UPDATE: The comments on this post are closed. If they are opened again, I will only publish DIRECT responses to the post. Speeches about specific sexual sins and how much we need to shout about them will not be published. I am embarassed by a good bit of what is on here now, but it illustrates PERFECTLY what I wrote about in the post: we are willing to reduce sexual sinners to nothing more than behavior if it makes us feel righteous. God help us.
And I’m not sure what the gay lifestyle is, really. The gay people I know have the same boring, day-to-day, bill-paying suburban lifestyle I do. They just do it with someone of the same sex. -Jjoe, IM commenter
Categorizing people by their sins, or by any single characteristic, is a risky business. We ought to consider the dangerous edge we walk when we do it.
There’s something very uncomfortable for me when Christians begin talking about “single issue” human beings. Even when the persons being discussed are labeling themselves with a single label. It bothers me.
I realize there are times we have no choice but to talk about people in terms of a single issue, characteristic or behavior. But does anyone else have the same feeling that I do: if you aren’t careful, you are on the road to dehumanization.
There are, for example, a group of people who have decided to identify themselves primarily by their GLBT sexual behavior. I understand how, in THEIR worldview, that makes sense. In my worldview, it’s got big problems all it’s own.
Oh, I know that Paul does it in I Cor 6 and Romans 1 and several other places. I’m not going to an extreme here on the simple use of language. “Some of you were…..” can’t be said any other way.
But when you are at the lunch table with a few Christian friends, and they start saying “gays” or “liberals” or “pro-aborts,” does anyone else get the feeling that we are heading down the same road that ends up saying “Jews,” “Muslims” and “Blacks” in ways that are shorthand for thinking of members of these groups as somehow a bit less than the same kinds of human beings we are?
Language is powerful in the way it accommodates sin. And we are quick to justify what we are saying as “only words.” You can dehumanize your spouse with a few syllables, and then defend yourself by saying it was “just what I say when I’m mad.”
Commenter Jjoe hits something right on the wood of the bat: the “gay lifestyle” is either incomprehensible as a descriptive term- dozens of people are living the “gay lifestyle” around you and you probably have no idea- or it is reducing a person to a sexual act. Even if some mistaken notion of fighting their perception of dehumanization by those who disapprove leads them to own that term, does that mean that those of us who believe all people are made by God and loved by the crucified/risen Christ should adopt that language?
In my opinion, the usual reason to adopt that language is to put the human element at arms length and to over emphasize the wrong thing entirely.
Are people their skin color? Their political party? Their sexual behavior? Their age? Their religion?
Christians might want to check in with what some folks are thinking when they refer to “fundamentalist Christians.” They are a few steps away from declaring you so different from the rest of the “normal” human race that you may need to be controlled by laws. You may like the label for all the right reasons, but check out how the other fellow is using it.
I’m a human being, an American, a father, husband, employee, writer, teacher and many things. I’m also a Christian and I am not defined by anyone’s insistence that their notion of Christians as a threat determines what I will do or what my place is in the community. Let me be myself, and I’ll show you and tell you how I appropriate “Christian” into my life.
This isn’t relativism. It’s not going the easy, downhill route of making people into an accumulation of labels that allow us to dehumanize them without guilt.
Speak carefully of PERSONS. They are, after all, made in the image of God and loved by him in the Gospel. We say that is what matters most to us. Let’s listen to our own words and look into our own hearts and see if that’s true.
This is a good “check your head” post, and something for everyone to seriously consider when they aren’t engaged in any given debate and therefore prone to knee jerk responses. I myself admit to preconceived ideas of “fundamentalist Christians” or “evangelicals”, and those ideas are all too often negative. It is often all too easy to dismiss “them” as intolerant, desirous of theocracy, and anti-intellectual. It is also wholly unfair. Individuals are just that, and deserving of individual evaluation.
Thanks for this.
Absolutely amazing thoughts imonk!! You put eloquently to words what I have considered before but not expressed so clearly! Definitely one of your best articles. thanks!
