One December day, when I was seven years old, and alone in our house, I sneaked into my parents’ bedroom, hauled open their closet door, and found, fresh from the department store, just about every toy I had asked Santa to bring me that upcoming Christmas.
Aghast and transfixed, I then knew the brutal truth: far from being way up in the North Pole, Santa Claus was in the closet.
Har!
No, but seriously: I didn’t like my new reality. I liked my old reality, the reality in which I had believed for my entire life—the more imaginative reality. But what could I do? Try to somehow reconcile the unwrapped purchases in my parent’s closet with the whole idea of elves working away in their North Pole workshop?
Love the Santa, but hate the sales receipts? Try to pray away the pay?
Forget it. It was over. Adulthood had scored another knockout.
Perhaps you see where I am going with the metaphor.
That’s right: one day, when you’re home alone, and in no way prepared to deal with it, gay people are going to jump out of the closet and beat you up.
No, but just like the time was then upon me to accept that gift-giving Santa Claus doesn’t really exist, the time is now upon you to accept that gay-bashing Jesus Christ doesn’t really exist. But at least with your new understanding of the way things are, you get to keep Jesus Christ. I had to totally ditch Santa Claus: all of a sudden Smokey the Bear was more real. But you get to totally change your entire understanding of gay people, and still remain 100% Christian. Christianity will actually get better for you, because fully accepting gay people will decrease the amount of anger and stress, and increase the amount of love in your life.
Pffft. Upon learning there was no Santa Claus, I immediately dropped out of Little League and started smoking cigarettes. So. You know.
Here’s the thing: in days gone by, it was reasonable for Christians not to question conventional wisdom about the Bible. Because everyone used the Bible to justify slavery, for instance, Christians were okay with believing that some of their fellow human beings were just another species of farm animal they rightfully owned. Later, we Christians were entirely comfortable using the Bible to justify the atrocious idea that women are second-class citizens too simple-minded to be trusted with the vote.
And up until the Internet made readily available all kinds of previously inaccessible knowledge and information, we could be excused for believing that the Bible indisputably states that God considers homosexual love a moral abomination.
Today, however, anyone who can read, or simply watch YouTube videos, is forced to acknowledge the absolute credibility of the universe of scholarship, and the reasoning based upon it (here’s mine), which unequivocally proves that the Bible does not, in fact, oblige Christians to believe that homosexual love, in and of itself, is necessarily any less moral than is heterosexual love.
That closet door is now swung wide open. The truth of the matter is now there for anyone to behold.
Christians today who take seriously the search for truth must admit that the old axiom that homosexuality is a sin has been forever reduced in status from objective truth to subjective opinion. From fact to belief. From beyond question to unquestionably dubious.
Believing that homosexual love is a condemnable sin, in other words, is now a choice one must make.
And what Christian—what person at all?—would choose ignorant condemnation over enlightened love?
So what if there’s no Santa Claus? We still receive all the gifts. And we still get to hold hands, gather around the Christmas tree, sing all the beautiful songs, and feel all the beautiful love.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 584 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 »
Lymis – You are by far my favourite commenter here. You use words like an artist uses ink and brush to create a lush, vivid landscape of thought.
John – God bless you! Keep up the awesome work! Btw, i just ordered “Unfair” today!
A lot of Christians believe it’s only a sin if it is acted upon.
A lot of people think that about some versions of Christianity, too.
This is ridiculous! The Bible puts homosexuality on the same level as adulterers, liars, theives and fornicators none of which can inhert the kingdom. Quit trying to mold christianity to your theology and mold your theology to true christianity.
Wow. That comment is every bit as pathetic as your screen name. You should especially take the “liars” part seriously.
Bible Jim, your theology drives gay kids to suicide. Quit molding Jesus to fit your terror of homosexuality.
Hi, Bible Jim!
I understand that you are passionate about this, and the Bible is certainly a great thing for you to be passionate about, Jim! But what do you say we talk this out like rational adults. I’ll promise not to insinuate that you are anyhow sinful, or to dismiss what you say as having no real merit, if you can promise the same to me. Then perhaps you could begin to explain for me how you are so certain that you’ve understood the Bible correctly about this.
What do you say, Bible Jim?
I’d tell you that i’m a sinner too, that I need Jesus just as much as you. When Paul wrote that he had everyone in mind. We all need Jesus for we have all sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God. And i’m sorry if the truth hurts, but that’s the Bible.
(Keep in mind that Paul was probably the biggest hypocrite at the time, he hunted and KILLED Christians before he was converted as Saul)
I’m not aware of any solid Biblical or other contemporary evidence that Saul personally participated in (although I believe we can safely conclude that he had supported) the killing of Christians (although perhaps persecution more generally: running them out of the synagogues, etc.—you know, like your theology does to gays), and the hagiography is somewhat vague and often not to be taken in a literal, historical sense.
Stephen, the first martyr, Saul was there and approved his death. He also “intensely persecuted” the early church.
However, the Holy Bible neglects to say anything to directly connect this “young man named Saul” to the Apostle Paul (though Luke could easily have simply added “who was later called Paul” here, or something like this—but perhaps the Holy Spirit, in his infinite prudence and foresight, was economizing on paper and ink for environmental reasons; who knows?).
There is the similar case of “a certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark 15:31)—most likely a reference to someone who was known to some of the original audience, but forgotten to later history except in connection with this single biblical event. And this man’s son, Rufus—is this the same Rufus as in Romans 16:13? It’s possible, but somewhat doubtful, given how common typical first names tend to be, and that the Rufus in Romans was with his mother in Rome while the other’s father was from Cyrene (Libya).
Plus, we know that Paul “studied at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3), and that Gamaliel’s view–which he was very courageously defended before the Sanhedrin when the rest all wanted to put Christians to death–was “Leave these men alone!” (Acts 5:38).
We can be fairly certain that this Gamaliel is the same one, since it’s unlikely there were any other prominent Pharisee rabbis with that same name in Jerusalem during the same time. But generic young men named Saul would have been rather more frequent, as it was a short name from a prominent figure of their history and Scripture, and this perhaps is part of why Saul became Paul, just as Simon (whose name in the New Testament alone is shared with at least five other people, one of whom was another of the Twelve) became Peter, in no small part simply so others can refer to them, like I’m doing right here, by a single first name.
… Really? You really believe that the Saul referred to in the book of Acts 21 times are all different men??? Wow what a useless book then.
You see, that’s the sort of conversational tone that I hoping to avoid, Bible Jim.
I am not saying that every time a Saul is mentioned in Acts it’s a different person. In fact, I happen to *believe* that the one mentioned in connection with Stephen’s martyrdom is indeed the same Saul as Paul! But in the absence of proof, we shouldn’t rush to judgment. Guilt in the slaying of someone is a very serious accusation, Jim. I wouldn’t want to slander his good name, so I allow a certain presumption of innocence until there’s prove of guilt. And I should hope no court of law at least finds someone guilty on the basis of nothing but having the same first name and political association and being from the same general area. I mean, if you can’t see that there’s reasonable doubt in this case, well, I just hope you’re not on the jury if I should ever happen to be accused of anything!
Furthermore (and I suppose I was being lazy not to mention it before, thinking that the reasonable doubt was enough) I’m sure I agree that he is party to the slaying, at whose feet the cloaks of the witnesses are laid, perhaps in part due to a difference of interpretation of what that really means. You likely interpret it in some “literal” sense, based on your experiences in the world, while I let the Bible define its own terms for me, notably giving a somewhat peculiar understanding of what a witnesses’ cloak is.
In any case, the Bible does say Saul approved of it—this one, who approved but didn’t necessarily participate, and whose mentioning is traditionally divided from the other by the start of new chapter, he is more likely the same one as Paul. From here on there’s a much clearly link: two verses later he’s destroying churches (putting people in prison, but for some reason *not* being said to have killed any), and in the chapter after this Saul is “still” threatening—though again, for some reason, no indication of complicity in committing—murder, until he is converted and becomes Paul.
“I wouldn’t want to slander his good name”
Paul’s name isn’t good, he himself calls himself the chief of sinners, the biggest hypocrite he knows (Probably why he changed it). There is a point to the bible, while all names aren’t always connected, Luke was trying to show the conversion of Saul to Paul, a sinner who wanted Christians dead to a man of God that will be talked about for over 2000 years and revered as one of the mightiest men of God to walk on this planet.
Anywhosil,
Its been swell.
Fair enough.
His name isn’t good, he’s only revered as one of the mightiest men of God to walk this planet…… hmmm.
Why is there a quibble about this? Paul himself mentions that he was a Pharisee and persecuted Christians. Paul is that Saul, and as far as I know, no one in the entire history of Christianity has really disputed it.
People like BibleJim always seem to disappear when they realize they aren’t going to be able to have this conversation on their own specific terms. I wonder why they get scared to have a different kind of conversation about this topic?
DR,
I can’t speak for Bible Jim, but one thing I have noticed over the years is that a lot of people, especially the ones who come swooping in with “Oh, yeah, but have any of you read Leviticus!? Gotcha!” or the similar “See those lists in Corinthians? Since they are absolutely clear and need no interpretation, all I have to do is mention them and everyone will skulk off defeated!”
I’ve come to realize that first, most of these people take for granted that anyone who has a pro-gay or even gay-neutral view must themselves be gay (why would anyone else support us?) and that nobody on the pro-gay side would even recognize a Bible if they got whacked with one, much less have read it, cherished it, and interpreted it for themselves.
Many of them are prepared for the idea of what the assume (often wrongly) an atheist would look and sound like, but they simply aren’t prepared to get intelligent discussion from people who take the religious and spiritual aspects of these things seriously.
Many of them are so used to having a searchable Bible concordance handy that it has never occurred to them to be prepared to actually discuss the underlying concepts. That has to be disorienting.
I find the same thing happens when I actually have discussions with the people who show up at the door asking if I have found their version of Jesus. It’s like nobody ever told them what to do when the door doesn’t get slammed in their face.
I do have a job and have to sleep you know. What kind of conversation do you want to have? I have an open mind with the understanding of the holy spirit and this isn’t just an “unclean meats” issue, but an inheritance issue. I don’t want you guys to be lead astray because some wolf who figured out how to put on some sheeps clothes pulled you away.
I’d like you to answer my question, Jim. When did you choose to be straight? Gives us the year of life that was for you.
@Allie
His persecution of Christians, indeed, is not disputed, but no one I’m aware of prior to the Reformation ever unambiguously suggests that Paul (as Saul) was party to killing someone. That’s just not the tradition of the Christian faith, sorry.
The truth never hurts me at all, Bible Jim!
Now, while I recognize that we are both sinners in need of God’s grace, I just didn’t think that’s what this discussion should be about. That just seems a little narrowly focused—self-centered even (I would say selfish, but I don’t think vying for the position of chief among sinners—to which, by the way, I believe I am Paul’s rightful heir—is particularly prideful). I don’t think it would make for a very productive conversation either, and moreover, it just doesn’t seem topical here, Jim.
