Homosexuality

Hate the Gays or Love Them – What Would Jesus Do?

Christian Buckley — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:25:19 -0700

There is probably no topic that Christians are more known for these days than hating gays. The vocal minority has done a great job proving this out and the not-so vocal majority of Christians have done very little to disprove it. We are known for largely hateful rhetoric, singling out one lifestyle to vilify and ignoring the ones Jesus really spoke against – pride, anger, materialism, idolatry, selfishness.

The church has wasted its time fighting gay marriage. Why wasted? Because I can tell you as a constitutional law expert that no matter what voters decide, the issue will be resolved by state and federal courts that for the most part don’t care what voters think. So the church has spent millions fighting something that in the end they have no control over. It’s like fighting a tsunami with a bucket – or millions of them. It won’t work but you will die in the process.

I met Andrew Marin several years ago and found him engaging and truly driven to take a road less traveled and even less respected in the Christian world. This story is worth a read if you want to think harder about the “Gay Issue” because its not an issue – it is a person.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15034651

Just Asking

Jeff Hopper — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:22:16 -0700

During Game 2 of their opening round NBA Playoffs series with the New Orleans Hornets, the Los Angeles Lakers debuted a public service announcement intended to discourage anti-gay slurs such as the one made recently by Lakers star guard Kobe Bryant in the direction of an NBA official.

For noticeably and loudly saying this slur so heinous that almost no news outlet dared hint what it actually was, Bryant was fined $100,000. Interestingly, the outcry and fine came only days after a UCLA study reported that just 3.5 percent of Americans are homosexual (a number far smaller than the usual 10-percent figure announced by LGBT groups).

Which leads me to ask: If a slur bothering 3.5 percent of the population earns you a $100,000 fine, and as many as 80 percent of Americans call themselves Christians, would NBA commissioner David Stern truly consider a--doing the math here--$2.3 million fine for the next player who clearly profanes the name of Jesus Christ? Or would such a huge number only apply to a star like Bryant?

Oh, and here's another question: Will I be dismissed for asking as a moralist, or accepted for asking as a pluralist?

How Should Christians Respond to Homosexuality?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:25:11 -0800

This week I found myself embroiled in quite the online controversy. On Wednesday morning a friend forwarded me a tweet that went out saying, “Josh McDowell’s son uses fear, hate, & ignorance to teach kids how to ‘love’”. Obviously that got my attention! So I followed the link to the webpage and found a cropped video of a panel I was on at the Rock Church in San Diego in 2008 regarding Prop 8.

I was asked the question about how Christians should treat their gay friends. My response, which I think is biblical, is that we are to respond with both grace and truth (John 1:17). Paul says love speaks the truth (1 Cor. 13). But the video showed my opening story and cut the last two minutes, leaving it entirely without context. The video was posted online, and needless to say, I was criticized rather harshly for being hateful, unChristian, fear-mongering, and ignorant (among other things!).

Check out the first blog post here. It’s worth reading some of the comments to see how quickly judgments are made about motives and character. Then a friend of mine, Chad, sent in the whole video and, to his credit, Matthew (the blogger) posted the whole video for context.

After seeing many of the comments, I decided to write Matthew a personal letter with my thoughts. Again, to his credit, he responded graciously to me and posted it online with some more personal thoughts of his own.

This experience has taught me quite a bit about how Christians should or should not respond to homosexuality. My desire is to love biblically, but not judge people in ways I don’t judge myself (Matthew 7). One commenter said that Christians often focus on this one sin and ignore pride, sloth, and other sins. There’s probably some truth in this. The more I realize the depth of my own sin, the less willing I am to point fingers at others.

Another commenter accused me of focusing solely on homosexuality but not heterosexual sins. Ironically, this is the only time I have ever spoken publicly on homosexuality and yet have spoken hundreds of times against heterosexual promiscuity. This is a good reminder not to make quick judgments without context.