You give some very good insights when it comes to thinking about and talking about homosexuals as human beings loved by God. But what about when we’re talking directly to a homosexual friend, co-worker, or family member and that person starts asking us honest questions like: Do you think I’m going to hell because I’m gay? or Did God make me gay just to damn me to hell? or How can God expect me to change something so fundamental about myself?
I was just wondering if you have any suggestions or insights when it comes to one-on-one conversations.
Ron: in answer to your three questions – the first two questions miss the point (God calls all people to him. He doesn’t treat gay people any differently – we are all in the same boat) and the third is a misconception (does God expect a gay person to become heterosexual in orientation, even if he calls all of us to the same sexual standards in practice?).
The way I try to handle that problem is by not talking about “gays” but about the “gay lobby”, in the same way I don’t talk generally about “muslims” when it comes to the contemporary terror threat, but about “islamist extremists”.
There are some people who not just identify themselves primarily by their sexual preference, but whose entire interaction with others centers on promoting acceptance of that sexual preference as normal. Unless you go along with that project, it is impossible to relate to them as anything other than an activist or lobbyist for that issue.
P.S. just to clarify what I mean about that activism identity: these are people who are not satisfied that I think some form of registerd civil partnership for same-sex couples is appropriate but who feel that unless I join them in lobbying for same-sex marriage as altogether identical to traditionall marriage I am a homophobe.
I have two gay friends, one of whom insists that I regard his form of sexual behavior as his essence, his identifying characteristic, and the other who insists only that I respect him as a person. I am much more comfortable with the second, since he believes, as I do, that his sexual behavior does not “explain” him, just as I hope he is more comfortable with me because I do not believe my sexual behavior “explains” me.
You Emerg**** You
“Christians might want to check in with what some folks are thinking when they refer to “fundamentalist Christians.†They are a few steps away from declaring you so different from the rest of the “normal†human race that you may need to be controlled by laws. You may like the label for all the right reasons, but check out how the other fellow is using it.”
This post should be required reading, not only for those who tag people with socieo-political stereotypes, but for anyone who sees people through a theological lens. Calvinists, Baptists, RC’s do not all think as a bloc. Neither do all homeschoolers or creationists/evolutionists.
Labeling is based on fear. Lucy told Charlie Brown, “If we can find out what you’re afraid of, we can label it.” We’re afraid of the things we don’t understand, so we distance ourselves from them by attaching labels. Then we become elitists and controllers…but that’s a whole new set of labels.
Great post, Monk. We all need this reminder.
But when you are at the lunch table with a few Christian friends, and they start saying “gays†or “liberals†or “pro-aborts,†does anyone else get the feeling that we are heading down the same road that ends up saying “Jews,†“Muslims†and “Blacks†in ways that are shorthand for thinking of members of these groups as somehow a bit less than the same kinds of human beings we are?
YES.
Like another commenter wrote, I have gay friends who are all about their sexual orientation being their essence, and who expect me to view them that way. I have other gay friends who want me to view and respect them as a fellow human being. Like the other commenter, I much prefer the latter.
One thing I can’t stand: when I’m talking with a group of perfectly rational people and they spit out a line about “liberals” or “fundamentalist Christians.” My opinion of them tends to decrease just a bit when I hear that, since I have friends on both sides of the aisle, and none of them fit the stereotypes completely.
I don’t mind *moderate* Christians, as long as they keep their beliefs and perverted lifestyle to themselves. It’s those *extremist* Christians I can’t stand. You know–the ones who define it as a part of their essence…?
Of course I respect them as people. It’s when they try to go beyond that, and get me to affirm their spiritual orientation, that the trouble starts.
We will loose the generation of young adults that are 18 – 25 if we don’t, as Christians, start expressing ourselves more like this post!
This topic has been troubling me a great deal lately and you have wrapped words around my exact thoughts.
@Bertrand – Excellent point.
What part of “Love your enemies” do we not get, and why do need to create these Uncle Tom distinctions between a good (insert label here) and a bad (insert label here)?
Adding adjectives to a label doesn’t make it any more acceptable as a practice.
Bertrand Nietzsche, Well put. A reminder that dehumanization is like water – It flows everywhere and is ferociously difficult to control.
This is a different Ron.
