Amen and amen.

Why he dealt with some more harshly that others I don’t know. But his objective was always the same no matter what the sin or who the sinner…repent, bring forth fruits suitable for repentance, turn and follow me, put off the old, etc. How this repentance plays out is not cookie-cutter, but it must indeed play out if we are to assume the role of Disciple.

Yes, Jesus receives us, all of us, just as we are. But, he never intends to leave us in that state but rather to conform us into His Holy image. This is grace so amazing!

A comment to Michael’s first posting shared the story of two gays and their struggles. Several comments in this posting have asked the question (in different ways) of how Jesus would respond to gays.

In my frail understanding of who Jesus is, via reading his history in the NT, I will share how I see him reacting.

I’m not making a gay-stereotype but I want to use the most extreme example to make a point. If Jesus was to enter the most “extreme” gay bar of sexual variation (say a sadomachistic bar or bathhouse) I believe that 1) Jesus would be very comfortable (as comfortable as he would be in a church elder’s board meeting) 2) the people in the room would feel very comfortable with Jesus too, and not feel condemned 3) Jesus would see through the cultural trappings (piercings, tattoos, leather thongs) and see directly into the heart and the pain of the individual in the same way as he would look past the shirts and ties at the elder board meeting and into the specific pain of their hearts. The pain of the gay group may be unique to their experiences of being born with desires that were incongruent with the society in which they lived and wanted to be accepted in. Gay bigotry is alive and well from elementary schools throughout life. The individuals would sense Jesus’ compassion and understanding of their personal struggles in a way that they had never felt before.

Would Jesus invite them to follow Him? Of course. Would they? Like within any group, some would and some would not, because of His terms. His terms? “Follow me.” That, like for all of us, will mean an evolution of who we are.

When would Jesus be confrontational, turning over tables etc.? I really believe that the people, whom Jesus didn’t care for, were the Ted-Haggard types . . . those living a façade, preaching one thing, living squeaky-clean lives on the surface (condemning the “homosexual agenda”) but secretly living something else. I think this Haggard-syndrome is more common that we would like to believe. I’ve personally known three. I would tell their stories but my time is up . . .

My sexual sins (past and present) are still sin just like same-sex sexual activity. I don’t think anyone here is advocating that we frog march gays out of church. I think the issue though is what should the pastor say if asked point blank: “What does God think of homosexual sex?” I would hope the answer would be something like “It is a sin – any sex outside of biblical marriage is a sin. We are not a church that grades the severity of sin and we recognize that we all sin in a variety of ways. But God sent Jesus, who sacrificed himself for all of our sins.”

One of the larger baptist churches in my area had a bit of a controversy regarding its gay members. A membership directory was being published with pictures — you could take a family picture to be put in the directory. Two guys, who by all accounts have been in a long-term committed relationship, roll up and want their “family” picture taken. The person signing them up said “I don’t think so.” Controversy ensued — pastor then decided that there would be no family pictures period.

As I stated in the earlier thread, we need to separate the PR problem from the scripture issue. It is easy for straight people like me to elevate the sin of gay sex because it is highly unlikely I’ll ever be tempted. It’s easy for single people to bust on married people who cheat. But just because many of us want to throw our brothers and sisters down on the floor to snatch that sawdust from their eye doesn’t mean the sawdust isn’t there. What frustrates me about this debate is that both sides are using human standards to evaluate it rather than God’s standards. In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man still only has one eye — there is no grading on a curve contrary to the old saying.

We. Are. All. Sinners. Who have only one hope.

Think about what you know now about the relationship women have with men in that part of the world, even today. What woman today in that region would have been able to have even 2 husbands, much less extramarital relationships, without being stoned for her sin?
This was a woman whose family had probably set her up with 5 arranged marriages, each time sent back for any number of reasons (death of husband, illness in husband’s family, poor relationship with husband’s mother or 1st wife or whatever). The man she was living with was not her husband; in fact, it was probably her father or her oldest living male relative because no one else would have her. Of course the townspeople shunned her; she was incredibly unlucky.

We all do this. We all take our own life history and education and perspective and cultural values and see the bible through that lens. When we prooftext to one verse like Romans 1:26 or Hebrews 13:4 or any other verse, the refraction from that lens (to continue the metaphor) can be blinding.

What we need to remember is why Jesus came in the first place, living by example a life where orthodoxy was an unnecessary hindrance, where caring for the abandoned was paramount and where sharing love was to be as natural as breathing.

Where in this discussion of sin and becoming like Christ (as we define it, regardless of source) are we talking about the love Christ had for tax collectors and lepers and the people on the fringes of society? Who are the lepers in our society, and are we caring for them the way we should?