I would love to know anyone’s thoughts on how Christians should respond. The tension surrounding homosexuality is only beginning. Every Christian leader will be confronted in this way soon. In fact, this week Joel Osteen was cornered on this question on the Piers Morgan show on CNN. I think Joel gave a loving and yet Scriptural response. This proves definitively that it is no longer possible for a Christian to stand on biblical principles and not be accused of hate. It doesn’t matter how lovingly you say something, or how sincerely you mean it. If you think homosexual behavior is wrong then you are hateful, bigoted, and ignorant—period.

So, the question is: How should Christians respond to our culture that is increasingly hostile to biblical Christianity, especially in relation to the question of homosexuality? Thoughts?

Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher

Christopher Faris — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:35:41 -0700

This is Part 2 of an interview I did with David Di Sabatino (you can see Part 1 here). David is a filmmaker who has made two documentaries he likes to call “Bible stories” – “Frisbee: The Life and Death of A Hippie Preacher” and “Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman.” In this interview, David talks about the making of "Frisbee" and the implications of the central character for the church and Christian culture.

Christopher: “Frisbee…” is a very Southern California movie. Vineyard and Calvary Chapel are coming out of Southern California. What are the reactions you’ve gotten to the film within and outside of Southern California?

David: I have a lot of guys who are presently in those denominations who say, “Well that’s not how it happened.” But they haven’t talked to the people who were there originally. My response is usually, You know what? You and I weren’t there. But all you’ve done is just talked to the one guy who was left standing. And he’s not going to tell you everything about the early stuff. But go back and talk to this guy and that guy, they were there. Get their input.

Christopher: Did you try and get Chuck (Smith) to be a part of the interviews?

David: Yes.

Christopher: Can you comment at all on that?

David: Sure. We tried. Chuck is a busy guy, and I don’t think they felt that this was ever going to ever get up off the ground cause lots of stuff like this (the movie) gets talked about. But too, Lonnie is not something they want to talk about. I feel they had hidden it for 30 years, and I think to a certain extent I think it embarrassed them a bit. Greg Laurie came to a showing and started saying, “I didn’t dismiss Lonnie from our life” and I felt, why can’t you just admit it? Can’t you just admit that here’s a guy in your lineage that you’d rather not have, and for the last 30 years we haven’t talked about him a lot? My mandate was to honor the prophet of God.

Christopher: What is the “message” or what do you want people to get from it? Is there a “message?” When people see this movie and they walk away, whether they are from Calvary, Vineyard, or Evangelical, what do you want them to get out if it?

David: I don’t know that a filmmaker should answer that question, you know what I mean? But the budding teacher inside me wants to answer that question, because there were definite things that I telegraphed.

Christopher: Let me ask the question in a different way. You described the movie before as a burden on your heart. There was something about who Lonnie is that drew you to him, especially within the context of church history. I go see the movie and I’m 30 years old, my Dad sees it and he’s in his mid 50’s. What are you hoping we might take from it?

David: That God invites everybody to participate regardless of their stature, regardless of their situation. Here’s a guy that nobody would have chosen. This is resonant with the Biblical themes of the foolish things that confound the wise, and choosing the least of these. Here’s a guy that struggles with a socially unacceptable behavior and dies in disgrace.

Christopher: The funeral sequence (in Frisbee) was heartbreaking.

David: Lonnie deserved better for what he did. Nobody will disagree that he had such an influence, that his imprint is there. But if what I’m saying is true, whatever Lonnie’s spiritual gift was, it was enough that all this activity happened to kind of grow these movements. I can show you repeatedly places that he went and this happens. He just shows up and stuff happens. I can’t explain it in a historical, tangible, empirical sense. But I can explain it by saying theologically what’s going on is God has imbued on this kid this kind of firestorm that has nothing to do with his eloquence, has nothing to do with anything other than him just showing up and God moves.