In my estimation labels can be useful as long as we understand they are not absolute. It seems Jesus received people who were humble and sought something greater than themselves, which in essence was truth. He received tax collectors, adulterers and prostitutes – labels by any other name. These were not positive labels, but the scriptures use them. It doesn’t say “and a sinner came to Jesus” it identifies what sin they were known for. All of us somehow bear a negative
label(s) which identifies us with the need for a savior, and the need to change how we live.
That aside, I do not see a homosexual a needing deliverence from just that sin, but as a human being needing a changed heart. It’s what we all need.
I deal with a fairly diverse interdenominational group and most Christians I relate to see fundamentalists in a negative way depending on their own experience. It’s hard to overcome this when you view people as ignorant, very prejudice and condeming because that is what they experienced when encountering these folks. A rather mild example of sharing notes on “running the gauntlet” at college with the fundies shouting “are you saved?”. I am open to any suggestion in overcoming this. And I will admit to having to fight it in myself. It is hard when I hear the ignorance and hatred toward my own tradition.
I have two gay friends, one of whom insists that I regard his form of sexual behavior as his essence, his identifying characteristic, and the other who insists only that I respect him as a person. I am much more comfortable with the second, since he believes, as I do, that his sexual behavior does not “explain†him, just as I hope he is more comfortable with me because I do not believe my sexual behavior “explains†me. — Dan Crawford
The second sounds like “a person who just happens to be aroused by the same sex”; the first sounds like a homosexual fanboy, whose only identity and reason for existence is his sexual behavior. He’s accepted the Fred Phelps/Jack Chick definition, just flipped one-eighty from an abomination to a Righteous Virtue.
I see a similar attitude in fanboys of any type — D&D, anime, comix, Furry, Jesus. They have completely defined themselves by one facet (usually an overwhelming interest) until there is literally nothing else to them. In the words of The Great Divorce, they have become grumbles.
[Mod edit]
Bertrand: “It’s when they try to go beyond that, and try to get me to affirm their spiritual orientation, that the trouble starts.”
I really like this part of your statement, Bertrand. Of course, as Christians we will always attempt to talk with others regarding our faith. It is what we are called to do, and therefore, there will always be trouble with the “others” who are offended by the conversation or attempt at conversation. Oddly, as I read your clever statement, and I am a Christian, I am not offended by the adjectives used or the attitude implied. It is, for me, just part of the consequences of being an “extremist” Christian. You know, the attitude that if they hated Christ then they will hate me as I attempt to talk about Christ.
So, maybe the problem for all groups is the lack of an expectation that one will receive a societal “backlash” of some sort. One does not get angry if the “backlash” is expected. Like you, I do not want to be forced by others to have a certain attitude towards whatever agenda they are espousing. I do not mind the dialogue but like to respectfully agree to disagree once the conversation has occurred.
Hopefully, my fellow “extremist” Christians will respectfully agree to disagree in their conversations about Christ and move on once the conversation has occurred.
P.S. just to clarify what I mean about that activism identity: these are people who are not satisfied that I think some form of registerd civil partnership for same-sex couples is appropriate but who feel that unless I join them in lobbying for same-sex marriage as altogether identical to traditionall marriage I am a homophobe. — Wolf Paul
I’ve run into someone even beyond that, a former friend who “outed” back in 82-83 after what could only have been a mid-life crisis at 30. So far gone into “Sexual Identity” he’d play the “HOMOPHOBIA!” card off the bottom of the deck ….[Mod edit] That was when I bailed out; years later I heard he’d gotten banned from cons in two cities at request of the local Gay Fandom, he was so over the top. I think the gay community ended up having to knock some sense into him. Best poster boy for Fred Phelps I have EVER ran into.
“Even when the persons being discussed are labeling themselves with a single label. It bothers me.”
Amen to that, I have the same reaction. There’s more to life than sexuality. It’s harder to find common ground if that’s the only focus.
I loved this post, but I think that we Kingdom people might want to consider the biggest label we place on people not like us. “The Lost” is a big label that many of us use or have used in the past.
