for this is that he does does not discriminate against gay people in his personal circles or in hiring decisions - where 4 of the other 5 do, she says. Recall, now, this is 2006 - over 40 years since we declared that ALL humans are created equal. Her views are largely determined by a local pastor, Maury Davis. He is on TV every Sunday - every Sunday he preaches about homosexuality. Oddly, Maury is a convicted murderer who found God while serving his time. If it were me, I would hope for humility toward others I view as sinners. Not him. From his monthly letter (http://www.cornerstonenashville.org/section.aspx?page=pastorsmessage): Our world is so obviously messed up and heading down hill that we need to both understand the problem and be ready to give an answer. Down through the ages, Christians have always been persecuted for being committed to a King and living in an invisible Kingdom. Our culture today in America is corruptive and corrosive to Biblical values. From the promotion of alternative and self-destructive lifestyles to the establishment of government as the answer to man s problems, we must understand and engage the issue.... One of the storms that will appear on the horizon are those persons who call any form of intellectual discussion that looks at the negatives of lifestyles as trends. They will use the phobic phrase and the intolerant phrase in their attempt to look like they are coming from Higher Ground. Can I tell you that people who reject God, reject the traditions and values our great nation was built upon, and mock the institution of the Church are never operating from higher ground. When you know everything, what's the point in having a god other than youself?
Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2007 6:04 PM
speaking of editorials, below is one i've seen a few times that i think is bears repeating in this context: "Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan."
Posted by: nad2 | February 14, 2007 6:05 PM
I d be interested to know how many divorced/separated couples in your church you feel should be asked to leave. Oh, and any children born out-of-wedlock too, if you want to be technical. I m not being sarcastic; I m being completely serious. I made two separate and distinct points and you put them together, apparently to confuse the issue. Yes, we do have separated/divorced people and (possibly) some children born out of wedlock in my present church. The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong and have pledged not to do it again, and church leaders work with them to make sure of that. On the other hand, recently we put someone out of the church whom we found had stolen from the deacons' fund over a period of three years (and never even apologized for that). That's how we, and the Scriptures, view homosexual conduct.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 6:17 PM
Resubmitted to correct a typo. I d be interested to know how many divorced/separated couples in your church you feel should be asked to leave. Oh, and any children born out-of-wedlock too, if you want to be technical. I m not being sarcastic; I m being completely serious. I made two separate and distinct points and you put them together, apparently to confuse the issue. Yes, we do have separated/divorced people and (possibly) some children born out of wedlock in my present church. The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong and have pledged not to do it again, and church leaders work with them to make sure of that. On the other hand, recently we put someone out of the church whom we found had stolen from the deacons' fund over a period of three years (and never even apologized for that). That's how we, and the Scriptures, view homosexual conduct.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 6:20 PM
jesse, Sorry, there's yet more....
The pastor I referred to before leads a megachurch. An even larger megachurch, at the very end of my street is similar. It is Two Rivers Baptist, which was the host for Dobson & Frist's rally to intervene for Terri Schiavo. They had signs staked up along the main road at their intersection that told people to vote GOP in the midterm elections. Their purpose statement says:
Two Rivers is a voice for conservative and biblical values.... I do appreciate that they separate the two in this rhetoric, but in practice they, like Evangelicals in general, do not. The process of bringing words before the church, of testing and seeking together, is irrelevant.