No bible Jim…it really doesn’t. But then, as is so often the case, you have to commit to a little exegesis to understand scripture. So many are simply unwilling to invest any effort and would rather take their understanding from those as ill equipped at discernment as themselves.
Please quit assuming that the modern English translations of the condemnations of homosexuality are accurate translations of the original text.
Well, if using “Bible” as YOUR NAME isn’t the height of idolatry, I don’t know what is. So if we are going to start a conversation by defining what is ridiculous, I vote for your screenname.
Good heavens, Jim. That’s just plain embarrassing, and not just because it’s awfully similar to taking God’s name in vain. It’s embarrassing because you are insisting something (about the text you apparently love so much as to name yourself after it) that is patently incorrect.
The Bible does not speak of homosexuality. At all. The behaviors of which the Bible speaks are actually assumed to have been carried out by straight men (they had no concept of homosexuality as an orientation at that time in history) and the specific behaviors were those predatory in nature – NOT committed relationships between mutually consenting adults. Your certainty and willingness to pop in immediately with insults is quite telling.
Source Mindy?
Start with John’s book, UNFAIR. Read just the last chapter. He has all kinds of good info there. If that’s not enough, this is an interesting read:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-about-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X. And yes, I know, I know – it’s been “refuted.” But no, it really hasn’t. Olliff and Hodges, who wrote the oft-quoted “refutation” are not scholars. I can find NO information about them or their bodies of work anywhere, except this one writing. And all you have to do is look at the sources they use to “refute” him to see that they did not research the linguistic, cultural or historical context of the Bible for their piece.
This is a good piece, taking it verse by verse: http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/105119719/does-the-bible-condemn-homosexuality
That’s just a blog, but it makes the argument pretty well. The point is, that enough doubt is raised that it seems any decent Christian, any true follower of Christ, would err on the side of NOT condemning people, not judging, not deciding that the modern translations insisting gay people are doomed MUST be the correct one. So there, end of story, go to Hell. That is not how Jesus implored his followers to live, and that is the bottom line.
But anywho…
So a biased book and a blog? Get me some scholars, people that actually know the greek, maybe even a respectable pastor that knows Jesus and is in the word and have him admonish me.
God IS MADLY IN LOVE WITH YOU, he loved you first and still does love you. As a follower of Christ I’m called to proclaim truth and love the ones that blatantly reject it by rewording the Bible to fit their lifestyle. When I was doing my crap I knew I was wrong, I didn’t have to justify what I was doing, because I was dead wrong. Despite all this, I find it more loving for me to sit here and type my heart out to you in this foolish medium so that there might be an inch of a chance for you to know who Jesus is rather than just sit back and not say anything.
Jesus said simply that you have a choice to live or die, if you choose to live then you die, but if you choose to die then you will live. The choice is yours to make.
Plenty of scholars hold that view. I agree John isn’t going to be an expert in Greek etymology, but have you looked for one. Daniel Helmeniak was the first to brings such research into widespread popular discourse many years ago. A good place to start. You may complain he has a bias, but the work is sound. Others are available, though, who can’t be accused of a personal agenda. On”t have my list with me, but have a good book or two in mind I could share later.
You hit upon an important point right here, Jim:
“When I was doing my crap I knew I was wrong, I didn’t have to justify what I was doing, because I was dead wrong.”
Exactly. Whereas loving, committed, homosexual relationships are a whole other matter. God gave us a conscience, whereby the Holy Spirit convicts us when we have sinned, if our hearts are not hard. And the heart of child, this is the key to the kingdom. Yet in the hearts of innocent children a peculiar thing takes place: we develop our first crush. Usually, girls fall for boys and boys fall for girls. But some girls and boys, through no fault of their own, are different. Some girls like girls, and some boys like boys. Now, boys who strictly like girls will surely know in their hearts that it is wrong for them to like boys. But it is an error of projecting to assume that that makes it wrong for another boy. And when we start to have sex, it is perverse to deny ones nature—for a girl who really just likes guys, for instance, to mess around with girls because guys will think its hot, but likewise for a man who’s interested in men to be with a woman because of somebody else’s claim that this is what God wants him to do. You don’t want to be that somebody. You don’t want to cause your brother to fall into sin. Or worse: to provide the words that are hurled at some adolescent kid—sometimes by there own family even, as well as by schoolmates and others—until they so destroy the true Word which lives in him, so shatter the very the image of God in him, that the very spirit of life in him, is extinguished, like a tea light in a gale.
The survivors—many more are they, thank God, but no thanks to that theology—indeed they have to justify what they’re doing, since people like you refuse to let it go. People only justify when someone is judging. If they’re justifying something to you, it means you’re judging them, which I’m pretty sure Christ, with all his saints in chorus, keeps telling us not to do.
And why not? Because God gave us a conscience: yours to judge you, mine to judge mine, and Elton John’s to judge him.
That doesn’t mean our consciences don’t err: We must strive to align our hearts, or preserve and strengthen their alignment, with the Holy Spirit. But where people’s hearts are hardened, we have the criminal and civil courts of this world, and God’s perfect Justice in the world to come.
If we follow our hearts to love and follow our minds to truth, and deal equitably in our dealings with the world, then gay or straight, Christian or Muslim, SpongeBob or Bible Jim, I’m pretty sure, if God is good, He won’t have a problem with it. You see, God is no respecter of persons’ labels; neither is there male nor female in Christ!
For more, see my recent comment here: http://johnshore.com/2012/05/03/to-christians-who-still-believe-that-homosexuality-is-a-sin/comment-page-1/#comment-150777
Awesome.
Thanks, Christine!
John may not be a scholar, but he bases that chapter on work by scholars. The blog as well. I was hurrying and didn’t have time to find everything – the book I mentioned was most DEFINITELY written by a scholar – a Catholic priest with a Ph.D.
I don’t need you to help me find Jesus, Jim. And I’m not gay, altho’ I find in interesting that you assumed as much simply because I am an ally of my gay and lesbian friends. Nothing you are doing is loving. I know you think it is, but that is ever so wrong. You live in fear of something you don’t understand, and rather than try to understand it, you bash it and pretend it’s OK because *you* think the Bible says you can. I pity you, Jim, and I pity those you will hurt with your “loving” words. I’ll keep you in my prayers.
Um … I did also write, for Bethany House (which I’m sure is a publisher of which you’d approve), the book Being Christian, which has much to do with the history and development of Christianity. I’d certainly be interested in seeing your contribution to the furthering of the Christian cause in the world, or to the field of Christian scholarship generally, “Bible Jim.”
And i’m sure its an awesome read and has helped tons of Christians connect with God, but even someone like Rob Bell who has tons of good stuff out there (nooma(sp?) vids, even his sermon on everything is spiritual brought me closer to God) can write a book spouting off blasphemous lies (a loving God would never send you to Hell, so don’t worry you son’t have to feel bad about what you’re doing , you don’t have towork toward progressing the kingdom, because even if you don’t accept Jesus and die to yourself in this life surely a loving God would give you a second chance) and lead hundreds of thousands astray!
Well, fortunately we have you to save us from the likes of Mr. Shore and Mr. Bell. Scary blokes, though they are. Whew.
You really and truly need to wander out into the real world some time, Jim (I’m sorry, I just can’t call you “Bible” Jim – that is too disrespectful for words). Get to know new people outside your tiny comfort zone. Have a conversation, in person, with a gay Christian. Look them in the eye, and then do us all a favor and LISTEN. With your heart.
Have you actually read Love Wins, Jim? I do believe you are mischaracterizing Rob Bell’s arguments somewhat.
“…but even someone like Rob Bell who has tons of good stuff out there (nooma(sp?) vids, even his sermon on everything is spiritual brought me closer to God) can write a book spouting off blasphemous lies…”
Okay. So, you’re willing to concede that Rob Bell “has tons of good stuff out there” even though he’s written “a book spouting off blasphemous lies.” This is a start.
Jim, you have your own conscience and your own brain and you have come to your own conclusions accordingly. Why not let us do the same thing?
The only person you can change is yourself. The rest of us are not under your control.
@Matt yes I have, and so have my friends unfortunately. I say unfortunately because one friend (my roommate) decided to read it and she then believed that she was lied to all her life, that there really wasn’t a hell and she could do whatever the crap she wanted to. Needless to say she got addicted to pot and stuck me with 2 months of rent payments on my own and now is somewhere on the streets connecting to Jesus with controlled substances.
@Diana, I can sure as hell try. I know in the end I’m going to be held accountable for what I did do and for what I didn’t do and for some reason or another I don’t know how or when to keep my mouth shut and won’t give in unless I’m given substantial proof that what Jesus has said and what he is telling me is blatantly wrong.
I can definitely understand now how you got that impression of Bell’s book then! Thank you for explaining that, Bible Jim.
All I can say is that that’s not how Rob Bell intended it to be taken, and also, I consider it likely that the former roommate was simply looking for an excuse for such a way of life and would have justified it somehow else anyway if not for that book.
I don’t blame you though for seeing his book that way in that case, and perhaps Bell should have been more careful to make it clear that Jesus certainly did not condone lawlessness!
Hell or no hell (which, by the way, I believe Bell didn’t explicitly rule out the possibility of, actually, but rather questions our interpretations regarding this), Jesus is the Way, and Jesus did not do as she did, for sure!
It’s so deeply creepy that you’re actually operating under the belief that you think you can accurately discern someone’s state before the Living God on the Internet. Those are some really dangerous spiritual waters you’ve just waded into. I’m shocked at those of you who provide such a quick and casual assessment on who on the Internet is a sheep or a goat. It’s crazy.
Unbelievably ignorant of what Rob Bell teaches. The view of eternal damnation was what was considered “blasphemous lies” for about the first 500 years of the church or so. Eventually we got far enough removed from the direct teaching of Christ however reintroduce the corruption of human thinking and go back to law and guilt focused gospel…which is really no gospel at all,
Jim, just because you have one friend who decided to act like an ass because she “found out” there is no hell does not, in any reasonable way, make your argument.
What it does, actually, is show that all those years of fundamental religion that she felt “lied” to her did nothing to instill a moral compass in her heart. If she was only “being good” out of fear of hell, then she had no real concept of right and wrong, of compassion, generosity or kindness – all the traits Jesus wanted his followers to develop most.
Now, since I know nothing about this woman, I don’t know what prompted her smoke pot or leave you without the rent. Maybe she was just so angry at the church for “lying” to her, she acted out. I don’t know. What it does tell me, though, is that she has a hard time thinking for herself. She has a hard time using her intellect to discern right and wrong for herself, and needs to be told what to do. That is NOT a good quality for an adult human, but is far too often what is found in fundamental churches – followers who blindly do what they are told, who are too afraid to use their God-given gifts to think about the the repercussions of the teachings they hear. It’s very, very sad, Jim.
Jiim it sounds like your friend is making some really bad choices that a lot of the same people who do believe in hell make as well. Your math that this is somehow a direct correlation doesn’t add up.
I find it so odd when those of you call something others are clearly devoted to “foolish” – to those whom many are *already* Christian – and then saying you’re doing it out of love. At worst, you lack the basic communication skills to know how to deliver your message with respect.