I was in a conversation on a friend’s blog / journal for an unnamed mission organization and she’s considering fasting. A few of us have challenged her to fast from her friends for a week. She’s never lived alone. She’s never really BEEN alone, and she just turned 23. Went from college to living with a family to support her inability to pay for rent in a 1BR apartment on her own while paying student loans off.
Anyway, the tone of her post and some of the comments after our suggestion of fasting from friends and working on “be still and know that I am God” bore the dichotomy of “friends” and “the lost”. And one of “I really can’t handle being around lost people for long.” Which is weird for someone in a mission organization. However… Perhaps it’s hard for her to be around nonKingdom people who are very much good people but don’t know Jesus.
And we in evangelical circles have heard that one cannot do good things without knowing Jesus. And yet, some of the best things that have been done throughout history have been at the hands or direction of those who do not know Jesus.
I’ve been fond, recently, of the quote, “All truth is God’s truth.” As image-bearers, we all have some truth in our hearts. It’s sad that non-Kingdom people’s words are just cast aside because of that label we put on them.
Reminds me. A friend of mine has another friend who is openly homosexual. (the friend of mine is as well). His friend had a friend who decided to attend a well-known denominational university that shall remain nameless. The friend joined a peer Bible Study and one of the things that all the peers agreed to (by vote or otherwise, but it wasn’t unanimous) was to not be friends with homosexuals any more.
Sad. Do we not remember that the deceived do know know they are deceived?
‘Language is powerful in the way it accommodates sin. And we are quick to justify what we are saying as “only words.‒ That made me think of another worrying trend I’ve noticed recently, that of young people (including Christ followers) using “gay”, usually misspelt (I’ve seen “ghey” and “guay”) as a pejorative term. I know what it’s like to be stung by “only words” on a regular basis: as the mother of an intellectually disabled teenager, I wince when I hear people say “that’s so retarded.” And I hear it all the time. Our society is only selectively politically correct.
“Even when the persons being discussed are labeling themselves with a single label. It bothers me.â€
Amen to that, I have the same reaction. There’s more to life than sexuality. It’s harder to find common ground if that’s the only focus. — Memphis Aggie
My writing partner likes to relate a story about a psych test given to astronaut candidates in the days of The Right Stuff. Said test was 100 lines starting “I am…”. The candidate had to fill out as many as possible, describing themselves, and not repeating.
Most people ran dry describing themselves this way around 30-40 lines. However, he did mention this test did find a consistent pattern among a lot of homosexuals. They’d poop out after only 10 lines or so, and every line description would refer back to their homosexuality. Obviously, these test-takers were defining themselves largerly or entirely by their sexual behavior, which wasn’t a good thing. I suspect fanboys in general would give similar results — running dry in 10 or less, each one relating to their fanboy obsession. Scary.
(But that wasn’t the scariest test result. The scariest were those who could answer only ONCE. “If they can’t get beyond one line, Run Away. Run Very Far Away.”)
I agree, iMonk. One thing I have found helpful is to use language such as “a person who struggles with same-sex attraction”, which calls out that they are, first and foremost, a person, and that this is a sexual (and therefore moral) behavior they are struggling with, similar to a man who struggles with an addiction to lust through pornography.
I agree, iMonk. One thing I have found helpful is to use language such as “a person who struggles with same-sex attractionâ€, which calls out that they are, first and foremost, a person, and that this is a sexual (and therefore moral) behavior they are struggling with, similar to a man who struggles with an addiction to lust through pornography.
Why not just “sinner”? Or does that hit too close to the bone because, after all, you’re a sinner too, just not that kind of sinner…?
Actually, why anything? People are people. We all sin, we all mess up, we all have areas of our lives we’re not completely honest about, to others and to ourselves. Why categorize at all?
I just don’t see how ANY qualifier is appropriate and I can’t even begin to understand how it comes up in conversation unless that conversation is gossipy and negative in nature.
Everyone’s a sinner. Playing field’s now even. Any further categorization implies you think you’re not quite the sinner someone else is. Which just compounds your sin.
Labels ultimately say more about the person using them than the person they’re referring to.