I say this to muster a clami" Evangelicalism is a broad-based reversal of the Reformation. Instead of one Pope and a college of cardinals, each congergation has a little pope who is taking marching orders from whatever authorities he likes or from himself. Why is Dallas Theological semenaries' view of Revelation now considered authoritative doctrine? It's less than 100 years old and yet it met with no resistance and is now seen as the only possible interpretation, all others heresy. The rapture itself is less than 200 years old - also Gospel truth, isn't it? And yet homosexuality is condemned as destructive and blasphemous with nary a cosideration for the issues. If we applied the same standards these pastors apply to Romans 13 to the rest of Romans there would be no conflict at all. But there is, and it's the result of the reversal of the Reformation, the marriage of church and a specific, dogmatic ideology. Gayness offends that ideology, so the church is the tool with which to exclude debate. From my perspective, the world has infected doctrine - before the modern era (1600 or so) such an iron fisted rule of dogma would have been seen as suspicious and ultimately misguided. Now it's just Pastor Kennedy having Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly down to give theological treatises against those godless liberals. *Sigh*
Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2007 6:32 PM
maybe someone who sees homosexuality as a sin in and of itself can tell me why they think this is so, apart from 'the bible says it is a sin,' because as can be seen from the op-ed i posted above, there are numerous things we can pull from the scriptures (esp leviticus) that were once either acepted (slavery) or rejected (cutting hair, eating prok, etc) that we no longer abide by, nor do we think they were correct in the eyes of God. i like to think of this as progress. will someone please articulate what it is about people of the same gender having sex that does us either a social detriment (eg stealing - still a sin) or in some way seperates someone individually from God (eg greed - still a sin). as someone who once bought into same-gender sex as a sin, but then gave it some real thoughtful and prayerful contemplation and grew to know many wonderful and beautiful people who are homosexual, i am now freed from that belief. can someone who takes the opposite view please respond civilly to my question? perhaps such a dialog can better educate us all. thanks,
Posted by: nad2 | February 14, 2007 6:44 PM
Let's keep focusing on what constitutes loving action. It's better than understanding the other side. Go have a meal w/ a gay or transgendered friend in their environment, better yet invite them into your home and cook for them. How about volunteering for meals on wheels or some other organization? Or better yet volunteer at a clinic and hang out w/ meth addicted gay men? Better yet how about visiting a transgendered support center or find people that are in process. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 6:54 PM
"Fixated"??? How about "obsessed"? "nobody has come up with a conclusive explanation of what causes a homosexual orientation" How come no one EVER investigates what "causes" heterosexual orientation?
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 6:59 PM
"this would lead to the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are" GASP! eh? Yet they assume God created heterosexuals the way they are. Wonder why? 'Cuz then they can be the good "betterosexuals" they think they are. "and that we should accept them as such" "Accept" God's creation? Heresy, no? THEN who would they be better than?
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:03 PM
"there are no easy answers that we evangelicals can offer to gays and lesbians who ask us about changing their sexual orientation" What answers do evangelicals have to offer to heterosexuals who ask about changing THEIR sexual orientation? Who actually believes that anyone can change and become attracted to someone they are not naturally attracted to? This is such utter nonsense and a huge waste of time, effort and resources when their are hungry to feed, naked to be clothed, homeless to be given shelter.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:05 PM
"They sense that the label evangelical is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset." That would be because so many evangelicals have mae it so.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:07 PM
"Jesus never mentioned homosexuality." Would that His followers would do likewise.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:07 PM
nad2 | 02.14.07 - 1:10 pm | #
They all apply if you are a conservative Jew - living under Temple Law and attending the temple in Jerusalem. Since I believe that none of the above applies to you or anyone else - the point is mute. later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 7:08 PM
"living out love and justice in the 21st century is required for an emerging church" When we see a modicum of EITHER, we'll know that God is truly at work again in the "evangelical Church", emergent or not.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:09 PM
Payshun, I like where you are going with the meals thing. As far as whether the sin of others matters to church...in short, it does. The sexual behavior of others was important to Jesus, which is why he addressed it in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul also addressed sexual sins (among others) and standards for dealing with sin in church. To ignore the sins of others in church is to ignore the effects of sin on their soul and to ignore Biblical teaching. I would also refer you to the Proverb which talks about the wise person loving correction. We're called to hold each other accountable for sin.
The example you mentioned (lust) is appropriate, though you mention just a specific instance which seems to make it trivial. I've been in different men's groups and lust is definitely something many struggle with. The proper function of the church is prayer, accountability, and redemption in those situations. It isn't "to each his own," which seems to be the popular mindset.
Posted by: jesse | February 14, 2007 7:12 PM
About Tony: I am, and always have been, a fan. He led the way for evangelicals to have a social conscience, to give a damn about the poor, and for Christians' faith to mean something in terms of making the world a better place long before it was fashionable. On the current issue: He makes it clear he opposes gay marriage and urges gay Christians to be celebate. If that doesn't satisfy the more restrictive and conservative Christians, I don't know what will. Rick, when I read your statement, "Yes, we do have separated/divorced people and (possibly) some children born out of wedlock in my present church. The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong and have pledged not to do it again, and church leaders work with them to make sure of that," I felt a chill. Are you referring to those separated/divorced as well as those who have "out of wedlock" children"? What about children conceived "out of wedlock" but born "in wedlock" (like Garrison Keillor says, tongue-in-cheek, "Not born out-of-wedlock, just not-far-enough-into-wedlock; sort of 'profoundly premature'")? I would bet my next paycheck that there are at least a few of such children in your church, and in more than one generation. Do you examine couples in your church with children, or better yet those seeking membership in your church, to ask them their wedding date, then the birthdate of their first child, then do the math, and if the numbers don't look right, confront them and demand repentance or, in your words a "pledge not to do it again"? And you equate "homosexual conduct" with un-apologetic embezzlement of church funds. All I can say to that is WOW!