So, both Calvary and the Vineyard have this guy in their DNA and in their lineage. My mandate was to say, this is a wonderful story that you are sitting on, and this needs to be told. To reiterate Kenn Gulliksen’s statement, “God is grieved that they’ve been hiding this story” as if to suggest that it can’t be told because of some political agenda against homosexuality. What is this fear? Tell the story, this is how it happened – God used a guy that was struggling with homosexuality. You don’t like him in your DNA? Too friggin bad! There’s a prostitute in Jesus lineage – Rahab the prostitute - right there, black and white. He uses these kinds of people, and that’s a huge message. People who struggle are empowered by that.

Christopher: You interviewed a huge spectrum of people in the film. Were there any interviews that were particularly memorable for you in this process?

David: I was getting to the point of finalizing the story, and realized that I was pretty much convinced that he was struggling with homosexuality but I had no first person evidence. So, I’m a little freaked because this is where I’m being pushed by all the interviews. But then I just had the interview with his ex-wife who says, “When we first got married he told me he was gay.” I almost dropped off the couch, this is the first I’m hearing it. I thought to myself , he defined himself as that? I hadn’t heard this. So I go into the back story, and sure enough it’s all there.

So, some guy e-mails me and he says, “I used to hang out with Lonnie in the early, early days, and I was involved in this and that situation, and I want to go on record.” So I’m interviewing this guy and he starts to confess on camera that he’s had a sexual relationship with Lonnie. I just pretended that this was everyday stuff, but inside I’m going “oh my…” And he told me the whole story. That was an interview that knocked me off of my feet.

Christopher: I’m asking a lot about names within this movement, but there’s surely going to be a lot of people reading this that don’t know these names or have a regard for these movements. What does Lonnie Frisbee’s story mean for the modern church, especially with things going on like Proposition 8, etc?

David: Lonnie’s story shows that God is interested in everybody. Here was a story where God obviously used a guy who struggled with homosexuality, who defined himself as being “gay,” and this is whom God chooses. Like Paul when he was killing Christian’s, God called Lonnie when he was ensconced in the homosexual movement. So what that says to someone in a similar situation is not to listen to the people telling you that God has his foot against you. He doesn’t.

Secondly, I don’t think Lonnie’s story speaks to the question of whether you can be gay and Christian. I think Lonnie’s interpretation of what went on is because of the abuse that happened to him. I don’t think that’s everybody’s story. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Lonnie speaks to anyone else than Lonnie. I’m just saying that it happened to him. He felt that the behavior, or the nurture, made him this way. Some people in the LGBT community may scoff at that, and I get that. But that’s what Lonnie thought. Lonnie as a person always preached that homosexuality was wrong despite his actions.

Christopher: Let’s say someone’s reading this, and they go check out your film. Is there anything kind of postscript that happened after the film came out that you wish you could have added to it to share?

David: No, I don’t. It’s my first film and it’s in that first film kind of zone. The learning curve that I was on was so high and hard, and I have to say that my PBS editor helped me an awful lot. She helped hone the story. She got it to the place where it’s a really solid film. I owe her a lot.

Christopher: Has there been any interest since its release on DVD to try and do another release theatrically, or do anything else with it?

David: It’s such a weird story. I got a lot of “Hey this is great, we love this! We just don’t know what to do with it.” The advertising mixture of Christianity and homosexuality is not commercially viable. But it’s a good story and it’s honest, and I’ve been approached by people who are interested in taking the story to an artistic level to do a biopic on him. It’s at the talking stage, but it’s in a good talking stage. It’s with people who can actually get stuff done.

You can check out "Frisbee: Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher" on Netflix, or through online retailers like Amazon. Lookout for David’s newest film about Christian music icon Larry Norman titled “Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman” coming soon.

Post-Christian, Post-Gay: But Could There Be a Third Way?

Christy Tennant — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:02:14 -0700

I read this article on Change.org this morning - "Will There Ever Be a Post-Gay Identity?" - and it struck me that if I removed the LGBTQ references and replaced them with Christian references, the article would have been just as relevant. For example,

"So what's next? Will we reach a time when there will no longer be a need for separate bars or centers, bookstores or retirement communities? Will there ever be such a thing as a post-gay identity?"

could just as easily read,

"So what's next? Will we reach a time when there will no longer be a need for separate (coffee) bars or centers, bookstores or retirement communities? Will there ever be such a thing as a post-Christian identity?"