N has a good point – making too much about homosexuality as opposed to any number of other serious sins can become singling out a small group for condescension or ridicule under the guise of evangelism. It’s precisely because it’s a sin most are never tempted by that makes it psychologically easy to single out. Compare it to adultery and you instantly see the difference.
Boethius said: “So, maybe the problem for all groups is the lack of an expectation that one will receive a societal “backlash†of some sort. One does not get angry if the “backlash†is expected.”
—-Boethius, I believe you have that right. In fact, didn’t Jesus warn that to follow him would result in a “backlash” against his followers?
LABELING
Why wouldn’t the sexually immoral, the idolaters, the adulterers, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, thieves, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, or swindlers not expect a “backlash?” They will not inherit the kindom of God. Now that is a BIG “backlash.” And that is labeling right out of the Bible.
fishon
I have never had it proven to me that God is against same-sex commited relationships. I’d say that would be a great place for Christians to begin. Stop picking out the scriptures with the term “homosexuality”, which wasn’t even used in language until the late 19th Century, and really figure out what it means to us today. Same sex relationships have existed throughout the history of mankind, and I can’t understand this militant stance with today’s Christians on this subject. I personally believe God honors commitment, and the heart wants what the heart wants. Scientists have proven this to be a disposition people are born with. It’s nothing that has to be struggled with or against unless you are going against your God given nature to take part in it. Why not accecpt the fact that God makes people this way for a reason, and that reason is good and right?
How righteous of us to sit in judgement of others. Didn’t Jesus say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. How about taking the log out of our own eye before condeming our brothers and sisters thier slinters. As for me I have plenty of “sin” that needs working on before I move on to someone else.
Fishon: I wrote about the use of labeling in Paul’s lists and what that means for the use of labels. But the implications of our use of those labels should be carefully considered.
Debra, I think Memphis Aggie hit the nail on the head when she/he said “It’s precisely because it’s a sin most are never tempted by that makes it psychologically easy to single out.”
I think that explains the militant stance some Christians take on the issue. It’s something they can heave a huge sigh of relief over, thinking that has nothing to do with me, and then feeling free to target that particular “sin” (and I, too, am not sure homosexual relationships are necessarily sinful — promiscuity, yes, but a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship, I don’t think so).
But if we were ALL forced to wear placards around our necks with our greatest sin written indelibly upon it, as in “X, who struggles with sloth and gluttony”, or “Y, who struggles with pride and elitism”, or “Z, who struggles with name-dropping and idolizing designer labels”, maybe we’d get how awful it is to refer to someone even as “A, who struggles with same sex attraction”.
The worst part about that last label is that experiencing same sex attraction isn’t even considered a sin by most branches of Christianity, and I believe the person who wrote that is Catholic and the Catholic Church is quite clear that being gay is not a sin in itself, so that that particular person needs to use that label when it comes to his or her gay “friends” (who does this to a friend…?) really does say more about the user than the target.
Also, if people focus on other people’s sins, they don’t have to spend as much time examining their own consciences.
I just don’t see how ANY qualifier is appropriate and I can’t even begin to understand how it comes up in conversation unless that conversation is gossipy and negative in nature.
Everyone’s a sinner. Playing field’s now even. Any further categorization implies you think you’re not quite the sinner someone else is. Which just compounds your sin.
Isn’t it possible to discuss the particulars of a certain sin and how they affect people or society at large? It’s as though the act of discussing homosexuality itself is now a sin, and to do so implies gossip and negativiity. I’m not someone hung up on talking about it, but there’s almost a reverse piousness in some of the comments I’m reading here. As in, unless you walk in this nuanced label-less world concerning sin you must be a fundamentalist jerk.
I have never had it proven to me that God is against same-sex commited relationships.
Has it been proven to you that Jesus died and rose on the third day?
Aren’t we gratful that our God forgives us for hating and condeming his children. Remember Paul thought he was on a “mission from God” when he had Stephen stoned.
Ron…why the snark? It’s all from love here, I thought.
Ron,
I think it would be more profitable to discuss with a trusted spiritual friend how our own sin affects society at large. We can effect a change in doing that.