Posted by: Andy | February 14, 2007 7:13 PM
Daniel, "homosexuality is linked to the concern taht it is one of the biggest threats to the disruption of the traditional family" This is simply not true. I have been legally married for 3 years (today is our anniversary), and not a single "traditional family" has been "disrupted". Not a single heterosexual has had any rights taken away, has been diminished, demeaned or debased in any way shape or form (unless, of course, you believe we are meaner, baser, lesser persons than you heterosexuals). Oh, and p.s., it is NOT an "anything goes" culture. My husband and I made a commitment based on our mutual love and respect - same as YOU did when you got "married". This does not 'lead to' any 'slippery slope' OR "anything goes" - such as the beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, child-molestation charges hurled at us by the 'right'. They are false and that is why you ultimately will lose the argument.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:14 PM
Given that a number of people have come out of the woodwork to argue (or insinuate) that Christianity ought not view homosexuality as a sin, clearly there are plenty outside of the evangelical church who see this as a major issue.
At any rate, this discussion is bound to deteriorate, but I wanted to make a point with regard to those who asked whether we can consider homosexuality a sin whilst failing to observe all things levitical. Christ came to fulfill the law, and if you want to know more about that, it would be well worth reading up on theology. It is a settled matter of the Christian faith. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to believe anything about Christ without observing the rest.
"Kevin, Everybody wants to find some higher ground from which to spit on everyone else. It must be very painful to believe this about humanity." Moreso painful that it is manifestly true.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 14, 2007 7:16 PM
kevin s, "While I personally endeavor to emphasize other aspects of the Christian faith, it seems like the topic always comes up." Then maybe you and your side should stop bringing it up so much. "A friend will say that he or she cannot accept a faith that does not allow homosexuality." Good for your 'friend'. "I am left with three options in this scenario: I can lie, and say I do not believe the Bible forbids homosexuality; I can change the subject, which leaves the hurdle intact; or I can explain what the Bible has to say on the matter." kevin, you have many other options, but let's discuss the ones you've listed... You do not need to lie, nor do you have to say you don't believe the Bible forbids it. You are free to believe what you want - so long as you allow that same freedom to others. Not everyone, nor every faith, agrees with what your faith teaches. You can change the subject if you want. But your 3rd option is subjective, to say the least. First, you would have to agree on WHICH Bible is the "correct" one. The many translations do NOT agree. Then you would have to agree on which passages to quote - and why - because there are also inherent contradictions in every version of the Bible. Maybe the best choice is to let each person be persuaded in their own minds and hearts. "Call nothing that I have created unclean", I think it says. Peace.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:21 PM
I need to add this: I am not suggesting for a nano-second that sin should be winked at--God forbid. But when we address the issue of any kind of sin, we must start, end and be accompanied all along with self-examination and humility. We must allow the account of Jesus in John 8 be our norm for "dealing with sin". Church must be, as the old saw goes, "a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints", and every last one of us must be there knowing that we need the Doctor every bit as much as, perhaps more than, everyone else.
Posted by: Andy | February 14, 2007 7:22 PM
"Who are "they" who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? [Red Letter Christians] Thankfully, I've not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo." That tells us how NOT well-versed you are on the topic, jesse, and nothing more.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:22 PM
Curiouser, I'm curious...have you heard a lot of evangelicals calling themselves Red Letter Christians (besides the few who post on Sojo)?