In fact, some sentences are relevant to both as is:

"We've established a widening presence in pop culture and have out and proud representatives in all corners of professional and political life."

I am certainly not the first to draw parallels between the way the Gay agenda and the Christian agenda operate. The similarities are startling at first, but then they begin to make sense. Both "causes" are sub-cultural norms that want to become cultural standards. We have long talked about the separation of church and state, and I find that whole notion to be a tenuous balancing act. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish or other, when people with a strong faith identity are in positions of political leadership, their decisions often heavily reflect their faith, and the line that separates becomes very fuzzy.

I have heard people say we are in post-Christian America, but that reference indicates a waning presence and influence in cultural leadership.However, in this article about post-gay identity, the aim seems to be a world in which sexual identity is irrlevant, or at least a non-issue. Not waning, but rather so present that it's the new normal.

As I wrestle more and more with my place in this world - as a Christian, as a woman, as a single adult, as an artist, as a friend to non-Christians, as a friend to people who are LGBTQ, as a writer, as a small voice in a big culture conversation - and as I prepare to take part in the biggest and potentially most weighty conference focusing on world evangelization to date, I am honestly feeling "over" both the Gay agenda and the Christian agenda. Both scare me at times.

I want to wipe the slate of my mind clean of all the political commentary and noise, and I want to open my Bible. I want to consider what it really means to love my neighbor, to be the light of the world, to trust in Christ's atonement for the forgiveness of my sins, to be part of the solution for setting captives free and releasing prisoners from their chains. When I say things that are true theologically, I want them to also be soaked in love and mercy - otherwise, all my truth sounds like a noisy gong to God.

I'd love to see more Christians resist the very strong urge to play by the world's rules, political or otherwise. Jesus didn't. He acknowledged the state - "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" - and then he invited people to join him in a parallel kingdom, where the last is first and the first is last and power means that kings wash their slaves' feet. Rather than trying to fight against the cultural norms or trying to infiltrate with cultural influence, Jesus seemed to offer a different culture altogether, open to any who might want to become a citizen of that kingdom. I wonder what would happen if more of us were working toward that type of culture.

Questions Christians Fear

Sean McDowell — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:12:20 -0700

What are the questions you most fear being asked about your faith? Even as a trained apologist there are many tough questions I hope don’t come up in my discussions with non-believers. Some questions are simply difficult to answer. But we can’t ignore the tough questions. Such an approach is cowardly and counterproductive for the kingdom of God. We must—yes, must—be prepared with an answer for the toughest questions (1 Peter 3:15). We have nothing to fear because the truth is on our side.

I recently had the opportunity to endorse Mark Mittelberg’s upcoming book entitled, “The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask (With Answers).” This book is based upon a survey Mark sponsored with Tyndale Publishers through the Barna Group of one thousand self-proclaimed Christians. They asked each person what faith questions they would feel most uncomfortable being asked by a co-worker or friend. Some questions are expected but a few might come as a surprise.

In my opinion, Mark is one of the best “popular” level apologists today. He’s well aware of the scholarly research, but he makes it understandable, relevant, practical, and interesting. He has the same ministry heartbeat as Lee Strobel, his ministry partner and friend for over twenty-three years.

According to the Barna survey here’s the questions Christians hope no one will ask:

What makes you so sure that God exists at all—especially when you can’t see, hear, or touch him?

Didn’t evolution put God out of a job? Why rely on religion in an age of science and knowledge?

Why trust the Bible, a book based on myths and full of contradictions and mistakes?

Everyone knows that Jesus was a good man and a wise teacher—but why try to make him into the Son of God, too?

How could a good God allow so much evil, pain, and suffering—or does he simply not care?