I put it to all of us; if we define ourselves by what sins we have or have not committed, and separate ourselves from others based on such distinctions then we have missed the point entirely. Jesus did not come to point out sin, in our lives or those of others. Jesus came to bring a better way of love and compassion and healing.

Does this make sense at all?

And as an “Ariminian” I must ask this question, “Can a lost sinner be decieved by a wrong and false gospel?”. For instance, If a homosexual person inquires about salvation in Christ but he is told he must forsake his lifestyle first or upon the very act of faith and that message is flawed, can that present a man made road block in the path of a seeker?

Remember Jesus Himself said that the Pharisees were blocking the way for sinners to enter the kingdom due to their man made rules, and he said that publicans and harlots enter the kingdom before the teachers of the law. We teach with great and swelling words that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works. We are such great reformers, aren’t we, “the just shall live by faith” is our borrowed montra.

And yet we require, we require, certain works in order to be fully saved. “What if they never change?”. I guess we would FORCED To leave it in God’s hands, what a novel experiment. Until then maybe we could pray, maybe we could teach, maybe we could love, maybe we could show some grace that doesn’t license sin but authenticates love.

Oh yea, we must worry about the implications of that upon our systematic theology which professes a sovereign God but refuses to trust completely on that same sovereignty we so often tout. What would happen if we recieved some gays into our fellowship and they never changed? What would happen if they left the same? What would happen if they never really were converted?

Jesus even made a refernce to Sodom that pulled the self righteousness from under has followers who assumed that their righteousness exceeded that of Sodom because they did not commit the same sins. The more I delve into this whole area I am confronted with a question of the veracity of the grace we claim. Can it only apply to the clean outside like the Pharisees, or is the grace of God sufficient to save a sinner right where he is and start a process of conforming a son to His older brother? Must this sinner present himself with the sanctification process already in gear before he can follow Christ?

In the end we are accomplished grace talkers but when it comes to dangerous and vulnerable and powerful grace we shrink with the uncomfortable uncertainty of an 8 year old little girl in a room full of dignitaries. We are afraid of making a mistake, we are afraid of expanding grace, we are afraid of trusting God. And what was the slur thrown at Jesus most often? He ate and drank with sinners and even allowed women of known sinful sexual practices to worship Him who He even used to chasten the self righteous thoughts of His discples about. He recieved sinners without preconditions.

We can sleep well tonight, they can never accuse us of that…

To be fair to Luke Timothy Johnson, he wouldn’t necessarily say he is turning to another authority outside of God, but would say that experience comes out of the discernment of the moving of the Holy Spirit. The example he typically points to is Acts 15 where Peter discusses his experience with Cornelius, on whom the Holy Spirit descended forcing Peter to say, ‘Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ (Acts 10.47) This led to the council under James to side with Peter and Paul against those who may well have been saying, ‘But the Bible says that all must be circumcised!’ (my paraphrase.) For Peter, Paul, and (perhaps reluctantly) James, the Holy Spirit and the experience of those Gentiles made for the change.

Whether or not one agrees with LTJ’s argument is another matter, but I don’t think it’s fair to say he is turning from the authority of God. He is trying to think through these issues as best he can. I also think this is a better place to begin a discussion.

Thank you again for allowing this subject on your blog and allowing discussion on it. Also, thank you for addressing the Romans 1 section, I thought I had seen more than the two posts citing that particular chapter regarding it. Even though I agree with your post, I must confess, I have heard a multitude of Christians citing those particular verses and more for their anti-gay rhetoric–for example the post that followed mine. Could not part of Romans 1 seem to be alluding or referring to mankind’s attempt to ‘know’ their pagan gods and ignore the one True God? Were there not fertility rituals and sexual ‘interactions’ with the gods seemed part of the practice of many ancient cultures?

Also, as you saw on the first portion (Section 1) of the question, many people raised the question of 1 Cor. 5 and fellowship with gays that were ‘Christians’ but unrepentant of their homosexuality– I just started to write that comparing withdrawal of fellowship from a ‘believer’ involved in an adulterous relationship with either his step-mother or even worse mother seems out of place [was the father alive?], but realized that bringing this up is almost a silly and unproductive cause since a high portion of those discussing 1 Cor. 5 assumed without any doubt that homosexuality is a sin and could not be anything else but that. Seems the only way to figure this out is to call upon God and have Him guide us and our hearts. For the non-gays to maybe get to know or at least observe some gay Christians and see if God is working in their lives and to what extent and as for us gay Christians, allow God to work as fully as He pleases in our lives and to whatever extent.

Kevin H.
aka Niveksi
http://www.gaychristian.net/