Oh, sure — it’s possible to discuss any sin in general terms, but then you’re not applying the label to a particular person. “Homosexuality”, or better yet, “the practice of homosexuality” is fine, but once you apply the label to a particular person, then you’re heading down a dangerous road. But then it’s not a qualifier or label, is it?
To take the emotionally charged gay thing out of it all, take pride for an example. We can probably all agree that pride is a sin.
Discussing pride in a general way is a good thing. Whispering to your friend in the back of the church, “there goes B, who suffers from the sin of pride”, not so much, eh?
That’s why I just don’t see how the label or qualifier can ever really be appropriate in most conversations, unless the person in question chooses to use it him or herself.
Also, I think Memphis Aggie got it right — it’s too easy to let a label like that get out of hand when you know it can never be applied to you. We’re all incredibly self righteous when expressing disgust over pedophilia, but how many of us get a little nervous when it comes to a discussion of whether or not taking home office supplies is really stealing?
Yes, I’m a sinner, I get that. But I don’t march in parades chanting that “people who have slept with someone before they were married have rights too!”, or “I love to gossip, and I’m proud of it, and I think there should be a law passed that says gossiping is o.k.!”, or whatever. Those are things that aggravate me about the Gay/Lesbian movement. Of course, there are wonderful couples who have lived with one of their own sex for many years, or there are those stories about two same-sex people adopting a child, etc. There are also nightmare stories of couples who were denied the right to be in ICU with their significant other, or who were denied property rights after one’s death. Those are civil matters that can and should be dealt with individually. I’m never going to put my name on a petition for gay marriage. Sorry, not gonna happen. I’m also never going to advocate making everything the Bible warns us about into non-sin issues, just because it’s stepping on someone’s toes or hurts someone’s feelings for what they’re doing to be called “sin”. I have enough beams in my own eye thank you very much. I don’t need to be worried about the specks in anyone else’s eye. I, too, hate the “labels”, but we’re not that far into the “Gay and proud of it” phase of humanity. I know it’s not a new thing, but what’s new is the “in your face” public display of it. I guess I like sin to be more private and “in the closet”. I am saying that tongue in cheek, but you know what I mean.
On the same note, I have a friend who recently met a man, and they began a nice, friendly dating relationship (both in their 40′s). Lots of dinners, movies, boat rides, etc. Lots of texting, emailing, and phone talking. Then one day she said something about meeting an old friend from high school who “came out of the closet” when he was 25 years old. She hasn’t seen him since then, and they hooked up on FaceBook. He invited her to dinner to meet his partner, and she was excited about it. Silence. Took her home. No more phone calls, no more texts, emails, etc. A few weeks later she ran into him, and after the awkward moment, said “Nice to see you. I was beginning to wonder if you had dropped off the face of the earth.” He informed her that since she told him she was going to have dinner with a “couple of queers”, he has nothing else to say to her. Don’t text me. Don’t email me. Don’t ever contact me again. Walked off. Hmmm… I say she dodged the bullet on that one.
CJH
>….I don’t march in parades chanting that “people who have slept with someone before they were married have rights too!â€, or “I love to gossip, and I’m proud of it, and I think there should be a law passed that says gossiping is o.k.!â€, or whatever.
Neither do hundreds of thousands of other gay individuals, and whether they do or not- and whether I find it irritating or not- isn’t really what’s on the table. Are people who want to promote their sexuality still deserving of being treated by Christians better than they treat themselves? I’d say Jesus would vote yes on that one.
Ron…why the snark? It’s all from love here, I thought.
No snarkiness intended. I prefer being straightforward (and have the same done with me in return), and meant no harm. I challenged you because your comments reflect what I fear is handled much to deftly these days. I suspect if a letter were to be delivered to the church in America one of the strong corrective items would be our failure to receive biblical truths and instead follow the reasoning you gave.
I personally believe God honors commitment, and the heart wants what the heart wants
Have you considered that what the heart desires is evil? This is about way more than sexuality, but that we have idolatrous hearts. Just because man desires something does not mean God approves. We have warped and twisted love to being that which satifies our pleasures.