Why is abortion such a line in the sand for Christians? Why can’t I be left alone to make my own choices for my own body?

Why do you condemn homosexuality when it’s clear that God made gays and that he loves all people the same?

How can I trust in Christianity when so many Christians are hypocrites-or, even worse, they're judgmental toward everyone who doesn't agree with them?

Why should I think that heaven really exists—and that God sends people to hell?

The purpose of this blog is not to answer these questions but to make you aware of how Christians are thinking. The purpose is also to challenge you to think about these important questions and to do a little soul searching. Sometimes it’s better to ask questions than to answer them. In fact, Jesus asked questions in the gospels, even though he knew the answers.

So, here are some questions for you: Are you prepared to answer these questions? Which one are you most confident to answer? Which one are you the least confident about? Why do you think Christians fear these particular questions? When was the last time you were asked one of these questions? How often are you in discussions with Christians (and more importantly, non-Christians) about these important topics? What does this reveal about you?

I suspect we fear these questions because we don’t want to look bad in front of others. None of us want to get caught off guard. But in reality, what this reveals is how self-focused we really are. Fear is always selfish. Love is always selfless. And that is why 1 John 4:8 says that perfect love casts out fear. When we focus on loving others we can often move beyond our fears. If we really care about our non-believing friends, we will take the time to think through these questions so we can provide a thoughtful answer when they ask.

If you want answers to these questions, and some practical advice of how to apply these answers to evangelism, pre-order a copy of Mark’s book! Or buy a copy for a friend. Either way, this books needs to get into as many hands as possible. It’s great stuff!

PROP 8 TRIAL: Strange Bedfellows

Craig Detweiler — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:35:12 -0800

While no one can predict the outcome of the Prop 8 trial, the unlikely pairing of conservative lawyer Theodore Olson with his former liberal foe, David Boies, is making plenty of headlines. They faced off in the famous Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court battle. Together, they are now arguing against the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which outlawed gay marriage.

Newsweek features a fascinating first person account from Ted Olson. Rather than discussing how and when he reversed his position, the former solicitor general for George W. Bush maintains that conservatives should inherently affirm individual liberty and any legislation that promotes marriage, stability and family. It is also intriguing that liberal lion David Boies relishes the opportunity to put the Obama's administration's equivocating on the issue on trial. He told Newsweek, "The current administration has been decidedly halfway on this issue," he says, "and I think the specter of having George Bush's lawyer out in front of a Democratic president is something that, shall we say, might stimulate people to rethink their positions." Conservative scion Edwin Meese offered an editorial protesting the particulars of the trial (including its San Francisco venue) in the famed venue of the left, The New York Times.

I don't write this to argue the various points/sides of the trial. More to marvel at how this moment we're living in expands the bounds of what we've come to consider conservative/liberal and traditional/progressive. In this case, the established political lines and loyalties seem rethought and reshuffled. This is exactly the surprising blend of red and blue that we look for (and embody) at Purple State of Mind.

Follow the hour by hour of the trial posted by the Mercury News.

Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part1

Sean McDowell — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:50:29 -0700

The following article is written by Alan Shlemon and is from Apologetics for a New Generation, edited by Sean McDowell (Harvest House, 2009), used with permission.

It’s not surprising people think Christians hate homosexuals. They see how we often treat them.

Kyle’s sad story was one I’d heard before. After 25 years of deep immersion in the gay lifestyle, he wanted out. His choice to follow Jesus meant a day-to-day struggle to stay celibate because simply becoming a Christian didn’t change his same-sex desires. With God’s help though, he was winning the battle.

Kyle thought his church would be a safe harbor during the storm. When he “came out” to his pastor and a counselor, though, both told him to never speak of his plight again. His church forced him back into the closet.

Fifteen years of celibacy later, Kyle came out a second time. Surely things have changed, he thought. It must be safe now. After all, everyone has struggles and temptations. This time he hoped his new church would come alongside and pray for him. But he was mistaken. They turned a blind eye to his struggle, discouraged him from serving, and relegated him to attending and tithing.