Posted by: jesse | February 14, 2007 7:27 PM
jesse, "In certain countries (e.g., Canada), it has become prohibited for Christians to speak publicly of homosexuality as if it were a sin." This is untrue, aka a lie, aka the bearing of false witness. It is illegal to spread hatred against an identifiable group. This is defined as promoting harm to them, as in "they shall surely be put to death". That is the one and only restriction on public speech, and it's a good thing. If your side can only continue bearing false witness against God's gay and lesbian children, you will lose.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:28 PM
What about children conceived "out of wedlock" but born "in wedlock" (like Garrison Keillor says, tongue-in-cheek, "Not born out-of-wedlock, just not-far-enough-into-wedlock; sort of 'profoundly premature'")? I would bet my next paycheck that there are at least a few of such children in your church, and in more than one generation. I have suspicions about one such couple in my church, but since they've stayed married and have other children I won't bring up the issue. For that matter, our church is chock full of reformed or reforming alcoholics, drug abusers and prostitutes, plus a number of folks who have done time. Anyway, that's not what I'm talking about because at least the people in my church understand there is indeed a standard, even if they know they don't fully meet it. People who want to be a part of the church but don't want to forswear homosexual conduct, on the other hand, in essence want to deny that there is such a standard. Christ came to fulfill the law, and if you want to know more about that, it would be well worth reading up on theology. It is a settled matter of the Christian faith. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to believe anything about Christ without observing the rest. Well said, Kevin. The reason Christ never said anything about homosexual conduct was because, in that culture, He didn't need to.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 7:33 PM
Jesse, The first time I heard about RLC's was in an issue of Christianity Today a few years ago. As for how Jesus approached sexuality well i find it odd that he never told the Samaritan woman to stop sleeping w/ the different men she had slept w/. He was just pointing out her behavior. My point is that Jesus has a different standard for his Jewish followers than he does for the non-Jews. He doesn't place Jewish moral law above just loving people ie healing the centurion's servant and the Syro-Phonencian's son.
Accountability only works when one makes a committment to it. It cannot be forced on others. I think you might be guilty of calling people to standards they may not want to live. It's one thing to do that when the framework is love it's another thing to do that when the framework is legalism. I don't presume to know if you are a legalist or not. But if you are that won't work in loving anyone.
We don't ask straight men to cut off their penii when they masturbate even though Christ's language is otherwise. We understand that he was speaking spiritually. We understand that he loved people into obedience like he did w/ Moses, Peter... p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 7:34 PM
Kris Weinschenker, "Considering people are branded "homophobes" for simply stating homosexuality is a sin..." This too is incorrect. People are (rightly) branded homophobes when they compare our committed, adult, consenting, loving relationships to beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, child-molestation, cannabalism, prostitution, etc. Thinking people know these comparisons are false. And not only are they false, they are hurtful and, imo, hate-fueled. You, as a Christian" are free to believe what you want. Other Christians believe otherwise. There, see? I didn't call you a homophobe, just misinformed.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:34 PM
02.14.07 - 2:12 pm | #
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality." He never mentions beastiality - pedophilia - S&M and a lot of other things...so we should be open and accepting of them too? I will be loving and understanding to the person I can not accept their lifestyle as correct.
I do not want to face my creator and have Him inform me that I was wrong and because of that, whoever will now be spending the rest of their existence not in heaven. I will open scripture and allow the Holy Spirit to work in their life.
If we all lived our lives based on our desires why should be worry about what scripture says and what God requires of all of us? Later... .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 7:36 PM
Here you go for Canada: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091407.html And for Sweden: http://ctlibrary.com/11881 I'm sure you understand that many wish to define "hate" broadly to include saying that homosexual acts are sinful. And it's pretty clear from some of the comments posted here that some of you believe defining homosexual acts as sinful is hateful.
But I guess we've touched a nerve with some and it does seem like this could quickly descend into a shouting match...
Posted by: jesse | February 14, 2007 7:36 PM
We must allow the account of Jesus in John 8 be our norm for "dealing with sin". For the record, if you're talking about the woman caught in adultery, Jesus let her go not because He was being particularly merciful -- she was actually an unwitting partner in a sting operation. Besides, the Pharisees broke the law in bringing her in to begin with, and He exposed that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 7:36 PM
Actually John 8 is not a good standard for how we treat people outside of the church. A better standard would be the woman at the well. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 7:38 PM
Rick Nowlin | 02.14.07 - 2:41 pm | #
Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 - 2:43 pm | #
What about Matt 18? The idea of not 'outing' the person publicly and working to restore them. It can apply to how we should handle both believers and non-believers. Showing the 'sweeter side of God'. Later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 7:42 PM
Moderatelad, If the first thing out of God's mouth is that you were wrong when you get to heaven then you really serve a lame god.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 7:42 PM
jesse, "I agree with you that we should be loving to homosexuals." Thanks for the 'agreement'. Now for the tough part - putting your words into action. "Do you think it's possible, though, to love them while also holding to the view that homosexual behavior is sinful?" Yes it is possible, but it precludes the comparisons made in the posts above. It also precludes excluding God's gay and lesbian children from equal treatment before the law.