I’m sure you’re well-intended and I’m fine if you think I’m a false Christian, it’s only your opinion. I know Jesus is my Savior and how I’ve surrendered my life to Him. I’d probably suggest another tactic, respectfully – insulting an environment in the name of being honest isn’t going to get you much traction with reasonable people.
Because you may think you’re saved, but in reality you could be far from it and I’m not going to let some joker who wants to post incorrectly on controversial topics drag you away from the kingdom all because he wants a higher view count on his blog, because as we all know controversy sells while the bland truth that we’ve heard a million times just sits on the shelf.
Bible Jim, I going to be pretty blunt with you now.
It is not our place to question anyone else’s salvation. We are each to focus on our own. Who are you, o man, that you separate the sheep from the goats? (the sense in which you implicated John as a “joker” = Biblical sense of “goat”.)
Oh, I know my Master when I see Him, and you are not Him. But who am I to say that you do not know Him? Or to question your intentions. I do not. You may understand Him differently, yes: for all I know He may even be directly telling you things that contradict what He is telling me. But who are we to judge between ourselves? When you do so, Jim, with the measure you use, it *will* be measured to you, and I’m not so sure you’re seeing the full measure of your own deviation from the Will and the Way of God!
Let’s keep focused: look into your own eyes—your own heart and soul—perhaps even let your brother help you remove any speck, any splinter, any plank, you should happen to find there. We are to work out our own salvation, Bible Jim, in fear and trembling!
@Matthew
The chapter that talks about separating sheep from goats, Matthew 31 25-46, about the Final Judgement. That the goats were cast out not because of what they did do, but what they didn’t do. They didn’t feed the hungry or give water to the thirsty. The same words used for hunger and thirst in this chapter are the same words he used to refer to himself as the bread and water of life later recorded by John in chapters 4, 6 and 7. So it can be inferred that Jesus told the goats to depart from him because of not sharing what was given to us both physically and spiritually.
Precisely, and John is quite serious about doing those things. He’s not just playing at being religious (as are the goats, for they will not say, “How can we be expected to have believed…”—but rather, “When did we see…”). Rather, John is living the true religion.
You’re not *Jesus*, Jim. Only Jesus knows the hearts of men. You need to check yourself and you need to do it quickly.
I think you should be banned now, there’s only so much hostility and disrespect you can demonstrate to the author of this blog and it’s really creepy. It’s borderline nuts. You’ve come in and within a few hours, you’ve accused John of being a false prophet and now? Writing what he does to drive people to his blog for the money. You’ve moved from someone who was interesting to spar with to an overly-emotional spiritually arrogant jerk who has zero self-control and clearly, no ability to really communicate his counter view without taking below the belt punches at the person wit whom he is disagreeing. And what’s worse, you feel like you’re nastiness is justified out of some zeal for God.
News flash – you’re not under a spiritual attack and you’re not engaged in a Holy War. You’re just another Christian who can’t manage his hostility very well.
******** Get me some scholars, people that actually know the greek, maybe even a respectable pastor that knows Jesus and is in the word and have him admonish me. ********
“In the case of the Bible and homosexuality in contemporary American culture, the tragic dimensions of this biblically sanctioned prejudice among the most devout and sincere people of religious conviction are all the greater because NO CREDIBLE CASE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY OR HOMOSEXUALS CAN BE MADE FROM THE BIBLE UNLESS ONE CHOOSES TO READ SCRIPTURE IN A WAY THAT SIMPLY SUSTAINS THE EXISTING PREJUDICE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALS. (emphasis mine) The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community, and the abuse of scripture in this regard, itself is morally culpable.” Peter Gomes, now deceased, Minister in the Memorial Church and Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard University, in his book, THE GOOD BOOK. http://www.amazon.com/The-Good-Book-Reading-Bible/dp/0380723239
Jim. I think it would be safe to suspect that Prof Gomes, a Harvard Theologian would know something about the Bible AND the Greek.
I also think that your request for “some scholars” is disingenuous. Your caveat about a “respectable” Pastor who “knows Jesus and is in the Word” is a loaded indicator that you wouldn’t believe such a man if he didn’t agree with your preconceived prejudice, which eminent scholar and theologian Gomes, clearly does not. Your use of “respectable” obviously depends entirely upon YOUR definition of respectable which you make abundantly clear depends upon agreement with what you believe to be truth. Circular reasoning at it finest.
So what would be the point of providing you with the scholars you requested?
Boom.
http://www.4yhwh.com/Bible-Files/gomes.htm
So, one negative review is unassailable proof. Sure, if you’re already predisposed to agree with it.
a negative review? He refuted him with biblical backing!
No, he tossed out some Scripture quotes to support his own pre-defined viewpoint. The fact that you can throw around some Bible verses doesn’t make you right.
Oh, and for real irony, he uses the suicides that “Christian” alienation and condemnation drive people to, as a reason to condemn homosexuality.
He refuted nothing…he only stated his obvious prejudice.
Why are these “scholars” sites always in little tiny type in black and white. Is HTML the work of Satan too?
Jim, again – when did you choose to be straight? Why won’t you answer this?
God doesn’t make gay babies.
So, they’re brought by the gay stork?
/facedesk
WE HAVE A CHOICE! We always do. Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn’t mean you have to act on it. I have the urge to run back to how I used to live all the time, go back and look up old girl friends, get with back to my boys and hang out like old times, but I don’t want to go back to that! I saw the destruction in my life and came to a realization that I can’t do this without Christ. That under my own will and desires I will never be able to satisfy my life like Jesus can. Its only been a year and a half since I’ve really talked to Jesus and its the best thing you can ever do.
You keep saying people have a choice! So when did you choose to be attracted to the female gender, assuming you are? Or are you attracted to males and are choosing to be chaste? It’s so odd to watch you dance around this answer. When did you choose? God would not create a scenario where it’s one way for straight people and another way for gay people.
I love the way you completely evaded the question. You obviously don’t know and/or don’t want to think about the possibility that sexual preference can’t be changed. So you give a non-answer. Classy.
And what I’m telling you is that if you feel like you are so attracted to the same sex that you don’t have any willpower to resist then that’s not freewill. Freewill is a gift God gave to every man and woman and its simply to do whatever you please. Thus the argument for being born gay is completely against the will and intent of God’s will. Satan is called the great deceiver for a reason. Seek the truth.
I think you don’t have the capacity for understanding the inconsistency of your own thoughts, Jim. I’m sure it’s too frightening for you right now but there’s a reason you’re evading the actual answer to the question. And that’s because you *didn’t* choose. You *always* knew you desired women. It was never a choice. You had the desires which your brain and body can’t help but respond to.
God would never – ever – create a situation where someone has a *desire* that leads to sinful behavior that cannot be cut off at the root. You want to believe that gay people choose to be gay because it fits your theology. But it’s not consistent with how God has designed us. Maybe you’ll understand with time.
“Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn’t mean you have to act on it. I have the urge to run back to how I used to live all the time, go back and look up old girl friends, get with back to my boys and hang out like old times, but I don’t want to go back to that!”
You’re right. Just because gay people are attracted to people of their own gender doesn’t mean they have to act upon that attraction. But you assume that even having the attraction is wrong and that’s where the problem comes in.
You say from the outside looking in “Gay people should talk to Jesus. Then they won’t be gay anymore.” (correct me if I’m misreading you here.)
Gay people do talk to Jesus. Many of them have begged to have God take away their desires. God, for whatever reason, has chosen not to do so. Do you think they’re not praying hard enough? That they just don’t have enough faith? Or is it possible that God has missions in this world that require a homosexual outlook?
In the end, it’s not your place to judge the life of another. You have your path to walk, others have theirs. Rather than judging someone else’s walk, walk your own path. If God is calling you to abstain from old (girl) friends and other things from your past, than you should do so. But understand that just because you are called to a given path, doesn’t mean that other people are called to that same path. God is more than capable of communicating with other people. He does not need your help with that.
@DR and Diana
You do realize that Paul had a “thorn”, he prayed 3 times for God to take it away, but it remained. Now this thorn could have been physical, spiritual or even emotional, we don’t know. But I do know that God left it there to humble Paul and to remind him that he needed a savior.
@Diana
“God is more than capable of communicating with other people. He does not need your help with that.”
So why send his son to die for us and then have that son tell us to go tell the world? Why not just have Jesus appear to all 7 billion of us right now, at this second and then *poof* the whole wide world would know Jesus. God is certainly capable of doing such a thing.
But some of us are gay and, when we came out, things actually got better! Imagine that. And I don’t mean more enjoyable, I mean better. Happier, more productive, loving. A stronger faith and better relationship with God. All round, things improved. Hard to call that a thorn in the side. Hard to think God would want to undo that.
The bible talks about judging things by their fruits, going what’s beneficial, meditatting on the good. I’m doing just that.
The “thorn” was sin. The only thing being gay does is cause people to fall in love, stay devoted to one another for decades and raise the babies that most Christians refuse to adopt. There is no “wages of death” that anyone can tie sin to which is another inconsistency – any sin that Scripture references over and over again has proven damage to the one sinning and those around him or her.
You continue to evade the question as to when you *chose* preferring women over men. You just won’t do it. And your evasion says a lot more than any of your comments.
BibleJim, you’re right that gay people have a choice to live alone and loveless. Why would God want them to do that? Why would he think that stifling natural attractions or, as so many Conservative pastors have done, pretending to be attracted to some poor innocent woman in a hetero marriage, is better and less sinful than living naturally and purely with a loved partner? It seems to me like you think God is an asshole, and I don’t understand why you need to believe such a thing.
Since you’re insisting on sources, please show me an actual study that shows gay people can choose to change their orientation. Saying “With God all things are possible,” doesn’t cut it. If people are praying and praying for a thing to happen and it doesn’t happen, that seems like a hint that it might not be God’s will. And asking God to change something that he seems to have refused to change seems like claiming you know better than God. (Much the way you’re claiming that you know better than the LGBT people on this blog what choices are actually possible for them.)
Absolutely, yes, people have choices with their actions. The problem with your analogy about old girlfriends is that you’re talking about choices that are within how you’re naturally wired. You talk about choosing between healthy relationship *with a woman* (or no relationship until the right woman comes along) or unhealthy relationships *with a bunch of women.* If having sex with a guy isn’t a choice you can see yourself making, that just means you’re straight.
The choice you’re proposing to gay people is:
-Try to pretend that the desires of your heart don’t actually exist, and that you’re something you’re not. Not just the physical desires, but all the desire for love and companionship too.
-Choose between dying alone and defrauding someone of the opposite sex into a sham marriage with you, and pray they don’t find out that you have no actual romantic feelings toward them. Accept the risk that when the truth comes out (as truth tends to do), it will do irreparable damage to you and them both.
Those are choices people can make. And do make. They cause tremendous harm. (And it should probably be apparent from words like “pretend,” “pray they don’t find out,” “defraud,” and “sham” that they’re not choices that are in accordance with what Christ, who is called the Way, THE TRUTH, and the Life, wants for people’s lives.