Back into the Closet

Our formula for gays[i] is predictable: Condemn and convert. Rebuke their behavior, blast them with the Bible, and then try to win them over with a cliché.

“Sodomy is sin,” we proclaim. Then we quote our “clobber passage,” a verse that condemns homosexuals or even commands their execution.[ii] “But there’s hope,” we reassure them. “God hates the sin, but He loves the sinner.” That’s not what they hear, though. They hear, “God hates the sin and He hates the sinner.”

Armed with Bible verses for bullets, we’re locked and loaded, ready to fire at the first sign of a homosexual. But there’s no grace in a gunshot. Instead of offering hope and healing, we inflict more injury.

We shouldn’t be surprised when gays go back into the closet after they try to come out in the church. Worse, many go back into the lifestyle, sometimes through a “gay church” that shows them the love, grace, and respect they had hoped to get from us.[

Predictably, younger people often perceive Christianity negatively. The Barna Group, a research organization that focuses on religious cultural trends, found that young people think Christians aren’t merely opposed to homosexuality, but show “excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.” Ninety-one percent of young non-Christians and 80% of young church-goers perceive Christianity as “anti-homosexual.”[iv]

More tragically, Barna found that younger Christians complained their church failed to help them apply biblical principles to their friendships with gays. Young people lack arguments and tactics needed to maneuver in conversation and navigate moral dilemmas in a thoughtful, but loving way. Consequently, young people think they must choose between their faith and their friends who are gay. If their friendships mean more to them than their theology, they will choose their friends over their faith every time.

Something is wrong here. Clearly, we need a new approach. Our young people think they’re faced with a difficult moral dilemma. But they don’t have to abandon their gay friends just because homosexuality is wrong. There is a third option, but it’s something that’s rarely taught or modeled in church.

Know the Truth

Our new approach incorporates two key elements: truth and compassion. Truth speaks to the content of our message. Compassion addresses the manner in which it’s conveyed. It’s a winning combination based on principles found in 1 Peter 3:15 – defend the truth, yet with gentleness and respect.

Truth starts with a biblical understanding of homosexuality. Although there are six main passages on the subject,[v] for strategic reasons I recommend using Romans 1:26-27 as your primary text. Since it’s in the New Testament, you sidestep the challenge that the Old Testament verses don’t apply to us today.[vi] Romans also addresses both male and female homosexuality and outlines the real problem: rebellion against God and rejection of His created order. This makes it difficult to argue that the behavior condemned in the passage is something other than homosexuality.[vii]

Knowing the biblical truth about homosexuality is important because many people deny that God condemns homosexual behavior. Indeed, they go to great lengths to reinterpret those six passages.[viii]

Although they’re not successful, their claims sound appealing to people who don’t carefully interpret the Bible. If we learn and understand these verses, it’s easy to clear up this distortion.

Religious arguments, however, are often immediately dismissed by non-Christians. So knowing the truth doesn’t mean we learn only biblical arguments. An effective strategy also incorporates secular arguments. This includes appeals to natural law, the common good, and public health.[ix] If you can base your views on evidence that make sense even to non-religious people, you’ll be able to speak with anyone.

Getting them to consider your ideas can be difficult, though. That’s why it’s critical to present our views in a conversational manner. We’re not typically trained to do that. Too often we try to persuade by making statements instead of asking questions. This immediately raises defenses. Suppose you’re discussing whether homosexuality is genetic and say, “Even if being gay is genetic, it doesn’t mean that it’s right.” Your friend replies with, “Sure it does! I can’t deny how I’ve been created.” Now what? Another statement? Their defenses are up, and the conversation grinds to a halt.

Questions, on the other hand, are friendly and more engaging. They invite discussion. Rephrase your statement with a question: “I’m curious to know your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you think if something is genetic, then it must be right?” This is disarming. It doesn’t provoke the same knee-jerk reaction. Instead, there’s a give and take. People naturally respond to questions and the discussion moves along.