"there's not really room for compromise." Sure there is. In fact, you even came up with the solution in your next sentence: "People who do not believe their homosexual behavior is sinful are only likely to go to a church that openly accepts their behavior, blesses gay marriages, etc." And THAT is the solution - as my husband's grandmother used to say, "You go to your Church; I'll go to mine." It's called freedom of religion. "Evangelicals, of course, will not have that." And THAT is the problem. They keep on sticking their noses into other people's business, into other people's faith and beliefs. This is a denial of OUR freedom of religion. "Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like?" For starters, you could allow us OUR beliefs. You could allow us OUR freedoms. You could allow us OUR pursuit of happiness. You culs say, "I disagree with you, and I disagree with your theology, but if you are willing to allow me mine, I must, as a citizen and as a Christian, allow you yours." Try it. I recommend it. And I guarantee you will not be called homophobic when you do it. And thanks for asking.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:44 PM
poetographer, "Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like? I think it would not look like denying them legal rights that are available to everyone else. Here in Indiana, there is a bill pending in the state legislature that could potentially invalidate even the civil contracts (medical power of attorney, joint ownership of homes) we must spend good money to secure, because they "resemble" benefits of marriage. My personal feeling is such invalidation would not hold up to a constitutional standard, but I don't want to be the first person to fight that battle while someone I love lays injured in a hospital..." Something very similar is also happening in Michigan. I think it is very UN-Constitutional.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:46 PM
Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 - 2:47 pm | #
"...heaven then you really serve a lame god." Sorry - I did not say it would be the 1st thing... I serve an all powerful, gracious and forgiving God and it is that God I will tell everyone about. Later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 7:48 PM
"well without getting political" EXCUUUUSE ME! jesse, it is the evangelicals who are pushing the politics of exclusion on gays. It is they who push to "amend" the Constitution to exclude us from its equality provisions. Their actions are why we keep demanding that Foulwell, Dobson, et al, be stripped of their tax exempt status because of their political activities. Sorry, but it is YOUR side that made it "political" to begin with.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:49 PM
Now it's just Pastor Kennedy having Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly down to give theological treatises against those godless liberals. I wonder if Kennedy has ever read the passage, "Do not be yoked with unbelievers." Coulter claims to be a Christian, but I don't know about Schlafly.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 7:50 PM
Moderatelad, I said the word "if" i am glad you feel committed to telling people about your god. YOu do that. I want to tell people that their condemnation is over. That they are forgiven and they are loved. I want to show them unconditional love regardless if they change (not talking about LGBTQ community) or not. God causes the sun to rise on the just and unjust alike so I will do the same thing.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 7:52 PM
John 8 teaches a number of lessons. First, placing legality (and encouraging immorality in the process) is wrong. I think we find resonance in this concept in our laws against entrapment.
Next, we have a lesson (in my opinion) about how Christ's fulfillment of the law replaces the need to crucify adulterers. There are those who believe that he was simply setting them straight regarding their lack of witnesses, but I guess I lean toward the former explanation.
We have a lesson about the authority of Christ. The men put down their rocks. Imagine what would have happened had they not done so.
We have a lesson, I think, about hypocrisy. Certainly these men sinned, and likely they had committed the sin of adultery (and likely committed that act with the very woman they stoned).
We have a simple lesson for the sinner. Do not sin again. By teaching this lesson, Christ illustrates that naming the sin is not the same as condemning it. This story is not dissonant with a belief that homosexuality is a sin, however.
Posted by: HASH(0x12abba64) | February 14, 2007 7:53 PM
christian, "What if we sought to mend relationships with homosexuals by being an advocate for their rights." A terrific idea, but I'm not holding my breath. "I wonder what that would do for our standing not only in the gay community, but also in the minds of the unchurched." It would improve your standing immeasurably, because it is the fulfillment of the sum of the laws and the prophets: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "20 years from now denominations who sit on the condemnation side will look like churches in the south during the 60s who stood in the way of progress and equality." Sorry, but they ALREADY look that way.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:55 PM
again, context is important when we deal w/ John 8. First off Jesus is dealing a Jewish women brought in on trumpt up charges by self-righteous legalistic men. He is dealing w/n his own culture.