You state things as absolute truth like “God doesn’t make gay babies” and “There’s always a choice” as if you know them for a fact. (You don’t. If you don’t have the experience of being gay, you have no clue what that’s like.) But then when people talk to you about their actual experiences, you say “No, no, I want to see an objective, expert source.”
So, I want to see an expert source for what you claim. Show me either a sentence straight from the Bible itself that says “God doesn’t make gay babies,” or a scientific study on a large group of infants showing how they’re all wired to be straight.
Jim, you were, what, an alcoholic, an addict? Or just a misbehaving dude with no real direction in his life? OK. GREAT that religion has helped you straighten out. But you choosing to embrace fundamentalism and not drink or party IS NOT THE SAME THING as a being gay. A gay person cannot choose not to be gay. Can’t happen, is being proven over and over to be an impossibility. We are who we are. You may be an alcoholic for life. You choosing not to drink is a wise choice – because drinking causes you bodily harm, causes you to do stupid, bad things when you are drunk, etc. etc. You drink away your income or you lose your job, you get into fights and hurt people, you make a complete drunken ass of yourself and lose friends, you wreck cars, break stuff, and your liver fails. Being a sober alcoholic is much, much better – because you remain in your “right mind,” you can function and grow and make up for any harm you’ve caused. You can stay employed, you can learn to think clearly and you can get and stay healthy.
NONE of that applies to being gay. A gay person who pretends not to be – because that is what you are asking – does not “do better” in life. Does not leave behind dangerous, damaging behavior. Does not stop hurting others or making a fool of him/herself. All they do is cut themselves off from relationships and love. That’s it. That’s what you are asking them to do. It is absolutely not the same thing and you have to stop insisting that it is. SOME gay people choose to live celibate lives, sure. So do some straight people. But that is a choice that they should be able to make for their own personal reasons. And *most* LGBT people don’t choose that – for all the same reasons most straight people don’t. Because as humans, we are hardwired to love.
Mindy fan club. First in line.
Jim, I would like to share one more thing. I used to be just like you say you used to be. When I was in college the first time around, I started partying and couldn’t stop. I wasted a good portion of my twenties drinking, doing drugs and sleeping with the wrong men. Eventually it all caught up with me and I had to choose between jail and rehab. This was in the ’80s, before rehab was so very common. I chose rehab. Afterward, I went to regular AA and NA meetings for awhile. And while I have nothing bad to say about them, what I started to notice was that a lot of people turned from one addiction to another – they just traded their bongs and beer coolers for Bibles. And they held on to those Bibles for dear life. I understood, those first clean and sober months are precarious times.
Problem was, most of their new-found religion never felt or sounded genuine. It felt desperate, as if they were standing on the edge of the cliff and those Bibles were the only things keeping them from going over. Instead of truly opening up and relying on God, they were trying hard to convince themselves that somewhere in that book they’d find a cure, they’d find the thing that would fix them and then they could get back to their lives.
Maybe some of them eventually learned to stand on their own, away from the edge, I don’t know. Maybe they eventually allowed God far enough into their hearts that they didn’t have to hold on to their Bibles quite so tightly. It all just felt so disengenous. They didn’t trust God, and they weren’t learning to trust God. They didn’t *really* believe the Holy Spirit would fill them up. They believed that they were supposed to believe that, and that maybe if they read and quoted the Bible enough, magic would happen. They couldn’t trust themselves – which, if they’d just trusted God, they’d probably have been able to do. But they couldn’t. They just kept looking for Him in their Bibles.
It’s been 25 years since I left everything about that life behind me. In those years, I married, adopted two daughters, graduated with with a BA and an MA. I’ve also divorced, survived cancer, lost my job and my house. And I never went back to drugs, not once. Because I believe in God. Not the Bible, God. I don’t sweat the details of stories written centuries ago, but I do listen for God’s voice – speaking through my children, through the return smiles from strangers on the street, through the relieved voices of friends when I can help them out. I hear Him a million different ways, if I stay focused on love. On being kind. On doing what is right simply because it is right. And of course I fail almost as many times as I succeed, but I don’t give up. I don’t give up on God, so I ask forgiveness and try again. Try not to scowl, not to lose my temper, not judge, not take the easy way when the more difficult path will mean more and accomplish more in the long run.
You are immature in your relationship with God, Jim – that much is obvious. You’re like the young teenager who calls out his dad for going 3 mph over the speed limit, not because he is being dangerous, but simply because he is technically breaking a rule. Kids do that all the time. It doesn’t matter if you follow the spirit of the law, if your kid catches you breaking the letter of the law, beware – they will yell, “Gotcha!” with much glee. Because they don’t have the maturity to discern what matters and what doesn’t.
You’re like that here. You are taking such in glee in saying, “Gotcha, sinner!” that you completely miss the point of God’s message – which is to love each other. One pure directive.
And like those recovering alcoholics I used to know, it’s because you don’t truly trust God. If you did, you wouldn’t need to hold on so tightly to the handbook that you can’t reach out to your fellow wanderers on this miraculous path. I send my prayers up for you, that one day you will find that trust. You will reach out, connect with someone different from yourself, and realize that God is right there with both of you, and has been, the whole time.
Can I be second in line for the Mindy fan club?
Mindy, just wanted to say I’m so happy for you, reading your history.
Well, since I’m one of the founding members of the DR Fan Club, I’m really happy to see she’s starting one for me. ;->
Thanks, Allie. I treasure what we learn and share here, truly I do.
Ooh, me too! I’m third in line!
Thanks so much for taking the time to share this, Mindy! And it’s so well written too!
Here’s hoping it does someone some good!
I have faith that it will (though not necessarily for Bible Jim, though I do hope so).
LOL!
Hilarious!
Yes, I understand it is your belief that being gay is a choice. I’m asking when you chose to be straight, obviously God would not design something as essential to a human being as sexuality and not make it consistent.
So again – this seems like such a simple question, I’m confused why you’re struggling with the response – when did you *choose* to be straight?
And you know this how? And no, the answer is NOT in Romans 1.
Umm… yes, God does.
We suspected our son might be gay when he was only 4 years old and we were right. I assure you that God most certainly does make gay babies and we ‘re very thankful to have been blessed with one.
Ah, the voice of experience! Thank you Kathleen!
You are welcome!
He doesn’t make heterosexual ones, either.
You are ridiculous. Quit trying to mold Christianity to your theology and mold your theology to true Christianity. True religion is this: going to the aid of those who are vulnerable and in distress. You can count on this Jim, because I am Bible Don!
This is good, Don! And I like the new name!
WIN. You are awesome.
read the rest of the verse…
and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
The word for “unstained” there breaks down into
1) spotless
2) metaph.
a) free from censure, irreproachable
b) free from vice, unsullied
Under the great commission, you know Jesus’ last words before he ascended into heaven, calls us to teach and instruct” all things whatsoever I have commanded you”
Great. Why don’t you do that?
Lymis…this was droll, dry and devastating….please carry on!
this belonged up after your crack about ‘A lot of people think that about some versions of Christianity, too.”
John, let me take the opportunity to praise you for your consistently spot-on pictures accompanying your posts. You have a gift not only for writing, but for choosing visuals of apparent simplicity and yet astounding symbolic depth.
Just this one – you could have chosen a picture of nearly any kind of closet, but choosing one with mirror doors in an otherwise empty room is the perfect image for this piece – no matter what people think they see in the scary closet, it’s purely a reflection of what they bring to the question, not about anything true about what’s actually inside. And choosing a picture of that closet in an otherwise barren room – reflecting that the ONLY consideration is the reflection of the person facing the closet, in an otherwise symbolically empty experience…. priceless.
I agree, Lymis! When I first came to this post, I found myself staring at that photo – like I often do when I arrive at John’s blog. Incredibly deep images, sometimes so damned funny I nearly hurt myself giggling! But always, always meaningful. I don’t know how he does it, but I love that he does.
John, this was great. Thank you! *hug*
You seem quite certain that yours is the final word on the subject. I wonder if that prerogative belongs to you or God. Just asking, if that’s OK.
I don’t know what you mean by “final word.” I know it’s the right word. It’s not hard to tell when you’re aligned with love. And God, as you know, is love. THAT we have in the Bible.
Love is truth. Therefore your position has noting to do with love.
You’re right Andy, Love is truth and John has absolutely stated the truth.
I’ll stick with Gods truth thank you.
It’s meaningless to say that God is loving or God is justice is love and justice have no correlation to their meaning in any other context.
If we say something would be unloveing, accept I know it is true, therefore it must be loving, then love itself loses all meaning and saying God is loving is without substance.
should have been “just if love”
Good for you. In all seriousness, though I know that what I am about to say will sound snarky, while you are sticking with God’s truth, be sure to regularly and sincerely actually ask God to help you know God’s truth.
A lot of people forget that step, and stop thinking once they’ve decided they have all the answers. If you actually love and trust God, you’ll be willing to include in your prayers that if you are misguided about anything that He will correct you.
Now that’s the first thing you have said that is completely grounded in truth. I hope everyone else does the same. If we actually love and trust God, we follow his word even if it does not make logical or emotional sense or causes us to sacrifice some things of this world that we may value.
Well, your response certainly makes me so very glad that I went to the effort of being gracious to you.
And you assume people aren’t doing this beause…? Just because people disgaree with you doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere or willing to make meaningful sacrifices.
You are assuming things about people you can’t possibly know.
God’s truth as interpreted by you. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation.
But I guess it’s more fun to be a sanctimonious di–weeb than it is to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
And exactly what about “God is love” do you not get? That is the absolute truth. Get over yourself and your self righteous condemnation of something you don’t really understand.
Andy, why do you repeatedly target John, when he’s clearly not interested, with remarks that aim only at provocation? I’ve been here long enough to vouch that, although you might see John “rant” in a post or two against individual fundamentalists whom he deems worthy of comment, he’s actually a very emotionally centered person, and no little misquito landing on his side is going to knock him off balance. If you were note-worthy or anybody particularly cared, he might write about you; if you were pleasant, he might find time to respond to you; but as you are, you’re just a parasite, and when you won’t stop bothering him when its clear he’s not willing to feed you, no one will blame him for squashing you, which is to say that all you might succeed in doing is simply getting blocked from the site.
score
Love is Truth? Sounds like a quote. From what source?
If it’s not ;a quote, then it must be something YOU invented. An extrapolation maybe……from something……somewhere ……?
Funny, and I thought it was “love is real…
real is love…”.
What a wonderfully passive-aggressive question, David. Did you *really* want an answer??
The passive-aggressive, thin veil hostility that drives those of you who are wanting to pick a fight here and “stay Christian-nice” while you do it is transparent. It really is. It makes me embarrassed for you and I’m serious. Just be yourself instead of trying to put some kind of respectful front out there instead of manufacturing some kind of fake civility that falls apart when *you* fall apart after a few comments where you’re successfully countered.