Or, you can gently challenge their belief with a question like: “Do you think any behavior is morally appropriate simply because it has a genetic link?” Notice that even though you’re asking a question, you’re still making your point. Just because a behavior has a genetic component, that doesn’t make it right. Making your point with a question sounds friendlier.

Another way to incorporate questions into your conversation is to use the “burden of proof” rule. Applying this rule makes discussions about homosexuality less difficult and more engaging. The burden of proof is simply the responsibility to give proof – credible reasons – in favor of a point of view. The rule is simple: The person who offers an opinion bears the burden to give reasons for it. If they make a claim, it is their job to defend it, not yours to refute it.

Too often Christians ignore this rule. Someone says something like, “Christianity is a homophobic religion,” and off we go defending ourselves. This is unnecessary. Why should we do all the work when they made the statement? Since they made the claim, it’s their job to defend it.

Simply ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” or “What reasons do you have for thinking that’s true?” Then sit back and quietly listen. The question gently shifts the burden back where it belongs – on the person who made the claim. It asks them to give reasons for their view, which is a legitimate request. It also makes our job easier by taking the pressure off us to respond.

Questions allow us to make our points and advance the discussion in disarming ways. When we incorporate questions, our discussions about homosexuality become less intimidating. We can make our points without sounding like we are simply pushing our views on others. And we spend less time in the “hot seat” responding to claims we have no obligation to address.

[i]
Although I use the terms “homosexual” and “gay” interchangeably in this chapter, I believe they have different meanings. “Homosexual” describes a person with predominately same-sex attractions. “Gay” is a social term to describe a homosexual who affirms the homosexual orientation as their identity. While all gays are homosexual, not all homosexuals are gay. Some homosexuals, although they have same-sex attractions, reject the gay identity.

[ii] Leviticus 20:13.

[iii] By love and grace, I don’t mean agreement with the gay lifestyle. Many people like Kyle don’t even get basic respect.

[iv] “A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity,” The Barna Update, The Barna Group, September 24, 2007.

[v] Genesis 19:4-8, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

[vi] Some pro-gay theology advocates suggest that the Old Testament passages that condemn homosexual behavior do not apply to New Testament Christians. Regardless of the whether this argument is valid, the Romans passage sidesteps this objection.

[vii] The 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages merely name homosexuality as sin. Moreover, the Greek word translated homosexuality is a word coined by Paul and, according to pro-gay theology advocates, does not necessarily mean homosexuality (I disagree with this conclusion, however). Consequently, these New Testament passages are more prone to being reinterpreted as referring to some other sin. That’s why it may save you unnecessary debate by focusing on the Romans passage.

[viii] For a refutation of pro-gay theology, see The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas. Dallas is not only a former gay man, but was also involved in the pro-gay theology movement. His treatment is truthful and compassionate.

[ix] For an introduction in these arguments, I’d recommend Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Santinover, Homosexuality and American Public Life by Christopher Wolfe, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-sex Marriage and Parenting by Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, and articles on Stand to Reason’s website www.str.org.

Sad Times for the Episcopal Church

Brett McCracken — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:25:49 -0700

I attended an Episcopal church one summer a few years ago. I’m not Episcopalian, but I enjoyed the church and the experience. I loved the liturgy and tradition of it—the sense of being part of an ancient, worldwide, structured body of believers. I loved the use of organ and the singing of 500 year-old hymns. I loved the creeds.

But sadly, the Episcopal Church is a dying denomination, and the events earlier this week at the Episcopal General Convention in Anaheim only underscore its deterioration.

At the convention, Episcopal leaders pronounced gays and lesbians eligible for “any ordained ministry,” even though Anglican leaders had sought a clear moratorium on consecrating another gay bishop after the Gene Robinson hoopla of 2003.

This bold move by the American Episcopal church—a slap in the face to the authority structure of the worldwide Anglican communion—is symptomatic of the larger and long-developing rifts in the communion, and it’s likely going to be the last straw before a major schism.