He acts a little different when he deals outside of it. p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 7:56 PM
"You bunch of apostates are fulfilling scripture. You need to repent and believe the gospel." - courtesy of Don Costello. Heck, you people aren't even content to defame God's gay and lesbian children; you need to resort to name calling against your own. How sad.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 7:57 PM
Curiorser I am not evangelcal and I will champion gay rights.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 14, 2007 7:59 PM
If God wants to convict someone of their "sin" then let him do it. Payshun | Homepage Because we think we are God, the height of arrogance. There is something about remember who is God which of course says who isn't.
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 8:00 PM
Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 - 2:57 pm | #
Please show me the same respect that I show you by using a "G" on God when referencing what I said. 'are forgiven - show them unconditional love - etc'.
Cool - but to truly know God's love is to accept His salvation and have a personal relationship. By doing so it also means you will live under the guidelines of scripture and the freedom that it brings.
Isn't our desire to be more like him each and everyday? Wouldn't that be the same for them - freedom in Christ? Later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 8:01 PM
What about Matt 18? The idea of not 'outing' the person publicly and working to restore them. It can apply to how we should handle both believers and non-believers. I guess the question is how does the church handle those who err. But I'm a firm believer in restoration.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 8:04 PM
Rick Nowlin | 02.14.07 - 3:09 pm | #
But I'm a firm believer in restoration.
As am I! Later .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 8:07 PM
Jesse, "We're called to hold each other accountable for sin." I simply believe that God holds me accountable and nothing or no one else is in between me and God. I certainly didn't invite anyone into my relationship with God. Haven't read where God told me that I'm accountable to Jesse?
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 8:12 PM
jesse, "If God hates sin, sin separates us from God, we were made to be near to God, and church is meant to bring everyone nearer to God, wouldn't it behoove us to, with grace and humility, confront our brothers and sisters who are in sin in order to "remove the speck from our brother's eye"? Ooops, that's pretty selective of you. You are NOT called to 'remove the speck from you brother's eye', you are told to be mindful of the LOG in your own. Besides, your suggestion of confrontation as the solution only adds fuel to the fire. It is NEVER done "with grace and humility". EVER! It is done with fiery condemnation (see beastiality/necrophilia etc. references above). Thanks, but no thanks. "Think of it the same way as a family member who is forced to confront his brother about a drinking problem." What an UGLY and hateful comparison. I do not have a "sex problem". YOU and your side seem to have a problem with my sexuality. HUGE difference. "His drinking is hurting himself and others." My sexuality and my marriage have NOT "hurt" me not any others. THAT is WHY your comparison is odious in the extreme. And then you wonder why you get labelled extremists. Sheesh.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:13 PM
If you think that Christians who've sinned by getting a divorce learn from their sin and don't commit again, you haven't seen the divorce rates for evangelicals which is among the highest of any religion in this country. I NEVER knew anyone who had been divorced more than twice before I lived in the Bible belt and yet those are the very people to most strenuously defend traditional marriage against the scourge of homosexuals.
Posted by: sis | February 14, 2007 8:14 PM
Rick Nowlin, "I believe the Scripture says that homosexual conduct is a sign of unbelief" What then do you do with homosexual believers? We are many, btw. Yours is a false belief.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:15 PM
moderatelad, "Maybe the reason this issue is what we as evangelicals focus on is that it is the agenda that is being pushed at this time? I know we could focus on beastiality but not too many are pushing that agenda" Your comparison is invalid. You cannot compare inter-species sex with consenting, adult, loving, committed HUMAN relationships and have ANY credibility.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:17 PM
Rick Nowlin, "The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong [they had a divorce] and have pledged not to do it again" That's just sad. "On the other hand, recently we put someone out of the church whom we found had stolen from the deacons' fund over a period of three years" So much for grace and fogiveness. I'm sure glad I don't go to your church. Who would Jesus "put out"?