I’ve never met a group of people who are so terrified of being honest in my life.
an issue that is related to, but distinct from, the THEOLOGICAL one is the LEGAL/POLITICAL one. christians in america often make a point of agitating to change the laws of the land to conform with what *they* think god wants for america — or, in the case of sexual orientation, even agitating for a constitutional amendment that would make non-hetero marriage illegal.
part of why it’s important to try and understand the meaning, the context, and the theological underpinnings of the biblical texts on sexuality is because the changes that some christians propose to make to our civil liberties in america would affect the lives [a] of other christians who disagree with their interpretation of scripture, or/and [b] of non-christians who see the bible as irrelevant and unhelpful. [some christians feel that people in both these categories should be *forced* to live by *their* interpretations of the bible; such christians should consider how they themselves would feel if, e.g., american muslims wanted to force *them* to live by the qur'an -- i.e., by those muslims' particular *interpretation of* the qur'an. it could happen, and via fully legal/constitutional processes! and it would be done by deeply pious people, on the grounds of honoring god. but those christians would probably not like it.]
so it’s important for christians to have a clear understanding of what they take the bible to mean when it speaks to sexual behavior or orientation. but it’s also important, in a different way, to *everyone* — christians and non-christians alike — that christians understand [a] the nature of their own *methods* of interpreting the bible, and [b] the limitations of what being an american grants each of us over the beliefs and activities of other citizens.
my last point [for the moment] is implicit in everything i’ve said above, but i should spell it out as explicitly as i can: no written or oral communication is immediate, i.e. instantly and incontrovertibly obvious, in its meaning. every text in the world *has to be interpreted* by its recipient, in order to be used or applied; and the history of the judaeo-christian tradition — from the aramaic targum and the septuagint version, to the early ecumenical councils, to the protestant reformation, to the rise of higher criticism in the 19th century, right down to these current arguments about sexuality — is marked by an enormous disparity among the interpretations of the bible, both of the hebrew scriptures and of the NT. and i’m not just talking about the opinions of private individuals posting offhanded comments on a blog: i’m referring to the fixed public pronouncements of the most influential leaders and authorities of these traditions. whole movements are begun, or are quashed or die out, because of these various interpretations. each one of those leaders and authorities is apparently quite convinced that his/her interpretation is not ‘just some interpretation’ but the *true and authentic meaning* of the word of god.
so are their followers, who have been known to act on that conviction with such zeal that they sometimes imprison, sometimes hang, and sometimes literally set fire to the bodies of those who disagree with them. they always say they do this, of course, ‘for your own good’: i am punishing your body for the sake of your soul. but such coercive behavior [to describe it in minimalist terms] effaces the fact that they are acting, not simply ‘upon the word of god,’ but actually upon *their interpretation of* the word of god. or, as a non-christian would say: upon their interpretation of *what they consider to be* the word of god.
in legal and ethical terms, this is the crux of the matter — when person A decides to restrict the civil liberties of person B, alleging that *his/her interpretation of* a religious text gives him/her license [or a mandate] to do so. for person A, the fact that person B may take that same religious text very seriously — but interpret it, in good faith, vastly differently — is meaningless. the fact that person B might reject the authority of that religious text altogether is meaningless.
but i contend that such facts should NOT be meaningless. for many americans, they represent one of the most important and precious aspects of american LIBERTY.
freedom from religious coercion, freedom to live in peace with their own conception of the nature and precepts of god, was precisely what drove the pilgrims out of england in search of a new home. those who prize such ethical, political, and spiritual values as these — which are at the very core of american history and culture — should refrain from applying religious coercion to others. they should also refrain from characterizing as ‘patriotic’ such behaviors as these, which go against the historic grain of our nation and our constitution. [that is, of *my interpretation of* the constitution! sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; see above, again, re: interpretation. but if you chafe at my interpretation of the constitution, or of the bible, consider how those who disagree with *your* interpretations feel -- especially when you propose to restrict their civil liberties in such fundamental respects as whom they may marry, whom they may love and copulate with, whether they may raise children, whether they may file joint income tax returns, etc etc etc.]
Egg. Flipping. Zactly.
Regardless of your reading of scripture, the US is a country that is supposed to prize freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. I find it baffling and frustrating when people who say they’re patriots want to use the US legislatures and courts and constitution to deny religious freedom to gay people and LGBT-affirming churches.
For the “agree to disagree” folks, if you want to prove you’re sincere about *not* trampling on the rights of LGBT folks, an excellent way to put your money (or at least your time and eff0rt) where your mouth is is to help campaign for marriage equality and work on convincing religious people you interact with that they should be doing the same, regardless of their thoughts on the sinfulness of gay sex.
Why would anyone work FOR something that they beleive is a sin? That would make them a hypocrite with no integrity.
but you see it isn’t a sin. You are working on the misconception that the folks that have commented on this blog haven’t read and prayed and consulted God on this issue. I know I have and I came to my own conclusions (with His help) long before I started reading John’s blog. God doesn’t hate anyone even when they sin which is good for all those out there judging gays. Have a blessed day Andy.
Well I am so happy for you that you feel you can override Gods word and determine what is and is not a sin. That’s in itself is a sin.
Andy people have been way too nice to you so far. frankly your an arrogant jerk. No one is seeking to “override God’s word”. (Unless of course you consider your repeated insistence on determining you are free to judge others in direct contradiction to the very words of Jesus) Your continued false characterization is not just offensive…it is patently dishonest and you know it.
The fact is…Christians are waking up and realizing the complete corruption in the way our bibles have been translated on this issue and seeing the truth of the matter. That truth is that your bigotry is in complete defiance of everything Jesus taught.
This coming from a guy who refuses to “reason” with someone just because he associates with an organization he disagrees with. Won’t even take the time to even find out what a person believes before judging them…
Who’s doing the judging here?
As I said before…spin it any way you like.
You already have.
These are your words…
“You suggest that the 6 day creation is a myth.
In other words, you don’t believe even the first words of the Bible. If you don’t believe part of the Bible, how can you believe any of it?”
To state that someone who does not believe creation was a literal 6 day even does not “believe even the first words of the bible” is not just falsely characterizing, it is outright demagoguery.
Chris, it’s really simple. If I was in a dialogue with someone about politics and I discovered that she organizes Tea Party rallies across the nation, I’d disengage. What one associates oneself with is a representation of their overall perspective. Historically it’s really easy to do the success math of making any kind of potential connection based on the other things that inform their world view. It’s not “judging”, it is simply being a grown up who doesn’t have a lot of time who can draw some reasonable conclusions on where to invest energy.
No.
What you work for is justice. If you actually believe that Christianity is the right path and that God leads sinners to your version of it, then what you do isn’t work to shun sinners, pass laws against immoral behavior purely because of a Biblical condemnation of it, and generally make being Christian look like the most hateful, loveless, vindictive, and rigid thing going.
You work to make sure that people’s human needs are met. You love people. You correct others who are not loving. You serve as that light on the hill. You feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort those in pain – which in this context, would include ending anti-gay discrimination.
Then, when people look at you in awe, and say “How do you do it? What is the foundation of this outpouring of love you have for everyone? How can I get some of that for myself?” you share your truth about Jesus, and your truth about the Bible, and your advice on how they should live.
If your way is in fact the right way, and is in fact the way that God wants things, then bringing people to God by being so loving that they cannot help but experience God through you cannot help but put them on the right path.
On the other hand, leading with condemnation, leading with bigotry, leading with a closed heart and mind, weaponizing the Bible, tossing gay people out of your church community, and threatening them with hell for not accepting something you’ve presented as intolerable will be actions that can only have the effect of driving them away from you, and possibly from the Church and from God as well.
Luckily, God’s more powerful than that, and can often find other ways to work in people’s lives. But you aren’t doing anyone any favors by putting up unnecessary roadblocks in His way.
When she was asked, as an influential Christian speaker, to speak in support of Anita Bryant’s condemnation of homosexuals in the 70′s, Dale Evans is reported to have replied, “I’m so busy loving everybody, I don’t have any time to hate anybody.”
If you are not FOR loving your neighbor, and still claim to follow Jesus, you might want to rethink the way you sling around the word “hypocrite.”
Lymis, you’ve done it again. LOVE, do everything you do with love in your heart, and let people find God through you. If they reach God through you and HE really finds homosexuality a sin, then HE will let them know. He doesn’t need you to do that for him. You go out there and love, Andy. Hold tight to your rigid beliefs, but fight for justice for all, gay or straight. Do it with love, do it with gentleness, a kind smile, and when someone specifically asks for your opinion on whether being gay is a sin, you can say “that is what I’ve been taught and always believed, but it is not for me to judge another. Even as I see it as sin, I do believe in equal rights for all in our wonderful country. Now, back to loving people.” You’d be amazed how far you’d get. And how much you’d learn. And how much more seriously we’d take your position to “agree to disagree.”
EXCELENT work, both of you, Lymis & Mindy!!!
Lymis, that was fantastic.
Wow, Lymis, you’ve beaten me to it again! I was going to say much the same thing, but you took the words right out of my mouth and did a much better job than I ever could. Thank you.
I want to know what you eat for breakfast each morning.
Seriously Lymis you blow my mind. If church communities learned what you naturally understand, this world would be a much brighter place.
If you won’t fight for someone’s legal right to live by their conscience and religious beliefs, then you’re not “agreeing to disagree.” You’re trying to control them. Personally, I’m a fan of religious freedom, and not of theocracies.
I like this, Kelly!
The “sin” is happening either way. Gay people aren’t going to stop having sex. You would be working FOR compassion and justice. And for a political and legal system that practices the freedoms it claims to value.
Here’s an article that opened my eyes quite a bit. Maybe you guys have a good point.
Here are two evangelicals (a married couple) who “agree to disagree” about this issue. But perhaps not quite in the way you would expect. It’s well worth the 10-15 minutes that it takes to read this.
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
Nathan, I’ve never met anyone on this blog who is so committed to distancing himself from the realities of this conflict and the severity of impact this “difference in theology” has had on the GLBT community. It’s like you’re obsessed with those of us here “agreeing to disagree” with you here. I’ve not seen you actually address any gay man or women in any kind of honest way. You talk *about* them and when they point out your inaccuracies, you stop responding and go back to talking about we should all just be at peace with one another.
I imagine you in a fight with your wife when she tells you, “What you said devastated me and it actually caused me to think that God doesn’t love me anymore.” and you reply to her “No – that’s not what you’re really experiencing because I didn’t mean it that way. Let’s just agree to disagree.”
You’re need for “agreeing to disagree” is all about you not being able to face that you’re deeply disrespected by many of us as a result of your impact on this community that we love and you refuse to do anything about or take responsibility for. That many of us are actually afraid of you (gay men and women for obviously different reasons). That’s not going to change unless you demonstrate a willingness to give gay men and women the last word on what you’re doing to them.
DR, did you read the article before posting?
You aren’t going to change attitudes in the conservative Christian community overnight. You may not agree with Tony Campolo’s attitude, but it is a step in the right direction. His candid conversation with his wife about this issue is clearly a model that the church can use in facing this issue today. You (and others) compare this issue to segregation. I think you are right. And it is just wishful thinking to believe that such deeply held beliefs will vanish overnight. It’s a process that will take an entire generation of Christians to accomplish. How about you celebrate the small victories from time to time rather than focusing whining the fact that everyone doesn’t see life from exactly your perspective?