I think N.T. Wright—Anglican Bishop of Durham and respected author/theologian—is correct when in The Times this week he described the situation thusly: “In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether.”

There are a lot of denominational politics at play here, but what this whole thing comes down to is the fact that some within the Anglican world (American Episcopalians) elevate personal preference over the Bible, tradition, and authority. Essentially it comes down to a lack of discipline and a selfish “I should be able to do whatever I want!” attitude that disregards anything that isn’t inclusive or tolerant. It’s a blurring of biblical teaching and an intentional obfuscating of morality to meet the fickle whims and needs of our own variegated sexual impulses.

N.T. Wright addresses this idea in his article:

…But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation)… Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

Gay Episcopals would likely retort by pointing out that it is simply unjust. They are Christians and they want to serve God in a pastoral role in the church, and they can’t help the fact that they are gay. It’s just not fair that they are forbidden from the ministry.

Again, N.T. Wright answers this well:

The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately,” which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire.”

The thinking of the Episcopalians in Anaheim this week is simply a symptom of the larger culture in the postmodern world. We can be whoever we want to be, and no one can argue against the rightness of our own feelings or inclinations. Tradition and authority (and scripture) be damned! What matters is my own experience.

To that, N.T. Wright says this:

It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

But at the end of the day, the Christian life requires discipline and sacrifice. The deterioration of Episcopal-Anglican relations reflects the unpopularity of this idea in the contemporary world. People don’t want to believe that to be a Christian means that they can’t do things they feel are right, or that they must deny themselves the pleasures they so strongly desire. They don’t like the idea of self-control and restraint. But that’s what being a Christian is all about.

Wisely, N.T. Wright mentions in his article that we must remember that there is a distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other. It is one thing to have disordered or confused sexual desires. It is an entirely other thing to act on those. “We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires,” notes Wright. “The question is, what shall we do with them?”

In the Anglican church, there is no prohibition against the consecration of a person with “deep-rooted inclinations and desires.” But the understanding is that, in reverence to God, scripture, and the church, that person remain celibate. And it’s possible. It just takes discipline.

The Episcopalians—those wild, rebellious, American Anglicans who insist that active homosexual lifestyles are okay to God—are clearly lacking in the discipline department. And as a result, the world’s third largest body of Christians (the worldwide Anglican communion) is losing its unity and–perhaps–credibility.

Teaching Tolerance

Kristen Howerton — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:08:06 -0700

Last night the news covered the story of an 11-year-old who committed suicide due to relentless bullying about his sexual orientation. Again - he was ELEVEN YEARS OLD. The news program I watched featured a myriad of resources for parents of children who might be bullied. But for me, I think this is a wake-up call to ALL parents, to make sure that our children are not the ones committing acts of bullying and hate to other children. From what I gathered watching the news, a majority of the children in his class were engaed in this kind of taunting towards him.

The harassment of children who may or may not be gay is not a political or religious issue, and really has nothing to do with our own ideologies or moral convictions. This is one of those situations where we need to set aside our polarized feelings. Teaching and modeling tolerance has nothing to do with how we voted on Prop 8 or how we interpret scripture regarding homosexuality.

Gay slurs (and racial slurs) should have no place in our children's vocabulary, and yet this is a plague that spreads across our country. Children often learn these attitudes from adults in their life, whether overt or covert. We as parents are culpable if our children are spreading hate. While it's easy to say that kids learn to tease others from each other, this child's death is an example that we should be more proactive in teaching our children that we will not tolerate intolerance. We can't ignore the issues of bullying and let them learn it from their peers. Eleven year olds don't pick on people because they feel they are "sinning" or are trying to exhort them - eleven year olds pick on people because they are "different" and have not been taught that this behavior is unacceptable. If we follow a Jesus's teachings we are taught to love others, and to show God's love through our actions. Today I am reminded that this needs to be an ongoing conversation with my children, and more importantly, something I model for them through every word that comes out of my mouth.