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:24 PM
Payshun, "Go have a meal w/ a gay or transgendered friend in their environment, better yet invite them into your home and cook for them." A rabidly anti-gay evangelical named Craig Chandler did just that in Alberta and guess what happened? He changed his mind. He said that Churches that believe gay marriage is a good and right and holy thing should be allowed to perform hem. Those Churches that believe otherwise are free not to. Amazing. As Gramma used to say, "To know us is to love us." Thanks always for your truly Christian attitude.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:31 PM
jesse, "have you heard a lot of evangelicals calling themselves Red Letter Christians" Yes, jesse. I have. It is not limited to Evangelicals, by any means, and it is NOT a new term. I'm 55 years old and I remember my Grandmother using the term when I was in grade school. Like I said, that YOU haven't says a lot about your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:37 PM
Rick Nowlin, "I have suspicions about one such couple in my church, but since they've stayed married and have other children I won't bring up the issue." But you DID bring up the issue, Rick. Your "suspicions" about the sanctity of others is repugnant. "alcoholics, drug abusers and prostitutes, plus a number of folks who have done time" are pretty irrelevant to the discussion of same-sex love and committment, don't you think? Oh, I forgot, you don't believe ours is love; you don't believe we can and do commit. Nevermind. "The reason Christ never said anything about homosexual conduct was because, in that culture, He didn't need to." So why do you feel YOU "neeed" to if He didn't?
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | February 14, 2007 8:42 PM
curiouser, i sincerely hope the toothpaste is already out of the tube on gay marriage & that once more and more gay couples become more and more visible and people find out there is nothing to fear, this will be less and less of an issue and more states will acknowledge that it's not fair to exclude from you rights based upon your sexuality. the process is certainly not going to be quick or easy, few things of such magnitude ever are, but as a christian remember to love your enemies actively and defiantly - that is both our call as christians and the only way to overcome such prejudice. as a deep-southern, country, happily married, passionate and practicing christian, i'll stand with you in your struggle.
Posted by: nad2 | February 14, 2007 8:44 PM
curiouser and curiouser... | 02.14.07 - 3:20 pm | #
What then do you do with homosexual believers? The same that I would do with gossips - adulteries - pedophiles - etc. Show them God's love and grace in the scripture. Show them the freedom that they have in God. Let them know just how special they are and what God requires of all of us. Later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 8:48 PM
more states (& churches) - above
Posted by: nad2 | February 14, 2007 8:48 PM
" Jesus never mentioned homosexuality." You replied:
"He never mentions beastiality - pedophilia" The 2 are NOT comparable; they both lack CONSENT. No wonder you get labelled homophobic. "I will be loving and understanding to the person" What you just typed is NOT "loving" nor "understanding" to ME - a real, live gay person. It is vile hate. "I can not accept their lifestyle as correct." It ain't a "lifestyle". Gay people have LIVES. At least try to get that much str8.
"I will ... allow the Holy Spirit to work in their life." The Holy Spirit is already working wonders in my life. Just not the ones that YOU would expect, apparently.
Posted by: HASH(0x12bf63c8) | February 14, 2007 8:53 PM
I agree with Tony, but we must not let social justice action take over our mission as Christians. Saving souls should be our first objective, and I'm disappointed that Tony didn't include that in his list of things Christians should be focused on other than homosexuality.
Posted by: Eric | February 14, 2007 8:56 PM
"...alcoholics, drug abusers and prostitutes, plus a number of folks who have done time" are pretty irrelevant to the discussion of same-sex love and committment, don't you think? Oh, I forgot, you don't believe ours is love; you don't believe we can and do commit. Did you read one of my first posts on this topic? You would have read that I believe -- in fact, wrote in our newspaper three years -- that our entire Western marriage culture is completely messed up precisely because of its focus on romantic love. And I wasn't simply talking about gays, either. My point: Being "in love" does not make a marriage.
Posted by: HASH(0x12bf75bc) | February 14, 2007 8:57 PM
curiouser and curiouser... | 02.14.07 - 3:22 pm | #
You cannot compare inter-species sex with consenting, adult, loving, committed HUMAN relationships and have ANY credibility. That is your 'opinion' and I have as much credibility as you.
I see no where in scripture that validates your opinion or any other variation on sex. Later - .
Posted by: moderatelad | February 14, 2007 8:59 PM
curisouer, I posted the statistic about gays in a committed relationship lasting longer than straight marriages. Do you know the source of this work? I met a man when I was 18 who was in a committed gay relationship then 35 years later I visited him on his death bed and Russ was still there at his side. They were together 48 years. When straight Christians clean up divorce I'll engage them in a discussion about gay behavior or rather when they remove the log in their eye. Considering the size of the divorce log how can they see anything else or I guess see anything?