What exactly would you like from the conservative Christian community? Attitudes and beliefs that have been ingrained since childhood are not going to change overnight. Perhaps you haven’t noticed it, but my thinking on this issue has changed over the past 48 hours or so. It hasn’t come around to the place where you want it to be yet. But has taken a step or two in your direction. Read the article and I think you’ll figure that out.
By the way, DR:
I posted this article on my FB page. (the Tony Campolo interview) Now, based on your brief knowledge of me, think about who you think my friends and family are. (I grew up in a Southern Baptist church) I’m not quite where you want me to be – but I’m taking a few steps in your direction. You (or actually the others on this website, not you) have convinced me that the church has failed miserably on this issue. I’m not quite ready to say that I have no problem with homosexuality. But I am ready to say that “we’ve really screwed on this issue – what should we do next?”
I don’t know what the right answer is. But I’m thinking about it and I’m thinking about how it impacts my decisions and attitudes.
(sorry, should have said “screwed up” in that last statement)
We’re ok with screwed up here, Nathan. No biggie. Thank you for thinking about all this. I know how difficult it can be to wrestle with things we once were so certain of or at least those things all of our friends and family would not be happy to learn we are thinking about. I have found the process of asking questions the thing, that if any, has drawn me closer to God. It seems, perhaps, rather,that the seeking is itself an act of God pulling us closer. Being open to finding…has lead to being found.
Thank you for coming here and sticking with this.
I think it ‘s great that you’re here willing to talk about this. I know I’m being hard on you but just know it’s rooted in my love for Christ and *His* love for gay men and women. It takes so much courage to look at all of this and to face how we’ve failed is something when I was where you are now, rocked me to my validation core.
I’m a huge fan of Tony, I think he’s woken our Church up to a lot of really important things. But again – these people are straight and Christians who are straight have been given the exclusive privilege (by all of us) to define, ultimately, what is “God’s Truth”. There is no one in that conversation who is gay who gets to have the last word on who they are. Just straight people speaking as a result of having spoken to them. This is what we do as Christians, we distance ourselves from them and speak about them. Not to them. We have too much to lose if we do that.
There needs to be a point where we to let gay men and women tell us the truth. Not just about them but about ourselves. What we’ve done, why we believe what we do. I believe they are at this point, one of the most purifying agents we have. I’ve read some of their comments to you offered with such love and such Grace. Listen to them. That’s all I ask. xoxo
And yes, I expect a ton from conservative Christians and I will continue to because there are lots of thoughtful, loving people within that group who care a lot about people and are steadfastly committed to Christ. I have high expectations for them – you – because I know your intent would to never hurt anyone, that it is probably devastating to hear that you do. I get it because I was you! But. I expect big things because I ultimately respect a lot of you and you currently hold a ton of power in our world right now. I need you to use that power for good things. We need you! So you nailed it, I expect big things from good people.
Thanks for posting that article…that presentation was in 1996?! Wow. I’m very impressed with Peggy Campolo.
I think that if every Christian who believed same-sex sexual relationships were a sin was like Tony Campolo, it wouldn’t be a problem. It would be just a calm, reasoned theological debate with people who care about each other and accept that they’re all brothers and sisters in Christ (and that those who aren’t Christians are their brothers and sisters too).
I’m confused by this comment.
Probably what I get for posting pre-coffee. Let me try to clarify.
Tony Campolo thinks that same-sex relationships are a sin and that LGBT people are “called to celibacy.” But he argues that the church should treat gay Christians the same way it treats divorced Christians: “If the church is so gracious in accepting people who are divorced and remarried, i.e., accepting people who according to Jesus are living in a sexual sin that he specifically condemns, then why can’t they be at least that gracious to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?”
If he were a representative example of the Christians who hold to that interpretation of Scripture, then Nathan’s “agree to disagree” might be possible. Because there’d be an overall climate of love and acceptance, rather than a bunch of hateful bullying and discrimination masquerading as “tough love” and “just doing what the Bible tells us to.”
That’s not to say that it wouldn’t *still* mess LGBT kids up to grow up in Christian houses and be told that they don’t get to fall in love and have a family like other people do. It’s also not to say that I agree with his take. More that Nathan’s using that dialogue as an example of “Let’s all get along and agree to disagree,” and part of the reason it doesn’t work is that there seem to be a lot more Sean Harrises than Tony Campolos, or at least they get more attention and more amens.
Does that help?
You already hit on the other reason why it doesn’t work, probably the bigger one—that there’s a difference between two straight people “agreeing to disagree” about something that doesn’t affect them directly and asking a gay person to “agree to disagree” with judgments about their life and their relationships.
ahhh. Got it. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.
No problem. I reread it, and what I was trying to get across was *really* murky.
Nathan, I read the link. I agree that it is impressive. There is a fundamental problem, though, with using this link to make the point you think you are trying to make.
This is a discussion about homosexuality between two heterosexual people. It may well be a wonderful, touching, and beautiful reflection about how two loving people came to terms with a disagreement between themselves about how they are supposed to judge other people in how they live their own lives.
But it leaves gay people absolutely and utterly out of the discussion about our own love, our own experiences, our own spirituality, and our own lives.
Using this as some sort of example in your argument that Christians and Christian churches and traditions need to set aside their differences and agree to disagree only works if you make the assumption that all Christians are straight, and that the churches are disagreeing about how “we Christians” should treat “those homosexuals.” As though gay people are some sort of exotic species to be studied like chimps and you are in search of the right Jane Goodall to live amongst them and report back.
I suspect you think that the fact that the husband in your example “talked to over 300 homosexuals” makes him an expert on gay people. Gay people are the experts on being gay people, and if you want to understand what being a gay Christian is like, talk to gay Christians, not people who’ve just met them. And if you really want to learn something, talk to gay people who tried to be gay Christians, and were treated so abysmally by Christians that they had to walk away from it.
Far too many straight Christians think that they are actually “engaging the issue of homosexuality” by talking amongst themselves about it. Is there any other issue, particularly one this important and controversial, where the actual people who are having the experience in question are cut entirely out of the discussion?
Yes, there is a question for LGBT people faced with the call to Christianity and a relationship with Christ – for those LGBT people, the primary question is “how do I reconcile the truths I know about myself and my own lived experience with what I find God to be calling me to be?” For those LGBT people, all other question are essentially secondary, even when the answers are critical in defining how and where they live out their personal relationship with Jesus.
But far too many straight people act as though the primary concern for them, as straight Christians, is whether or not it is okay for gay people to be gay. It isn’t, and never has been. For straight Christians, the primary questions are, and always have to be, “Here is my neighbor, who says she is lesbian. How does Jesus say I should treat my neighbor, even when we disagree?” And, “Here is a gay man who says I am his enemy because I am Christian. How does Jesus say I should treat those who see me as an enemy?” And “Here is a transgendered person who is being brutally discriminated against, in the workplace, in housing, in society – down to not even being allowed to use many public restrooms. How does Jesus want me to treat the poor and oppressed?”
Placing the question of whether or not to condemn LGBT people, and how to maintain Christian unity over the question as a higher priority than loving your neighbor has got to be one of the most fundamental violations of Jesus’s teachings that you can come up with. Ignoring the needs of the poor and victimized when they are in need is one of the only things that Jesus himself is recorded as saying will send you to hell.
Whether or not you believe that literally, there can be no question that Jesus himself is recorded as feeling that strongly about the issue.
Imagine yourself standing before Jesus when he says, “Your salvation is dependent on how you treated the least of your brothers and sisters. For I was gay. I was lesbian. I was bisexual. I was transgendered. I was a high school teen in despair because my church condemned my orientation. I was the family who couldn’t get insurance. I was the widow who was thrown out of my house because the law didn’t recognize my marriage. And this is how you treated me.”
You really want your answer to be “I didn’t do anything to help you, but I did work tirelessly to make sure that Christians were free to discriminate against you without being called names, and making sure that there were at least some denominations where people could be comfortable doing so”?
Because that’s what you are telling us your answer is.
Really?
Thank you, Lymis. You and DR are my favorite commentors- I glean as much from you two as I do John (sorry John!)… THIS comment should be it’s own blog post…
I think John gets a lot of credit for creating a space where comments like this arise on a regular basis, too!
absolutely!
This is important, Nathan, I hope you are reading it all in the spirit in which is being presented – and I will add that I appreciate your willingness to read and think about it, rather than getting defensive and hateful like some others. This tells me that you are open to God’s love, to understanding. And as a proud ally of my gay friends, I do understand that change comes slowly. It is a lot to wrap your brain around – a new understanding of a lifelong-held belief. But I have a feeling you can do this.
This is incredible.
It is very true that we must, first and foremost, love our neighbor as ourselves. But this doesn’t mean we should act as we were out of our minds.
If we’re to come any general consensus in regards to what things are in fact the most loving things to do, then we are to come to believe in the same love, which requires a certain unity of faith.
And the theology of faith as regards sin is of common interest, even where it might not concern us personally, because, although we are indeed called to treat our neighbor in many ways the same regardless, there are indeed some ways in which an unrepentant sinner should not be afforded the same status as a person who more or less tries at least to follow in the paths of righteousness as revealed to us.
For instance, when a person shows a clear disregard for the law, whether the law of mankind or, where it really counts, the fundamental moral law of God, why should we fully—indeed how can we even—trust the lawless? I would sooner leave my wife alone with a philanthropist than a drug dealer. I should sooner lease a large house to a group of nuns than a group of known prostitutes.
Any rational evaluation of what counts as loving has to include the effect it has on the recipient.
An approach that causes teens to try to kill themselves and drives large numbers of people out of the church and away from God cannot by any rational standard be considered loving behavior.
“Hey, those of us who don’t even share a temptation towards, much less an experience of, what all the experts in the field as well as all the people in the group under discussion have decided to classify your central life experience as sin. Luv ya!” is unhinged.
Let me try that last paragraph again:
“Hey, those of us who don’t even share a temptation towards, much less an experience of, what all the experts in the field as well as all the people in the group under discussion acknowledge as central to your identity and life experience have decided to classify it as sin, regardless of how it actually affects your life and the lives of others. Luv ya!” That’s unhinged.
I understand, but this still doesn’t mean that heterosexual Christians don’t have any substantial interest in increasing awareness of the answer among themselves. However, if this is really how you feel, go tell John, Mindy, DR, etc. to knock it off.
Matthew, sometimes the argumentative quality of your comments creates a perception (to me at least) that you argue for the sake of arguing. But then having posted with you here for a while, that doesn’t seem like something you’d care about.
It’s been difficult to discern the meaning and intent of some of your comments lately. I actually like it that you’re not in lock-step agreement with the regulars here, you have a very specific point of view that isn’t bent easily. I like it. I’m trying to get a handle on where you’re coming from because I sense I could learn something from it. I’m just having a hard time tracking (it’s probably my own issue). I’ll keep reading and seeing if I can put it together.