The veracity of scripture stands. We are sinners, Jesus rose from the dead and God speaks strongly against sexual activity between same sexes (besides many other things). You may apply scientific and worldly reasoning, but it does not change the facts. If you want to leverage the means you brought up then you should rightly doubt the possibilty of many things in the Bible for it makes no sense to the world.
Let me remind everyone that this post is not an endorsement of anything nor an invitation to debate for the millionth time the same arguments we’ve been having for many years.
Let’s stay on topic please.
Imonk,
I think you miss the point that C. Hays is making. I now we all want to be as inclusive as possible but the core issue is that the majority of the time when we are dealing with the Gay community you are dealing with people who are not saying “I have sin problem” but you are dealing with people who are saying “What I am doing is not a sin.”
I think there is a clear differnce that has to be made. Should all people regardless of anything they have done, be treated with dignity and respect if encountered in our everyday lives? Certainly. Should we seek to minister to the gay community? Certainly.
But when people have taken the second stance, that what is called sin is not sin in their opinion, then you have moved to the Romans 1 level of complete and total rebellion against God and His order.
Two other thoughts.
It was stated in another post that “Jesus would probably take a gay child/sibling and their significant other on vacation with Him.” (Sounds strange but read the back post if any of you aren’t getting it) But would Jesus give a drunk a drink? Would Jesus do anything that enabled people to continue in their wickedness or would he firmly and compasionately command them to “go and sin no more.”
And while all sin is a violatin of God’s rightoussness, from my four year old stealing a piece of candy when no one is looking, to the murderer in jail, we are fooling ourselves if we do not think that certain sins, and more importantly the calling of what is sin not sin (as some do) do not have disproportionate effects on society.
2. Refering to people as being “gay” is not the same nor on the same road to refering to people as black, Jew, or Hispanic. This hits a basic fundemental issue that has to be addressed. Homosexuality is a choice. Is there some indicators that certain folks might be predispositioned to homosexual activity? Possibly. But there is clear proof that certian people are geneticaly predispostioned to alcholohism too, that does not mean the alcholic has to pick up the beer. Being black, female, Jewish are not choices that people made.
I know several gay men. They are Christians. Not all Christian tradtions see homosexaulity as a sin. I don’t think they would march in a parade about being gay. You wouldn’t know they were gay if you met them. Unless they told you. The aren’t keeping a secret but I don’t met someone and say I’m heterosexual.
I don’t like a lot of things thrown in my face. I think gay people just trying to get through their day get a lot of things thrown in their faces. Do unto others.
Are people who want to promote their sexuality still deserving of being treated by Christians better than they treat themselves? I’d say Jesus would vote yes on that one.
Monk, I agree 100%. But still, it seems to me that the way many people approach the issue, we could “love” them into damnation. I think Jesus may have some sharp words for Christians that constantly shrink from some necessary statements. I mean, I think it’s fine to set a tone which creates dialogue, but sooner or later we have to know that the truth is a very sharp blade, which must cut through hearts of stone. I’m no fire and brimstone guy, but neither am I one to appreciate any level of condoning what we may do wrong, whether not loving my wife properly or sidestepping the nature of homosexuality.
austin,
“Should all people regardless of what they have done be treated with dignity and respect.” YES
“N” writes “People are people. We all sin, we all mess up, we all have areas of our lives we’re not completely honest about, to others and to ourselves. Why categorize at all?”
Certainly. No doubt. In terms of theology, in terms of God’s judgment and God’s grace, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We have to admit that we are sinners in order to become Christians. I wasn’t aware that anyone was debating or denying this.
But from an entirely different perspective – in terms of how we actually live our everyday lives and function in this world — from that perspective most people see a difference between a 5-year-old-child stealing a cookie before dinner and Hitler sending 6 million to the gas chambers. I don’t quite see how society could function without “categorizing” in this way.
“N” also writes “Labels ultimately say more about the person using them than the person they’re referring to.” Well, if making a common sense distinction between a 5-year-old cookie thief and Hitler says more about me than it says about either the toddler or the tyrant, so be it.
I know several gay men. They are Christians.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality
So you have determined this passage has no merit? And I’m not tryiong to be snarky.