Posted by: butch | February 14, 2007 8:59 PM
test
Posted by: anon2 | February 14, 2007 9:01 PM
Anonymous | 02.14.07 - 4:02 pm | #
Was I.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2007 9:03 PM
Actually Moderatelad, I am not an evangelical so for me having a personal relationship is secondary to forgiving. The goal is forgiveness. It's more important to me than calling people into a pesonal relationship w/ Jesus. I think forgiveness does do that but my goal is to invite people into a desire for love. Love for me is what I live my life for. I see Jesus as love so yes I would invite people to be loved as I prayed for them and invited the Holy Spirit to heal them of their hurts. I had the best time doing that for a lesbian woman I met across the street from my white evangelical vineyard church.
The Phelp's were protesting a gay friendly church and it was horrible. I went over to protest them, rip their signs up and kick a little ass. But the Holy Spirit stopped me. So I went over met a woman that was a lesbian, prayed for her and blessed the Phelps.
Would i like everyone to have a personal relationship w/ God? Yes. Is that necessary for me to love them? No. God will call his children I just have to love them into hearing his/her voice. Oh and i am sorry about the lower "G" thing. I meant no offense. p
Posted by: HASH(0x11648e90) | February 14, 2007 9:07 PM
Wow! I am a lesbian and have been in a loving, caring, kind, wonderful relationship for the last 10 years and I am truly blessed! I take my differences as a blessing and when I read some of these posts it amazes me as to how much energy and arguing there is in whether my way is the right way or my God is the right God or my reading the Old Testament vs. the New Testament vs. the Red Letter Christians is the right way. So much energy and time wasted on things that none of us know are really true. I have faith (that is why it is called faith) that I will get to heaven because of the way that I live. I will not be judged by who I have Loved, but how I have Loved. I will be judged for how I helped others, worked to end poverty and homelessness, how I worked to fight against many injustices in this world, how I fought against bigotry and hatred. How I help children and the disenfranchised. I will be judged on how I helped others in their time of despair. I will be judged on whether I tried to leave this world a better place than I left it. My Jesus went against the establishment and fought for those who were being persecuted as he was.
If only all of us could put this energy into solving poverty, injustices, slavery, helping children, feeding the less fortunate, fighting against bigotry and hatred we would be better off in this World! Instead of judging and putting people down and trying to keep people down maybe we should try lifting them up. We are all connected and truly all want the same things, to love and be loved. Maybe people feel that things can t be changed in this world and they feel desperate because things aren t changing quickly enough, maybe this is why people become fixated on a certain issues, there are many many parts that you can argue over.
I as a lesbian don t believe that I am sinning, and I don t need to be saved. I am right with my Jesus because I try to do what he preached. I believe that the bible cannot be taken literally and that it contains parables for us to live by and when some of the bible is taken to literally it can be dangerous. Most problems in this world are caused by whose religion is the right religion and to that end money is the root to all injustices in this world. Loving another human being is not a sin in my eyes and in my Jesus eye. What I don t understand is people s reaction to it and how it causes such hatred and bigotry. I don t understand why people s fascination is. I have a great life, with great family, friends and community. I am truly blessed and I treat others as they would want to be treated (the Golden Rule ).
As Gandhi has said BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD
One other thing, I do believe that GOD/JESUS is watching us and he puts these things in are paths to see how we handle it and what we can do to make a difference. Maybe we should all keep our mouths shut and get doing .
Posted by: Barbara | February 14, 2007 9:07 PM
The site you linked to is commonly referred to as LIESite because of the misinformation they promulgate. Sorta like the way Mr. Dobson distorted the research done about the 'success' rate in the ex-gay industry. It simply is not believed. "I'm sure you understand that many wish to define "hate" broadly to include saying that homosexual acts are sinful." And I am equally sure you are full of baloney. You are free to believe what you want to believe. The "hate" part comes in when you compare us to beastialists and necrophiliacs. "And it's pretty clear from some of the comments posted here that some of you believe defining homosexual acts as sinful is hateful." Nope. See above for what I define as hateful.
"But I guess we've touched a nerve with some and it does seem