Love the phrase “argumentative quality”—just the right kind of fuzziness in meaning here, in my opinion!
You always have to ask the really hard questions, don’t you?
Wait, looking at it again, you didn’t even use a single question mark to do so! Anyway, I want to thank for this, DR.
I wanted to answer this for a while, but didn’t know how. You make me really struggle with how to put such complex things in words.
To begin with, let me tell you, there is nothing really to be learned from me. I know nothing. I think I know, but I really don’t. All I do is to learn. That is a part of why I question so many ideas. Another part is that I think I know, and I test myself. So in all this, I’m just educating myself. I am unequipped to be actually teaching anybody to think or to be anyhow better than they currently do or are (which is not, however, to say I don’t like to play school sometimes). What I say that I’m informing people of, I’m proofing my own confidence in and my own approach to, while learning others’ response to, as well as their take on, all of the above.
Yet—again—I think I know. I think that I know where a thing is going—that I see where a line of reasoning leads, taken to logical conclusions. And if I don’t like the looks of that, I will put up roadblocks. Perhaps if only someone long ago had noted the inconsistency—purely theoretical of course—in thinking that men having sex with men must everywhere and always be outside of a matrimonial covenant….
Well, I tend to be such as will note such things. Or at least I think I do.
Matthew, why do you think Lymis would want to tell us to knock it off? I didn’t get that from him at all. I don’t think any of us claims, ever, to be an expert on the experience of being gay. But the fact is that we do KNOW gay people. We’ve talked to them about deep issues like religion. We’ve learned from them. We have enough personal experience to know that while we can certainly never speak for them, we can see without any doubt at all that they are deserving of no less that 100% equality in this country, and are no less deserving of God’s love than anyone else. So we say that. In as many ways as we can, trying to get through to the Andys and Nathans and Chrises and Jims of the world.
We don’t treat our LGBT brethren as if they are children and we are the grown-ups who “know what’s best for them.” We allow that they are fully human, exactly as they are, no different than we are. Those who would say otherwise, who claim to know God better and thus know what “is best” for gay people – that is with whom Lymis takes issue, or at least that’s how it appears to me.
I never got the feeling that Lymis resents us speaking from our own experiences – but he does resent (as do I) those with NO experience with gay people at all insisting they know what’s true about them, right for them, etc. Lymis – feel free to correct me here if I’m missing something.
I know I’ve mentioned in the past here that I am an adoptive parent, yes? I have no problem with other people discussing adoption. But I would have serious problems with someone who is not a part of the adoption triad or, at the very least, not a studied adoption professional, telling me what is best for my family.
Adoptive parenting is different than ‘regular’ parenting. We have issues that have to be addressed that don’t come up in typical biologically-related families. Unless you’ve LIVED it, you really can’t get it, not on the primal, emotional level. That our family is built on loss, and that we have to address that loss and work through it – each of us – to be emotionally healthy. That we have to help our children deal with it continually as they grow up, because each developmental stage brings with it a new level of understanding and with that, often a new intensity of grief. or anger. Or confusion. Or not – it depends on the kid. People who know us well are better-versed to speak on the subject, because they’ve been there as we’ve gone through some of that. So I do understand, I think, what it feels like to be second-guessed by someone who has no business doing so, and I do try not to do that in this situation.
Mindy, I will not only agree with you, I don’t think you take it far enough.
I honestly haven’t a clue what it is that Matthew is inviting me to tell you all to knock off. Given that my point was that being gay (and yes, even being “a practicing homosexual,” though I like to think I’ve had enough practice to feel I’m good at it by now) simply isn’t a sin, and all of you seem to agree to that general concept, nothing to object to there.
As you’ve made clear, discussing LGBT issues among straight people, while making real efforts to include LGBT in the discussion and in the community, and being willing to keep space in your considerations for the shared experiences that LGBT have is deeply different from treating us like some sort of alien creature to be kept at arm’s length, or a problem to be solved.
In short, you guys rock. Keep it up.
And, though I think it’s implicit in what you wrote, it’s worth being explicit about.
There are a number of things, even about how gay people should live our lives (and how straight people should live their lives, for that matter) that I disagree with John on, and, I assume, that would be true of many others here if we had cause to dig deep enough.
And yet, being adults, we can see each other as fellow children of God, and trust that God is holding each of us in His hands and guiding each of us along our own unique paths. As I see it, on a lot of issues, it isn’t “agreeing to disagree” about what it right or what God wants all of us to do, but often, rather, it is agreeing that what is right for me may not be right for you, and that God can be okay with different people being on different paths.
There are basics that we will agree and disagree on, but we don’t have to have a unified theology or a unified philosophy to honor each other as fellow children of the same God.
(For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever in my life written anything about how gay people should live their lives.)
Ah, c’mon, sure you have. They should live openly, they should sit their families down and tell them the truth about who they are . . . . you know, live honestly and all that. You implore them not to accept second-class status.
The nerve of ya . . . .
Well, now, see, I have given specific advice to specific people who have written with specific problems. But that’s not the same as making any sort of general proclamation about how gay people (or anyone else) should live their lives. Sometimes I recommend talking to families. Sometimes I recommend lying low, keeping quiet, and getting out ASAP.
But I know what you mean. And I appreciate it.
I agree with Mindy, and I’ll add that you’ve also written plenty of things about how gay people should live our lives. You just haven’t separated us out from non-gay people when you do. Since you consider gay people to be people, all the advice you give to everyone applies to LGBT people as well.
A lot of people act like gay people are entirely different species, to whom the normal rules of human life don’t apply. You don’t. Good for you. So, for example, when you say that sexual activities should be reserved to a committed relationship, you don’t put that asterisk on it that so many others seem to -as in *unless you’re gay, in which case you should be celibate.
(I said Actual Coitus [as opposed to "sexual activities"] is best reserved for committed relationships—but let’s not again open that can of worms. But, yes, again, I do [as ever] appreciate what you’re saying, very much. Thank you!)
“I never got the feeling that Lymis resents us speaking from our own experiences – but he does resent (as do I) those with NO experience with gay people at all insisting they know what’s true about them, right for them, etc. ”
Then that’s what he should have said, because I am still convinces there’s nothing wrong in general with straight Christians discussing with other straight Christians about it. The problem, it seems to me, is when it goes undiscussed, unmentioned, presumed on the basis of prejudices institutionalized in such things as marriage.
He’s never *said* that there is anything worn in general with straight Christians discussing this with one another. We don’t get the *last word* on it, Matthew. That’s the difference.
“This is a discussion about homosexuality between two heterosexual people.”
“But it leaves gay people absolutely and utterly out of the discussion about our own love, our own experiences, our own spirituality, and our own lives.”
“I suspect you think that the fact that the husband in your example ‘talked to over 300 homosexuals’ makes him an expert on gay people.”
“Far too many straight Christians think that they are actually ‘engaging the issue of homosexuality’ by talking amongst themselves about it.”
Well, I was one of them (and so are you). I did “suspect” that I had heard from enough gay people to have some idea of what they’re telling us about themselves (though I wouldn’t call myself an expert). Lymis’s saying that in effect I shouldn’t have that discussion without sending him a special invite (though no one ever said gays couldn’t join the conversation) is confusing to say the least, as other gays had actually been encouraging of my “engaging the issue” with straight Christians.
“For straight Christians, the primary questions are, and always have to be, ‘Here is my neighbor, who says she is lesbian. How does Jesus say I should treat my neighbor, even when we disagree?’ And, ‘Here is a gay man who says I am his enemy because I am Christian. How does Jesus say I should treat those who see me as an enemy?’ And ‘Here is a transgendered person who is being brutally discriminated against, in the workplace, in housing, in society – down to not even being allowed to use many public restrooms. How does Jesus want me to treat the poor and oppressed?’”
You, DR, certainly do not seem to redirect the conversations to these “primary questions” much. I take it they are not, in fact, the limit of the extent of what you know are primary questions of concern. Likewise I disagree that these are always those. And Lymis doesn’t get the “last word” on what the primary questions of concern to straight Christians are or ought to be.
Of course gay men and women get the last word on what God’s Word says about their sexuality – you resisting that says more about your need for control than anything else.
Why do you need to have the last word on what the Scriptures say about being gay? That’s the question for you to pose to yourself, not anyone else. And if you answer it, perhaps you’ll see why you quoted these phrases from Lymis and removed the context in which he offered them.
Here’s the difference between you and I, Matthew. If a gay man or woman told me I was wrong about something – if they preferred that I not speak a specific way in terms of tone, manner or content? I’d not do it because they know better than I do. I can only speak *about* their experience and as a result, I know my boundaries. I know I can never speak as accurately as someone who is gay. It’s arrogant to think that I could. So stop using me as your example, please. You and I do not share the same perspective and I don’t appreciate it. I find it really distracting to the good that’s happening here. Stop referencing me in the points you’re making to Lymis, it’s offensive to me personally. I do not share your story here. Thanks in advance.
Ok, WTF?
Who says I need to have the last word on what the Scriptures say about being gay?
Where have I “resisted” that gay men and women get the last word on what God’s Word says about their sexuality?
And what of essense to their meaning have I removed these phrases from the context of, DR?
As to your last comment, which hadn’t appeared before my last reply:
First, the way you describe it, it would seem our perspectives are not so different after all. I don’t know why you feel you have to insist that they are.
Second, I will continue to reference whatsoever appears of greatest utility to the points I wish to make.
Matthew if you can’t follow a basic courtesy – leaving me out of whatever argument you’re posing to Lymis – that says a lot more about your character and maturity than the actual comments you’re making. It’s a little shocking that you’d not provide that simple bit of civility but perhaps I’ve misjudged you as someone who’d respond to that.
You are aware I’m a straight Christian, right? Then why were you debating with me the matter of how we are to interact with gays and how we’re to respond to what, if anything, God’s Word might have to say about that when Lymis has told us this is not to be our question of concern? It is a matter of content, and remember, they know better than you do.
But I frankly don’t care what they know, but what is best for me to believe.
I told a gay man once (at least—I actually think twice, but not entirely sure about the second, and it is possible even others) that I thought it *wasn’t* a sin to be gay. It was he who directed conversation to the topic. But yes, I dared to tell him what I thought God’s Word says about this.
I thought I was helping him with own understanding regarding the matter, just as someone else might either ask whether, or claim, in contradiction to my understanding, that, for instance, masturbation is condemned by the scriptures (or, if it really has to be something I wouldn’t be tempted with, perhaps polyandry or something).
Now, I had thought that look in his eyes was thanks. But I guess you’re saying it was resentment (which figures, considering subsequent events, but I’m amazed at how you can know this without being there or knowing him personally).
I’m sorry I don’t know my boundaries, DR. And I’m so glad that you do.
But I frankly don’t care what you do, but what is best for me to do.
Honestly, I’m just pretty confused at this point. I hear some people telling me I shouldn’t do something, whereas I’ve heard others encouraging me to do it, And both I hear from both straights and gays. My aim is to discern what is right. I had thought Mindy’s explanation of what she took Lymis as meaning to say, together with my injunction against drawing certain conclusions from what he had said, had cleared everything up. Yet your continuing debate tells me I was wrong. By the way, I do apologize to Mindy and Lymis if it is offensive to them that I mention them in a discussion I’m having with DR, but I find it unavoidable in making the points that I think are necessary here (unless I were to substitute their proper names with the even less polite, IMO, “someone”).
Matthew, it’s very simple. Please leave me out of any kind of example you’re offering in your current conversation with Lymis or anyone else, please. It’s a simple request which requires no context. Do it or don’t. If you don’t choose to do that then you’re a bit of a jerk IMO and making it way more complicated than it has to be but no sweat off my back if that’s the way you want to roll.
I’m going to go back to the actual conversation now. Later!
I am not the one who’s making it way more complicated than it has to be, DR.
If it is really no sweat off your back, then why would you make such a request? The real truth: this exchange says more about you than it does about me. Yet I am not so cold-hearted as not to be genuinely concerned about this. If it’s important to you, it’s important to me. But saying so has no meaning to me until you let us know how it’s important to us.
Okay, that’s fair enough. But it’s not appropriate to conflate sins (or things you personally think are sins, which sincere Christians honestly disagree on).
Everyone sins. I would also argue that everyone is an unrepentant sinner in at least one area of their lives. No one has a perfect moral compass, and people are very good at justifying things to themselves.
So, based on that, we could choose not to trust anyone at all. If we assume we shouldn’t rent a house to an unrepentant sinner, and we’re honest about that definition, it’s going to sit empty until angels of God show up looking for rental properties.
Because we can’t actually live like that, it makes much more sense to limit our assumptions about people to ones that are actually related to their actions. If I know someone cheats on his taxes, I’m not going to leave money lying around where he might pocket it. It’s a reasonable assumption that if he’s willing to steal from the government, he might steal from me too. He also might not. Maybe he sees tax fraud as a victimless crime. But the two things are related enough that it seems a reasonable precaution to take.
I’m not going to assume, however, that because he cheats on his taxes, he’s likely to rape me and I should never be alone with him. The two things aren’t related other than that they fall under the big sweeping category of “sin.”
It gets even murkier when you consider that people have sincere disagreements about what constitutes sin or immorality. If someone is living in a way that goes against what you believe, are they an unrepentant sinner with a “clear disregard for the law”, or do they just have a different understanding or emphasis than you do? Is it possible, even, that your interpretation is wrong? I don’t think we know the answer to that question because we can’t see anyone else’s heart; I think only God does.
There’s a certain backformation you’re ignoring.
No, I probably wouldn’t leave my child with a sociopath. But I would leave my child with a gay person, because gay people are lovely. That’s a generalization, of course; gay people are all different ways, just like straight people, but gay people are at least as likely to be wonderful people as straight people, and that’s not based on theology but on personal experience with many kind and wonderful people.
So these “sinners” are great folks. Given your line of questioning, doesn’t it follow that they must not be such blackhearted and lawless sinners as you suppose?
I suppose your last question is addressed to me, but in that case, which “sinners” were you talking about? I wasn’t specifically judging any sinners. In fact, I know, for instance, some rather principled drug dealers, who I wouldn’t say are necessarily unrepentant sinners; nevertheless, one does have to take sufficient precautions, before, for instance, loaning one the use of your car. Now I’ve got no “personal experience” to suggest they are anything but the wonderful lessees of cars, but I do have some personal principles of my own (for instance, in regards to what they might do with that car).
(Ignore “the” in between “anything but” and “wonderful lessees”.)
Hi Nathan,
Yeah, I think most of us know all about the Campolo’s. Pretty hard not to. And the organizations, almost entirely run by straight people, who try to take their agree to disagree approach. (You’ll still see these groups inviting Tony to speak without Peggy, though.) The Gay Christian Network tries that, too (might be the only time gay people are in one it), which ended very badly at their last conference it appears (PTSD triggered by giving Exodus a microphone in a room full of ex-gay ministry survivors…)… But even before that, the site just feels like black people agreeing to disagree on whether they should voluntarily segragate themselves for Jesus. Kinda disgusting really.
I think the truth of it is that until we actually feel safe and welcome, what’s there to agree about? Only our marginalization. There are not two equal groups fighting out a disagreement that doesn’t impact them day to day (as it is with the Campolos and the denominations who are their target audience). There is one big powerful group and one smaller, vulnerable and marginalized group. Agreeing to disagree is just a way of accepting our second-class status.
WOW, Awesome John! Thanks for that!
loverly, John
Ah well, love your stuff as a rule and am grateful for your voice.
Diana: pleasant of you. thanks.
people rang in with the funny love right when it was published. then the conversation took its … usual turn.
Okay, just making sure. I hadn’t seen anyone else mention the funny much, and I was starting to wonder if I’d accidentally ingested drugs or something. Not that that sort of thing happens to me. Much.
I really didn’t like the piece at all; i found the entire thing kind of limp. Different things resonate with different people.
Ashley: No, this one is really funny.
(That said, I very rarely–only if I have to, for some reason–go back and read anything I’ve written. And I TOTALLY forget something once I’ve written it. I have ZERO idea what’s on my blog from this week, for instance. Zero. I have no idea what I put up there yesterday, much less the day before. Tomorrow I’ll have completely forgotten the piece I put up today. It’s the absolute weirdest thing.)
Okay, am I seriously the only one who was laughing out loud at this piece? Don’t get me wrong, I often find John’s stuff quite funny, but this one is one of the funniest in recent memory to me, even without the controversial intro (though that makes it flat out hilarious, IMHO).
I agree. It’s very funny and quite wonderful. I’m thankful for straight allies.
Show me a writer who’s not attached to what he or she writes and I’ll show you a liar. Or a TERRIBLE writer. (And, for what it’s worth, I don’t agree with your assessment of the relative merits of those two pieces. But that’s why they have horse races.)
They say you should never get to attached to something in your writing. I thought your diatribe about the preacher who told his friend she deserved to die was much funnier and better composed. JMHO.
So sad, but I understand. Sometimes you’ve gotta lose the funny to keep from losing the audience.
wrong. just wrong. (but I get it.)
I LOVED it. I honed the timing necessary to properly land on the “dick” for about a half hour. I hate to lose funny. But … whatever. People complained. After awhile you learn not to fight it. But … LOST THE FUNNY!
I spirals into a ‘let’s debate everything’ page. Is this typical of what your daily posts conjure up? I normally don’t come in, I just post to my wall, for others to glean what they can from your words. It’s kind of sad that people can not seem to agree on anything.
I usually control the page better than I have today, Lisa. I’ve just been busy. But … obviously, feel free to cut out if you find it too whatever.
I don’t want to cut out, just wondered if this is what normally goes on behind the scenes. ;D
I’m just one person but I like that the Andys of the world show up. I think it gives us a great opportunity to show those who read here that there are Christians willing to stand up against that mindset and for them. At least I hope that’s what happens.
I agree.
Lisa, do you think agreeing is the only fruit of peace?
I have to admit, I kind of love it.
You’ve written better
Here’s the original opening, which drew such objection:
s/b “you are complete dicks” There. Now that’s funny.
Shit, that’s awesome! No way you should have taken it down. I got the impression you just said, essentially, “believe that? then you’re a dick”. But that was beautiful. The intro gives it a whole different spin. If the complaints were that bad, could you just have used a different word? It takes away so much. And much that could actually spark interest or even be relate-able in a weird way.
Thanks for at least putting it up in the comments so us slow-pokes could still read it.
ok yeah that was funny!
I dunno, John. You might still be a serious nutjob. I have to think about this . . . .
;->
Sorry. Responding to posts on Breitbart the other day skewed my reality for a moment, and made me feel like most people really are crazy and hateful. Then I stopped looking for new responses to my comments, and I got better. I was reminded that it is utterly pointless to engage in discussion on a site like that, because “civil discourse” is not a concept with which most of them are familiar.
I try to be civil, get little civility in return, and am told repeatedly that everything I believe – EVERYTHING – is part of a gay leftwing agenda plan to suck God and the Bible and everything that is good and holy in this world though a black hole of drug-addled, dangerous, promiscuous DOOM straight into the fires of Hell. Which is REAL, dammit!! And I am a sucker and an idiot who will go down with ‘em all for believing it.
There simply aren’t enough hours in the day to “discuss” with them, but I’m sure the fact that I stopped posting left them with a great sense of victorious glee.
You, on the other hand, NAILED IT.
Perhaps sadly, that’s not too much worse than what should be expected here, given the current state of it, if one of them comes to us and defends likewise their dissenting viewpoint with civility but passion.
Perhaps it is spoiled for all of us by the likes of.. oh, idk.. Andy. (Because I’m sure they find themselves wasting time arguing with equivalent sorts of provocateurs simply substituting right-wing religious catchphrases with catchphrases of either a left-wing atheists or pseudo-New-Age “Christ-follower” or whatever.)
Agreed, Matthew. I would much rather discuss with Nathan than Andy, but I remind myself of how mired in fear Andy must be to hold so tight to something that I really believe he must know is wrong – as in, doesn’t fit with the rest of God’s message.
I wouldn’t mind continuing the “debate” at Breitbart, but honestly, don’t have the time. It doesn’t feel productive, doesn’t feel like I’m making sense to anyone who reads there.
I would have liked to have seen the other intro.
i thought your intro was edgy, but funny. those are tough calls to make, particularly when making an important point. I prefer to comment on FB more so than on the blog comments. (sorry John. ) feels mildly more productive.
Oh, you got it all wrong, John. The elves don’t *make* the toys anymore, they haven’t since Santa got deals with Mattel, Hasbro, Nintendo, and etc. Instead, they do assistance-work, wrapping… and all those mall-Santas are helpers, they even buy toys while they’re there as purchasing-agents… which explains the price stickers that sometimes still get left on the plastic packaging…
I was a very imaginative child, which led to me being a very imaginative adult.
Maybe it was my imaginative ability to understand how a person can “hold two seemingly contradictory views at once” that led me to listening to people on the Internet when they spoke of things that broke preconcieved notions and sterotypes. I dunno.
Hmm. All I know is that Santa’s elves are less homey toy makers and are corporate. Also, the Easter Bunnies are a mafia. And I need to get cracking and writing twisted children’s books.
I don’t think you’re right that the Easter Bunny Cartel is a mafia. I believe the technical term is “fluffia.”
And I guess that makes the Tooth fairy some kind of heinous enamel cartel??
I think they’re a pyramid scheme, like Amway. I could be wrong. There’s still something creepy about breaking into children’s rooms at night and feeling around under their pillows.
The Easter Bunny Mafia thing – was created by my guy and I and is detailed here: http://sparrowmilk.blogspot.com/2012/04/easter-bunny-mafia.html
The Tooth Fairy works for the American Dental Association or something. Kids’ teeth are a precious rescource that fairies harvest because they get ground up and made into dentures for old people.
wow this thread is great! I say write those books! I’d buy em!
That’s a delicious concept! Don Carrotleone lives!
« 1 2 3 »